202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 1

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 + + + + +

 LOW VOLTAGE DRY-TYPE

 DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

 NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING WORKING GROUP

 + + + + +

 PUBLIC MEETING

 + + + + +

 WEDNESDAY

 SEPTEMBER 28, 2011

 + + + + +

 The Working Group met in Room

8E089 of the U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.,

at 9:20 a.m., Richard W. Parker, Facilitator,

presiding.

PRESENT

RICHARD W. PARKER, University of Connecticut

School of Law, Facilitator

TIM BALLO, Earthjustice

SCOTT BECK, Lakeview Metals

ROBERT A. BERMAN, Berman Economics

JOHN CASKEY, National Electrical Manufacturers

Association

JOHN CYMBALSKY, U.S. Department of Energy

ANDREW DeLASKI, Appliance Standards Awareness

Project

ROBERT GREESON, Federal Pacific Company

DAVID MILLURE, Metglas

THOMAS PATZNER, Square D/Schneider Electric

ERIC PETERSEN, AK Steel Corporation

EDUARDO ROBLES, Eaton Corporation
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 2

ART ROSENFELD, Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory; Efficiency and Renewables Advisory

Committee (via phone)

ROBIN ROY, Natural Resources Defense Council

VIJAY TENDULKAR, ONYX Power

ALSO PRESENT

GARY ALLEN, Metglas (via phone)

PETER G. AMOS, Warner Power

ALEX BOESENBERG, National Electrical

Manufacturers Association

CHRIS BOLDUC, Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory (via phone)

SCOTT CHOINSKI, National Electrical

Manufacturers Association

DAN COHEN, U.S. Department of Energy

KATIE COUGHLIN, Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory

BRENDA EDWARDS, U.S. Department of Energy

JEREMIAH FREEMAN, New West Technologies

WAYNE GORDON, U.S. Department of Energy

PHIL HOPKINSON, HVOLT (via phone)

MATT NARDOTTI, Navigant Consulting

WES PATTERSON, ABB (via phone)

MIKE RIVEST, Navigant Consulting

STEVE ROSENSTOCK, Edison Electric Institute

GREG ROSENQUIST, Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory

JOHN ROSSETTI, Memphis Light, Gas and Water

(via phone)

PAUL C. RYAN, Hitachi Metals America

JERRY SCHOEN, AK Steel Corporation (via phone)

BOB SMITH, Federal Pacific Company (via phone)

MEG WALTNER, Natural Resources Defense Council

(via phone)

DANIEL YOUNG, Pacific Gas and Electric (via

phone)
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 3

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

2 9:20 a.m.

3 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay, welcome

4 everybody. Sorry for the late start, we had

5 a few technical difficulties but we'll try to

6 make up for lost time as we go along. This is

7 the Low-Voltage Transformer Working Group

8 first day.

9 And why don't we just -- a lot of

10 familiar faces but some that are not, so I

11 first want to just welcome not only the

12 familiar folks but the newcomers. There are

13 two separating committees that are meeting,

14 separate but parallel and equal, both aiming

15 for producing a proposed rule at about the

16 same time.

17 And so I think it's, you know, for

18 some people what we go through today will be

19 very familiar but I want to make sure that

20 those people who are new to our process are

21 not disadvantaged as a result of not having

22 participated in the Medium-Voltage.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 4

1 So there will be some repetition

2 today, unavoidable. Hopefully that will

3 diminish as we go on. But we'll try to, I

4 think we can also sort of depend on the work

5 that the Medium-Voltage group has done, for

6 example in the ground rules and so forth to

7 expedite what we are doing here. 

8 Let's just move straight into the

9 agenda. Then I'm going to go around the table

10 and everybody, please introduce themselves and

11 their affiliation. And then we will get

12 started. Robin?

13 MR. ROY: Hi, Robin Roy from

14 Natural Resources Defense Council. I'm here

15 representing our more than 1.3 million members

16 who have a great interest in energy efficiency

17 and the environmental benefits that come with

18 it.

19 MR. BECK: Scott Beck, Lakeview

20 Metals. We're an electrical steel and

21 amorphous core manufacturer. 

22 MR. ROBLES: Eduardo Robles, Eaton
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 5

1 Corporation.

2 MR. TENDULKAR: Vijay Tendulkar,

3 ONYX Power. We are manufacturer of the small

4 and medium-volt -- small low-voltage and the

5 medium-voltage transformers. 

6 MR. PATZNER: Thomas Patzner,

7 Schneider Electric, a manufacturer of

8 electrical distribution equipment.

9 MR. CASKEY: John Caskey, National

10 Electrical Manufacturers Association.

11 MR. PETERSEN: Eric Petersen. I'm

12 with AK Steel. We are an electrical steel

13 supplier.

14 MR. MILLURE: Dave Millure,

15 Metglas, Inc. We make amorphous metal for

16 cores.

17 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson. I'm

18 the engineering manager at Federal Pacific

19 Transformer and we manufacture medium-voltage

20 and low-voltage dry type distribution

21 transformers.

22 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 6

1 Earthjustice.

2 MR. DeLASKI: Andrew DeLaski with

3 the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. 

4 We're a coalition project that consists of

5 environmental groups, efficiency advocates,

6 consumer groups, state government agencies and

7 others who work for improved energy efficiency

8 standards.

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: I'm John

10 Cymbalsky. I manage the Appliance Standards

11 Program at DOE. 

12 FACILITATOR PARKER: Let's go to

13 the back. All the way in the back.

14 MR. CHOINSKI: Hi, I'm Scott

15 Choinski with the National Electrical

16 Manufacturers Association.

17 MR. RABUN: Jim Rabun, Department

18 of Energy.

19 MS. COUGHLIN: Katie Coughlin,

20 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

21 MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti,

22 Navigant Consulting. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 7

1 MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg,

2 NEMA. I'm the manager of regulatory affairs.

3 MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman

4 Economics.

5 MR. RYAN: Paul Ryan, Hitachi

6 Metals Metglas.

7 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE General

8 Counsel's Office.

9 FACILITATOR PARKER: Great. And

10 I'm Richard Parker, University of Connecticut

11 Law School. For those of you who I haven't

12 had the pleasure of meeting yet I am a

13 professor of law. I teach administrative law,

14 my specialty is sort of administrative

15 process, alternative dispute resolution. I am

16 not a transformer person or an electrical

17 person. I have no dog in this race. I'm here

18 to try to facilitate the work of the group in

19 a neutral and impartial way and help us all

20 forge a consensus on a proposed rule. 

21 Let me just again very quickly for

22 the benefit of the few of us here who are new
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 8

1 just describe how the negotiating process

2 works. For those who are new and my apologies

3 to those who've had to sit through this once

4 before already. But basically the way

5 negotiated rulemaking process works is that

6 it's an alternative way of developing a

7 proposed rule that will then be put out for

8 comment in the normal way and finalized based

9 upon public comments. What's different about

10 it is that instead of DOE or the agency just

11 gathering input in its own way, in a rather

12 unstructured way and drafting a proposed rule

13 as it sees best we actually convene a

14 committee of people that is balanced to

15 represent a diverse array of stakeholder

16 interests and hopefully expert in the issues,

17 and we sit around a table and we look at the

18 analysis that DOE's consultants have prepared

19 and we try to come up with a draft standard

20 that seems both in the interests of the

21 parties and also in the public interest. 

22 And I mentioned before and I want
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 9

1 to just emphasize again that we are here to

2 discharge a statutory framework -- a statutory

3 mandate. So we are bound by the statute and

4 we have general counsel here to remind us that

5 we have to meet certain statutory standards. 

6 One of those is that our standards not be,

7 that what we come up with be grounded on the

8 facts, grounded in the analysis so we have to

9 pay attention to that as well. And so we have

10 to explain what we're doing, we can't just act

11 like a jury and say this is our, you know,

12 this is our verdict. But we do try to come up

13 with a proposed rule that seems both legal,

14 economically justified, technologically

15 feasible, I think that's the statutory

16 standard, and in the public interest. 

17 We will have several sessions in

18 which we meet to try to do this. Jointly with

19 the Medium-Voltage Working Group we're trying

20 to schedule the rest of the sessions now

21 concurrently or adjacently, let's say. The

22 Medium-Voltage Group will meet for a day and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 10

1 a half, this group will meet for a day and a

2 half, or one day each, one day each. Try to

3 keep the two groups in the future moving in

4 tandem. This is the only time that we will

5 actually meet separately as a committee in the

6 sense that there's no other meeting the day

7 before or the day after. But the Low-Voltage

8 Group will work separately, it's going to be

9 its own working group. It's not the Medium10 Voltage Group. And this group is not bound by

11 anything that the Medium-Voltage Group does

12 including rules of procedure. 

13 We need to work on a -- we need to

14 decide on sort of a schedule. That is really,

15 the schedule is really as those who sat

16 through the medium-voltage discussion last

17 time will understand and appreciate, the

18 schedule is really constrained by the

19 availability of meeting space and conference

20 rooms and so forth, but we'll talk about what

21 schedule would be feasible and hopefully there

22 are, people can accommodate those times or
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 11

1 their alternates can accommodate those times. 

2 We will also try to make progress between

3 meetings through an online dialogue. We've

4 had a pretty robust online dialogue in the

5 Medium-Voltage Group and I look forward to the

6 same kind of dialogue emerging after this

7 meeting with the Low-Voltage Group. We'll

8 work some more on creating, if we can, a

9 discussion forum online. This is still

10 something where we're sort of experimenting to

11 see if there's a way to facilitate online

12 discussion in a little bit more streamlined

13 way than just emails. And if we can work that

14 out we'll share that with both groups. But

15 the bulk of what we do will be done in these

16 meetings. So we're going to try to be as

17 efficient as possible in the meetings and get

18 as much work done as we can when we come here.

19 I realize I neglected to welcome

20 the people who are calling in so first my

21 apologies for that. Welcome to all our

22 webinar call-ins. Despite my oversight I want
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 12

1 you to feel very much a part of our

2 conversation. Let me just turn the phones

3 over, or open the floor to the people calling. 

4 If you would please just let us know who's on

5 the line, announce yourself and your

6 affiliation. Anyone?

7 MR. HOPKINSON: Phil Hopkinson,

8 HVOLT, Inc.

9 FACILITATOR PARKER: Thank you,

10 Phil, welcome. 

11 MR. BOLDUC: Chris Bolduc,

12 Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.

13 FACILITATOR PARKER: Chris, thank

14 you. 

15 MR. ALLEN: Gary Allen, Metglas.

16 FACILITATOR PARKER: Gary Allen,

17 Metglas. I'm repeating the names just to make

18 sure that the court reporter and hear. If I

19 can understand it then maybe he can understand

20 it but sometimes the phones break up. So

21 that's why I'm doing that. Go ahead, keep

22 going. Anyone else?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 13

1 MR. PATTERSON: Wes Patterson,

2 ABB.

3 FACILITATOR PARKER: I'm sorry?

4 MR. PATTERSON: Wes Patterson with

5 ABB.

6 FACILITATOR PARKER: Wes

7 Patterson, ABB. All right. 

8 MS. WALTNER: Meg Waltner, NRDC.

9 FACILITATOR PARKER: Meg Waltner,

10 NRDC. Anyone else?

11 MR. SCHOEN: Jerry Schoen.

12 FACILITATOR PARKER: Jerry Schoen,

13 S-C-H-O-E-N. Jerry Schoen, AK Steel.

14 MR. SCHOEN: Correct.

15 MR. YOUNG: Daniel Young, Pacific

16 Gas & Electric.

17 FACILITATOR PARKER: Daniel Young,

18 okay. Pacific Gas & Electric. Anyone else?

19 MR. ROSSETTI: John Rossetti,

20 Memphis Light, Gas and Water.

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: John Rosetti,

22 Memphis Gas, Light and Water.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 14

1 MR. ROSSETTI: Memphis Light, Gas

2 and Water. 

3 FACILITATOR PARKER: Light, Gas

4 and Water, excuse me. 

5 MR. SMITH: Bob Smith, Federal

6 Pacific.

7 FACILITATOR PARKER: Bob Smith,

8 Federal Pacific. Anyone else? All right,

9 welcome. Thank you. Okay, let's start right

10 in. The first thing that we need to do as you

11 can see from this slide is basically to agree

12 on an agenda for today's meeting. What is

13 customarily done just to let you know for a

14 group like this is first I neglected to

15 mention that negotiated working groups like

16 this, negotiated rulemakings generally involve

17 sort of a facilitator which is me who is not

18 a part of the agency, who is not affiliated

19 with any stakeholder both helping and

20 convening the group and also moderating the

21 discussion. One of the things we need to do

22 up front that every group does is agree on
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 15

1 ground rules for the committee. The ground

2 rules that are distributed to you were those

3 that were provisionally agreed by the Medium4 Voltage Working Group and I thought they might

5 just be used as a basis for discussion

6 although this group again I emphasize is not

7 bound by that. 

8 Just a little history again on the

9 origin of these ground rules for the

10 newcomers, basically a draft version of these

11 ground rules that was modified at the previous

12 meeting a little bit was tailored by me based

13 upon ground rules that previous negotiated

14 rulemaking working groups have used in the

15 past. To unpack that a bit, negotiated

16 rulemaking is a standard practice that is used

17 in a wide variety of agencies and a wide

18 variety of contexts. There is a statutory

19 framework for it, the Negotiated Rulemaking

20 Act of 1996 that lays out the basic things

21 that need to be done, the basic procedures

22 that need to be followed. And one of the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 16

1 things that is laid out in the statute is that

2 the committee chooses its own ground rules. 

3 But it seems to make sense, this is basically

4 the way that the committee is going to

5 operate. It seemed to make sense to draw on

6 the experience of previous committees and so

7 we did that and I tabled a set of ground rules

8 that previous committees had used. And then

9 the medium-voltage committee altered those

10 rules somewhat to fit its own, you know, to

11 sort of suit their needs. 

12 Let me just highlight some of the

13 changes that were made. The first and perhaps

14 most important issue is the question of what

15 is a consensus. And the reason that's

16 important is because the Department of Energy

17 has committed, has made a legal commitment to

18 propose any rule or standard or part thereof

19 that this group recommends by consensus,

20 consensus as defined by the ground rules of

21 this group. And so it matters how we define

22 the word "consensus." And we had a discussion
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 17

1 about that in the Medium-Voltage Group and I

2 think it's fair to say that the consensus of

3 that group was that consensus should mean

4 unanimous consent of the members of the

5 committee with the understanding that

6 abstentions do not constitute a negative vote. 

7 It's unanimous so you need to affirmatively

8 and clearly dissent from a holding before it

9 can be considered a lack of consensus. And

10 the hope is that people will dissent only when

11 there really is a reason to, a need to, and

12 that we won't have situations where one person

13 or two people are blocking the progress of the

14 entire group for reasons that are not shared.

15 One thing that I will emphasize

16 and that I think is really key to the success

17 of the group is the importance of giving

18 reasons for your positions and not just taking

19 positions but giving reasons and supporting

20 them with data and with analysis and with

21 argument. And being willing to move from your

22 coming-in position if the evidence seems to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 18

1 flow the other way. So there's the issue of

2 what constitutes consensus that we should

3 table. 

4 There's also questions about what

5 are the obligations of the committee members

6 to the process, what constitutes good faith

7 negotiation. And previous committees have

8 agreed that members, people who are directly

9 represented at the table undertake that they

10 will not oppose any rule or any proposed rule

11 to which they have given their consent during

12 this process. They won't give their consent

13 during this process and then go out and lobby

14 against it in some other forum, whether it be

15 Congress or the media or the rulemaking itself

16 after it's proposed if it's in keeping with

17 what was proposed, what was agreed upon. 

18 There was also a discussion about

19 provisions in the prior, in the boilerplate

20 ground rules that actually call for people to

21 lobby in favor of it. That was a bit too much

22 for the Medium-Voltage Group and I think it
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 19

1 was generally agreed that people who, you

2 know, at best abstained with regard to a

3 particular provision should not be thereafter

4 called to lobby in favor of that very

5 provision if they consent to it. And so we

6 struck that language.

7 There is also a question about

8 participation at these meetings. And it was

9 noted in the medium-voltage meeting that it

10 was a pretty loosy goosy format, everybody

11 spoke whether they were a member of the

12 committee or not and there were some concerns

13 raised about how the committee is going to

14 make progress if we don't keep a somewhat

15 tighter rein on discussions. I thought about

16 that, I discussed it with other people who are

17 very, very experienced in the rulemaking

18 process and what I understand is the common

19 practice and that I would propose that we

20 implement in this committee which is

21 consistent with the ground rules that I passed

22 out there in front of you is that the members
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 20

1 of the committee are the ones who are entitled

2 to speak. Their alternates are entitled to

3 speak in their stead if the members are

4 absent, but if the member is present for any

5 particular stakeholder then the alternate

6 should supply their comments to the person

7 present, to the principal who's at the table

8 and the principal should either make that

9 comment or call upon, ask the chair to

10 recognize that person to speak in their stead

11 at the mic. So I will also at the end of the

12 day just open the floor to people who are not

13 around the table for them to raise concerns. 

14 But we'll limit that to about 15, 20 minutes

15 or 30 minutes at the very end so that we make

16 sure that we give this group the maximum

17 possible chance to agree. 

18 So those are some of the ground

19 rules that we discussed, some of the changes

20 that we discussed. And we will, I think that

21 gives you sort of a basic framework. Is there

22 anything that I missed that people around the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 21

1 table want to raise that -- in connection with

2 the ground rules? Yes, Andrew?

3 MR. DeLASKI: A couple of things. 

4 One is can you tell who's on the committee? 

5 Is it the people at the table?

6 FACILITATOR PARKER: The people

7 around the table, the people -- not everybody

8 on the committee is here I think but.

9 MR. DeLASKI: Is it the name tags

10 around the table?

11 FACILITATOR PARKER: The name tags

12 around the table, yes. There are some people

13 who are not here who are on the committee. I

14 think Steve Nadel is on this committee, right? 

15 I'm not sure if he's attending today.

16 MR. DeLASKI: So what is the total

17 number then?

18 FACILITATOR PARKER: So there is

19 in your handouts a list of -- with Tim Ballo. 

20 I've already apologized to Tim for the

21 inadvertent omission of his name from the

22 committee. But -- and I'm not sure about Ray
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 22

1 Polinski. There was also an issue about his

2 nomination that we're checking into and we're

3 in contact with him.

4 MR. DeLASKI: Who was the last

5 person?

6 FACILITATOR PARKER: Ray Polinski

7 from Allegheny Ludlum. 

8 MR. DeLASKI: Did you mention a

9 Tim person?

10 FACILITATOR PARKER: Tim Ballo.

11 MR. DeLASKI: Oh. Hi, Tim. And

12 then another question. Richard, is that the

13 last point --

14 FACILITATOR PARKER: And I'm

15 sorry, we will circulate a revised contact

16 list once we get these. We just noticed the

17 omissions last night and I apologize for that. 

18 Sorry.

19 MR. DeLASKI: Yes, the last point

20 you made I thought was quite different than

21 what we agreed to in our meeting last time

22 which is that what I just heard you say is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 23

1 that only committee members can speak unless

2 the committee member taps their alternate to

3 speak, in which case their alternate can

4 speak. But no one else in the room can speak

5 until the end of the day. That's what I just

6 heard you say.

7 FACILITATOR PARKER: I was going

8 to propose that. We don't have to agree on

9 that. I was going to propose that.

10 MR. DeLASKI: So I thought you

11 were summarizing what the last committee

12 agreed to. I don't think the last committee

13 agreed to that.

14 FACILITATOR PARKER: No, no, I

15 meant to make that clear. Yes. 

16 MR. DeLASKI: And I guess, okay,

17 so that's going to be discussed I assume.

18 FACILITATOR PARKER: Right.

19 MR. DeLASKI: That I think will

20 create some -- I have concerns about that, so.

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay. Let's

22 hold that. I'm sorry, that goes to how we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 24

1 conduct the discussion of the ground rules. 

2 There's a recursiveness problem here. But

3 anyway, yes, that's a point well taken. That

4 is something that is common practice. It's

5 the way that the previous, the rules that we

6 sort of around the table have been implemented

7 in the past but it's not the only way that

8 they have to be implemented. So that's fair

9 enough.

10 MR. DeLASKI: Do you want to

11 discuss that right now or do you want to --

12 FACILITATOR PARKER: Let's hold on

13 for a second. Let's -- I realized I got into

14 the weeds with the ground rules. We need to

15 first just sort of take a look at the agenda

16 and make sure that people are happy with that

17 and then we'll close that out and then get

18 into the ground rules. What I hope to do is

19 have a little discussion about the ground

20 rules, hopefully people have had a chance to

21 look at them and have had a chance to have

22 their in-house counsel look at them. We had
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 25

1 actually voted on and adopted the ground rules

2 previously but then after the meeting I heard

3 from a couple of individuals that they would

4 like their in-house counsel to be able to look

5 at them since this is actually sort of a legal

6 document and that seemed like a reasonable

7 request. And so I reopened the discussion of

8 the ground rules for the medium-voltage

9 committee so that they are not completely

10 final and we'll aim to finalize them at the

11 beginning of the next meeting with the medium12 voltage committee in October. So those are

13 not final for that committee and you are

14 certainly not bound by what they do. We'll

15 have an open discussion as I said. The rules

16 of participation are one thing we need to

17 discuss but there are other things that you

18 may want to raise around the table as well.

19 We need to talk about the schedule

20 going forward for meetings. And then I'm

21 hoping that we can get through this quickly

22 and that we can turn, around 10:30 or 11:00,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 26

1 to Navigant's presentation of its analysis,

2 its engineering analysis of the low-voltage

3 transformer standards. Questions about that

4 analysis, I'm sure there will be many. We'll

5 break for an hour at lunch and come back

6 promptly and meet from -- meet in the

7 afternoon to really just get into the issues. 

8 And what we did with the Medium-Voltage Group

9 and I would propose it for this group is that

10 we really focus on just identifying the

11 analytical issues and the policy issues that

12 need to be decided in coming up with

13 efficiency standards for these three design

14 lines. And make sure that we're happy with

15 the way the analysis is being framed, with the

16 way it's being presented, with the structure

17 of the analysis so that if changes to the

18 analysis need to be made, Navigant and LBL can

19 actually get to work on doing that. We're

20 going to have to have a discussion about how

21 much analysis and what sort of, you know, what

22 is the threshold for asking for more analysis
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 27

1 from our consultants because, you know,

2 information is not free, there's a cost to it

3 and we have to be cognizant of the resource

4 limitations that they have, the data

5 limitations that they have. So we can have

6 that discussion but we do need to focus on

7 sort of identifying the key issues. 

8 And the last thing that is on the

9 agenda for today if we can get to it is

10 actually agreeing on, if we can, on at least

11 a first cut of the trial standard level, the

12 TSL criteria for low-voltage transformers. 

13 That is necessary, it's an important early

14 step because those are the criteria that LBL

15 will then use in doing their life cycle and

16 their present value assessments and so forth. 

17 We'll try to get to that at the end and

18 adjourn promptly at 5:00 so people can get out

19 of here.

20 Does this seem like a reasonable

21 way to proceed? Are there any changes to the

22 agenda that people would propose? If not,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 28

1 we'll consider the agenda adopted and move on

2 to the ground rules. 

3 One last comment on the ground

4 rules before I end my filibuster and turn it

5 over to you guys. In the online discussion of

6 the ground rules -- actually, excuse me,

7 before we do that John pointed out that our

8 FACA representative is not here. But, okay. 

9 So we'll just table that discussion and he can

10 come back and give it himself. Great. 

11 An issue arose in the online

12 discussions of our rules of procedure for the

13 Medium-Voltage Group which I thought might be

14 helpful to clarify for this group and that is

15 the question of what is a rule and procedure,

16 what is a ground rule. And one of the things

17 that was tabled, for example, was the idea

18 that there should be subclasses formed and

19 there should be, for some groups, and that

20 there should be a ground rule that says that

21 we can form subclasses for different groups,

22 for different equipment classes and design
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 29

1 lines and so forth. Those are all perfectly

2 valid questions. What I want to suggest is

3 that the kind of ground rules that we were

4 talking about at the very outset of the talks

5 before we'd had any kind of substantive

6 discussion, the kind of ground rules that

7 we're adopting here, it's not that kind of a

8 ground rule. That's an analytical thing. The

9 way the ground rule, what we mean by ground

10 rules of procedure is the kinds of things that

11 would apply to any committee. If we were a

12 committee on snowmobiling in Yellowstone, you

13 know, how would we proceed, what are the rules

14 of participation, you know. We will get into

15 the substance and we might, based upon the

16 analysis, based upon the politics, based upon

17 the policy we might agree that we'll have some

18 rules for how we're going to handle substance

19 but what we're talking about here is

20 generalized rules of procedure, what

21 constitutes consensus, what are the

22 participation rights and so forth. So
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 30

1 hopefully that'll just keep us kind of on

2 point as we're discussing this. And again, we

3 can also agree later as we get into the

4 discussion about whether there should be

5 subclasses. That's going to the merits,

6 that's not going to the rules of procedure. 

7 Does that help people? 

8 So with that in mind let me just

9 open the floor to questions, concerns. I've

10 already tabled one issue which is the rights

11 of participation but there are other issues

12 that you might want to raise. The floor is

13 open. John, did you want to?

14 MR. CASKEY: Sure. John Caskey

15 from NEMA. I have a couple of different

16 points or observations. One deals with who

17 has the right to speak relative to the

18 committee or the guest. And I would, I mean

19 my recommendation would be something where the

20 facilitator has some leeway on how he presents

21 that or how he handles that. I certainly feel

22 strongly that the committee members should
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 31

1 have the first choice to answer questions or

2 ask questions and present issues but then once

3 that is sort of wrapping up I certainly feel

4 that it's appropriate for the facilitator to

5 see if there are guests out there that have a

6 particular view that they want to express at

7 that period of time. So it seems like it's

8 more reasonable to do that during the

9 discussion as opposed to at the end of the

10 day, you know, give each person five minutes

11 that's not a committee member to say what they

12 think about a certain issue that was discussed

13 seven hours before. So I would recommend that

14 we give some leeway to the facilitator, but

15 again, the preference is for the committee

16 members sitting at the table to have the first

17 sort of right of refusal or the first

18 opportunity.

19 The other thing that we need to

20 interject in there someway is that you and DOE

21 need the authority or the ability to be able

22 to call on LBL and Navigant and others that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 32

1 there may be a technical question that comes

2 up. And even though they're not sitting at

3 the tables, I mean you want them to speak

4 before you know quarter of 5:00 in the

5 afternoon. So I mean, there needs to be

6 something like that factored in there.

7 FACILITATOR PARKER: Right. Well

8 thank you, that's helpful, and I think LBL and

9 Navigant stand in sort of a different stead

10 because they're not stakeholders. They are

11 consultants and analytical support. So I

12 think, yes. They would definitely be able to

13 speak before the end of the meeting. They'll

14 be presenting in the middle of our meeting.

15 MR. CASKEY: The other thing that

16 is of interest to me that I think is important

17 is to figure out what is going to be done

18 relative to summaries of the meeting. I think

19 that was on, you know, one of the last items

20 in the ground rules. But in here it states

21 that basically there's going to be some sort

22 of summary, not necessarily minutes but a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 33

1 summary. So the question is when is that

2 going to be made available relative to when

3 the meeting concludes. And sort of a subset

4 of that is the last time we had the session

5 there were a lot of presentations and other

6 materials that were discussed. What is the

7 process for getting those presentations and

8 other supporting information posted on the

9 website. You know, do we have -- can we have

10 some time frame like two days, or five days,

11 or some X number of days after the conclusion

12 of the meeting to get that stuff posted. 

13 Because, you know, the people that are

14 listening on the phone today don't have access

15 other than going through the website to see

16 those presentations or materials and some of

17 those are pretty important. So --

18 FACILITATOR PARKER: Well, let's

19 address that by webinar. Let me -- they can

20 see what's on the screen. But I think that's

21 a very good point, it's a point well taken. 

22 So the point is that I wanted to take to get
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 34

1 the minutes, and I apologize for not getting

2 the minutes out sooner. I will undertake in

3 the future to have the minutes out within one

4 week of the meeting.

5 MR. CASKEY: Okay.

6 FACILITATOR PARKER: Summary

7 minutes within one week. And I think that's

8 probably a reasonable time frame for having

9 the presentations posted online as well,

10 right? So within one week of the meeting. 

11 What's that? And the transcript, yes. We

12 will get those posted on the website. LBL

13 also sent around I think to everybody by email

14 the draft chapters to the updated TSD for the

15 rulemaking. I hope everybody got that. I

16 understand that for technical reasons that's

17 still not posted on the website but DOE is

18 working on getting that posted. But hopefully

19 the committee members and alternates and

20 everybody on the distribution list was able to

21 get that at least by email, right? So that

22 you were able to print it out and have it for
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 35

1 this meeting. But we will try to get that

2 stuff on the website. And I will get the

3 minutes for the MV group out quickly and we'll

4 have the minutes out within one week of this

5 time. If we want to put that into the bylaws

6 we can but I'll certainly commit to that, I

7 think DOE will. Anything else? Andrew, did

8 you want to?

9 MR. DeLASKI: I think John's

10 suggestion for how to proceed, how to

11 recognize folks is good. I actually think

12 it's actually pretty consistent with what's in

13 the draft.

14 FACILITATOR PARKER: Right.

15 MR. DeLASKI: Which is different

16 than what you described, right? What you

17 described was more rigid, I think.

18 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes. Excuse

19 me, yes. Could everybody please --

20 MR. DeLASKI: I'm looking at point

21 number 2 in the draft. This is the second

22 page, the top participation. This seems
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 36

1 reasonable to me and I think less restrictive

2 than what I heard you say.

3 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay.

4 MR. DeLASKI: And I think -- so

5 for example what I, you know, I think it's

6 right that the committee members have

7 precedence, they should be given first

8 recognition or are alternates. But that also,

9 what it says here is that, you know, a

10 committee member can call upon another

11 individual to elaborate on a relevant point. 

12 So not just an alternate but if there's

13 someone else in the room who I need to explain

14 what I'm trying to tell you but they can do it

15 better than I can, have them do it rather than

16 have them whisper in my ear and have me try to

17 tell you what they can say better.

18 FACILITATOR PARKER: Right, okay.

19 MR. DeLASKI: Committee counsel, I

20 guess, I don't know, is that you or is that

21 Dan? Who's our committee counsel?

22 FACILITATOR PARKER: That's Dan.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 37

1 MR. DeLASKI: And Dan. So that

2 makes sense to me. And then I think if the

3 time permits I think that should happen in

4 real time as opposed to at the end of the day.

5 FACILITATOR PARKER: Right.

6 MR. DeLASKI: You know, so.

7 FACILITATOR PARKER: Well, those

8 are both reasonable constructions of that

9 language that have been applied different ways

10 in different times. But I'm happy to go with

11 the will of the group.

12 MR. DeLASKI: I think it is

13 important to recognize, you know, I'm a

14 proponent here that we need to work diligently

15 and try to advance the discussion. And use

16 our time wisely. 

17 FACILITATOR PARKER: Right.

18 MR. DeLASKI: And I'm looking to

19 you as the facilitator to help us move things

20 along so that we're not getting caught up in

21 an issue and having, you know, people from the

22 audience go back and forth on an issue.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 38

1 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay. I will

2 be sensitive to that that we won't make any

3 draconian changes in the rules procedure that

4 would do that. Great. So basically, you

5 know, I would just ask folks, you know,

6 particularly in the audience to be sensitive

7 to the need to make progress. We want to

8 encourage participation but we also want to

9 make sure that we're getting through our work.

10

11 Anything else that we need to

12 discuss about the rules of procedure? The

13 ground rules. I particularly want to invite

14 any, the Low-Voltage people who were not here

15 at the previous meeting. Does that seem

16 amenable to you? Are we ready to take a vote

17 on adopting them? Has everybody -- yes?

18 MR. TENDULKAR: I say yes to the

19 vote.

20 FACILITATOR PARKER: All in favor? 

21 All right. All opposed? Okay. In case

22 they're adopted. And I understand that people
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 39

1 have had these rules in advance and have had

2 a chance to run them through their in-house

3 counsel so we will actually consider them

4 adopted. And congratulations, you're now

5 ahead of the MV group. Great.

6 Well, let's just move on and

7 discuss possible schedules and locations of

8 meetings for the future. I believe our next

9 meeting, Jeremiah, can you remind us? But I

10 think it's October 12th through the 14th we

11 are definitely slated to meet. Let me correct

12 that. The 12th through the 13th will be the

13 meeting of the Medium-Voltage Group. Through

14 noon on the 13th the Medium-Voltage Group will

15 meet. From 2:00 -- thank you, Jeremiah --

16 from 2:00 until 5:00 on the 13th the Low17 Voltage Group will convene and will continue

18 over until -- through on the 14th as well,

19 concluding on Friday the 14th at 3:00. 

20 Just a couple of words of

21 explanation here. Basically the idea is to

22 give each group about a day and a half to meet
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 40

1 on two separate calendar days and the reason

2 is that in the past the experience has been

3 that it's actually helpful to have an

4 overnight where people can consult with their

5 principals back home, can caucus with each

6 other, with their other interest groups and so

7 forth and come up with creative, constructive,

8 helpful solutions that they can then table the

9 next morning or the next afternoon. So we've

10 tried to structure it so that there is an

11 overnight for each group. The idea I think

12 would be to have two days for each committee

13 but I think four days for those people doing

14 both was just too much to ask, too much of a

15 commitment, so we're doing a day and a half

16 basically back to back for medium-voltage and

17 low-voltage and that's the, at least that's

18 the proposal. 

19 And the National Rural Electrics

20 Cooperative has very graciously agreed to host

21 the October meetings and so it will be there. 

22 If you hadn't received it already you will
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 41

1 receive an announcement that will give you all

2 the call-in information. I think they sent

3 out and I think I sent to you previously the

4 address and information about hotels. Is it

5 in the packet? Okay, great. So you have

6 that. And that will be the October meeting.

7 MR. PETERSEN: Richard, may I

8 confirm?

9 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes.

10 MR. PETERSEN: The Friday the

11 14th, is that till 3:00 or 5:00?

12 FACILITATOR PARKER: That is until

13 3:00. Again, the reason is that a number of

14 people came to me and said look, if we get out

15 at 5:00 on a Friday it's gruesome getting to

16 the airport and getting home. We won't see

17 our families, you know. So whenever we're out

18 on a Friday I've committed to try to end the

19 meetings at 3:00 or 3:30 at the latest so that

20 you can get to the airport if you're flying

21 and get home at a reasonable time. 

22 The November meeting, we need to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 42

1 have -- yes, go ahead, John.

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky,

3 DOE. So the November meetings, we still don't

4 have a confirmed place to hold the meetings

5 yet. We went out for some bids and they came

6 up extremely costly. So as a taxpayer and I

7 think we're all taxpayers in this room we'll

8 put out the beg one more time for someone to

9 offer up space. I know Steve Rosenstock from

10 EEI offered up November 8th I believe, just

11 that one day. So at this point we're just

12 looking for some creative ideas for November

13 9th and 10th. 

14 MR. DeLASKI: This group is

15 significantly smaller than the liquid-immersed

16 group. So I mean, I'm looking at this room

17 here and I'm thinking that some of the NGOs

18 that we work with have conference rooms that

19 could hold a group of this size.

20 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. So I

21 think, I guess the only problem then is the

22 morning of the 9th when we'd have the medium-
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 43

1 voltage would be a rather, you know, bigger

2 than this crowd. So I think, so maybe --

3 FACILITATOR PARKER: Maybe we

4 could split them up. I mean maybe, you know. 

5

6 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes.

7 MR. DeLASKI: I don't know when

8 we're available. I need to check on those

9 things but that's something to put into your

10 calculus.

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: I mean, I think

12 actually you have a good point. I think with

13 this size we can, back in L'Enfant where I

14 reside I think our room's big enough for this

15 amount of people. So I'll get that as a

16 backstop.

17 MR. TENDULKAR: Are those dates

18 fixed or they are variable?

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: Well you know, we

20 spent so much time last meeting getting these

21 dates that I'd be loathe to go back and open

22 that up.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 44

1 MR. TENDULKAR: I will be out of

2 country on those dates.

3 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. Do you have

4 an alternate that can?

5 MR. TENDULKAR: I'll be coming

6 back on 13th of November so anything after

7 13th should be fine. But I don't want to

8 inconvenience everybody else in the meeting.

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes. I mean, we

10 tried to space them out too at proper

11 intervals so I think if we get too close to

12 Thanksgiving it's just going to blow up on us. 

13 I'll just put the word out for maybe, I'll get

14 our room as a backstop for the 9th and the

15 10th. We'll continue to try to get this room

16 because sometimes they're canceled at the last

17 minute. But if anyone else in the room can

18 just put out some feelers we'd appreciate that

19 as taxpayers.

20 MR. DeLASKI: Another thought,

21 John, would be if there's EEIs available for

22 the first day, right. So you could have, I
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 45

1 mean, we may just need to do a 2-day meeting. 

2 Instead of doing a 3-day meeting you could do

3 a 2-day meeting, one day on --

4 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right, we can do

5 that.

6 MR. DeLASKI: So I think that

7 maybe you can have a good backup plan. 

8 MR. CYMBALSKY: That's a good

9 idea. So maybe we just extend the hours. 

10 Steve, how do you feel about the hours of your

11 room? Can they go past 5:00 let's say till

12 6:00? 

13 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock,

14 EEI. I believe so, I don't believe that that

15 would be an issue. 

16 MR. DeLASKI: As a way to resolve

17 it I think that would be a constructive way to

18 kind of nail that down and say that's what

19 we're going to do. I mean, I know Richard's

20 worked on this a ton already trying to get

21 this resolved.

22 MR. CYMBALSKY: That's a good
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 46

1 proposal. So Steve, if you could book your

2 room for November 8th. And then I'll go ahead

3 and book my room for the 9th.

4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: And what time

5 would you like me to make? I mean 9:00 to

6 5:00 I kind of tentatively booked so what time

7 would you like me to make sure?

8 MR. CYMBALSKY: Does anyone have a

9 real -- well, I guess the medium-voltage would

10 be the one we're talking about so I'm kind of

11 wasting my breath here. You know, I wouldn't

12 mind a little earlier and a little later

13 personally, but I don't want to speak for

14 everybody.

15 MR. DeLASKI: My preference is to

16 keep a 9:00 start. Some of us who are East

17 Coasters, don't live in Washington and want to

18 get here that morning. And you know, of

19 course for those of us who are staying over

20 the next day I don't care how late we go.

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: So can we

22 work till 6:00? I mean would that be --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 47

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I think that's

2 fine. I mean really -- Steve Rosenstock, EEI

3 -- we'll set up in the morning so it'll be

4 there, the AV and everything like that.

5 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay, so let's

6 shoot for 9:00 and then 9:00 till question

7 mark.

8 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I'll schedule it

9 for 6:00 if that works for you.

10 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay, thanks. 

11 Great. And then the December meeting I

12 believe is confirmed for November 30th through

13 December 2nd at the American Public Power

14 Association (APPA). Again they're very kindly

15 extending their hospitality to cover both the

16 medium-voltage and the low-voltage. So

17 November 30th through December 2nd I think we

18 have locked in. So that would be, is there

19 any problem for the low-voltage people? Vijay

20 and Eduardo, can you make -- will those

21 meetings work okay for you? Okay.

22 So then does that seem like -- and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 48

1 there is, you know, if we get stuck, you know,

2 there is the possibility of meeting again in

3 December but I think thoughts will be turning

4 towards holidays. So you know, hopefully we

5 won't need that. We may have that as a

6 fallback if necessary. I think we're holding

7 the room, right, if it's needed for December

8 20th and 22nd I believe. Is that when it is? 

9

10 I should say that you know the

11 strength of negotiated rulemaking has been

12 that it usually requires about six meetings. 

13 We're going to try to do our work in four. 

14 This is very complex stuff and so I think it's

15 daunting. I make no guarantees but hopefully

16 with good will and good faith and a lot of

17 hard work between meetings which will be

18 important we can, you know, we'll try to do it

19 in four and see how it goes. Okay. Any

20 further discussion of the schedule?

21 MR. PETERSEN: Just on the APPA

22 could you have someone send a location?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 49

1 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes, it will

2 be -- it's in the area here but we'll send the

3 details. We still have lots of time for that. 

4 Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, we have

5 a plan. Moving right along. 

6 I think we are now ready to talk

7 about -- to have the Navigant engineering

8 analysis. Do we want to just plunge right

9 into this? Jeremiah is going to call Art

10 Rosenfeld who is going to be joining us from

11 California. The rules for this committee

12 state that somebody from the ERAC needs to be

13 present at our meetings and Art has very

14 kindly agreed to be that person. He asked

15 that he be spared a review of the rules of

16 procedure but he's going to join us for the

17 remainder of the meeting so he will be joining

18 us on the call soon. If people are ready, if

19 -- we have Matt Nardotti from Navigant here

20 who can present. Matt, do you need time to

21 set up or are you all ready to roll?

22 MR. NARDOTTI: I'm okay.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 50

1 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay. Why

2 don't you come on up here and I'll turn it

3 over to you. 

4 MR. NARDOTTI: Good morning. I'm

5 Matt Nardotti from Navigant Consulting who,

6 with Lawrence Berkeley National Lab we provide

7 support to the Department of Energy for this

8 rulemaking. Navigant Consulting is

9 responsible for the market and technology

10 assessment, the screening analysis, the

11 engineering analysis and the manufacturing

12 impact analysis. This morning I'm going to be

13 going over the methodology that we used for

14 the engineering analysis. As you can see on

15 this flow chart the screening analysis and the

16 market and technology assessment feed into the

17 engineering analysis. The market and tech

18 assessment describes the market, characterizes

19 the products that are available, identifies

20 technology options that can be used. And then

21 the screening analysis takes those technology

22 options, passes them through four screening
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 51

1 criteria and decides if they are design

2 options that can be used in the engineering analysis.

3 So the purpose of the engineering

4 analysis is to develop a relationship between

5 the efficiency of a transformer and the

6 manufacturing selling price. To do this DOE

7 examines the design options that pass the

8 screening analysis and then the outputs of the

9 engineering analysis, costs and efficiency are

10 then fed as inputs into downstream analyses

11 like the life cycle cost analysis and the

12 national impacts analysis.

13 On this slide we highlight some of

14 the key steps that we take for the engineering

15 analysis. So the first step is to subdivide

16 the products into equipment classes and design

17 lines. Within each of the design lines select

18 a representative unit which will be used and

19 directly analyzed. After selecting a

20 representative unit DOE identifies design

21 options that can be used to characterize the

22 range of possible efficiencies for each of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 52

1 these representative units. 

2 Next, DOE develops cost inputs for

3 material prices, markups and labor

4 requirements. After that DOE used a software

5 program to model hundreds of optimized designs

6 for each of the design option combinations

7 that are identified using various A and B

8 combinations. I'll get back to that in a few

9 minutes. The designs then yield a range of

10 efficiency from which DOE can select

11 incremental efficiency levels which are then

12 analyzed further in the downstream analyses. 

13 Finally, DOE scales the results from the

14 representative units to the other unanalyzed

15 kVA ratings. 

16 As you may know each of the

17 equipment classes that DOE has identified

18 spans a range of kVA ratings. In the

19 engineering analysis DOE subdivided these

20 equipment classes into 14 design lines to

21 group kVA ratings based on similar design

22 principles and construction, things such as
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 53

1 core configurations. Since DOE will

2 ultimately need to scale the unanalyzed kVA

3 ratings DOE selected design lines to span a

4 range of kVA ratings where the 0.75 scaling

5 rule could provide accurate results. Once the

6 design lines were selected DOE then identified

7 a single rep unit from each design line. And

8 that's the basis for the engineering analysis. 

9 When selecting these representative units DOE

10 did examine shipment volumes and tried to

11 identify and use or analyze the higher volume

12 products but ultimately -- or also DOE tried

13 to pick a kVA rating which would serve as a

14 solid reference point to scale the results.

15 So this slide shows two figures

16 which kind of demonstrate how equipment

17 classes, design lines, representative units

18 are all related. Each of these boxes

19 represents the two equipment classes that are

20 the most pertinent for this committee, the

21 low-voltage products, low-voltage dry type

22 products. And as you can see one is for
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 54

1 single-phase products and one is for three. 

2 For the single-phase products DOE did not feel

3 the need to separate into multiple design

4 lines and so one design line is used for that

5 equipment class. But for the three-phase

6 units since the kVA ratings was such a larger

7 span DOE divided the products into two design

8 lines and selected two representative units

9 which would be analyzed. 

10 This table shows some of the more

11 descriptive characteristics of those

12 representative units that were selected. So

13 on the right side you can see that some of

14 those characteristics for these products. For

15 the single-phase the 25 kVA unit was analyzed,

16 for three-phase, the 75, the 300 kVA. 

17 So after identifying

18 representative units DOE selects design option

19 to characterize the range of efficiencies. 

20 DOE selected these design options from the

21 list of potential technology options that were

22 not eliminated by the screening analysis. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 55

1 When selecting design options DOE tried to

2 capture the most common designs that are used

3 in the industry but also those designs that

4 would provide DOE with the maximum efficiency

5 level possible. So some of these design

6 options include various core configurations,

7 core steels and winding materials. The table

8 here presents some of those designs, some of

9 the specific designs that were considered in

10 the analysis using these design options. As

11 you can see DOE considered a large number of

12 design types including wound and stacked cores

13 with and without mitering, various core

14 steels, M12 all the way up to amorphous steels

15 and both aluminum and copper for windings. 

16 On this slide we present an

17 example of the different design option

18 combinations that were selected for one of the

19 representative units, in this case design line

20 7 which is the three-phase 75 kVA unit, low21 voltage dry type. In general these design

22 options are listed in order of -- or in
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 56

1 ascending order of efficiency. So as you go

2 down the table the efficiency of the

3 transformer generally improves. 

4 In the next step of the

5 engineering analysis DOE developed cost

6 inputs. A list of material prices was

7 determined from a 5-year time frame, 2006 to

8 2010, and the total labor hours required to

9 build each design were determined through

10 conversations with manufacturers and industry

11 experts. DOE used the 2010 material prices

12 for its reference case but also examined a

13 high and low price sensitivity case, 2008 and

14 2006 respectively. Next, DOE calculated

15 markups to use in its analysis to account for

16 items such as scrap and handling factory

17 overhead, non-production costs. A fully

18 burdened labor rate was also calculated to

19 determine labor costs. All of these markups

20 are presented on this table. For scrap and

21 handling DOE generally used a 2.5 percent

22 markup unless the design was a prefabricated
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 57

1 amorphous core. Then the scrap factor was

2 reduced to 1.5 percent, or if it was a mitered

3 design, a fully mitered design the scrap

4 factor was increased to 4 percent. For

5 factory overhead DOE applied a 12.5 percent

6 markup to all designs including amorphous. 

7 And additionally, DOE accounted for shipping

8 costs in their calculation prior to the non9 production markup because manufacturers --

10 because DOE understands that these costs are

11 typically borne by the manufacturers and are

12 included in their profit markup calculations.

13 MR. GREESON: Pacific Transformer. 

14 I have a question regarding those -- I assume

15 you're going to get to these scatter plots and

16 the pricing that is shown on those scatter

17 plots. Are those markups that you just showed

18 on that slide applied before or after? Are

19 those the final prices?

20 MR. NARDOTTI: -- you're talking

21 about?

22 MR. GREESON: Yes.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 58

1 MR. NARDOTTI: Those clouds

2 include all of the markups. The prices on

3 those plots include the markups.

4 MR. GREESON: Okay. It was a

5 little unclear to me when I was reading some

6 of the information whether they were, those

7 were inputs and then the markups were applied

8 at a latter point in the analysis or not. So

9 all those that you just listed up there for

10 labor and overhead.

11 MR. NARDOTTI: Yes. So those

12 clouds are of the manufacturing selling price

13 versus the efficiencies. So they include all

14 of the markup. It's completely marked up,

15 that's the final result.

16 MR. GREESON: Is your information

17 about -- you had $51 and something for labor. 

18 What labor are you referring to there, the

19 manufacturing time to build the transformer or

20 were those installation? Was that

21 installation labor or what labor were you

22 referring to?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 59

1 MR. NARDOTTI: So that would be on

2 the manufacturing side of things. That would

3 be the hourly rate, a fully burdened hourly

4 rate. So it includes things for the non5 production workers as well. But it's on the

6 manufacturers side.

7 MR. GREESON: Okay, so the scatter

8 plot with the pricing included a material

9 price the markups were applied to and there

10 were some labor hours attached to those

11 designs.

12 MR. NARDOTTI: Exactly.

13 MR. GREESON: At some point. 

14 Okay, thank you.

15 MR. TENDULKAR: I have a question. 

16 This is Vijay Tendulkar from ONYX Power. In

17 this graph you said about 1.5 percent or

18 something for the steel. Did you have a

19 number for the conductor also? Or I missed

20 it.

21 MR. NARDOTTI: So the 2.5 percent,

22 that's like an original standard scrap factor
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 60

1 that's --

2 MR. TENDULKAR: That is for

3 everything, conductor and?

4 MR. NARDOTTI: Right, that

5 includes everything. But if the core is in a

6 prefabricated amorphous core for that design

7 specifically we used the 1.5 percent rather

8 than the 2.5 percent markup.

9 MR. TENDULKAR: Okay.

10 MR. NARDOTTI: Or if it was a

11 fully mitered design then we used 4.

12 MR. TENDULKAR: And 4 percent for

13 the mitered core.

14 MR. NARDOTTI: Exactly.

15 MR. TENDULKAR: Okay. Those --

16 okay. And the other one you had mentioned

17 about the temperature rise about 150 degrees

18 C as your design criteria for the coming up

19 with the efficiencies. Now, have you made any

20 allowances for the other temperature rises

21 like 115 degrees or 80 degrees was also

22 common? Is there any effect that has on the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 61

1 efficiency or not?

2 MR. NARDOTTI: We haven't done a

3 sensitivity analysis on the other temperature,

4 the other standardized temperature rises.

5 MR. TENDULKAR: Okay. And also

6 you mentioned there is a delta Y design, 480

7 volts to 8 volts is the one you did on that

8 particular three design I noticed. Maybe I'm

9 wrong. Have you made any allowances for the

10 other designs like delta zigzag or a delta

11 double zigzag where quite a bit of carbon for

12 some of the transformers we made for the data

13 centers.

14 MR. NARDOTTI: As far as I know I

15 don't believe so, no.

16 MR. TENDULKAR: Okay, thank you.

17 MR. PATZNER: Matt, Thomas

18 Patzner, Schneider Electric. Since we're

19 asking questions could you go back to the

20 slide with the design line choices? In your

21 April meeting you asked if the industry

22 thought we should -- go, it's about two more
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 62

1 slides back, please. One more. You guys

2 asked if we wanted more design lines and I was

3 at the meeting. We suggested that there be a

4 design line added for the 15 kVA three-phase

5 because we did not believe the scaling factor

6 would do an adequate result if we did not add

7 it. So you had two questions. Should we add

8 design lines or should we keep the scaling

9 factor. You have not added design lines and

10 you kept the scaling factor, but from those

11 discussions in that meeting we determined the

12 scaling factor on the outer ranges started to

13 cause problems. So it was not as easy to hit

14 the efficiencies that it was done. So there

15 was a suggestion for us to add the 15 or 30

16 kVA and there was a suggestion to add the 750

17 and there was a suggestion to add the 167 or

18 the 250 to this because not to add more

19 complexity but to give more strength to the

20 scaling factor. Because on the outer limits -

21 - because we did the scaling factor for the

22 first pass and when we get to the outer
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 63

1 limits, like the 15 kVA and the 750s and the

2 1,000s it starts pushing the cost and so forth

3 to how we can actually meet those efficiency

4 levels. So was there discussion not to add

5 the design lines or?

6 FACILITATOR PARKER: Would you add

7 a design line or just add a representative

8 unit?

9 MR. PATZNER: I meant a

10 representative unit. I'm sorry, excuse me. 

11 It was more representative units.

12 MR. NARDOTTI: Mainly the biggest

13 constraint was time and we weren't able to add

14 another representative unit. I mean that's,

15 how we addressed this issue on the fringe of

16 the kVA ratings is certainly something that's

17 going to be talked about in this meeting. 

18 Maybe it is an adjustment to the scaling

19 factor, but in between the preliminary

20 analysis public meeting and when we were

21 originally bound to have a NOPR out which was

22 October 1st we weren't able to add another
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 64

1 representative unit. We added one for the

2 medium-voltage but we weren't able to add even

3 more. 

4 FACILITATOR PARKER: What is

5 involved in adding one, just to get a sense of

6 how much labor?

7 MR. NARDOTTI: We would have to do

8 all the simulations for another. So each

9 design option combination, those 14 design

10 option combinations would have to be rerun for

11 the different kVA rating processing. 

12 MR. PATZNER: So in regards to

13 this time constraint, one of the reasons we

14 were excited that you broke us out from the

15 medium-voltage is that we could put our own

16 time table together instead of being bound by

17 doing the medium-voltage. I understand

18 there's other constraints with the medium19 voltage timelines due to a negotiated rule --

20 I mean a negotiated court order, but the low21 voltage is not included in that. So I don't

22 think we're going to do the low-voltage
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 65

1 service if we can't obtain data that's going

2 to be beneficial to maximizing the energy that

3 could be saved. So we've been constantly tied

4 to the medium-voltage time schedule but it

5 would be nice now that we've broken off our

6 committee to maybe obtain data.

7 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky,

8 DOE. Do you think we can work within the

9 construct of the scaling factor as opposed to

10 doing the OPS simulations to resolve this? 

11 MR. PATZNER: I just know that on

12 the 15s and the 1,000s, on the outer ranges it

13 becomes --

14 MR. CYMBALSKY: Do you have data

15 to support --

16 MR. PATZNER: The cost becomes a

17 whole lot greater.

18 MR. CYMBALSKY: Sure. And you

19 have data?

20 MR. PATZNER: I can show our -- I

21 mean, I have data for our products, yes.

22 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. Great.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 66

1 MR. TENDULKAR: I just wanted to

2 make one comment on this. The scaling factor

3 of three-quarters we are using is not the

4 exact science. It's very close but it's not -

5 - this isn't an exact science. So whenever we

6 use the scaling factor and when we use actual

7 materials and actual transformer the scaling

8 factor doesn't hold good to 0.75. It is

9 different. So if you have more points on the

10 representative units that's better than it is

11 real close to what we are really talking about

12 rather than just scale something. A scaling

13 factor is not necessarily very accurate

14 science.

15 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky,

16 DOE. Yes, I agree and I think, you know, the

17 analysis -- we're going to try to simplify the

18 analysis as much as possible. And so the

19 Medium-Voltage had the same comment about the

20 scaling factor. So I think you know,

21 everything else aside, if we can get to the

22 same place by not running OPS simulations.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 67

1 MR. PATZNER: Maybe once we decide

2 on the trial standard levels for the

3 representative units we could run analysis for

4 just that efficiency levels instead of the

5 whole range. Because you do CSL 1 through CSL

6 7 for these representative units. If the

7 group ends up between 2 and 4 we could do --

8 add a 15 kVA for 2 to 4 scaling rule and add

9 1,000 kVA for the smaller range of efficiency

10 targets after we decide on the TSLs. I just

11 think we need to add some data for the outer

12 ranges because of the scaling factor.

13 MR. CYMBALSKY: So are most of

14 your comment -- John Cymbalsky, DOE. Are most

15 of your concerns on the right-hand side of

16 that chart?

17 MR. PATZNER: The design line 6,

18 the volume is so low that no matter what

19 occurs we're probably going to eat those costs

20 that are going to occur. To be honest we

21 would prefer that we remove design line 6

22 completely because we do not believe it will
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 68

1 add value to the overall market because it's

2 less than 10 percent of the overall units,

3 especially when we get above 50 kVA. So I

4 don't have a concern on design line 6 because

5 the market only buys 15 through 50 basically. 

6 So 75 through 333 is very small volume. So

7 with the volume not being on the left side I

8 was only -- we've only addressed the right

9 side because it's so much, it's such a larger

10 percentage of the overall market.

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: I guess my -- John

12 Cymbalsky, DOE -- my concern is to just try to

13 limit the analysis. And I think you proposed

14 some good ideas going forward. 

15 MR. DeLASKI: If I could just

16 comment. Yes, and I like if you all can share

17 data with the consultant and I know you have

18 this relationship where you can do that

19 confidentially. It strikes me that it's also

20 the sort of thing that as we go forward and

21 have discussions that if you pick a given

22 level for some transformers there's nothing
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 69

1 that compels you to pick that same level for

2 other transformers. So we can slice and dice

3 this in ways that are creative in these,

4 around this table in ways the department can't

5 in a rulemaking, in a more formalized

6 rulemaking process. So this kind of give and

7 take is really constructive and I think it

8 helps us to find a way forward I think. If we

9 can think about the kind of scaling factors,

10 you know, what adjustment to the scaling

11 factor that can be done that gets us out of

12 that box, you know, it's really helpful. 

13 Thank you.

14 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes, Rob.

15 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal

16 Pacific Transformer. I agree with the

17 representative unit comment. We've seen the

18 same thing. If we don't have time to add

19 representative units there at the very least

20 needs to be kind of a post screening process. 

21 In other words we should not use the 0.75

22 scaling factor to determine the appropriate
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 70

1 efficiencies down to a 15 kVA from the 75. 

2 They will probably have to be visually looked

3 at and evaluated on a basis of similar design

4 parameters, something of that sort so that you

5 don't get the ends messed up but that's

6 definitely something that we ought to look at

7 and I just wanted to agree with Schneider's

8 comments on that.

9 But on design line 6 although

10 that's a small percentage of the market we

11 don't get a great deal of orders for those but

12 a 167 kVA would be good for us to look at even

13 if we can add it later, you know, just to make

14 sure that those don't get out of kilter. 

15 Because from time to time we do get orders for

16 those and I don't -- we'd like for those to be

17 at least somewhat consistent. And scaling up

18 to a 167 from a 25 is probably not going to

19 work too well. So we probably would apply the

20 same methodologies there. Thank you.

21 MR. CASKEY: Yes, Matt, this is

22 John Caskey with NEMA. I have two sort of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 71

1 general questions. One deals with the

2 applications of the various transformers and

3 certainly loading and other design parameters

4 come into play when you look at the various

5 applications, whether it's a data center,

6 whether it's a high school or a hospital or

7 whatever. Are you able to factor any of that

8 in relative to the various applications in

9 this analysis? And sort of a secondary

10 question related to that is when you picked

11 the representative units did you look at that

12 relative to the number of transformers that

13 are sold in that particular size or capacity

14 of transformer?

15 MR. NARDOTTI: So I mentioned the

16 A and B factors earlier. And as you probably

17 know, like the ratio of the A and B factors

18 implies a certain loading. And so in so much

19 as we looked at those various combinations

20 which are over 500 combinations of A and B

21 values that sort of addresses the different

22 types of loadings that these transformers
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 72

1 might undergo. But in terms of looking at the

2 applications to develop the engineering we

3 looked at volumes of the kVA ratings. We

4 didn't really look at the applications that

5 they went --

6 MR. CASKEY: So you looked at --

7 this is John again. You looked at the volume

8 of sales, the shipments? Okay. And that

9 helped you determine your representative

10 units?

11 MR. NARDOTTI: Right, that

12 factored into it.

13 MR. CASKEY: Okay.

14 MR. NARDOTTI: The biggest thing

15 was though where the kVA rating fell relative

16 to the rest of the kVA ratings covered by that

17 design line though. We wanted a good anchor

18 from which we could scale.

19 FACILITATOR PARKER: What do you

20 mean by a good anchor?

21 MR. NARDOTTI: So these

22 representative units, from those we would
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 73

1 scale up and down in terms of efficiency. So

2 we wanted a kVA rating that wasn't necessarily

3 all the way on the extreme of one point and

4 then causes the scaling up to be all thrown

5 off or vice versa.

6 MR. PATZNER: Hey Matt, I might be

7 able to help you with that. If you did the

8 volume for these kVAs and you did the bell

9 curve the representative unit is the peak. So

10 even in DSL6 the peak is going to be the 25

11 kVA, even that's so. If you bell curve the

12 quantities they grab the representative unit

13 at the peak. 

14 FACILITATOR PARKER: And do you

15 agree that that applies for either way?

16 MR. PATZNER: So when he tells the

17 representative unit for design line 8 that is

18 where the peak was, but due to growth in the

19 data center market that peak is actually going

20 closer to 500 or 750. There's a unit shift in

21 design line 8 due to market but when they

22 actually picked these those kVA sizes would
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 74

1 have been the peak for the market. So they

2 were, there was no argument from our point of

3 view on the representative units that were

4 picked back in 2002. 

5 FACILITATOR PARKER: You go back

6 to 2002?

7 MR. NARDOTTI: Well, the

8 representative units are the same as for the

9 previous rulemaking. So I think we're a

10 couple of slides in.

11 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay, go

12 ahead.

13 MR. NARDOTTI: So the next step in

14 the engineering analysis was to model these

15 optimized designs. And to do this DOE

16 subcontracted an optimized program service

17 (OPS). For each design option combination OPS

18 created designs based on over 500 combinations

19 of A and B. The A and B values as you know

20 represent the present value of future core

21 losses and winding losses. These valuation

22 inputs are oftentimes used by customers in the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 75

1 industry when placing an order. We talk about

2 these more in detail in Chapter 5. Basically

3 the different combinations, the 500-plus

4 combinations give us our design spacing, are

5 able to -- they give us a nice refined set of

6 designs that we can pick efficiency levels

7 from. After running all the combinations we

8 add approximately 2,500 unique designs for

9 each of the representative units. 

10 For each of the OPS designs DOE

11 received data on construction, windings, an

12 electrical analysis and a bill of materials. 

13 Using the bill of materials prices and the

14 materials prices discussed previously we were

15 able to determine the materials cost of each

16 design, the total cost of the design,

17 materials cost. DOE then applied the other

18 cost factors and markups to determine the

19 total manufacturers selling price. A

20 temperature-corrected efficiency is also

21 determined using the electrical analysis from

22 OPS's software.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 76

1 MR. PATZNER: Hey Matt, is the

2 temperature correction done now based on the

3 temperature rise that that design would come

4 out of OPS or is it all done at 150 degrees C?

5 MR. NARDOTTI: I actually don't

6 know the answer to the question, to that

7 question, I'm sorry.

8 MR. PATZNER: Because we have

9 found as we do the lower efficiencies we can't

10 hit the lower efficiencies and run them at

11 150. They end up with a temperature-wise --

12 a temperature factor below that. So since

13 we're using a formula to change the value of

14 the efficiencies for temperature correction I

15 think we need OPS to estimate what the

16 temperature is for those windings so that we

17 add the appropriate coefficient to the data. 

18 So for example on CSL3 equivalent type product

19 we're only getting 130 degrees C rise. So we

20 need to use that temperature to correct for

21 the efficiency at 35 percent instead of a 150. 

22 So I just, it's just a point that we should be
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 77

1 able, OPS should be able to give us what the

2 theoretical temperature rise is.

3 MR. NARDOTTI: I'll have to check

4 with my colleague. Brian Coffey who I think

5 most of you know and have met, he's the main

6 point of contact and I can check with him. He

7 did a lot of this work.

8 FACILITATOR PARKER: Can you

9 explain for the non-transformer people in the

10 room how that translates into energy

11 efficiency versus price?

12 MR. PATZNER: So I squared R

13 losses are done at full load and that is done

14 per the 431 subcut K. We have to do that at

15 20 degrees C. We then have to change that

16 value to be at 75 degrees C to do the

17 efficiency calculation at 35 percent when we

18 register the product. So we test for losses

19 and the program outputs full of losses, so

20 what we're going to be testing for is measured

21 at 20 degrees C per the federal registry but

22 then it's corrected up to 75 degrees C for 35
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 78

1 percent and the factor for that correction is

2 based on the full load temperature rise. So

3 if the full load temperature rise is 150 it's

4 a different factor than if it's 80 or if it's

5 115 or in our case when we have the CSL3 130. 

6 So you're going to have different I squared R

7 losses at that point and different

8 efficiencies if you don't use the proper

9 corrective factor.

10 MR. TENDULKAR: Just to simplify

11 what is the question you asked. The losses in

12 the windings of the transformers are dependent

13 on the temperature of the windings. As the

14 temperature changes -- you cannot test at the

15 temperature when we're testing and are

16 factored in the test department. Our

17 temperature is 20 degrees but when the

18 transformer is under load the temperature is

19 different. 

20 FACILITATOR PARKER: I see.

21 MR. TENDULKAR: And the reference

22 temperature we're asking for the efficiency is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 79

1 something else. That's what we are talking

2 about.

3 FACILITATOR PARKER: So you need a

4 more realistic reference temperature.

5 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal

6 Pacific. I think most of the representative

7 units, they were all, they had a rating of 150

8 C rise and the losses are corrected to 75 C

9 for the efficiencies. And I understand that

10 some of the products might be -- have a lower

11 temperature rise rating. But I think as long

12 as you know what the temperature rise -- as

13 long as you state at what temperature those

14 losses are reported to you can correct to the

15 75 C with some degree of accuracy. Tom, was

16 your question what were -- were they at 170 C

17 initially or?

18 MR. PATZNER: So my comment is I

19 don't believe if we do any efficiencies at

20 some of these candidate standard levels we're

21 going to be able to build the unit at 150

22 degrees C any longer. If we lower the losses
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 80

1 they're going to be less than that.

2 MR. GREESON: That's exactly what

3 we've seen. You have to lower the losses

4 down. You may be at 150 rise unit but it's

5 really running a lot cooler than that.

6 MR. PATZNER: And for the -- since

7 you actually use that data to correct the

8 information we would like to -- we would like

9 to make sure that there's -- I mean, I

10 understand OPS has the ability to estimate the

11 temperature rise. So it would be nice to have

12 that added to the data. 

13 MR. DeLASKI: This is Andrew

14 DeLaski. Just so I understand the effect, so

15 you're actually going to see fuel efficiency

16 higher than what you're rating, is that

17 correct?

18 MR. PATZNER: Yes, you're going

19 to. Is it higher, Robert? Is the efficiency?

20 MR. DeLASKI: Things are going to

21 run cooler.

22 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 81

1 Technically if the transformer runs cooler

2 than the 75 C that we assume it will run a

3 little bit more efficient but you've got to

4 put a market down somewhere so that you can

5 have some basis for reporting and things of

6 that nature. And I don't really have a

7 problem with the 75 C rating but as sort of a

8 tangential note it is -- probably some of

9 these transformers are likely run a little

10 cooler than that at 35 percent load. But you

11 know, you have to kind of pick something to

12 base your ratings on. You just have to be

13 careful up front that you report your --

14 everybody knows what temperatures you report

15 up front so that you can correct them

16 properly. And so that we're not correcting

17 our losses differently than say OPS did I

18 think is the key.

19 MR. TENDULKAR: I've got just --

20 there's confusion in my mind between what you

21 said and what you said. What you are telling

22 me is when we have got a 150 degrees rise unit
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 82

1 our efficiency has to be declared at 75

2 degrees Centigrade because we assume that at

3 35 degrees load, 35 percent load it will be 75

4 degrees temperature. But what you are saying

5 is when your transformer is running at about

6 say 130 degrees rise then it is on full load

7 because of this new design change. The

8 temperature from 75 has to be reduced to

9 something like 60 or whatever the number is,

10 is that what you are saying?

11 MR. PATZNER: So it's real simple. 

12 Once we get all done with this, once we decide

13 on the efficiency levels and everything we're

14 going to get a federal registry on how we have

15 to comply. And when we get there we have to

16 measure it at 20 degrees C. We are going to

17 do the measurement at ambient temperature. 

18 From that point on the losses are now

19 calculated. So the losses at 35 percent is

20 calculated, the losses at 100 percent is

21 calculated. So there's a formula for

22 temperature correction for that losses. And
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 83

1 I'm just saying since it's never ever going to

2 be measured at 35 or it's not going to be

3 measured at 100 that the 20 percent C is

4 critical and we just need to make sure we have

5 the proper temperature when we change those

6 losses because when we get into -- to building

7 this product we're going to be tied to those

8 entities. And if we just convert it to 75

9 degrees C every time I'm okay. But the

10 problem is the full load losses is part of the

11 formula.

12 FACILITATOR PARKER: So

13 particularly since Brian is not here and he

14 needs to get this would you mind just

15 submitting that in the form of a written

16 comment to the group and we will follow up on

17 that afterwards? That would be great. And

18 then we'll try to get a response back. Matt,

19 you want to continue?

20 MR. NARDOTTI: Yes, next one. So

21 DOE did consider symmetric core designs in the

22 preliminary analysis though they were not
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 84

1 considered in the previous rulemaking. A

2 sensitivity analysis was done and presented in

3 the preliminary analysis. That was not done

4 this time. Part of the reason for that is

5 that DOE wasn't able to identify a company

6 that could model this core configuration. We

7 were able to gather some information from

8 manufacturers and that provided the

9 information that we used to develop the

10 sensitivity previously. I guess sort of this

11 committee can decide how it would like to

12 handle this, I think, this design option. 

13 Right now we just don't have sufficient

14 evidence to accurately model it. FACILITATOR

15 PARKER: Okay, Robert?

16 MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman

17 Economics. I just have a, I guess a

18 regulatory question, a legal question on this. 

19 What does it mean not to include something in

20 the standard? Does that mean for example that

21 if a symmetric core transformer isn't covered

22 in the standard that it -- you can build
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 85

1 whatever you want, or you can't build

2 anything, or none of the above? But what do

3 those words mean?

4 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky,

5 DOE. What Matt just said is that the

6 technology was screened out of the analysis

7 due to the inability to model its performance. 

8

9 MR. NARDOTTI: Right. We didn't -

10 - it passed the screening criteria. We

11 weren't able to model it in the engineering

12 analysis.

13 MR. CYMBALSKY: So this could be

14 built. I mean as I understand it the

15 efficiency of this design option would be

16 higher than what's here.

17 MR. NARDOTTI: The traditional

18 core.

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: We just didn't

20 analyze it. It's not -- it is a transformer.

21 MR. BERMAN: It's not subject to

22 the standard? Okay.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 86

1 MR. CYMBALSKY: Well no, it is

2 subject to the standard but when you go to

3 certify it complying to the standard I don't

4 think -- I'm not an engineer, but I think a

5 symmetric core transformer would beat the

6 standards that were analyzed here. Does that

7 answer your question?

8 FACILITATOR PARKER: They're

9 performance, in other words, they're not

10 design standards, so. 

11 MR. BERMAN: It would seem that

12 that would depend on how much and what type of

13 materials we used in it. That it --

14 MR. CYMBALSKY: The manufacturer

15 would have --

16 MR. BERMAN: Like other types of

17 cores, you could build these different ways,

18 they've got different properties. The

19 symmetric aspect of it is one thing but the

20 material that's used or something else would

21 be something else.

22 MR. CYMBALSKY: I'd say the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 87

1 manufacturer would have to make sure that that

2 design would meet whatever standard we have. 

3 It's just, it's a transformer with a different

4 design. Steve.

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock,

6 EEI. Mr. Berman, it would still be considered

7 a covered product. It was still called a low8 voltage dry type transformer at whatever kVA. 

9 It's a covered product, it's just a matter of

10 using that design as an efficiency option is

11 what he's talking about.

12 MR. BERMAN: So we use the same

13 testing?

14 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Yes. And as a

15 follow-up to the gentleman from Schneider

16 Electric, I appreciate that discussion but

17 that really was again forgive me but it

18 sounded like it was veering into what to do

19 about the test procedure in a way. You were

20 talking about 20 degrees C as the test

21 procedure, how you test it, then you scale it

22 up, right, and that's veering into test
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 88

1 procedure. Again, that's an issue for the

2 committee to decide about do you want to even

3 discuss revising test procedures.

4 FACILITATOR PARKER: Thank you,

5 that's helpful. 

6 MR. DeLASKI: A follow-on

7 question.

8 FACILITATOR PARKER: That is

9 something that this committee would have to

10 decide. You know, part of every rule you know

11 that we will have to decide not only what the

12 standards are but what are the test procedures

13 for measuring whether there's compliance with

14 the standards. 

15 MR. DeLASKI: Yes, then following

16 onto that, related to that, just to follow up

17 on that, you're going to have certification,

18 certain certification and compliance

19 requirements and how you do that. So it's all

20 connected. So on the symmetric core, your

21 last bullet up there, Matt, so you may -- just

22 from looking at the table, the current status
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 89

1 is that right now you're not able to, am I

2 interpreting you correctly? But this is

3 something you're still investigating to the

4 extent that you --

5 MR. NARDOTTI: Right.

6 MR. DeLASKI: Okay.

7 MR. NARDOTTI: Exactly. 

8 MR. DeLASKI: Thank you. 

9 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo,

10 Earthjustice. Can I get some clarification on

11 that? The scatter plots that you put out

12 within the last week or so do have an analysis

13 of the symmetric core impact on moving the

14 scatter plots down in price but you just don't

15 have confidence in those numbers or?

16 MR. NARDOTTI: I'm sorry, I must

17 have been misinformed. I thought that those

18 were removed for this design. I know we had,

19 like I said, we had done them for the

20 preliminary analysis and I thought there was

21 some contention over how we did them and I

22 thought they had been removed for the NOPR so
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 90

1 I stand corrected. But I think the way in

2 which we deal with a symmetric core is

3 something that I think that's probably a

4 technical issue that would be something that

5 would be discussed in this committee.

6 MR. TENDULKAR: I can add just one

7 comment. In 1960s, late 1960s, my company

8 which was working, just this company at the

9 time and still is, they were working, making

10 these transformers, liquid-filled transformers

11 so a finite kVA. And finally they made a few

12 and then abandoned the thing because it was

13 commercially not feasible to make that product

14 economical. So they finally made the

15 transformers and they discontinued that line

16 completely. This is in 1960s, this is not

17 something new. If you look at a book in 1942

18 published by MIT transformer you'll find the

19 symmetric core. People are not using those

20 because it is difficult to make and it has

21 cost a lot more money. That's the whole

22 reason people were not making. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 91

1 Now also I don't think it is

2 anybody's business to tell the manufacturer

3 how to make their transformers. The only

4 thing they should say, this is the efficiency

5 and see the regulation. How they make it is

6 up to the manufacturer, not up to the

7 regulating bodies. That's what I will say.

8 MR. DeLASKI: Just to follow up on

9 that point. Andrew DeLaski. I think you'll

10 find consensus in this group on that point. 

11 We're talking about here performance standards

12 and it's up to the manufacturer how to comply

13 with that. You define a transformer as it's

14 defined in the code and that's a transformer

15 you can make it any which way you want to, you

16 know.

17 FACILITATOR PARKER: The standard

18 is technological feasibility and economically

19 justified. But if you can get there by using

20 a symmetric core then that's one avenue one

21 could consider in deciding whether that

22 standard is technologically feasible or
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 92

1 economically justified. Rob.

2 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal

3 Pacific Transformer, and you guys are hitting

4 on the right topic there. The key is not to

5 push these standards so high that only certain

6 technologies can meet those and that in effect

7 is forcing the manufacturers to make

8 transformers a certain way which is what I

9 would hope that the committee can collectively

10 agree on would be a bad thing. But what a

11 good thing is is picking an efficiency level

12 that leaves the broad flexibility in the

13 market for customers to respond to their

14 specific needs. For example, there are

15 several companies marketing higher efficiency,

16 premium efficiency products right now and the

17 customers are eager to buy those, a certain

18 segment of the market is. The other segment

19 of the market are perfectly fine to purchase

20 the present TP1 candidate standard levels. 

21 What's nice about that now is there is a

22 little bit of a gap between the two and it
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 93

1 allows the customer to pick the most efficient

2 option for him. If we move these standards up

3 you are going to run the risk of forcing a

4 customer to pick a less efficient option. I'm

5 not sure if I'm saying it properly. 

6 Everything's based on this 35 percent load

7 assumption, but peak efficiency varies per

8 design. And if we move these standards up and

9 we're forcing at that 35 percent load mark

10 we're essentially taking options from the

11 customer to provide himself a more efficiently

12 operating product. So, that's all I have on

13 that. Thanks.

14 MR. DeLASKI: Follow-up because

15 this kind of follows a little bit of the

16 thread that's been going on in the other

17 transformer negotiations. I think many of us

18 are part of this thread, of this conversation. 

19 I think it's one that, you know, Robin and Tim

20 and I and others who have been involved in

21 many DOE dockets as well as John is involved

22 in all of them and as a member of this
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 94

1 committee, you know, there's a certain

2 bluntness to the tool of efficiency standards. 

3 You know, we recognize that. But that's the

4 tool we're working on. That's the mandate of

5 the Department of Energy given to it by

6 Congress is to set efficiency standards which

7 apply to products, not to applications. So

8 the charge of this committee is to consider

9 what are the revised standards going to be and

10 can we come to a consensus on what they're

11 going to be. It's not to say, you know, in

12 waiting for some class we'll decide there's no

13 revision. That's something that we could

14 decide and that's a point that was made in the

15 last committee meeting. But it's not to say

16 that customers should do better. 

17 We can't -- if that's all we're

18 going to come out of this committee with then,

19 you know, we can end these discussions pretty

20 soon and put it back with the department what

21 the standards are going to be. So there's a

22 recognition in standards -- when we set
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 95

1 standards for clothes washers, okay, we all

2 have clothes washers, there's some customer

3 who bought the clothes washer who will not

4 benefit from that standard. There's a lot of

5 them, actually. Second homes, people who do

6 very little laundry, they don't benefit from

7 clothes washer standards. So this is not a

8 unique problem to the transformers. And the

9 department typically in their analysis will

10 show you, you know, some customers benefit,

11 some don't benefit, some are unaffected. And

12 I'll tell you that there are some standards by

13 the department where a significant portion of

14 the customers by its own analysis do not

15 benefit. But the average benefits and that's

16 what you're doing with national standards. So

17 I think it's something we have to -- we can

18 talk about it a lot but we're not here to set

19 application standards for individual

20 customers. 

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: That's

22 something that not only occurs in an appliance
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 96

1 setting but it occurs in administrative law

2 generally, the difficulty of making rules that

3 have general applicability and you know, and

4 how do you strike the balance between having

5 a rule that's simple enough to be feasible to

6 administer on the one hand but you know,

7 refined enough to apply fairly to everyone. 

8 And you can't strike a perfect balance, and

9 you have to -- you have to accept that rules

10 inevitably fit imperfectly some applications. 

11 Just try to keep it from being too extreme.

12 MR. PATZNER: Thomas Patzner,

13 Schneider Electric. To expand on that last

14 comment, the low-voltage transformers are a

15 unique product because the purchaser of the

16 product does not get any of these benefits so

17 they are not going to buy it. So if the

18 government does not help the purchasers along

19 the actual end user of the transformer does

20 not have a large voice in the say of this

21 product. So without -- so TP1 was launched

22 originally in 1996. Nobody bought the product
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 97

1 until the state of Minnesota mandated it in

2 1999. So the fact that we are discussing

3 this, we have to remember if we -- the goal is

4 to help save energy and the people that buy

5 this product will not do it on their own. At

6 least the majority of the people, close to 80-

7 85 percent. So, because the guy who buys it

8 is not the user. MR. DeLASKI: And maybe

9 you can expand on that because I think I

10 understand that and I think it's important. 

11 I think it's the people who are putting up

12 buildings, it's the folks who are typically

13 not going to be the occupant. You know, and

14 I think that may be a little different, Rob. 

15 Maybe you can help us understand, you know. 

16 There's 80 products in the market and that may

17 be the 15 percent and maybe that's more some

18 of your customers who are, you know, we

19 talked, we had a whole conversation in the

20 last docket about mining transformers. And

21 there may be some specific applications where,

22 you know, and that I think is a constructive
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 98

1 conversation for us to engage in because it

2 helps us to define products that -- where the

3 market may drive some more efficiency than

4 would happen absent regulation.

5 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal

6 Pacific. I think if the committee does its

7 job properly there will be a proper balance

8 struck. I just, my comment was simply to

9 reinforce the idea that there can be extremes. 

10 Obviously I think the mandate here is to look

11 at the average just as I agree with what

12 you're saying there. But you know, it is --

13 I kind of word it to at least acknowledge the

14 fact that there is a healthy interest in

15 higher efficiencies now and you know, if we

16 can pick a level that seems to make sense that

17 -- and also provide a little flexibility I

18 think that's what we should do. But on the

19 other hand I think we need to be responsible

20 to the task we're given as well. So I think

21 we agree.

22 MR. CASKEY: We've gotten into
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 99

1 some general discussions here. Just want to -

2 - sorry, John Caskey of NEMA. I just wanted

3 to add in, one, certainly I think for low4 voltage dry type there is a real possibility

5 of coming up with a cost-justified smart

6 engineering design that produces an energy

7 efficiency level higher than where we are

8 today with the current DOE regulation. 

9 However, for medium-voltage dry type and

10 liquid-filled I'm not sure given the

11 information that we've learned from digging

12 into the OPS model and some of the other

13 options and things like that. I'm not sure in

14 that category, those two categories of

15 transformers that it is necessarily proven

16 that what we've got in place that became the

17 rule in 2010 actually is economically

18 justified from my personal perspective. So

19 I'm not starting at the point that we

20 necessarily always have to go higher, because

21 I'm not sure that all the analysis that was

22 done back in 2006 or 2007 really got us in the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 100

1 right ballpark. Hopefully it did but I'm

2 still sort of holding out on that.

3 The other issue that we're talking

4 about, applications and things like that, I

5 think it is difficult to get into too much

6 detail on specific applications but we have

7 touched on mining transformers and UPSs and

8 there may be other categories that need to be

9 separated out for some reason where we can't

10 do that for everything. But in addition to

11 that there is the issue of substitution and at

12 some point if in the case of oil-filled

13 regulations that becomes a -- that can become

14 out of balance with the dry type transformers

15 so you may have some substitution, people

16 avoiding an oil-filled high efficiency

17 transformers and substituting with the lower

18 efficiency dry type transformers. And

19 likewise, the people that are making decisions

20 can also look at the fact that to go to a

21 super, super high efficiency transformer they

22 may say well gee, it's worthwhile for me to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 101

1 get the old one reconditioned or rebuilt in

2 some way and avoid having to adhere to the new

3 DOE regulation relative to the manufacturer of

4 transformers. So people are going to bypass

5 and basically find loopholes if some of the

6 efficiency standards get so high it's

7 rewarding them for sort of bypassing those

8 high efficiency standards. 

9 MR. TENDULKAR: Let me make --

10 FACILITATOR PARKER: Let me hold

11 on just for a second. Should we try? We'll

12 see -- if the noise resumes we may take a

13 coffee break or even a very early lunch break. 

14 I'm finding it extremely difficult to, I don't

15 know about you but it's like taking an exam

16 while having a root canal done simultaneously.

17 (Laughter)

18 MR. TENDULKAR: Let me make one

19 comment, what Mr. Caskey said about when you

20 say think about the dry type transformer we

21 think about the transformer which is somewhere

22 lying on the rooftop or somewhere in the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 102

1 backyard somewhere and supplying the power to

2 the homes and all those kind of things. But

3 the dry type transformers have a lot more

4 applications because they are used indoors and

5 we make a lot of these dry type transformers

6 at this time. They last about 20 years. The

7 transformers used in the UPS industry as well

8 as in the data centers and they go in places

9 where the reliability is much more important

10 than the efficiency or anything else. And the

11 size is sometimes also very important. And if

12 you do not have your cell phones working or

13 telephones working or your banking system not

14 working 24/7, 365 days a year you are going to

15 be very upset. And those transformers are

16 supplying powers to those critical loads. And

17 that's where it is very important to think

18 about how the application of the transformer

19 is. 

20 We have talked about the

21 efficiency to be declared at 35 percent load

22 for the distribution transformer for a reason. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 103

1 Most of the time the distribution transformer

2 used may be in the morning few hours, in the

3 evening few hours in the residential area or

4 in the school building between about 7:00 to

5 about 3:00 or 4:00 in the day and that's it. 

6 And that's where we have those kind of -- the

7 rest of the time it is just idling. But if it

8 goes to the data center it will be used 24

9 hours a day at the same load, whether you have

10 computers are working, some of us are working

11 or not. And then the efficiency point should

12 be different. They cannot be just 35 percent

13 for all dry type transformer but we cannot get

14 any exemption because they, oh, these are all

15 low-voltage dry type transformers. And they

16 have got a 480 volt input, 28 volt output,

17 that's it. And then we get into trouble a lot

18 of times to meet the temperature rise

19 requirement because a lot of times they want

20 very low temperature, 115 degrees rise, 80

21 degrees rise, small footprint and reliability. 

22 And those things to meet, and to meet the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 104

1 price criteria we have is very difficult.

2 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes. Well,

3 this is a very -- it's a good point, it's an

4 important point and even a novice I think can

5 understand that. I'm not sure that Congress

6 understood it when they drafted the statute

7 that constrains us because as I understand it,

8 basically, I defer to those who are more

9 expert about this than I am, but the charge is

10 to develop standards for product lines based

11 upon their, you know, various characteristics. 

12 Getting into how they're applied would require

13 first going beyond the statutory authority and

14 also even if there were statutory authority it

15 would require an entire administrative

16 apparatus to be set up to develop, gather

17 information on who's buying the transformer,

18 what -- certifying what they're going to use

19 it for, then verifying that it actually is

20 going to that use. That would be, you know,

21 a very large administrative operation that

22 would be called upon to implement any kind of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 105

1 a standard that is bifurcated by, or

2 trifurcated by application. So it's a great

3 conceptual point. The question is is there

4 authority and is there a practical means to

5 actually, you know, do something about it. 

6 Katie, did you want to chime in?

7 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. I wanted to

8 answer your point. The --

9 FACILITATOR PARKER: Katie

10 Coughlin from LBL.

11 MS. COUGHLIN: Sorry, Katie

12 Coughlin. The loadings in the life cycle cost

13 analysis are not the test procedure loadings,

14 and that's why we do attempt to take into

15 account the diversity of load shapes, peak

16 loads, sizing factors, all that stuff. And

17 since the LCC is used to actually decide on

18 the standard level. The idea is that by

19 considering a diversity of conditions you

20 avoid imposing sort of an artificial

21 efficiency criterion on field applications

22 that's not realistic. So we'll get into that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 106

1 more when I present the LCC.

2 MR. MILLURE: Dave Millure,

3 Metglas. About the symmetric core. So are

4 you saying that for your least life cycle

5 analysis the symmetric core was not used as an

6 option?

7 MR. NARDOTTI: I don't believe it

8 was. I think it was a sensitivity but I'll

9 have to double-check. She would know the

10 answer though.

11 MR. BOLDUC: Chris Bolduc,

12 Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. To answer

13 your question directly, no, symmetric core

14 transformers were not considered in the life

15 cycle cost analysis.

16 FACILITATOR PARKER: Can you give

17 us a sense of is there significant sales

18 volume with symmetric core in this country

19 now? No?

20 MR. NARDOTTI: I don't believe so.

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: Not much? 

22 But there is in Europe or other markets?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 107

1 MR. NARDOTTI: There's some.

2 MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman

3 Economics. So then the correct interpretation

4 then of the data is that to the extent that

5 symmetric cores were not considered in the

6 analysis, the analysis might then have an

7 upward bias in terms of cost? In other words,

8 if you can deliver an efficiency with a

9 symmetric core at a lower cost than you could

10 otherwise then by not including that you would

11 have an upward bias in your results in terms

12 of the cost.

13 MR. NARDOTTI: If that's actually

14 the case with the symmetric design then yes,

15 that would.

16 MR. MILLURE: My understanding

17 which is very limited on symmetric cores is

18 that they're not so popular in Europe. There

19 is a Chinese manufacturer who made something

20 called a stadium core that has some degree of

21 similarity but certainly hasn't caught fire in

22 Europe.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 108

1 FACILITATOR PARKER: Good. Well,

2 I think let's get through the analysis and

3 then you know we will table, we'll try to

4 develop a list of issues to be considered. 

5 And I guess one of the issues for this group

6 is, you know, should there be any kind of an

7 anecdotal, should this be considered as a

8 potential avenue for changing given efficiency

9 levels at a certain cost or should they be off

10 the table for purposes of this process, right? 

11

12 I guess if there's not -- I mean

13 one of the things that I've been concerned

14 about is that this, you know, we come up with

15 something that is appropriate for the industry

16 as a whole including people who are not at

17 this table. And we're going to hear a

18 presentation at 1:00 from the FACA person

19 about, you know, the duty of this group to

20 speak on behalf of sort of the broader group

21 of stakeholders that are similarly situated to

22 them, the low-voltage manufacturers. So I
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 109

1 think it matters whether there is a

2 significant group of manufacturers out there

3 that is making a particular product line. If

4 there is that would -- it would be important

5 to make sure that their interests are

6 considered even if they're spokesmen are not

7 at the table. But if there are not then that

8 perhaps changes the analysis. So it would

9 just be helpful to know.

10 Okay. Should we continue? Next

11 slide.

12 MR. NARDOTTI: So once DOE

13 generated all of its designs in the

14 engineering analysis it selected several

15 benchmark efficiency levels or ELs to analyze

16 directly. The efficiency levels span the

17 range of distribution efficiencies for each of

18 the representative units all the way from the

19 baseline of the current standard up to the

20 maximum technology feasible. DOE considered

21 several criteria. First, DOE selected levels

22 that harmonized efficiencies across single-
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 110

1 phase and three-phase units. Second, DOE

2 tried to evenly space the CSLs between -- or

3 excuse me, evenly space the ELs between the

4 baseline and the maximum technology feasible

5 level. And lastly, DOE tried to consider

6 several benchmark efficiency levels such as

7 NEMA premium for low-voltage dry type. These

8 discrete ELs allowed DOE to analyze

9 incremental increases in efficiency and serve

10 as the basis for the trial standard levels

11 that are selected in the NOPR. We'll get to

12 that.

13 So this graph actually is of

14 design line 1 which is not a low-voltage dry

15 type unit but for the purposes of this it's

16 just illustrative. It shows the basic outputs

17 of the analysis, the efficiency and the

18 manufacturers selling price. And here we've

19 superimposed, the efficiency levels were

20 actually denoted by CSL but CSL is also the

21 same thing as, conceptually the same thing as

22 an efficiency level. Each of the dots on the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 111

1 graph represents a unique optimized design and

2 the different colors on the graph represent

3 the various design option combinations

4 considered. So on this example the pink dots

5 represent amorphous, copper, copper. So

6 copper primary and secondary windings.

7 Assuming the DOE decides to, or

8 this committee decides to amend standards it

9 selects trial standard levels based on various

10 groupings of efficiency levels. For example,

11 DOE may group efficiency levels based on the

12 per phase harmonization, minimum life cycle

13 costs or the maximum net present value of cost

14 of representative units. These TSLs help to

15 characterize the interaction between different

16 design lines or equipment classes. As Richard

17 noted earlier the criteria for selecting these

18 is one of the goals of today's meeting I

19 guess.

20 FACILITATOR PARKER: Now, let me

21 just clarify, this slide is geared towards a

22 unilateral process. Obviously you know, this
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 112

1 group is here to negotiate a proposed rule so

2 we're actually the ones who are sitting in

3 DOE's stead in this slide assuming we can

4 reach consensus. So it'll really be up to

5 this group to decide, you know, what are the

6 appropriate TSLs to use and we'll have more to

7 say about that later on today.

8 MR. NARDOTTI: So finally DOE

9 needed to scale the results of each of its

10 representative units to the non-analyzed

11 equipment, or kVA ratings, excuse me. To do

12 this as we mentioned DOE relied on the 0.75

13 scaling rule which states that the total

14 transformer loss is scaled by the ratio of kVA

15 ratings to the 0.75 power. And this is when

16 you assume that design characteristics such as

17 frequency and build remain the same. By

18 holding certain parameters constant DOE can

19 use this rule to scale losses, dimensions and

20 costs from its analyzed units.

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: Any

22 questions? Okay. Thanks. John.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 113

1 MR. CASKEY: Hi, John Caskey of

2 NEMA. And in the medium-voltage dry type and

3 liquid-filled there has been a lot of

4 technical recommendations or issues discussed

5 over the past two or three weeks, something on

6 that order, that identified some I want to say

7 weaknesses relative to the OPS model or some

8 of the other Navigant analysis. Have you or

9 anybody looked at that stuff on the medium10 voltage dry type to see if any of those

11 comments transfer back to the low-voltage dry

12 type analysis and can you summarize sort of

13 any of those points that might be changed in

14 the near future to reflect those comments

15 you're getting on the other class of

16 transformers?

17 MR. NARDOTTI: Certainly. Any

18 comments that we received in one committee

19 they'll pretty much be considered. Since

20 we're supporting -- the analysis was all done

21 as a group. We didn't disaggregate, right? 

22 So any comments that come up in that committee
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 114

1 we'll be considering how we might have to

2 adjust anything for the low-voltage if

3 necessary.

4 MR. CASKEY: Okay. So you don't

5 have a list of like the top five that need to

6 be -- oh, excuse me, go ahead.

7 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, Navigant

8 Consulting. Well, this slide certainly

9 prompts the issue of scaling across kVAs and

10 the appropriateness of using the 0.75 rule and

11 what happens when you get to the extremities. 

12 And in the medium-voltage we will be analyzing

13 this issue explicitly and I expect we will be

14 for the low-voltage dry as well. In the

15 medium-voltage it was a question of the bill. 

16 I don't know if that applies here in low17 voltage. I'm looking for the experts here. 

18 No? Right.

19 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal

20 Pacific. Real quickly on the medium-voltage. 

21 I have been kind of working with OPS to try to

22 iron out where some of these issues may have
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 115

1 occurred. And if time permits I do have a

2 slide I can probably show today if anybody's

3 interested that I looked at the design line 8,

4 the 300 kVA and I essentially isolated the

5 representative units that corresponded to the

6 same core steel and core construction and

7 conductor and did a comparison kind of on a

8 per-unit basis. And I'm seeing some fairly

9 broad discrepancies there too. That was kind

10 of why I asked the question about the markups. 

11 I thought well maybe I'm missing some markups. 

12 But certainly I'm very concerned about getting

13 the data going into it. Because I think the

14 analysis is pretty well thought out, it's just

15 getting the data going into it to be accurate. 

16 And hopefully later we can talk a little bit

17 about maybe how we can reconcile that

18 together. I think it's going to take a little

19 horsepower from the manufacturers in

20 conjunction with Navigant to try to get that

21 ironed out. Thank you.

22 MR. RIVEST: So, Mike Rivest
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 116

1 again. So, I think you pointed out an

2 important issue here, it's the issue of

3 markup. And that's something that is very

4 difficult to get a hold on. But I think if we

5 back into the actual design of the transformer

6 and produce and share information about core

7 weights, for example, coil weights at each

8 efficiency then we can make this a discussion

9 about pounds of steel. And that will, you

10 know, from that starting point I think, you

11 know, what the market sees in terms of price

12 is, you know, that's hard to judge. But

13 pounds of steel I think the engineers can

14 agree about that. So we're hoping to get down

15 to that level of discussion very shortly.

16 FACILITATOR PARKER: One issue

17 that I recall reading from just glancing

18 through the comments that came in for medium19 voltage was a concern about the choice of CSLs

20 and ELs and the change in CSLs and ELs from

21 April to August. Is that -- are people, and

22 perhaps it would be useful just in a broader
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 117

1 way to just take this opportunity to sort of

2 table any kind of other concerns that have

3 been, you know, that you have about the, sort

4 of the architecture of the analysis. The

5 choice of CSLs, the spacing of them. I think

6 we've got the scaling factor issue pretty well

7 aired. But right off the top you raised sort

8 of the basic questions and make sure that

9 we're comfortable with those. Did you want to

10 comment, Vijay?

11 MR. TENDULKAR: Well, one of the

12 things I was thinking about is I had looked at

13 some of these OPS designs and I was trying to

14 see practically they can build that

15 transformer with that numbers and those kinds

16 of things. And I could not. I don't know

17 what's the problem. I try OPS software in,

18 somewhere in 1990s. I gave up on it, came up

19 with my own software to design the transformer

20 to make it in our factory. But those, that

21 was the old OPS. So today's OPS I do not

22 know, it would be a lot more advanced. There
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 118

1 are people in my factory, they use it, but I

2 don't use it so I do not know. But I tried to

3 get the numbers and they are not necessarily

4 accurate numbers as far as the -- what we can

5 see in the production results and what the OPS

6 has predicted. There is a difference and I

7 don't know why the difference is coming up. 

8 And some of the things in the OPS as I

9 understand from the other people, engineers

10 who work on it, that it is an individual what

11 number they put in as far as the space factor. 

12 It's very -- they call it a degradation

13 factor, a destruction factor for the core. 

14 Everybody can put a different number. And

15 that is what is something, it's different in

16 the design I make in my software. You don't

17 have to put any of those numbers, that

18 automatically is taken care of kind of thing.

19 FACILITATOR PARKER: Are you

20 saying a systematic bias in the number of

21 level in the OPS or is that kind of a random

22 fluctuation?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 119

1 MR. TENDULKAR: It is left to the

2 individual designer as to think, you know, for

3 example there's a core, we have a geometry for

4 the core and there is a weight for the core. 

5 And then we say so many watts per pound of the

6 core lost for this particular flux density. 

7 And you multiply that watts by that weight and

8 this should be the core loss. But because of

9 the particular geometry of the core there is

10 some extra losses are there, and those extra

11 losses they call it a destruction factor which

12 is always more than 1. And that destruction

13 factor is individual's guess, not necessarily

14 something that is from a concrete theory that

15 this is the geometry, this is what it has to

16 be. And that is where the differences come

17 in. And then what you calculate and what you

18 test are two different things. I'm just

19 wondering the numbers we get in the designs

20 which is are numbers published by OPS numbers

21 exactly the right numbers or not? Maybe you

22 can answer that because you are working with
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 120

1 that all the time, I'm not. 

2 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal

3 Pacific Transformer. We have a pretty

4 extensive use of OPS at our facility and there

5 are certain aspects of the program that you

6 have to kind of reconcile with your own design

7 parameters and design information that you

8 get, especially with regard to core losses. 

9 But what I've been trying to reconcile are

10 these differences in price. And the markups

11 seem to be possibly one of the big confusions,

12 but even on some of the weights I'm seeing

13 some things that don't make a lot of sense on

14 why I come up with a weight that's half the

15 weight or twice the weight let's say and if I

16 don't get to that slide later today to show

17 you guys. What I saw last night briefly was

18 somewhere around, you know, 60-70 percent

19 variation. We were higher in price than the

20 price in the database, the engineering

21 analysis, and then up towards the upper end it

22 jumped like to 160-some percent. And these
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 121

1 were using materials as I said, they were the

2 same core steel, same conductor because I

3 wanted to try and compare apples and apples. 

4 And I'm not sure what's going on. And I don't

5 -- we're going to look at a life cycle cost

6 analysis and I don't feel comfortable -- I

7 feel comfortable with the analysis but I don't

8 feel comfortable with the outcome of it till

9 I feel comfortable with what went into it and

10 that's where I'm basically having my issues. 

11 Thank you.

12 MR. TENDULKAR: There is one more

13 issue on the OPS software which I had been

14 finding from time to time is the temperature

15 rates calculation in the OPS software. It

16 used to be lower than what actual temperature

17 we will get. And because of that what we had

18 was we had a lower number of ducts in the

19 windings so the windings were bigger and of

20 course the transformer material was more and

21 the efficiency was slightly lower than

22 whatever the OPS was predicting kind of thing. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 122

1 And this is one of the variations we had. I

2 don't know whether we had the same problem

3 predicting the OPS designs or not. I hate to

4 say that we have a problem.

5 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest,

6 Navigant. I, you know, certainly we look

7 forward to sharing much more design details

8 with you and reconciling any differences. One

9 major difference between the low-voltage dry

10 universe and the medium-voltage is of course

11 that the low-voltage dry tends to build at

12 very specific levels and the market is

13 standardized to certain efficiencies. The

14 medium-voltage is much more of a custom

15 industry so, you know, we found there's just

16 more experience out there, there was more --

17 there are more things to test, more things to

18 calibrate the models with when you're dealing

19 with medium-voltage than when you are with

20 dry. However, we did do a number of tear21 downs of low-voltage transformers and used the

22 OPS model to compare the measure deficiencies,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 123

1 in other words calibrate the models along the

2 lines of destruction factors and the like. 

3 And we did get good corroboration, you know,

4 once those adjustments were made. But, you

5 know, like I said we'll certainly open up the

6 box and look into the details.

7 MR. TENDULKAR: A little bit --

8 you will find further it is a little bit

9 easier to calculate the temperature rises of

10 the liquid-filled transformers compared to the

11 medium-voltage or the dry type transformers

12 mainly because there's a lot more radiation,

13 a lot more other factors affect the

14 temperature rise of a dry type transformer. 

15 But it is not that much in the liquid-filled

16 transformers, a lot more forgiving in those

17 kind of things. Because I used to work on the

18 liquid also, the bigger units. But

19 calculating the dry type transformer

20 temperature is very, very difficult sometimes.

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: Is somebody

22 on the phone? Comment from the phone? Okay. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 124

1 I assume the -- is this OPS model proprietary? 

2 It can't be? It's not something that could be

3 posted that people could play around with?

4 MR. RIVEST: The model's

5 proprietary but I think engineers will be able

6 to analyze the, you know, all the inputs that

7 go in, all the assumptions and the

8 calibrations that are done and then recognize

9 if the outputs are consistent with the inputs. 

10

11 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay.

12 MR. RIVEST: And those

13 assumptions. So we'll provide that design

14 information so that, you know, individual

15 manufacturers can do their due diligence on

16 the designs.

17 FACILITATOR PARKER: This is where

18 it might be helpful to form a sort of a

19 technical working group that could work with

20 Navigant. So Rob, you may be interested in

21 this. I was going to say this may be an area

22 where it would be useful to form kind of a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 125

1 technical working group for people who are

2 concerned about the parameters that are being

3 used and who want more detail to just work

4 directly with Navigant in trying to figure

5 out, you know, why -- why we're having

6 difficulty replicating the data and the

7 outcomes, and reconcile. And maybe we could

8 do, you could just work together in preparing

9 a little report for the next meeting that

10 would indicate, you know, what you found and

11 what implications it may have. Again, if the

12 differences are small, if they're -- around

13 the OPS results we don't worry about it. If

14 they're significant and introducing a bias

15 then it's more significant and the group needs

16 to take cognizance of it. But it seems to me

17 that you don't want to get this group too much

18 in the weeds, it would be -- it might make

19 sense to split off a working group to just

20 develop those concerns. Does that make sense?

21 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal

22 Pacific. I agree with that. I'd be more than
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 126

1 happy to share kind of the approach that I was

2 taking to try to figure out what's going on. 

3 And I'd welcome any of the other manufacturers

4 to come talk to me offline there and I'll show

5 you what I'm working on and you guys might

6 kind of look at that and maybe provide some

7 other information as well. And it's

8 proprietary, I mean it's, you wouldn't be

9 providing it to one another but specifically

10 to them and that helps them figure out what's

11 going on. And I'm hoping through that process

12 we'll, once we get to trust the data I think

13 we'll all feel better about what we decide

14 based on the data. Thanks.

15 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay. Vijay? 

16 Great. So then it's moved then that we agree

17 that a technical working group will be formed

18 to explore the issues of replicability

19 basically and assumptions and parameters being

20 used in the Navigant and the LBL analysis. 

21 But principally I think here the issues are

22 engineering issues though in the Navigant
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 127

1 analysis. Perhaps we'll ask if Navigant could

2 sort of be the rapporteur for that working

3 group? If you could give us a little report

4 on your discussions, clear it with the group. 

5 I'll be happy to be in the loop as necessary

6 but it would be your issue. Mike, did you

7 want to respond?

8 MR. RIVEST: Just agreeing with --

9 you're saying.

10 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay. John?

11 MR. CASKEY: One sort of concern

12 and it's really up to the manufacturer to

13 support or not support this. This is John

14 Caskey with NEMA. But you know, we're getting

15 into an area where we're getting into the

16 design of the transformers from individual

17 manufacturers as well as their cost or

18 pressing estimates related to those

19 transformers. So when I picture a working

20 group I picture, you know, five or six people

21 getting around a table and sort of hashing

22 things out. I'm not sure if the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 128

1 manufacturers' intend for it to be that way or

2 each one individually would work with Navigant

3 to say this is my you know confidential

4 information about how my prices are coming up

5 different than the price that the OPS model is

6 producing, or other things like that. So I'm

7 just saying, cautioning that it may not be a

8 traditional working group. It's sort of

9 individualized working with Navigant to try

10 and get the model validated.

11 FACILITATOR PARKER: Appreciate

12 that. So the working group will have

13 discretion to set their own internal separate

14 rules of procedure regarding confidentiality

15 of information to keep proprietary data

16 proprietary but still allow Navigant to do its

17 analysis.

18 MR. RIVEST: Exactly.

19 FACILITATOR PARKER: All right,

20 makes sense. Anything else to add? Okay,

21 good. So we'll look for a report on that from

22 that working group. We'll call it the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 129

1 technical working group at the next meeting. 

2 Hopefully if we can get some results to post

3 online just to keep, you know. Ideally, you

4 know, a week but since the next meeting is not

5 too long away, just a few days before the next

6 meeting so that we can have time to assess it

7 and respond that would be great. So please,

8 you know, let your various stakeholders know

9 that you're invited to attend. And if you

10 could maybe we could just get a preliminary

11 report from Navigant on who is in the group

12 and contact information and so forth. I'll

13 send that out so that people will know who is

14 in the group, just give us sort of a -- keep

15 us apprised of the process of the group of

16 what's happening so that people who may be

17 coming in late are free to join if they want

18 to. And so that we know, you know, just who's

19 doing what when. Excellent. So that will be

20 sort of -- the scope of that group will be

21 dealing with data, dealing with methodology

22 for the engineering analysis, dealing with
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 130

1 replication of results. 

2 Anything else we need to cover for

3 the engineering analysis? The issues that I

4 take away from this and I'll try to do a

5 little table over the lunch break is basically

6 the question of scaling factor, the quest for

7 different kVA ratings, the issue of the

8 representative of load factors, the problem of

9 the representative unit for design line 6, and

10 the question of whether that can be -- whether

11 more data is available to do another

12 representative unit, sounds dicey, or whether

13 there's some other technical solution for

14 that. Is that the kind of thing, by the way,

15 that representative unit factor that would be

16 appropriate for the technical working group to

17 work on as part of its mandate or do you think

18 that's a broader issue that should stay with

19 the plenary? Any thoughts on that? 

20 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal

21 Pacific. Perhaps we could talk about that. 

22 I'm more than happy to try to provide --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 131

1 FACILITATOR PARKER: When I said

2 design line 6 I meant design line 7, yes.

3 MR. GREESON: We would be willing

4 to try to help provide some design information

5 for 15 and 1,000 but we need to be realistic

6 about not trying to look at like 16 or 17

7 different options up there. And if we could

8 kind of come to agreement that we're going to

9 be looking at kind of narrow -- materials to

10 look at it wouldn't be that bad. Certainly we

11 could probably do something. I'd be willing

12 to talk to my cohorts on that. Thanks.

13 MR. PATZNER: We definitely feel

14 that once we decide on the trial standard

15 levels that we can put together the

16 appropriate information to see if it's a

17 similar type of ratio for those efficiencies

18 after we do the scaling factor. In fact,

19 we'll probably do it throughout the entire

20 range. 

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: Good. 

22 Anything else from engineering? If that's the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 132

1 case what I propose is that it's now about

2 11:35. We've had a good run. We've weathered

3 a root canal. Let's break early for lunch I

4 think, beat the lines down there and instead

5 of going from 12:00 to 1:00 let's go from say

6 11:40 to 12:40. And then we will reconvene

7 here because I think rather than have LBL come

8 up and start and quit in 20 minutes I think it

9 just makes sense to stop now. We'll reconvene

10 at 12:40, we'll have a head start on the

11 afternoon and we'll resume with LBL's

12 analysis. Thanks.

13 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter

14 went off the record at 11:36 a.m. and went

15 back on the record at 12:53 p.m.)

16 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay, so

17 let's start with the LBL analysis of their

18 life cycle cost studies. So Katie, if you

19 would come up and start us through your slide. 

20 By the way, thank you, Matt Nardotti, for your

21 presentation. I really appreciate that from

22 before lunch. I think you gave us a lot to go
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 133

1 on. We'll start with Katie. I'm told that

2 the representative from the Federal Advisory

3 Committee Act Office who gives a short pep

4 talk and guidelines talk to each group as part

5 of his legal requirement will be showing up at

6 1:00 which is a bit awkward for our timing

7 since that will be in a few minutes but why

8 don't we get started. And then when he comes

9 if you don't mind we'll just interrupt, let

10 him give his talk. We'll have whatever

11 discussions we need briefly for that and then

12 we'll just resume with the talk. I think it's

13 better to go ahead and get started if we can. 

14 So.

15 MR. DeLASKI: Richard, again just

16 one quick question.

17 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes.

18 MR. DeLASKI: One of the matters

19 of business from the last committee meeting

20 was the development of some people use the

21 word "cheat sheet," the list telling us what

22 changes were made.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 134

1 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes and I

2 understand that one of the chapters, there's

3 an introductory chapter in the updated TSD.

4 MS. COUGHLIN: There was a memo

5 sent out with the updated TSD chapters. It

6 summarizes the -- I think it should have been

7 sent out.

8 MR. DeLASKI: That has been

9 distributed already.

10 MS. COUGHLIN: I think so, yes.

11 FACILITATOR PARKER: It was

12 distributed but it wasn't posted online. It

13 was sent by email.

14 MR. DeLASKI: I received the email

15 but I just haven't been through it yet. 

16 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes, it's

17 going to be attached to that.

18 MR. DeLASKI: You sent that last

19 Friday night I think.

20 FACILITATOR PARKER: Right.

21 MR. DeLASKI: East Coast time it

22 was night. Maybe it was daytime perhaps
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 135

1 still.

2 MS. COUGHLIN: No, it was night.

3 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes, the

4 danger of coming out with things on a Friday

5 night, they tend to get lost.

6 MR. DeLASKI: No, it's there, it's

7 just --

8 FACILITATOR PARKER: It's there. 

9 MR. DeLASKI: I understand. 

10 Thanks.

11 MR. ROSENFELD: Excuse me, this is

12 Art Rosenfeld. In whose name was that sent

13 out?

14 MS. COUGHLIN: Chris Bolduc.

15 MR. ROSENFELD: Chris Bolduc.

16 MS. COUGHLIN: Bolduc, B-O-L-D-U17 C.

18 MR. ROSENFELD: Okay.

19 FACILITATOR PARKER: And again,

20 Art, I think this goes to a report we made

21 actually -- which is, and I think we discussed

22 that probably before you were on the phone. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 136

1 But there have been some technical problems

2 with getting those chapters actually posted

3 online. I checked last night and they're

4 still not on the website. You should have

5 gotten them in your emails but they need to

6 get up on their website. So hopefully you

7 know we'll get them up there very, very soon

8 so that you can just download them.

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: So just to

10 clarify, Chris's email was sent on September

11 23rd at 5:35 p.m. Eastern time. There should

12 have been an email with 10 attachments. 

13 MR. ROSENFELD: Thank you.

14 FACILITATOR PARKER: We don't want

15 you to be bored on a Friday night. Okay. 

16 Katie, do you want to start? 

17 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay, so this is

18 somewhat similar in structure to the

19 presentation I gave for the previous meeting. 

20 So hopefully it won't be too boring for those

21 of you who were at the other meeting. So.

22 FACILITATOR PARKER: Is it not
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 137

1 working?

2 MS. COUGHLIN: I'm not sure

3 what's.

4 FACILITATOR PARKER: I'm pushing

5 the left button which is what --

6 MS. COUGHLIN: I'm just trying to

7 figure out. It's backwards, it's just

8 backwards.

9 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay.

10 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay, so I'm going

11 to review the life cycle costs and national

12 impacts analyses. The chevrons here show the

13 way the various pieces fit together and so --

14 MR. ROSENFELD: Hold on. This is

15 Art Rosenfeld. On my screen, it just says,

16 you know, welcome to the ERAC Transformers

17 webinar.

18 MS. COUGHLIN: Oh, okay. I think

19 --

20 FACILITATOR PARKER: Excuse me. 

21 Let's -- how's that, is that better?

22 MR. ROSENFELD: That's much
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 138

1 better.

2 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay, sorry

3 about that.

4 MS. COUGHLIN: Thanks. One thing

5 to take from this is that the engineering

6 analysis feeds into the LCC and that in turn

7 feeds into the national impacts analysis. So

8 this is a constraint essentially on our

9 ability to redo things. I'll go into that in

10 a little more detail. So let's see. Why is

11 this not working?

12 FACILITATOR PARKER: Now does it

13 work?

14 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, okay. So

15 before I get started I wanted to review the

16 terminology. There's been a bit of back and

17 forth on these things and I just wanted to be

18 very clear. So we have two sets of terms. We

19 have the term candidate standard levels and

20 efficiency levels. These are -- technically

21 they're the same thing, they're identical in

22 terms of the way they function in the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 139

1 analysis. The name change is decided on to

2 refer to different stages of the rulemaking

3 process. So for the preliminary analysis we

4 were calling them candidate standard levels

5 and for this pre-NOPR phase we're calling them

6 efficiency levels. But we mixed them up

7 because they're basically the same thing. 

8 And these are defined for each

9 individual design line in the analysis. So

10 they're not the aggregate measures, they're

11 defined for each individual design line. And

12 I'm going to try to stick with the term

13 "efficiency levels" from now on. 

14 MR. ROSENFELD: In the documents

15 that we just sent out in the email they're

16 referred to as DTFLs.

17 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, I'll get to

18 that in a moment. So there's two sets of

19 terms, right? The candidate standard levels,

20 efficiency levels are the things that are

21 defined for each design line and then the

22 trial standard levels or TSLs are defined as
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 140

1 a collection of these efficiency levels. And

2 they're defined for -- there's a single trial

3 standard level defined for all the design

4 lines within a product class. So in the case

5 of low-voltage their design lines 6, 7 and 8

6 are all low-voltage dry type transformers. So

7 a TSL is going to comprise a CSL for each one

8 of those products. And this little table at

9 the bottom here gives you a summary of how the

10 different stages of the analysis depend on the

11 definition either of the efficiency level or

12 of the TSL. So the engineering essentially

13 can be done without reference to either one. 

14 The engineering is just an analysis of the

15 cost and efficiency of a cloud of designs for

16 each design line. But once you get to the

17 life cycle cost the results of the life cycle

18 cost will depend on the way the efficiency

19 levels are set. But the life cycle cost

20 doesn't care yet about trial standard levels.

21 Then when you get to the national

22 impacts analysis, the national impacts
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 141

1 analysis need to have a trial standard level

2 defined because they need to aggregate the

3 analysis results for all the different

4 products. So the national impacts does depend

5 on the TSL and then the manufacturing impacts

6 which is where you get into the question of

7 materials, new materials and material

8 availability, they're downstream of everything

9 so they also depend on both the efficiency

10 levels and the trial standard levels. So

11 hopefully this will be a useful reference as

12 we go along.

13 So this is a flow chart that was

14 in the presentation materials from the April

15 public meeting. This just shows the list of

16 inputs to the life cycle cost analysis. So

17 there's quite a lot going on here and all the

18 blue, the blue rectangles at the far left

19 represent the various inputs to the analysis

20 which were reviewed in a lot of detail back in

21 April. So I'm not going to talk too much

22 about those today. And they're also
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 142

1 documented in the TST. And to the extent that

2 we received specific comments on these inputs

3 we have modified them for the analysis that

4 was published in August, for the summary of

5 results published in August. But just on a

6 kind of numerical level most of those

7 modifications have not resulted in a very

8 large change in the output of the analysis.

9 And what I would like to focus on

10 today is just sort of an understanding of how

11 the mechanics of the calculations work. Okay.

12 MR. GORDON: Hi, good afternoon. 

13 I'm Wayne Gordon. I'm from the General

14 Counsel's Office. I'm the legal advisor for

15 the parent committee for this subcommittee

16 that's doing work on these standards. And I'm

17 just going to spend about 10 minutes or less

18 talking with you about ethics rules and ethics

19 responsibilities while you're here in your

20 roles as members of this subcommittee. I see

21 several people that I briefed a couple of

22 weeks ago here in the room. I just wanted to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 143

1 go over for those of you who did not hear this

2 briefing before. 

3 The subcommittee that's dealing

4 with the standards that you've been all

5 brought together to work on and this

6 rulemaking is a matter that is going to be

7 taken up, once you've made your

8 recommendations regarding the various rules

9 it's going to be taken up for a vote by the

10 Energy and Renewables Advisory Committee

11 (ERAC) which is the parent committee for this

12 organization. ERAC has been charged to do a

13 lot of things but one of them is to run this

14 as a subcommittee. As members here you're all

15 in a representative capacity. That means you

16 have a certain interest group that you're

17 supposed to be representing. You are supposed

18 to be able to give your opinions that are

19 going to reflect those various interests and

20 we don't want to dissuade you from being

21 vigorous in terms of those interests. 

22 However, from an ethics perspective you also
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 144

1 have to be aware that the conflict of interest

2 rules that allow you to do that kind of

3 representational interest talking and working

4 on their behalf don't allow you to act on

5 matters and to make discussions or make

6 recommendations that would affect your home

7 personal institution, so your employer. If

8 there's something that comes up in the

9 rulemaking or the regulations that would

10 affect your company specifically and uniquely

11 that's an area where you have to get some

12 guidance from John and he will probably

13 contact either Dan Cohen or myself for advice

14 on whether or not you should participate in

15 that matter. We don't anticipate that that's

16 going to happen because rulemaking as an

17 overarching principle is a matter of general

18 applicability which means it affects

19 everybody. Everybody's going to be, all

20 manufacturers, all producers, all

21 distributors, all of those people that are

22 going to be subject to the rules that you are
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 145

1 recommending that the department promulgate,

2 they're all going to be affected equally. So

3 in that respect we don't expect those issues

4 to arise. But from a process perspective we

5 want to make sure that you're aware that if it

6 gets into that nitty-gritty and it affects

7 your company personally then you really have

8 to step back and get some guidance on whether

9 or not you should continue to participate in

10 that conversation. 

11 Once your recommendations on the

12 regulations are forwarded to the parent

13 committee, the parent committee will vote on

14 those and make those recommendations to the

15 Secretary through ERAC. ERAC, we usually have

16 a representative member who's going to be

17 sitting here and chairing these subcommittee

18 type meetings. I know that Art Rosenfeld was

19 --

20 FACILITATOR PARKER: Art Rosenfeld

21 is on the phone.

22 MR. GORDON: He's on the phone. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 146

1 Okay.

2 MR. ROSENFELD: I'm on.

3 MR. GORDON: Okay, Art. So I just

4 wanted to point out that your role is here as

5 the leader of this because you're part of the

6 parent committee, not necessarily that you've

7 been appointed as a representative for this

8 group.

9 MR. ROSENFELD: All right.

10 MR. GORDON: So that's all I

11 needed to brief you about. If there's ethics

12 issues or questions that you have about

13 conflict of interest issues that come up in

14 the course of doing these regulatory talks and

15 discussions I would encourage you to either

16 talk to John or to Dan if he happens to be

17 here. They can get in touch with me to get

18 guidance and I'd be glad to walk through any

19 issues with you if it happens to arise during

20 the course of your duties here. Thanks very

21 much for participating. Any other issues?

22 FACILITATOR PARKER: Questions,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 147

1 comments?

2 MR. GORDON: Any questions? Okay. 

3 Oh sure, go ahead, sir.

4 MR. CASKEY: John Caskey, NEMA. 

5 And certainly in discussing the different

6 transformer designs there are some points

7 where the cost effectiveness for a particular

8 size of transformer and efficiency is

9 dependent on the types of materials, you know,

10 particularly steels or other materials that

11 are used in that. So there are not a whole,

12 in some cases there are not a whole lot of

13 suppliers, in some cases I think there's only

14 one supplier for that particular product. So

15 how do we deal with that as a discussion in

16 this sort of setting?

17 MR. GORDON: Well, I have not

18 looked at your appointment letter, sir, but I

19 would venture to say that your letter said

20 that you're supposed to represent the

21 interests of all manufacturers and all

22 producers and all suppliers of equipment. So
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 148

1 in that case you have to take what is

2 aggregately the best for your organization,

3 the people that you're representing and say

4 this is the best path forward. However, if

5 you happen to be seen in this position as a

6 representative, you were working for one of

7 those suppliers that was a sole type supplier

8 with that kind of equipment and it came down

9 to the point where, well, we're making the

10 decision whether or not it's going to be

11 broad-based or we're just going to work with

12 this kind of a wire or this kind of metal then

13 in that situation if you know that your

14 employer is -- the only way he's going to get

15 a lot of business is if you vote for his

16 product in that regulation, that's an area

17 where I would say you need to get some

18 guidance from us as to whether or not you

19 should still be involved in that conversation. 

20 But in most situations what we're talking

21 about is, you know, you're representing --

22 here in this room you're representing the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 149

1 interests of thousands of organizations and

2 companies, and in terms -- that's why we

3 brought you in to do this kind of rulemaking

4 work. You really have to look at it from a

5 global perspective, not looking at it from a

6 perspective where my individual employer might

7 be affected.

8 MR. CASKEY: Sure.

9 MR. GORDON: Does that make sense?

10 MR. CASKEY: Yes. 

11 FACILITATOR PARKER: I've got to

12 say it makes less and less sense to me. Maybe

13 I'm just missing something. But in situations

14 where there are a lot of different companies

15 that are competing with each other to sell

16 various product lines they may have different

17 facts much of which are proprietary, different

18 situations, different cost structures. They

19 may be implicated by the rules in different

20 ways. It's famous that rules create winners

21 and losers, you know. How is one company here

22 supposed to know precisely at which point his
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 150

1 or her interests diverge from those of their

2 competitors such that they are speaking only

3 for their company, not for their competitors?

4 MR. GORDON: Well, the way that we

5 do the appointment letters for people usually

6 is that you are here to represent the

7 interests of a class of particular. So

8 although somebody like John may have a home

9 employer some of these organizations, you

10 know, they're made up of and they're peopled

11 by particular organizations, particular

12 companies.

13 FACILITATOR PARKER: Right.

14 MR. GORDON: So in that situation

15 you would say hey, I'm not here as a company

16 representative, I'm here as an organizational

17 representative which has to take into account

18 all of that cloud of people that could be

19 affected.

20 FACILITATOR PARKER: For them

21 though it's fairly straightforward. I think

22 for an individual company which we also have
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 151

1 here it's less straightforward, and we have a

2 particular case here, let's put it on the

3 table, I mean of Metglas and Hitachi which is

4 -- has a very, very substantial market share

5 of amorphous metals. They are the amorphous

6 metal industry in a sense and it's going to be

7 very difficult I think for, you know, to talk

8 about an industry interest as distinct from,

9 you know, Hitachi's interest because it's so

10 much, there's such a great overlap. 

11 MR. GORDON: If it's one and the

12 same then what we count on is the fact that

13 there's a transparency with how this process

14 is going on.

15 FACILITATOR PARKER: Right.

16 MR. GORDON: And the fact that

17 there's an oversight process. And in that

18 respect if you've got a particular company

19 that's such a dominant industry in a

20 particular area that's going to be discussed

21 I think everybody knows that when we're

22 dealing with these things as a matter of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 152

1 general applicability everybody is going to be

2 affected by these rules. There's another

3 thing in terms of rulemaking which is the guy

4 who comes late to the table deals with the

5 table that's been dealt to him. So from that

6 perspective. And I don't see a conflict of

7 interest issue that comes up with that. 

8 That's, I think that's inherent in the

9 process.

10 FACILITATOR PARKER: So what I'm

11 hearing then is that the key is disclosure and

12 transparency. 

13 MR. GORDON: Absolutely.

14 FACILITATOR PARKER: As long as

15 people understand, you know, where people are

16 coming from, as long as we all are aware and

17 I think everybody here is more aware than I am

18 of the industry structure then there's not an

19 ethical issue per se.

20 MR. GORDON: Correct.

21 MR. MILLURE: Excuse me, Dave

22 Millure, Metglas.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 153

1 FACILITATOR PARKER: Excuse me,

2 David?

3 MR. MILLURE: Just for the record

4 we didn't get individual customized

5 appointment letters. 

6 MR. GORDON: You did not?

7 MR. MILLURE: No. So when you

8 talk about that our interest groups that we

9 were to be representing are defined in those

10 that never happened.

11 MR. GORDON: You don't have --

12 okay. Well then I will have to deal with Dan

13 and see what your appointment letters look

14 like. Did you guys have appointment letters? 

15 You just got invited to the table. Okay. 

16 MR. CASKEY: This is John Caskey

17 from NEMA. I would say it was opened up for

18 different organizations to nominate people to

19 serve on this committee and then we got a

20 validation or a verification that we were

21 selected to be on the committee. But I don't

22 remember getting an appointment letter per se.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 154

1 MR. GORDON: And that's through

2 that Federal Register process that went a

3 couple of months back.

4 MR. CASKEY: Right.

5 MR. GORDON: Okay. From that

6 perspective in terms of the selection and

7 putting you guys all here in the room it's

8 because that is the negotiated rulemaking part

9 of the procedure. I'm just dealing with the

10 FACA side of the house and the FACA issues say

11 that if you're dealing with a matter of

12 general applicability the people that are in

13 the room are here representing not sole

14 organization interests but they're

15 representing a class of interests that could

16 be affected by the rules that they're doing. 

17 And what we've tried to do is include the big

18 players, the people that we know are going to

19 have influence so that when the rulemaking

20 actually goes out on the street it's got a

21 measure of support that reflects reality and

22 it reflects, you know, what the state of the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 155

1 current industry is, what the likelihood for

2 technological advancement in the future is

3 going to be and it makes sense from a taxpayer

4 perspective. So to the extent that you didn't

5 get independent representational letters

6 that's what those usually say. And I don't

7 think there's anything different in terms of

8 the nature of the work that you're going to do

9 that doesn't say you're not just here for

10 Hitachi, you are here to represent players

11 like Hitachi and other companies that do that

12 kind of work. And in that respect that's why

13 this room has been put together like this. 

14 I'll talk to Dan about notifications and how

15 people got put on.

16 FACILITATOR PARKER: Maybe because

17 there's a statutory framework for negotiated

18 rulemaking which may not exactly correspond to

19 the ordinary FACA process although this is

20 subject to FACA rules by statute.

21 MR. GORDON: Absolutely.

22 FACILITATOR PARKER: I'm not sure
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 156

1 whether that includes a requirement for

2 appointment letters or not. 

3 MR. GORDON: And it may not

4 require letters but when I'm talking about

5 representational -- when I'm talking about

6 people being representatives that's the FACA

7 side that says, you know, you're here in a

8 matter of general applicability. All the

9 rules are going to be applicable to all

10 players equitably. And where we only worry

11 about is where it's going to -- where the

12 rules that are going to be negotiated and

13 recommended, you know, this is a

14 recommendation process up through the

15 department. All of those things, we just want

16 to be in a situation where from a transparency

17 perspective it doesn't look like backroom

18 wheeling and dealing is done that's going to

19 benefit one particular company over another. 

20 And that's realistically, that's our end goal

21 is for -- to have that broad-based look at the

22 matters that you guys are going to be dealing
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 157

1 with, have the transparency, have the ability

2 to say yes, this was a fair and open process,

3 and that's where we're looking at. Then it

4 goes into the FACA process and it comes back

5 to the department and we put that out on the

6 street. Any other issues that came up John?

7 MR. CASKEY: Well, sort of a

8 little bit related to that but this is John

9 Caskey at NEMA again. And the idea is one of

10 the things that we're pushing for is a

11 sensitivity analysis because as you do have a

12 limited number of suppliers in some areas then

13 doing a sensitivity analysis on the price that

14 we're projecting at this point to say oh my

15 gosh, what happens if it doubles or triples or

16 something like that as long as we do that

17 sensitivity analysis at the conclusion of this

18 then that'll help us sort of validate whether

19 those recommendations are in the right

20 ballpark or not or whether they're critically

21 dependent on the particular price of, you

22 know, one commodity in the whole analysis. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 158

1 FACILITATOR PARKER: I think

2 that's a good point and I'm certain that will

3 be done. But one thing this raises is not

4 only the legal and ethical issues but the sort

5 of political with a small "P" implications

6 which is that you know this group is here to

7 generate a proposed rule which will then have

8 to sell itself to the world at large. I mean,

9 the media will look at it, OMB will look at

10 it, Congress will look at it, the courts will

11 look at it. None of those people will give

12 the rule any greater deference by virtue of

13 the fact that this group came up with it. And

14 what's perhaps most important the rest of the

15 industry will look at this. And I'm keenly

16 aware from just the interviews I've had so far

17 that the low-voltage manufacturing market is

18 a little more fragmented, a little more

19 dispersed, more moms and pops operations than

20 the medium and liquid-immersed. And that

21 presents some real, you know, challenges for

22 us in this group I think. I did reach out to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 159

1 some of the smaller folks. You know, people

2 just don't have time to come to these

3 meetings, are not aware of the process. It

4 may be that we should think about how to bring

5 some other representatives here even if

6 they're not on the committee and can't come to

7 all the meetings to at least review results

8 and comment on them. If there are particular

9 market segments within the low-voltage that --

10 where manufacturers are occupying a niche and

11 might be affected. I don't know how to get a

12 handle on that apart from, you know, people

13 who are expert at Navigant and elsewhere just

14 calling that to our attention. But I think we

15 need to be alert to that as a group so that

16 when we get our product we worked hard to

17 produce, at the end of the day product we

18 don't put out there and then have a whole

19 chorus of boos coming at us from people who

20 were, from companies who were not consulted,

21 did not participate. Whether or not they had

22 the opportunity to, they didn't. This group
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 160

1 is a lot smaller, there are empty seats at the

2 table reflecting the fact that you know there

3 are fewer big players here. So I think you

4 know we need to think about and perhaps even

5 reserve time today, probably some time today

6 to talk about that issue, whether there should

7 be a proactive outreach to some of these other

8 manufacturers to try to bring them in and give

9 them a chance to articulate their own

10 interests to the extent they might diverge

11 from, or complement or somehow differ from

12 those around the table. Does that make sense

13 to people? Any thoughts, comments on that

14 idea? It is a really important issue and it's

15 -- but I'm also just keenly aware that it's

16 very hard for one competitor to really, you

17 know, both because of the limitations of

18 proprietary data that competitors don't show

19 to each other. It's hard even if we wanted to

20 be completely ethical and completely noble we

21 should really put ourselves in the shoes of

22 our competitors and think how they would be
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 161

1 impacted. And so there's no substitute for

2 having more people around the table and that

3 would have been ideal. But there are various

4 ways that we might be able to compensate for

5 that. John?

6 MR. CASKEY: Yes, John Caskey from

7 NEMA. Yes, given that some of the small

8 companies weren't able to be here for a

9 consistent four or five sessions one option

10 might be to, if there are certain issues that

11 the committee has to ask that sort of pool of

12 manufacturers would be to dedicate, you know,

13 here's a 2-hour session on a particular day on

14 session 3 or 4 or something to discuss some of

15 those issues that might be different for a

16 small manufacturer than a big manufacturer and

17 get them to that one session or that one day

18 might be more practical as opposed to trying

19 to get him for two days for, you know, five

20 sessions in a row or something like that.

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: And NEMA is

22 very well positioned to do that. So perhaps
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 162

1 you could, you know, poll your membership and

2 let us know if there would be interest. Would

3 that make sense? 

4 MR. CASKEY: We'd be happy to do

5 that. The other way is to see if this

6 committee comes up with a list of you know,

7 like issues, five or ten issues that they

8 think the small manufacturer should weigh in

9 on and then we can make sure that they provide

10 responses or participate in a teleconference

11 or maybe even attend personally on that

12 particular day that you want to discuss those

13 issues.

14 FACILITATOR PARKER: Great.

15 MR. GORDON: There was one more

16 question from the -- you're all set, sir?

17 FACILITATOR PARKER: All set.

18 MR. GORDON: Okay. Well, thanks

19 very much for your time.

20 FACILITATOR PARKER: Thank you

21 very much for sharing with us. Appreciate it. 

22 Okay. I thought that was helpful. Katie,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 163

1 apologies for the interruption. Come on back.

2 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay, so the idea

3 here is to go through the LCC in a kind of --

4 to understand the mechanics of the calculation

5 and where the different assumptions come in. 

6 So this is an outline which I assume you've

7 all had time to read. This sort of gives you

8 the way the LCC proceeds. So we have in each

9 LCC spreadsheet, so there's one from each

10 design line. We go through a loop of 10,000

11 what I call transformer installations. The

12 installation is a combination of an owner and

13 it's certain characteristics attached to the

14 owner and the installation, and then

15 characteristics -- those characteristics don't

16 change when we go through different efficiency

17 level calculations. Then there are similar

18 characteristics in the LCC that attach to the

19 transformer. 

20 And so within the LCC the basic

21 steps are we have a sample -- for the dry type

22 transformers the owners are assumed to be
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 164

1 commercial and industrial buildings. So we

2 have a sample of building data which includes

3 monthly energy and baseline energy use and

4 marginal prices for electricity. So we pick

5 an owner from the sample based on weight. The

6 weight is intended to reflect the likelihood

7 that a building of that type will contain a

8 transformer under consideration. We calculate

9 with sort of statistical models that we've

10 presented in detail in April that we use to

11 calculate load simulation parameters. Then

12 you choose a transformer design. This is

13 where the efficiency level comes in. So the -

14 - and then once you've chosen a transformer

15 you calculate the total installed cost. This

16 is where any constraints on the installation

17 would enter. They're not so relevant for low18 voltage but they are relevant for the liquid19 immersed. And once that's done you get the

20 full LCC.

21 So the --

22 FACILITATOR PARKER: You randomly
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 165

1 select an owner from the sample?

2 MS. COUGHLIN: From the

3 population, yes.

4 FACILITATOR PARKER: The

5 populations. So it's not based upon the

6 frequency of that particular.

7 MS. COUGHLIN: It has a weight. 

8 Each potential owner has a weight associated

9 with it. 

10 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay.

11 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal

12 Pacific. When you say choose a transformer

13 designs chosen, what's the criteria for that? 

14 Is it based on the least operating cost for

15 the -- is it sort of random or does it just

16 depend on some other factors?

17 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, that's where

18 we get into this issue of A and B parameters. 

19 So in the medium-voltage and liquid-immersed

20 we do really assume a high level of evaluation

21 and then the installation would have

22 associated with it an A and B value. We do
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 166

1 that for the low-voltage as well and we can --

2 we do sort of A and B values based on the

3 prices following this procedure outlined in

4 the IEEE proposed standard. But in fact what

5 we have been told is that for the low-voltage

6 dry very few people evaluate. So we have

7 essentially --

8 MR. GREESON: That's correct. 

9 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. So we have it

10 in the LCC. I think we're running right now

11 with 2 percent just to make sure that the

12 mechanics work but that's one of those

13 parameters that you can set is a sensitivity. 

14 So this is essentially minimum cost.

15 MR. GREESON: So is it correct to

16 say then that they pick the least, lowest

17 first cost?

18 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, pretty much. 

19 I'll actually show a graphic on that in a

20 moment.

21 MR. GREESON: So out of the, say,

22 a hundred designs that may meet 98.6 percent
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 167

1 efficient for example, the program would focus

2 in on the lowest cost design in that grouping

3 of A/Bs.

4 MS. COUGHLIN: Right.

5 MR. GREESON: Okay, thank you. 

6 MS. COUGHLIN: Are you -- do you

7 want to take questions or do you want me to do

8 it?

9 FACILITATOR PARKER: Go ahead.

10 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. Yes.

11 MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman

12 Economics. Katie, I'm a little confused at

13 this point on the low-voltage market what an

14 owner is. Is this somebody who is using the

15 transformer, somebody who selects the

16 transformer? 

17 MS. COUGHLIN: The purchaser and

18 the one who pays for the electricity.

19 MR. BERMAN: The purchaser and the

20 one who pays for the electricity. So it's not

21 the building owner, it's not the one who

22 builds the building necessarily. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 168

1 FACILITATOR PARKER: Those are two

2 different people.

3 MS. COUGHLIN: For the purposes of

4 this analysis a transformer is attached to a

5 building and it's considered that the features

6 of the building are -- can be conveyed to the

7 transformer. 

8 MR. BERMAN: Okay, so the

9 transformer is -- this is a very different

10 world from the liquid --

11 MS. COUGHLIN: That's right.

12 MR. BERMAN: -- and medium-voltage

13 type. So the transformer is used by the

14 building, not by the function going on in the

15 building. 

16 MS. COUGHLIN: Well, yes. I mean

17 you know, that level of detail is not in the

18 analysis. You may have some transformers on

19 certain types of circuits that serve different

20 types of loads but we don't have that level of

21 detail in the analysis.

22 MR. BERMAN: So I don't know the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 169

1 difference say between an office building, a

2 hospital, a school or a data center.

3 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, we know the

4 difference between those types of buildings. 

5 What we don't -- but the function within the

6 building I thought you were referring to end

7 uses.

8 MR. BERMAN: That's what I mean. 

9 If the building is being used as a data

10 center, as a hospital, as an office complex --

11 MS. COUGHLIN: That's accounted

12 for.

13 MR. BERMAN: That's accounted for. 

14 And do we have buildings that change uses?

15 MS. COUGHLIN: Not in the

16 analysis, no. 

17 MR. BERMAN: Okay. But the

18 loading then would represent sort of a

19 weighted average of the different possible

20 uses that might be in that building?

21 MS. COUGHLIN: No, each building

22 has one building use. If we're using the data
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 170

1 sets that were prepared by EIA Commercial

2 Building Electricity Consumption Survey so you

3 have a -- each building has an end use in the

4 year when the data was collected, or a

5 building use in the year where the data was

6 collected and that stays the same.

7 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay.

8 MR. TENDULKAR: When we do the

9 analysis we are assuming the life of the

10 transformer is what 30 years, 40 years?

11 MS. COUGHLIN: This, I believe

12 we're assuming here a 30-year mean lifetime

13 with a very wide distribution. 

14 MR. TENDULKAR: And if the

15 transformer is used less than 30 years, maybe

16 say 10 years because of the particular

17 application then this analysis may not be

18 valid. The point I'm trying to make here is

19 there are some data centers now that people

20 are putting inside the containers. They are

21 not building in the buildings. And the

22 transformer irrespective where it is going,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 171

1 low-voltage general purpose transformer,

2 that's what we class, will be used there and

3 that is going for a data center. Once the

4 data center is done it's like because servers

5 are out of date, the computers out of date,

6 they trash the whole thing. The transformer

7 is gone and everything is gone. So how do we

8 account for that because again those

9 transformers are not yielding a partial load. 

10 They'll always use a hundred percent load,

11 what the load level is, that doesn't change.

12 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. We don't --

13 we haven't received detailed data on that type

14 of thing. It can be accounted for because

15 there is a distribution of lifetimes and there

16 is -- it's technically not difficult to

17 associate building type with a weight and some

18 particular characteristics with the load. But

19 the data requirements to do that are fairly

20 strict so it's a question of whether we can

21 actually find enough reliable data to

22 implement it. So right now we don't have
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 172

1 detailed data at that -- on the relationship

2 between building type and transformer

3 lifetime. But if we need to acquire such data

4 we could use it to deal with this type of

5 issue.

6 MR. TENDULKAR: Yes, that's what

7 my point is. Is there anybody of us can help

8 you on that or something we should do. That's

9 why I'm asking.

10 MS. COUGHLIN: If you can do it we

11 would certainly use it, yes.

12 MR. TENDULKAR: I'll see what I

13 can do.

14 FACILITATOR PARKER: Steve, did

15 you have a question?

16 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I think someone

17 at the table had a question first I believe. 

18 We --

19 FACILITATOR PARKER: Steve

20 Rosenstock.

21 MR. ROSENSTOCK: -- we provided

22 some comments in April about the use in
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 173

1 certain commercial buildings where the dry

2 type transformer is basically serving I'll say

3 computers, office equipment, typically low4 voltage equipment versus, you know, the high5 voltage equipment. The heating and cooling

6 and ventilation is typically on the 480 volt

7 or 277 volt. So those dry type transformers

8 are already serving I'll say low-voltage, I'll

9 say almost, I won't say base load, but could

10 be considered base load. Were you able to

11 incorporate some of that or was there data

12 available to kind of show the type of

13 equipment basically being served by the dry

14 type transformers for your analysis? I mean,

15 mine was just anecdotal to say based on --

16 MS. COUGHLIN: The short answer is

17 no. We can go into the details but there's

18 essentially, again, what we need for this

19 analysis is we need two things. One is a way

20 to weight the faction of transformers that

21 might be subject to that type of special

22 loading and another is a sort of, a way to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 174

1 translate. We have a fairly broad

2 distribution of statistical load factors so

3 there's a particular subset of those that

4 should be associated with the building type. 

5 That's the other thing that we need to know. 

6 So we don't -- I mean, it may be possible to

7 come up with a model for that part but we

8 still need to know what fraction of

9 transformers we should be assigning to this

10 particular subset of the end use loads. And

11 that, again, I mean if that information can be

12 provided we can look at how to incorporate it

13 but we don't have a source for that at the

14 moment.

15 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock,

16 EEI, again. I think for certain building

17 types again it all depends on the weighting,

18 especially office buildings and schools and

19 probably a lot of retail establishments. Dry

20 type transformers are going to be used for

21 I'll say, the end uses I'll say the low22 voltage non -- I'll say less fluctuating non
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 175

1 heating or cooling ventilation type stuff. I

2 believe there should be some data out there I

3 would -- I would say it's a significant

4 fraction in those. Of course data center is

5 a totally different story obviously. You

6 know, but in terms of a lot of I'll say more

7 traditional type of commercial buildings I

8 think it should be either data or modeled such

9 that you know the actual end use loads are the

10 low-voltage equipment and typically there

11 should be data available. I'm sorry no one

12 from BOMA is here that, I'm sure there's an

13 end use trade association that could probably

14 hopefully give you some good feedback in that

15 regard. Thank you.

16 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. Okay, so

17 this is just a summary of --

18 FACILITATOR PARKER: Let me just

19 say that BOMA was not only invited but

20 exhorted to attend and they decided that it

21 was not worth their time to attend. But we --

22 if there is interest they did agree that they
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 176

1 might be willing to send somebody to a meeting

2 to give us a report at an individual meeting. 

3 So that's another thing that we could work on

4 if there's interest around the table in

5 setting that up.

6 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay, so this just

7 summarizes those features that are associated

8 either with the transformer itself in which

9 case they do change when they change

10 efficiency levels versus those that are

11 associated with the installation. And the

12 features that are associated with the

13 installation do not depend then obviously on

14 the engineering data. So it's somewhat easier

15 to do sensitivities on the set of

16 characteristics on the right-hand side if that

17 would be of interest. 

18 So I think most of these are

19 familiar. We have the buildings are divided

20 commercial/industrial. There's a population

21 weight. Along with the building data comes

22 the geographic location which is going to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 177

1 affect the seasonal variation in loads. 

2 There's also seasonal margin of prices for

3 electricity, both electricity consumption and

4 electricity demand. A flag for evaluators

5 which in this case is mostly no. There's

6 discount rates. The building electricity use

7 data from CBECS is translated into monthly

8 values for the loss factor and the peak

9 responsibility factor which are used to

10 estimate the cost of serving the losses. 

11 There's a peak load factor which is

12 essentially a sizing parameter. It tells you

13 -- so the load shape gives you the

14 relationship between average loads and peak

15 loads and then the sizing factor gives you a

16 relationship between the peak load and the

17 capacity of the transformer. So under the

18 current set of parameters we have been told

19 that these transformers tend to be oversized

20 so the peak loads tend to be about 80-90

21 percent of the capacity. And then there's

22 lifetime which is a distribution. And then if
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 178

1 there are any installation constraints as I

2 mentioned they're not so relevant for this

3 product class. They would be included in the

4 LCC this way. Yes?

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Hi, Steve

6 Rosenstock, EEI again. Again, I think that's

7 the issue.

8 When you look at the monthly loss

9 factor and peak responsibility factor,

10 equipment served by the dry-type transformers

11 isn't really responsible for building peak.

12 I mean, at the building loads and

13 the building things, but the transformers are

14 only serving a subset of that equipment. So,

15 the actual loading of the equipment served by

16 the transformer is going to be a subset of

17 those factors.

18 And that could make a big

19 difference especially when you're talking

20 about peak responsibility, which is driven by

21 the heating or cooling equipment. It's not

22 driven by the equipment typically served by
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 179

1 the dry-type transformers in traditional

2 buildings.

3 MS. COUGHLIN: Right.

4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: That could have a

5 huge impact in the LCC.

6 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, I mean, we're

7 pretty conservative. Actually, our peak load

8 factors tend to be very small - the

9 responsibility factors tend to be very small.

10 So, let's see. Let's move on. 

11 So, I want to be very clear that within the

12 LCC we don't assume that the test procedure

13 loads are attached to each building. The

14 building loads are, again, they're cranked out

15 with the statistical model.

16 And another point that I want to

17 be clear on is that the efficiency level gives

18 you a single number for the efficiency of the

19 equipment, but you still have two parameters

20 to play with; the no-load loss and the load

21 loss. So, it's the whole range of possible

22 designs that can meet a single efficiency.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 180

1 Let's see. Most of this is - and

2 then within this version of the LCC we have -

3 again, we're assuming that the owner of the

4 transformer is billed for electricity on a

5 monthly bill. So, we're using these monthly

6 electricity prices.

7 Let's see. Okay. So, this is the

8 - I'm going to present several figures. These

9 are for Design Line 7, which I believe is the

10 largest market share of all the dry-types that

11 are modeled.

12 So, this is the cost-efficiency

13 data produced by the engineering analysis. 

14 This is the updated data that was, I guess, so

15 the results published in August used this

16 engineering data.

17 The different colors represent

18 different combinations of core materials and

19 design options.

20 One thing that's interesting with

21 this product line if this works, which it

22 doesn't - let's see. There we go. So, you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 181

1 can see that there is a large number of

2 designs on the sort of lowest efficiency or

3 low-cost band.

4 So, what that ends up meaning in

5 practice is that you don't necessarily see a

6 lot of variation in the LCC going from one CSL

7 to another. So, this is the - the old labels,

8 unfortunately, are on this chart. They should

9 now say efficiency level.

10 So, what happens in the LCC is

11 this cutoff is imposed at each efficiency

12 level. So, the base case, this cutoff here

13 just allows all the designs to be selected

14 from during the LCC.

15 And then the first efficiency

16 level is here. So, only the designs that are

17 to the right are going to be selected. And

18 you essentially go on up until you reach an

19 efficiency level for which essentially there

20 are two designs in the engineering space.

21 And another thing I'd like to

22 mention, and this is just to give you some
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 182

1 additional background on the OPS work. What

2 we have done with - the decision was made

3 quite a long time ago that we wanted to model

4 a very wide range of evaluations of the load

5 losses and no-load losses.

6 So, the way this was set up is

7 there is a grid of A and B values which are

8 given to OPS. And then they calculate the

9 optimal design for each A/B value. So, each

10 one of these points represents a different A

11 and B value. And OPS has to calculate all the

12 designs consistently using the same materials

13 prices.

14 So, this is a very large amount of

15 work that they have to do in one batch. And

16 since it's an optimization algorithm, it's not

17 hard to believe that some shift in materials

18 prices might lead to a different optimal

19 design being chosen at each point. And that

20 may have some affect on the discrepancies that

21 people are seeming to find between the OPS

22 output and the stuff that you guys do.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 183

1 So, there is a lot of, you know,

2 just because of the requirement that OPS

3 generate a very large number of optimized

4 designs at one time using consistent materials

5 prices, again there's a limit to how much we

6 can do to investigate the sensitivity of this

7 part of the analysis to changes in materials

8 prices.

9 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal

10 Pacific.

11 The problem that I ran into - and

12 you're exactly right about the A/B. It gives

13 you a wide range of prices for the different

14 A/B values, which would correspond to a

15 greater benefit to the customer, given that

16 particular load profile that he has.

17 But when I discovered some of the

18 discrepancies that I had been looking at, I

19 focused on the low cost - low first cost.

20 So, in other words, I filtered all

21 the 98.6 percent efficiency transformers that

22 use the same steel, SAN4, aluminum and miter,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 184

1 filtered all those out and I got maybe fifty

2 to a hundred of them. And then there would be

3 a minimum and an average and a maximum because

4 of all the A/B factors.

5 And typically the industry, or at

6 least the way we design our transformers,

7 we're typically driving at lowest first cost

8 to get the job. And those were the designs

9 that I focused on specifically. And that's

10 where I was kind of finding these issues.

11 MS. COUGHLIN: But even then

12 there's still an optimization that gives you

13 that very lowest, lowest cost point.

14 MR. GREESON: Exactly.

15 MS. COUGHLIN: So, that may be the

16 -

17 MR. GREESON: There is, but I guess

18 the bottom line is we can't attribute the

19 variation in the OPS design solely to that.

20 It might be some of that, but

21 because I'm aware of that characteristic, I

22 actually filtered those designs out to try to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 185

1 keep away from accidentally picking a high or

2 a low-cost design. I try to stay apples to

3 apples, in other words.

4 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay.

5 MR. GREESON: Thank you.

6 MR. MILLURE: This is Dave Millure,

7 Metglas.

8 It looks for all the world like

9 there's a lot of low-hanging fruit there. You

10 can go to CSL3 for no additional cost to the

11 transformer.

12 Rob, I think you were just saying

13 that your modeling showed something different

14 than that because it looks like 0.6 percent

15 efficiency for no extra cost.

16 MR. GREESON: My first pass numbers

17 which, you know, I was seeing somewhere

18 between 60 and 70 percent higher pricing

19 levels than what was given in the engineering

20 analysis data, which would be on the -

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: At what level

22 were you seeing that?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 186

1 MS. COUGHLIN: Well, it doesn't

2 matter. He's just talking about the cheapest

3 points along there.

4 MR. GREESON: I looked at

5 specifically, I think, CSL1 and maybe 3,

6 because I had to focus on a design that I

7 actually had access to that I had done that

8 was similar to one that they had done.

9 And depending on the CSLs,

10 sometimes you couldn't find the material mix

11 that I was - I was trying to keep it the same

12 material so that I wouldn't be comparing an M6

13 to an M3, for example.

14 MR. DeLASKI: So, Rob, in your

15 calculation, was it a 60 or 70 percent

16 increase that you're seeing at both CSL1 and

17 CSL3 for those two that you looked at?

18 MR. GREESON: It was between 60 and

19 70 percent between CSL0, which is the present

20 level, and up to two. And then when I got to

21 three, it just skyrocketed to like 167

22 percent. It just went - instead of being a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 187

1 flat curve, it kind of went up exponentially

2 and departed from the DOE and OPS data.

3 And those are the types of things

4 we're trying to resolve. I'm not a hundred

5 percent saying that maybe there's something we

6 did, but -

7 FACILITATOR PARKER: Well, that's

8 what the -

9 MR. GREESON: That's the kind of

10 thing we - there's enough difference there

11 that there's definitely some -

12 MR. DeLASKI: Right. So, you and

13 Navigant need to talk or you and -

14 MR. GREESON: Yes.

15 FACILITATOR PARKER: Well, that's

16 with the working group that we set up this

17 morning.

18 MR. DeLASKI: I had a follow-on

19 question for Katie.

20 So, I'm looking and I'm seeing a

21 cloud of dots. And this is input to the LCC. 

22 So, if we look at CSL2, for example, how do
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 188

1 you come up with the range of prices for that

2 CSL2 transformer?

3 Between the CSL2 dotted line and

4 the CSL3 dotted line, there's a whole cloud of

5 transformers that would be compliant meeting

6 CSL2, but not meeting CSL3.

7 So, how do you turn that cloud

8 into a purchase price? Because that price

9 varies between - go back a slide for a moment,

10 please.

11 It's varying between, in this

12 example, something like $700 up to $5500.

13 MS. COUGHLIN: Right.

14 MR. DeLASKI: So, what's the

15 purchase price?

16 MS. COUGHLIN: The purchase price -

17 well, this is where the selection algorithm

18 comes in.

19 So, again, because most of those

20 designs with the higher prices correspond to

21 higher A/B values when you were doing a

22 simulation where no one evaluates, they don't
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 189

1 actually enter into the calculation at all.

2 So, this next slide gives you a

3 picture of what's actually selected when you

4 run the calculation.

5 And so, again, this is a

6 simulation where a nominal number of 

7 evaluators - I think two percent. There's

8 essentially no evaluators. Those green dots

9 are the base case, but we add a little bit of

10 random noise to the price at each selection

11 point so that you're not always picking the

12 one design that happens to be the cheapest in

13 the LPS software.

14 So, what you can see is that in

15 the base case because of this flatness of the

16 bottom of the curve, you're actually picking

17 all the way across these efficiencies. So,

18 once you pick one of these, you have the

19 price.

20 And then in this illustration, we

21 are illustrating the selection when you impose

22 CSL5. So, now the selection of dots is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 190

1 limited to things which are - complied with

2 the standard and are close to the lowest cost.

3 And I think this graph is

4 displaying differently on the screen than it

5 does in my computer.

6 MR. DeLASKI: I can't read what the

7 legend is up there.

8 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. The green

9 circles are the base case selections. And the

10 red circles are the CSL selections. But, in

11 fact, the - on my computer, these circles were

12 green. I don't know why this thing is coming

13 up this way.

14 So, when you impose the standard

15 level, you're eliminating all these guys from

16 the possible choices. So, you still pick

17 along the lowest curve, but you're now

18 restricted to a much smaller set of possible

19 designs.

20 MR. PATZNER: Katie.

21 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes.

22 MR. PATZNER: Thomas Patzner,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 191

1 Schneider Electric.

2 Based on your comment on the early

3 adapters due in A and B, I think we need to

4 reevaluate as an industry the percentage we're

5 using, because there's a - I'm one of the

6 people that helped you with that current

7 percentage and argued for it.

8 But now that I am sitting here

9 listening, I believe there's a larger number

10 of people specifying lower winding losses by

11 calling for 80 degrees and 115.

12 So, they're asking the

13 manufacturers - they're not buying them for

14 efficiencies. They're buying them for lower

15 BTUs at higher loads.

16 So, when we looked at the early

17 adapters, we commented on how many were buying

18 it for more efficiencies, but there actually

19 are a larger number of customers buying the

20 product, but they're not doing it for

21 efficiencies, they're doing it to lower their

22 air conditioning costs.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 192

1 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay.

2 MR. DeLASKI: So, they're lowering

3 their I squared R losses so that they can size

4 their air conditioning differently.

5 So, they would be considered -

6 MS. COUGHLIN: Right, that would

7 affect the product choice, yes. I mean,

8 again, these things are - we have built the

9 spreadsheets to make it easy to adjust this

10 type of thing. So, again, we just need some

11 kind of mathematically clear rule for making

12 that choice within the model.

13 MR. PATZNER: Tom Patzner from

14 Schneider Electric.

15 I will pull some numbers on our

16 115 and 80 to try to recalculate what I

17 believe people that spec A and B losses are

18 with the fact that I understand now that when

19 -- people are specifically asking for low

20 temperature rise to lower their I squared R

21 losses. That's the reason they buy it from

22 us.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 193

1 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay.

2 MR. TENDULKAR: For some people who

3 don't understand what the gentleman is saying

4 is, whenever they want to reduce the I squared

5 R loss, you have to increase the size of the

6 winding. That also means you have to increase

7 the size of the quota to get the bigger

8 winding.

9 And that means you have to use the

10 lower flux density at a much better steel

11 conducting. So, your cost goes up.

12 The people are paying extra for

13 these transformers, but they're also reducing

14 their cost of air condition and saving the

15 money and energy on the air conditioning so

16 that it's - you can look at the -

17 FACILITATOR PARKER: Because

18 they're generating less heat.

19 MR. TENDULKAR: Yes. If you get a

20 higher efficiency at the lower load, that also

21 can translate into the lower efficiency at the

22 higher loads. You know what I'm saying?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 194

1 Because if I want to get - let me

2 put in a different way. If I want to reduce

3 the size of the core, that means I have to put

4 more winding to get the same kVA.

5 More winding is more losses in the

6 winding. And the winding losses go with the

7 square of the load.

8 So, if you are ten percent load,

9 it's only about one percent of the losses in

10 the winding. But if a hundred percent load,

11 a hundred percent losses in the winding.

12 And for general rule of thumb,

13 maybe it is not correct, but for every one

14 watt increase in the core loss, you can reduce

15 about three to four watts in the winding at a

16 full load.

17 So, if you take that kind of

18 thing, I'm just telling it to people who do

19 not design the transformer, so not

20 understanding of the transformer.

21 But people who do all the

22 transformers, I don't have to explain it
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 195

1 anymore. Thank you.

2 MR. DeLASKI: I have a follow-on

3 question. Andy deLaski again.

4 I'm having - maybe this is just an

5 anomaly in this picture or graph, but I'm

6 having trouble squaring what you just told me

7 are base case transformers.

8 Okay, you said all the green dots

9 are base case transformers.

10 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes.

11 MR. DeLASKI: With earlier

12 statements from the manufacturers that people

13 spec TP1 transformers. So, what I'm having

14 trouble squaring is that so that I would

15 expect that a base case transformer would be

16 up against CSL0 TP1 and that those will all be

17 based - there is not a distribution of

18 efficiency being sold, what I thought I was

19 hearing from Tom and those earlier. But that

20 would not characterize what the market is

21 doing in reality. Those are not all base -

22 what people are buying in their base case.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 196

1 MS. COUGHLIN: That may be, yes. 

2 Again, this is sort of the engineering input

3 that we received. And these designs are -

4 again, the LCC doesn't really reflect market

5 share directly.

6 What we try to do in the LCC is

7 reflect a lot of different design options and

8 see, you know, that have equivalent costs.

9 MR. DeLASKI: But you see where I'm

10 driving.

11 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes.

12 MR. DeLASKI: Where I'm driving is

13 that it would affect the NIA, right? If we're

14 assigning a distribution of efficiencies in

15 the base case -

16 MS. COUGHLIN: That's correct.

17 MR. DeLASKI: -- that would -

18 MS. COUGHLIN: And it -

19 MR. DeLASKI: We're underestimating

20 the impact of change.

21 MS. COUGHLIN: That's right.

22 MR. DeLASKI: And if that's
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 197

1 happening or not happening, am I -

2 MS. COUGHLIN: Well, that's

3 something, you know, again if the engineering

4 data - I mean, the only thing that's going to

5 change the LCC is if this stops being flat,

6 basically. And I don't know, once we sort out

7 these problems, it sounds like there are some

8 underestimates in those numbers.

9 So, I think in the process of

10 sorting out that problem, we can also address

11 this one.

12 MR. DeLASKI: Okay. Thanks.

13 MR. CASKEY: Katie, John Caskey,

14 NEMA.

15 Can you go back one slide?

16 MS. COUGHLIN: Sure.

17 MR. CASKEY: Okay. So, since this

18 is so flat, I mean, I can't see very clearly

19 from here, but it looks like somewhere around

20 $2,000.

21 So, for this 75 kVA single-phase

22 transformer, basically I can get that for
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 198

1 roughly $2,000 all the way from the CSL0 all

2 the way up to like the CSL4, basically, for

3 the same price.

4 So, is that the conclusion from

5 this? Even though the actual purchase might

6 be a different design in terms of mixtures of

7 metals, basically the bottom line is if I'm

8 going to buy it, I can get -

9 MS. COUGHLIN: CSL3, I would say,

10 the NEMA premium is -

11 MR. CASKEY: Well, there's a lot of

12 those light blue as CSL4.

13 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes.

14 MR. DeLASKI: I think those are the

15 wound cores. Aren't those the wound cores -

16 I'm sorry. The symmetrical cores. The ones

17 that we thought we screened out.

18 Are those -

19 MS. COUGHLIN: There's no modeling

20 software for symmetric cores. So, those

21 designs are not included.

22 MR. DeLASKI: Those are not showing
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 199

1 up on here, okay.

2 MS. COUGHLIN: I mean, they're

3 close. They're close.

4 MR. CASKEY: Okay. So, basically

5 it's true that according to this analysis that

6 the cost for additional efficiency, as

7 somebody else stated, is essentially the delta

8 is zero or close to zero all the way up until

9 you get to the CSL4 category.

10 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, yes. And if

11 that's not true, let me know.

12 MR. CASKEY: Well, I mean, as I

13 understood it, Navigant, and I'm not sure

14 about LBL, spent time with the manufacturers,

15 at least three or four of them, to try and get

16 an understanding of what their prices were for

17 various types of transformers and various

18 efficiencies.

19 MS. COUGHLIN: That's right.

20 MR. CASKEY: So, do these data

21 points here validate what the manufacturers

22 have said, or vice-versa?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 200

1 MS. COUGHLIN: Well, okay. So,

2 Brian Coffey - I'm not - we didn't - LBL

3 doesn't do the engineering analysis.

4 MR. CASKEY: Okay.

5 MS. COUGHLIN: But my understanding

6 is that materials prices were updated and

7 everything was re-optimized between April and

8 August.

9 So, this should reflect updated

10 materials prices, but it's still using the OPS

11 algorithm. And, again, I don't know. There

12 may be some issues there that need to be

13 sorted out, but I believe this does reflect

14 the updated materials prices from the

15 manufacturer interviews.

16 MR. CASKEY: Okay, yes, I was

17 really asking about the selling prices, not

18 the materials prices.

19 MS. COUGHLIN: Well, in the - okay. 

20 I can't answer that. I don't know how they

21 affected that.

22 I know that there were comments on
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 201

1 the markups that we also implemented. And

2 that affects the total installed cost.

3 MR. CASKEY: Okay.

4 MR. TENDULKAR: I don't know about

5 the selling prices, but what about -- well,

6 some of the experts, I can see there is a lot

7 of difference in the material prices,

8 transformer manufacturer prices, between the

9 TP1 designs and CSL3 designs. A 60 to 70

10 percent increase in the actual cost of the

11 transformer.

12 And this is not me. A lot of

13 other manufacturers say the same thing to me.

14 MR. CYMBALSKY: This is John

15 Cymbalsky, DOE.

16 Do we know the market share of the

17 NEMA premium transformers versus the baseline?

18 MR. CASKEY: This is John Caskey.

19 I think it's relatively small, but

20 I don't know. I mean, I would guess at like

21 10 or 20 percent or something like that at the

22 most, but I honestly do not have the raw data
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 202

1 on that.

2 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, but that was

3 one of the motivations for the low number of

4 evaluators is that the TP1 does not have a

5 large market share for this type of product.

6 MR. DeLASKI: So, when was TP1

7 officially - not TP1 - NEMA premium, when did

8 you guys adopt that?

9 MR. CASKEY: We offered it to the

10 public beginning in 2009. I think July of

11 2009, if I'm not mistaken.

12 MR. DeLASKI: It's been around a

13 couple years, right?

14 MR. CASKEY: Yes.

15 MR. MILLURE: Dave Millure,

16 Metglas.

17 I think when Rob was talking about

18 going to higher levels in the 60 percent

19 differential, you said you were keeping the

20 same material combinations of core steel and

21 conductor, which I believe those curves would

22 probably corroborate, right?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 203

1 So, to keep that curve flat,

2 you've got to go to higher grades of core

3 steel and maybe conductor. And that's how you

4 keep it flat, right?

5 MR. GREESON: That's, in some

6 cases, you can keep it flat. I'd have to do

7 a little bit more analysis.

8 I was just trying to verify the

9 costing aspect of it, not so much the flatness

10 aspect of what we're talking about here. 

11 Because if the pricing aspect is off, then you

12 got to start on that first. But in theory,

13 yes, maybe you can do an M3 design for a

14 little bit more efficient at almost the same

15 price.

16 It really depends on the commodity

17 of the steel. My colleagues can attest to

18 that that depending on what the steel prices

19 do, sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. 

20 And it depends on how much efficiency you're

21 trying to get.

22 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, I'll just
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 204

1 mention another thing to keep in mind looking

2 at these plots, is that these are test

3 procedure efficiencies which assume a 35

4 percent RMS load.

5 And if -- in practice, most

6 transformers are loaded at a lower level. So,

7 within this design space of 35 percent, you

8 can use improvements on the load losses to

9 bring you into the right efficiency because

10 you also have a tradeoff between no-load

11 losses and load losses.

12 In reality, there may be less of a

13 tradeoff because the loads are assumed to be -

14 are actually lower than what the test

15 procedure assumes.

16 So, it may actually be harder to

17 meet these efficiency level - or to construct

18 something with that efficiency that would have

19 that efficiency in the field. And that would

20 be why they're not actually manufactured.

21 So, again, it's a bit of a - the

22 test procedure efficiency can sometimes lead
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 205

1 to low - going up in test procedure efficiency

2 depending on how the transformer is loaded,

3 can cause you to go down in energy savings. 

4 And you can see that in a couple of the

5 product lines.

6 So, again, you have to remember

7 there's a balance of no-load losses and load

8 losses that can change quite dramatically when

9 you move from one - essentially one color of

10 designs to another.

11 So, let's see. Is there any other

12 issues on this, or should we move one?

13 MR. PATZNER: Katie, I was - Tom

14 Patzner, Schneider Electric. I was just going

15 to comment on Robert's comment.

16 We're finding our cost ratio

17 closer to 60 percent as well with the jump

18 being after CSL3 and going to CSL4 being a lot

19 higher curve, but we also take into account

20 that we're going to plan to build an awfully

21 large number of these without increasing our

22 square footage.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 206

1 So, when I do my potential cost

2 designs, I'm picking a design that I figure I

3 don't have to increase my capacity in my

4 facilities to do.

5 So, I know that comes afterwards,

6 the manufacturing analysis is afterwards, but

7 when I'm doing this now, I'm taking in the

8 manufacturing analysis point of view because

9 we are manufacturers.

10 So, the manufacturers need to look

11 at how can we put it in the same square

12 footage we have today if it's all possible?

13 So, I think that's somewhat where

14 on here, I think these designs figure we can

15 double our capacity in a building, or we can

16 double the number of winding machines, we can

17 double the number of stacking equipment, and

18 that's just not practical.

19 FACILITATOR PARKER: Is it possible

20 to run these numbers with a size constraint

21 put into the model? Is that what you're

22 saying?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 207

1 MS. COUGHLIN: No, I think he's

2 talking about the actual manufacturing plant,

3 not the transformer.

4 MR. PATZNER: So, I'm talking about

5 our facility. So, today if I am -- just say,

6 for example, if I'm building 275 Design Line

7 7s a week -

8 FACILITATOR PARKER: Oh, I see.

9 MR. PATZNER: -- I want to build

10 200 no matter what the efficiency is in that

11 same square footage.

12 FACILITATOR PARKER: I see.

13 MR. PATZNER: So, when I'm looking

14 at - when you guys give me an efficiency

15 level, I might end up being higher than what

16 the program says for the end user price,

17 because my - once we get to the manufacturing

18 analysis, we need to keep our capital

19 expenditure as low as possible.

20 So, when we're looking at these

21 dots, we're looking at it from the perspective

22 of not having to invest a large amount of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 208

1 capital.

2 And the largest amount of capital

3 is if we have to increase capacity.

4 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky,

5 DOE.

6 So, from the consumer's

7 perspective if you look at this graph, I don't

8 know anything. I don't know a lot about

9 transformers, but let's say these were

10 refrigerators.

11 I mean, wouldn't the whole market

12 be buying -

13 MS. COUGHLIN: No.

14 MR. CYMBALSKY: What is the other

15 constraint? I must be missing something here.

16 MR. PATZNER: So, Tom Patzner -

17 MR. CASKEY: I'm not the

18 manufacturer. I work for an association, but

19 I do have a technical background. But it's

20 just not intuitively obvious for me that you

21 can increase - to me, it would indicate - I

22 would start questioning the model.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 209

1 If a model produces a flat price

2 over four different energy efficiency bands,

3 I would really say, well, gee, I have assumed

4 something wrong or there is something that's

5 not happening right in this model for that to

6 be coming out true.

7 MS. COUGHLIN: Right.

8 MR. CASKEY: Because, right. Then

9 why wouldn't everybody be buying the CSL4

10 today?

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: That's why I asked

12 about the market share.

13 MR. CASKEY: And people are not -

14 not everybody is buying the CSL3 today, which

15 is essentially the NEMA premium. So, again,

16 that may have -

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: But there's no

18 other -

19 MR. CASKEY: -- a two percent

20 market share in sales after like a two-year

21 program.

22 MR. PATZNER: So, Tom Patzner here
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 210

1 from Schneider Electric.

2 If you look at the market today

3 and you look at the CSL0, people are actually

4 paying from 2100 all the way up to $5,000. We

5 are supplying every last one of those dots

6 based on different specifications.

7 Somebody wants a copper 80-degree

8 rise, somebody wants a K13 device. So, the

9 market is actually supplying units in that

10 full range of price.

11 You get up to the CSL3 or the NEMA

12 premium, and in the NEMA premium market the

13 industry is only offering the $5,500 market,

14 because those are the only customers that are

15 asking for it.

16 So, what the difference in the

17 market price today is, is the guy who's paying

18 me $4,800, he's jumping up to the 5,500. The

19 guys that are paying the 2100 - so, the

20 industry hasn't designed the bottom line,

21 because we haven't been asked to.

22 We're only building - we're only
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 211

1 building the guy who is willing to pay that

2 yellow dot up there at 5,500.

3 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. So, I think

4 if I would summarize, it sounds - and these

5 are sort of engineering possibilities. There

6 may be additional constraints on the industry

7 that do not allow those possibilities to

8 actually get manufactured systematically.

9 So, again, that's the kind of

10 thing where if we can get some kind of clear

11 statement of what needs to be removed, it's

12 pretty straightforward to take these out of

13 the LCC.

14 MR. MILLURE: Dave Millure,

15 Metglas.

16 For what it's worth, we've done

17 analysis and it looks sort of flat to us, too.

18 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay.

19 MR. MILLURE: And we're confused. 

20 You have to assume we're going to change to

21 different levels, different materials. No M6. 

22 It will go to M3. You've got to change the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 212

1 design. You can't use your old designs

2 anymore, and it looks sort of like that.

3 MR. DeLASKI: This is Andrew

4 deLaski.

5 I think it's - and I'm hearing

6 from the manufacturers that the costs are too

7 low. So, you guys are missing your data and

8 you guys are going to have to reconcile that. 

9 We've got a process set up for that. So,

10 that's going to happen, it sounds like.

11 I guess my observation is that

12 it's not uncommon to see a costed energy curve

13 that is flat to start. They are typically

14 flat to the left, and they tend to have an

15 inflection point at some point. This is

16 something that you see.

17 This one is particularly flat, but

18 I am also hearing this is a market that's very

19 sensitive to first cost and where you have a

20 vicious split incentive problem with the

21 people who buy the equipment aren't the ones

22 who benefit from the savings.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 213

1 So, that curve would not have to

2 have much of a tilt to it -

3 MS. COUGHLIN: Right.

4 MR. DeLASKI: -- for the purchases

5 to end up at that CSL0. So, I guess I'm not -

6 - this is not - this is a plausible situation,

7 in my mind.

8 FACILITATOR PARKER: But if they're

9 not evaluating energy savings from the

10 transformers anyway, because it's just not on

11 their radar so they are not going to pay a

12 penny more.

13 And even if it would save the

14 customers a bunch of money over the lifetime,

15 they won't -

16 MR. DeLASKI: And then I also think

17 - the other dynamic here, I really appreciate

18 what Tom said, is that as a manufacturer, you

19 guys speak to this, you want to move people to

20 higher value added products.

21 MR. PATZNER: That is 100 percent

22 correct.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 214

1 MR. DeLASKI: Right. And so, that

2 higher value added product, as you said, is

3 not moving along that curve. That's not going

4 to help you.

5 FACILITATOR PARKER: So, bowing to

6 the market is not necessarily the most

7 efficient answer.

8 MR. PATZNER: One last comment in

9 regards - Thomas Patzner, Schneider Electric.

10 The other thing that occurs is

11 when projects go over-budget, the transformers

12 go from the $4,000 one down to the $2,100 one

13 real fast.

14 So, we might be bidding these,

15 quoting these. But when the project goes

16 over-budget, these are one of the first

17 entities that gets changed to the less

18 expensive solution because the consultant's

19 now moved on to his next project, it's the

20 contractor there, he has the opportunity to

21 pocket some money, and he's going to do so.

22 FACILITATOR PARKER: So, the only
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 215

1 exception to the lower first cost buyers is

2 these issues where you were talking about

3 earlier where they try to reduce I squared R

4 by getting a cooler unit that is more

5 efficient.

6 MR. PATZNER: So, the biggest

7 person who's buying this product today is K

8 through 12. K through 12 is buying this

9 product left and right. And the reason

10 they're building it is ASHRAE put in their

11 appendix the recommendation to use it.

12 So, as of right now, there is a

13 recommendation for K through 12 schools to

14 save energy by including their transformers.

15 In LEED buildings, like I said,

16 these are going to get designed out. They

17 only add for LEED points, you got to save 14

18 percent of your electricity in the new

19 building. These are only going to add above

20 TP1, 0.5 percent of your energy reduction.

21 So, people aren't going to pay the

22 premium for 0.5 unless they're at 3.5.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 216

1 (Laughter.)

2 MR. PATZNER: And as was stated

3 earlier, they get the 14 percent from the air

4 conditioners, they get the 14 percent from the

5 lighting.

6 And so even in LEED buildings,

7 we're not seeing this because the electricity

8 reduction is coming from the 480 volt usage,

9 not the 120 volt usage.

10 FACILITATOR PARKER: For the court

11 transcriber, LEED is capital L-E-E-D. It's

12 low efficiency -- what is it? What does the

13 acronym stand for? Leadership in Energy

14 Efficiency Design.

15 MR. TENDULKAR: Yes, I just wonder

16 if the curve is so flat from CSL0 to CSL3,

17 wouldn't you think the manufacturers would

18 make the CSL3 at the same price and get the

19 market share more?

20 It is not true what the curve says

21 and what actual reality is.

22 MR. DeLASKI: Well, I guess what
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 217

1 I'm saying is that it is plausible to me. And

2 the reason why it's plausible is that --

3 again, we have a committee to work on this. 

4 So, I'm eager to find out if it's true or not. 

5 And this is a question that should be a

6 question of data that can be answered.

7 It's plausible to me. And the

8 reason why it's plausible is that -- for the

9 reason that Tom has described that you're

10 going to sell the minimum compliant

11 transformer, and you want to sell up to a

12 value added product.

13 There's no reason why the market

14 wouldn't want to do that. If the market

15 doesn't value efficiency, then you're not

16 going to get market share by selling a more

17 efficient product.

18 MR. TENDULKAR: Yes.

19 FACILITATOR PARKER: Berman, okay.

20 MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman

21 Economics.

22 Now, what I've heard is that there
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 218

1 is a lot of reason to believe that the market

2 isn't putting an efficiency premium on this

3 equipment. And it's not unusual.

4 There is a lot of equipment out

5 there, there's a lot of things being built

6 where there aren't standards. And they're

7 being built on a first cost basis. Even

8 though the efficiency is incredibly cost

9 effective, it's being decided by other than

10 the users.

11 So, to have a situation in which

12 there are designs that are a similar price,

13 maybe a dollar or two more, and it may only be

14 that much, if the information isn't in the

15 market, and the market hasn't put a valuable

16 premium on it, you're not going to see it. 

17 You're not going to see it in the market

18 unless there's a standard that says you put it

19 there. The standard may not cost anymore.

20 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay, I think

21 we've covered that. Should we move on?

22 Go ahead.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 219

1 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. So, this is

2 just to illustrate - this is from one of the

3 simulations to illustrate the distribution of

4 RMS loads that are being selected.

5 So, again, I'll skip the details,

6 but so I commented that we're not using the

7 test procedure loading. So, the ranges on

8 these are about 10 to 30 percent.

9 We have two different models. One

10 for commercial buildings, one for industrial

11 buildings. But as you can see -

12 MR. ROSENFELD: Katie, have you

13 updated your slide?

14 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, I should be on

15 - I think it's Slide 12. Two histograms.

16 MR. ROSENFELD: No, I'm seeing

17 Slide 8.

18 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. We'll check

19 into that.

20 MR. ROSENFELD: Thanks.

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: Apparently we

22 lost the network connection for a bit. It now
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 220

1 says your network connection has been

2 reestablished, implying that we had lost it.

3 What do you see now?

4 MR. ROSENFELD: Number 8.

5 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay.

6 FACILITATOR PARKER: Did we just

7 lose the -

8 MS. COUGHLIN: So, we were playing

9 with the computer.

10 MR. ROSENFELD: Appreciate it.

11 FACILITATOR PARKER: Should we take

12 a break now, maybe? We've been going on two

13 hours. We've been going for almost two hours.

14 MS. COUGHLIN: I have a few more,

15 yes.

16 MR. PATTERSON: Folks, while she's

17 working on that, coming back to the last

18 discussion about the flatness of those dots on

19 the histogram, when I look at the medium20 voltage data, the smaller the kVA gets, the

21 flatter that curve becomes.

22 FACILITATOR PARKER: Could you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 221

1 repeat that?

2 MR. PATTERSON: I said when you

3 look at - coming back to the issue with the

4 flatness of the curve on the 75 kVA scatter

5 diagram, when I look at the medium-voltage

6 diagrams and compare them to what's actually

7 produced in the marketplace as the kVA gets

8 smaller, those curves get flatter.

9 So, I'm wondering if - where

10 they're coming up with their price by

11 considering overheads to be a percentage of

12 material values where it's so flat.

13 MR. CASKEY: So, Wes, this is John

14 Caskey.

15 So, a point of clarification. 

16 When you say the curves are getting flatter

17 for the smaller kVA transformers, are you

18 saying the actual price that a manufacturer

19 might sell is getting flatter, or the results

20 of the analysis is getting flatter?

21 MR. PATTERSON: It's the OPS data

22 that is getting flatter. The prices from the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 222

1 manufacturer still have a steeper growth.

2 MR. CASKEY: Okay. Thanks.

3 MR. PATTERSON: But the OPS data

4 shows approximately the same growth in the 500

5 to - higher kVA ranges.

6 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. So, can the

7 people on the phone see the two histograms?

8 FACILITATOR PARKER: Are we back? 

9 Can you see the histograms?

10 MR. ROSENFELD: Thank you. Yes.

11 MS. COUGHLIN: So, these are

12 histograms. So, this is from an LCC run. And

13 this is just a histogram of the RMS loads that

14 were simulated. I think these are the annual

15 values. So, this is kind of an indication of

16 the range of loadings.

17 The shapes of the distributions

18 are similar, but what you probably can't see

19 that the axis for the commercial building plot

20 on the left is some of that five percent to 45

21 percent, the horizontal axis.

22 And on the right, the industrial
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 223

1 building's range is from 10 percent to 30

2 percent, which is a much narrower band, which

3 is pretty much what you would expect. There's

4 less diversity in industrial loads than in

5 commercial loads.

6 MR. ROSENFELD: Katie, are these

7 diagrams strictly for the low-voltage dry8 type, or are they -

9 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, this is for the

10 low-voltage dry-type.

11 So, the shapes of these histograms

12 were based on the data that we have for hourly

13 loads, but again there's a parameter, a sort

14 of scaling parameter in the LCC that can move

15 the distribution so that you get different

16 values of the average RMS load.

17 And in this particular case, the

18 average RMS load is - it's around 25 percent. 

19 Maybe about 22 percent. So, again, that's a

20 relatively easily adjustable variable.

21 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Katie, again Steve

22 Rosenstock, EEI.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 224

1 For these histograms when you talk

2 about - these are based on entire building

3 load profiles?

4 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, and no. 

5 There's a detailed discussion in the TSD, and

6 I'd be happy - I don't know if you want to get

7 - it's pretty complicated. So, they're based

8 on a model of the diversity of many loads that

9 are contributing to a single overall load.

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Right. And in the

11 TSD, it breaks out the ones that are served by

12 the low-voltage transformers and the ones that

13 aren't?

14 MS. COUGHLIN: In the TSD, it

15 explains the details of how the difference -

16 how medium-voltage and low-voltage models

17 differ, because they both use building data.

18 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. And again

19 just -

20 MS. COUGHLIN: There's some - the

21 data is specific to building activities. So,

22 things like schools, hospitals, that sort of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 225

1 thing, are separate.

2 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Right.

3 MS. COUGHLIN: But not to

4 subcircuits within a building.

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. The reason

6 I ask is I know that in the late '90s, and I

7 sort of did a lot of research on the actual

8 loading of the low-voltage issues in dry-type

9 transformers. And was that used - were any of

10 these used against that data set to kind of

11 look for correlation or matches in terms of,

12 okay, this modeling is - looks pretty good

13 compared to the actual data that was presented

14 by that study?

15 MS. COUGHLIN: I don't know of any

16 data. So, I'd be interested to see it. We

17 couldn't find anything in sort of public

18 domain on actual transformer loading data.

19 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I sort of did the

20 study like ten years - 12 years ago. That was

21 in the public domain.

22 MS. COUGHLIN: No, I mean, I've
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 226

1 seen - okay, I'm not familiar with it.

2 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you.

3 MR. PATZNER: So, Tom Patzner from

4 Schneider Electric.

5 That study is the Cadmus Group up

6 in Boston did the study. The output of the

7 study was the loading is at 16.6 percent for

8 a low-voltage distribution transformer in a

9 commercial building.

10 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay.

11 MR. PATZNER: Due to the fact of

12 pressure in the building and stuff, Schneider

13 Electric believes that's closer to 12 percent

14 today. And that's due to the fact of the

15 efficiency loss and so forth are making all

16 the equipment more efficient. So, what we're

17 plugging into 120 volts.

18 So, in other words, when they did

19 the study, your computer didn't turn itself

20 off if you left it on. Today, it turns itself

21 off.

22 So, you take an assumption that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 227

1 the energy reduced by 30 percent. That value

2 comes to closer to 12 « percent for a

3 commercial building for the loading of the

4 device. And that's using the Cadmus Group and

5 a 30 percent reduction in consumption of 120

6 volt loading.

7 But the bell curve is probably -

8 just needs to be shifted to the left.

9 FACILITATOR PARKER: From 25

10 percent to 12 percent, you say?

11 MR. PATZNER: If we're projecting

12 it into the future and we take a look at all

13 potential other energy-saving activity that's

14 going on for 120-volt devices, and that's what

15 this is doing, we should assume even if we got

16 the exact loading today, it's going to go down

17 over the next 33 years.

18 FACILITATOR PARKER: Do you have

19 some data to -

20 MR. PATZNER: I would have to check

21 to see if the Cadmus Group report is actually

22 public domain. I thought the last time I
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 228

1 Googled it, it actually comes up.

2 If it comes up under Google, I

3 will -

4 FACILITATOR PARKER: There's a

5 preliminary report?

6 MR. PATZNER: It was done - it's

7 actually referenced in the DOE's documents, a

8 PowerPoint presentation.

9 FACILITATOR PARKER: Is that what

10 updates it or provides the basis for - do we

11 have a basis for projecting in the future

12 based on that? Because -

13 MS. COUGHLIN: First of all,

14 there's two issues here, right? So, the

15 Cadmus study, the one you're referring to, I

16 am familiar with, but that gives you the kind

17 of median value, if you like.

18 Yes, we're aware of it. We were

19 not - it's not enough to choose a parameter

20 based on that. So, we're - but, again, these

21 are parameters that were designed to be very

22 easily changed within the LCC. So, this is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 229

1 something that can be dealt with.

2 If you have a consensus

3 recommendation on what you want it to be, we

4 can certainly do that as a sensitivity. But

5 then the shapes of the distribution, that's

6 what comes from data that the only access we

7 have - the only data that we actually have is

8 building data, not individual transformer

9 data.

10 MR. PATZNER: And that's from EAI?

11 MS. COUGHLIN: This is a

12 combination of - and there are some hourly

13 building load data that is from the previous

14 analysis that - I guess it's - we refer to it

15 as the Duckett data. It was a study conducted

16 by someone at a university. And also the

17 ELCAP hourly load data.

18 So, these distributions, the model

19 that backs up these distributions is actually

20 based on hourly data.

21 MR. PATZNER: And that's in the TSD

22 so I can take a look at it?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 230

1 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes.

2 MR. PATZNER: Thank you.

3 FACILITATOR PARKER: Well, it's -

4 okay, a few comments. Yes, Rob.

5 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal

6 Pacific.

7 I'm having a hard time

8 understanding what that histogram is telling

9 me. Percent load on the x axis and the y axis

10 is the frequency of which -

11 MS. COUGHLIN: The frequency,

12 right. So, in the 10,000 installations that

13 we simulate, this is the distribution of RMS

14 loads within that 10,000-member sample.

15 MR. GREESON: So, for example, on

16 the left histogram at 25 percent load, you've

17 got - I can't read the numbers on the y axis

18 to the right.

19 MS. COUGHLIN: I can't read them

20 either.

21 (Laughter.)

22 MR. GREESON: That's showing you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 231

1 actually the number of people that were at 25

2 percent load. I think I understand it now. 

3 I just couldn't see those numbers on the

4 right.

5 I think I understand it now. 

6 Thanks.

7 MS. COUGHLIN: And then, again,

8 there's both commercial and industrial

9 buildings within the single run. So, I think

10 it's roughly 50/50.

11 MR. CASKEY: One sort of point of

12 curiosity or whatever, I'm not sure, but

13 Thomas was noting that basically if you kept

14 your existing stock of buildings and the

15 efficiency or the use of efficient products

16 within those buildings increased with time,

17 then the loading on existing transformers

18 would - dry-type transformers would

19 essentially go down.

20 But in reality, the - not

21 necessarily the housing stock. The building

22 stock does not stay constant with time. And
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 232

1 as you said, a lot of the sales that you're

2 making today are for school systems. So,

3 you're building new schools and I would hope

4 unless we have a lot of retarded engineers out

5 there, that they would be designing the

6 buildings today and asking for transformers to

7 support the new load, which is reduced because

8 of energy efficiency lighting and other

9 efficiency improvements within those building

10 designs.

11 So, I would think that the median

12 or whatever would stay pretty much the same

13 way it is as the - you're designing more

14 efficient buildings into the future.

15 MR. PATZNER: I agree with - Tom

16 Patzner, Schneider Electric.

17 I agree with John completely. 

18 You'd think that we'd be able to downsize the

19 transformers.

20 The transformers are a hundred

21 percent size based on 180 VA per outlet. The

22 outlets are set for the National Electric
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 233

1 Code.

2 The National Electric Code is to

3 prevent fires. It is not to save energy. So,

4 there is not an ability to have a conversation

5 with them of changing their VA for the

6 outlets, because their goal is to stop fires.

7 So, the transformers end up

8 staying the same size because it's based on

9 square footage, number of outlets and 180 VA

10 per outlet.

11 MR. CASKEY: Great, thanks. You

12 learn something new every day.

13 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Two points. You

14 said the ELCAP data was used for one of the

15 data sets. That's the data set that was done

16 in like the late '80s in the Pacific Northwest

17 by BPA.

18 They did break out the data by end

19 uses. Did you use the whole building ELCAP

20 for the analysis? 

21 That's my question.

22 MS. COUGHLIN: That's all we have. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 234

1 We don't have the end use level data. We just

2 have the whole building data.

3 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Well, ELCAP broke

4 it out. They actually had reports where they

5 broke out some of the end use data.

6 MS. COUGHLIN: Right, but not the -

7 we were not able to get the actual hourly time

8 series at the end use level.

9 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I -

10 MS. COUGHLIN: We'd certainly be

11 happy to get them if you know someone who has

12 them.

13 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I know they did

14 summaries of the end use data.

15 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes.

16 MR. ROSENSTOCK: The second issue

17 was the issue of the loading of the

18 transformers over time. Are you assuming

19 constant that this histogram never changes, or

20 do you assume possibly, again, for an existing

21 transformer in an existing building, that does

22 get more efficient over time because of other
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 235

1 new standards for electric products.

2 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes.

3 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Do you assume the

4 flat, are you actually declining loads on the

5 transformers, or do you assume constant or

6 even increasing?

7 MS. COUGHLIN: I believe -

8 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Because that would

9 make a huge difference as well.

10 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. Again, I mean,

11 that's a parameter that is easily changed. I

12 think these are just assuming the flat loads.

13 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Constant

14 throughout the life of the transformer.

15 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes.

16 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you.

17 FACILITATOR PARKER: So, I gather

18 from the discussion that there is a sense that

19 the median that is reflected in this model

20 although it's gathered from the sources that

21 you have, may not correspond to your

22 expectation about what the current status
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 236

1 median is for loading, and that there may be

2 an anticipation that loading would decrease in

3 the future if the things in the buildings get

4 more energy efficient as we hope and expect

5 they will be due to the work of this committee

6 and others, and that that would affect the

7 economics of transformer size.

8 MR. DeLASKI: That's what you heard

9 from Thomas.

10 (Laughter.)

11 FACILITATOR PARKER: That's what I

12 said. That's what I heard. I'm waiting for

13 you to jump in, but that's what I heard.

14 MR. CYMBALSKY: I'll jump in. John

15 Cymbalsky, DOE.

16 I think we need to look at the

17 time series of the EIA CBECS data or the AEO. 

18 You can easily look at what they're projecting

19 for building electricity.

20 Because, yes, things are getting

21 more efficient, but now there's three

22 computers per person, not one.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 237

1 MS. COUGHLIN: Right.

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: So -

3 MS. COUGHLIN: They don't go down.

4 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes, I worked for

5 the EIA for 20 years. I can remember them

6 going up significantly since that last study.

7 FACILITATOR PARKER: I remember

8 when everybody said that computers were going

9 to save paper, but we just produced more

10 printouts.

11 MR. DeLASKI: I guess I also would

12 just say that the Cadmus study is a single

13 study. There are other sources of data out

14 there and you've mined them, it sounds like.

15 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes.

16 MR. DeLASKI: So, we need to use

17 multiple data sources, not rely on a single

18 study done ten years ago.

19 It solves the data point, but it's

20 not definitive.

21 MS. COUGHLIN: But there are very

22 few quantitative ones, and they tend to have
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 238

1 small sample sizes. So, there's one by FEMP,

2 and there's one by Canadian Energy National

3 Resource Council.

4 FACILITATOR PARKER: I'm not

5 totally familiar with your latest TSD, but

6 does it contain sensitivity analysis for what

7 happens if you vary the parameters for

8 loading?

9 MS. COUGHLIN: It's pretty obvious

10 what's going to happen.

11 MR. BOLDUC: Just to help you out,

12 yes, we do run a sensitivity on transformer

13 overloading.

14 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay.

15 MS. COUGHLIN: I mean, just

16 shifting the whole thing up or down is just

17 going to either - it's going to shift your

18 load loss component of the LCC.

19 So, a lot of these things can

20 actually, you know, you can sort of - at least

21 once you start to get into the - you

22 understand the mechanics of it very well, you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 239

1 can actually anticipate the effect it's going

2 to have.

3 So, we're going to try, actually,

4 to come up with some rules of thumb about some

5 of these parameters if we can. But, yes, the

6 thing is to do every possible sensitivity that

7 you can think of.

8 And usually when we go to OMB, we

9 end up doing them all. So, we might as well

10 do them early this time.

11 (Off-record comments.)

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just one more. 

13 Steve Rosenstock.

14 Yea, I work on the ASHRAE process,

15 Standard 90.1 for commercial buildings. And

16 if you look at the trend lines published by

17 ASHRAE for new buildings that meet the ASHRAE

18 standards ever since it started in 1980, but

19 especially starting with like the 2001-2004

20 versions, the energy savings - it's not just

21 electricity, it's energy, it's electricity

22 plus all the fossil fuels used in the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 240

1 building, DOE just came up with a preliminary

2 analysis that the 2010 version of ASHRAE was

3 about 24 percent or 23 percent more efficient

4 than its 2004 version.

5 And under federal law, DOE just

6 certified that the 2007 version was more

7 efficient than the 2004 version. States have

8 two years to upgrade their building standards.

9 They'll probably come out with

10 another certification for 2010 next year where

11 states will have two years to update their

12 standards to 2010.

13 So, there's a definite ramping

14 down of energy, not just electricity, but all

15 energy use in commercial buildings covered by

16 ASHRAE.

17 And that's - IECC tends to adopt

18 their - a lot of ASHRAE as well. So, there's

19 a definite downward trend in the energy use

20 per square foot in a lot of buildings.

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: Well, it

22 sounds to me like we have a suite of issues
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 241

1 here that goes to what parameters should be

2 used in the TSD analysis for the LCC modeling

3 both from the standpoint of loading factors,

4 but you can imagine materials prices on the

5 engineering side feeding into this, energy

6 prices, discount rates.

7 And it may be that it would be

8 worthwhile if there are people who are willing

9

10 to step forward and form a little working

11 group to work on that. That engineering is a

12 little bit more broad reaching for the non13 engineers.

14 It might be useful to sort of put

15 a little group together to look at the various

16 studies that are out there. Andrew was

17 mentioning that this is just one study, but we

18 might just if people think this is a good

19 idea, have a group that's charged with looking

20 at the other - sort of a catchall group that

21 would look at the other parameter assumptions

22 that go into the LCC and NPV analysis and just
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 242

1 explore what is the reasonable range of values

2 that one might use in a sensitivity analysis.

3 And then look at what happens when

4 you vary things across that range and what

5 might be a reasonable midpoint.

6 Does that make sense?

7 MR. DeLASKI: I guess my

8 counterproposal would be that this is a

9 function that the consultants typically play. 

10 And they create models that any one of us can

11 perturb.

12 And getting consensus on these set

13 of assumptions, I think, will be a bigger task

14 than what this committee set out for itself.

15 MS. COUGHLIN: There's also in the

16 TSD that was published - well, which was not

17 yet updated, there are four or five appendices

18 with sensitivity analysis results that people

19 can look at.

20 So, this is kind of a standard

21 part of every rulemaking is to vary all these

22 parameters.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 243

1 MR. DeLASKI: I also think it helps

2 us by having the Department and its

3 consultants be the - to manage this process. 

4 What you guys are doing is grounded in the

5 history of the rulemaking process and what you

6 have to do under the statute.

7 We can't change those rules.

8 MS. COUGHLIN: Right.

9 MR. DeLASKI: So, I think it's

10 important that that - that we work within that

11 context and how they do things.

12 Now, we all can have different

13 assumptions, but we can't - we can't change

14 the discount rates, for example, because

15 they're dictated.

16 MS. COUGHLIN: Right. I mean, I

17 would be surprised if anyone could find data

18 that we have not actually looked at as part of

19 this.

20 MR. DeLASKI: You're open to it,

21 I'm sure.

22 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, we'd be very
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 244

1 happy to see it, but it's pretty exhaustive

2 because, again, a lot of these things are

3 cross-cutting. They go across all products. 

4 Electricity prices, discount rates, all that

5 kind of thing.

6 So, we spend years tracking down

7 every piece of information. So, again, we're

8 always happy to accept more, but I'd be

9 surprised if there's something that's missing

10 that's that easy to find.

11 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay, John.

12 MR. CASKEY: Yes, John Caskey,

13 NEMA.

14 I agree with Andrew. I'm not

15 sure that we need a working group or something

16 to do that yet. I mean, I plead guilty that

17 I have not looked at the sensitivity analysis

18 results of the process to educate myself

19 enough to be able to say that whether it's in

20 the right ballpark or not.

21 I just want to make sure that it's

22 available as we get close to the end that we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 245

1 can say, well, gee, if you double the price,

2 what does that do or things like that.

3 MS. COUGHLIN: Right.

4 MR. CASKEY: So, I need to do more

5 research personally and education on what

6 you've already provided before I ask for

7 anything more.

8 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, and you can

9 download the spreadsheets from the DOE website

10 and just go in and change a lot of things that

11 we're not even discussing today such as

12 electricity price trends and, yes.

13 So, let's see.

14 MR. DeLASKI: On that, just to make

15 sure I understand, we can make those changes

16 and the model will run. Because there are

17 histories in the past that -

18 MS. COUGHLIN: Let's see. Chris,

19 how would you answer that?

20 MR. DeLASKI: I mean, because

21 there's the question of in the past you had to

22 have the Monte Carlo tool and -
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 246

1 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, this is a Monte

2 Carlo simulation.

3 MR. DeLASKI: So, unless you own

4 Monte Carlo -

5 MS. COUGHLIN: Crystal ball.

6 MR. DeLASKI: Crystal ball.

7 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes.

8 MR. BOLDUC: Chris Bolduc, LBL.

9 Download a trial version of the

10 crystal ball module, run it for two weeks for

11 free.

12 MR. PATTERSON: Would it be

13 possible to provide the link to download it?

14 MR. BOLDUC: I can distribute that

15 to the -

16 MR. PATTERSON: This is Wes

17 Patterson.

18 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes, that was

19 Wes Patterson.

20 (Laughter.)

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: The court

22 reporter is having trouble identifying
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 247

1 speakers. So, please identify yourselves on

2 the phone.

3 Thanks, Wes. You got it. Go

4 ahead after all that. Oh, he's finished. 

5 Okay.

6 MS. COUGHLIN: So, are we -

7 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay. So, I

8 guess the issue is that even when you get a

9 sensitivity analysis, then the question is

10 what do you do with it? But let's -

11 MR. DeLASKI: That's what I would

12 suggest, because we've tried to run crystal

13 ball. It's not something that we can do, my

14 organization can do in an afternoon.

15 So, I think what we may have to

16 come up with at some point in this process are

17 some scenarios or situations that we want to

18 ask the consultants to run. That's something

19 that we can agree on, I think, as a group.

20 In prime negotiations we've done

21 this type of negotiation and asked the

22 Department to run certain situations that we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 248

1 want to see and keep them to a useful

2 universe, useful set of things.

3 FACILITATOR PARKER: Well, that

4 gets into the issue of how many requests are

5 there being made for new runs and so forth and

6 what is the burden, that's why I thought it

7 might be a good idea to have sort of open

8 season on the consultants, have some kind of

9 a group process to sort of get a collective

10 sense of whether there is something that is

11 important enough, significant enough to

12 warrant doing further analysis or not.

13 It's really up to LBNL and

14 Navigant, though, whether they want - I'll do

15 it either way, but I just don't want them -

16 what we're seeing in the medium-voltage group

17 so far is a whole lot of requests for

18 analysis, can you give us this, can you give

19 us that, from individuals on the Committee,

20 from alternates coming in online. I can see

21 them being barraged with requests that may be

22 of interest to one person, but not of interest
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 249

1 to everybody.

2 So, that was why I thought the

3 idea of a little working group might be

4 useful.

5 If people are really satisfied

6 with the data and they're confident that

7 what's gone in is adequate to QA/QC, that's

8 fine. Let's move on.

9 But I think if people do have

10 trouble with the assumptions or with the

11 analysis, then rather than have each person

12 peppering the consultants with requests for

13 more data analysis, it might be useful to have

14 some kind of a group process.

15 I don't know, Andrew. Did you -

16 MR. DeLASKI: I think we've already

17 put our finger on the key one. That's the one

18 that we ought to have a working group formed

19 where the manufacturers have particular

20 expertise, which is the pricing of their

21 products.

22 I think the other parameters are
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 250

1 ones that are -

2 FACILITATORY PARKER: That we can

3 just play with?

4 MR. DeLASKI: What I was going to

5 say is that the other parameters are things

6 that are largely exogenous to the transformer

7 manufacturer.

8 So, I leave that up to the

9 Department to figure out the best - the mean

10 cases. And then as we get further along,

11 which ones really matter, okay?

12 MS. COUGHLIN: Right.

13 FACILITATOR PARKER: Right.

14 MR. DeLASKI: Help us to identify

15 those. And then we as a group, as a

16 committee, can ask you to run scenarios on the

17 ones that -

18 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay.

19 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes.

20 MR. DeLASKI: -- we'd like to see

21 down the - at the next meeting.

22 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay. We'll
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 251

1 reserve that for the planning.

2 MR. DeLASKI: And there may be

3 something else.

4 MS. COUGHLIN: Well, we can

5 circulate a -

6 MR. DeLASKI: Maybe today, but I

7 don't know what that would be.

8 MS. COUGHLIN: We can circulate a

9 list of the sensitivities that we do anyway as

10 part of the standard analysis.

11 FACILITATOR PARKER: That's a

12 wonderful idea.

13 MR. BOLDUC: Chris Bolduc, LBL.

14 The sensitivities are listed at

15 the Chapter 8 synopsis. If you want to take

16 a look at this and then get back to us, that

17 would be -

18 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. So, can you

19 repeat that, Chris? It wasn't that clear.

20 MR. BOLDUC: I'm sorry. The

21 sensitivities have been run and the results

22 are available in Chapter 8 under LCC and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 252

1 payback period sensitivities.

2 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. So, you have

3 those. Great.

4 So, this is an intermediate - I

5 just wanted to illustrate again, I mean,

6 sometimes things end up not being so sensitive

7 in one of these instances, because we already

8 have a very large amount of diversity in the

9 various parameters that go into the LCC.

10 And especially when you have sort

11 of moving distributions around often doesn't

12 have huge impact, especially when things move

13 in different - sort of you change one thing

14 and it makes it go up, and you change

15 something else and it makes it go back down.

16 So, just to illustrate, I've

17 plotted here the - this is a very simple

18 representation of the incremental costs and

19 energy savings associated with two of the CSLs

20 for Design Line 7.

21 So, the blue dots are CSL4, and

22 the black crosses are CSL6. And the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 253

1 horizontal axis is the incremental total

2 installed cost.

3 So, again, it's for each one of

4 those 10,000 installations, you take the

5 design selected at this particular CSL and

6 subtract the cost of the design selected in

7 the base case. That gives you the incremental

8 first cost.

9 And on the vertical axis is the

10 lifetime energy savings for that installation. 

11 So, the difference between losses under the

12 particular CSL and the losses in the base

13 case.

14 And so, you can see with CSL4

15 there's a significant number of cases where

16 the incremental total installed cost is zero. 

17 You're not really seeing any affect of

18 changing the choice.

19 And you could also see that these

20 - there is a leap between CSL4 and CSL6 from

21 incremental costs of around a few hundred

22 dollars to over a thousand dollars roughly a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 254

1 factor of three in the middle of those blobs,

2 but there's also quite a significant leap in

3 the vertical axis between 20 to 40 energy

4 savings.

5 And the blue blob toward the

6 middle is 60, 80, 100. So, this is another

7 factor of two. So, this makes the LCC

8 somewhat sensitive to the discount rate.

9 And all of these, again, these are

10 using this wide distribution of RMS loads and

11 a wide distribution of lifetimes. All those

12 sorts of effects are taken into account here.

13 So, these types of plots are

14 relatively easy to generate. If you can think

15 of any intermediate steps of the calculation

16 where you'd like to see more detail, just let

17 us know.

18 And this is the LCC output for

19 DL7. I think I've listed - actually, the

20 heading is wrong. This is from the most

21 recent August publication.

22 So, here we see basically we have
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 255

1 LCC savings because - largely because we're

2 getting sort of free efficiency at the lower

3 CSLs. So, you're getting operating cost

4 savings.

5 And all the way up to CSL6 there's

6 positive LCC savings. And then CSL7 it goes

7 negative.

8 So, you'll see these plots are, I

9 believe, most of the sensitivities you get a

10 plot like this under all the different

11 variations of conditions.

12 Okay, so that's actually all I

13 have to say about the LCC. So, moving on to

14 the NIA, I'll try to go through this fairly

15 quickly.

16 This is the part of the analysis

17 that actually depends on these TSLs rather

18 than CSLs. So, the trial standard levels,

19 which are the collection of efficiency levels

20 for each product in the product class. And we

21 need all of those before we can move onto the

22 national impacts analysis.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 256

1 So, in this case the Design Line 6

2 through 8 are included in the equipment

3 category. And we also have to extrapolate the

4 results to the full range of kVA. And we've

5 already discussed the scaling log. So, we are

6 using that now.

7 We have some adjustments that we

8 can make in some cases, but - and then when we

9 do the NIA, we have the national level

10 results. Primarily, they come off a forecast

11 of shipments for each kVA. And included in

12 the NIA are the aggregate dollar costs and

13 operating costs, benefits, essentially, the

14 energy savings, and then all of the downstream

15 stuff, including emissions impacts and social

16 class of carbon.

17 So, again, the national impacts

18 depend on the combination of efficiency levels

19 that are used to put together a TSL, but we've

20 structured our analytical tools so that it is

21 not that difficult to modify that choice. So,

22 we can do a fairly wide range of TSLs.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 257

1 So, again, I'm just going to

2 present illustrative results based on the

3 draft TSLs, what we used in the August 23rd.

4 Before I get to that, this is just

5 a picture of the scaling relationship across

6 the kVA. So, the goal of this is to

7 extrapolate the efficiency as a function of

8 kVA from the two representative units.

9 This curve is for the low-voltage

10 dry-type three-phase. It's actually Design

11 Line 7 and 8. Design Line 7 is the 75 kVA,

12 and Design Line 8 is the 300.

13 And what we essentially do is we

14 assume that a scaling-type relationship holds

15 between the two representative units, but we

16 modify the exponent so that the curve is

17 continuous.

18 And that allows us to create a

19 smooth curve when there are more than one

20 representative unit in the design line. And

21 that is not the case for Design Line 6. We

22 only have that one design in the center of the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 258

1 plot. So, there we have to use the 0.75 rule.

2 So, moving on to the NIA results,

3 this is - the set of draft TSLs are in the

4 August 23rd publication. I just put the

5 Design Line 7 which we have been looking at in

6 red.

7 So, the CSLs here - or the TSLs,

8 excuse me, are represented here as specific

9 efficiency numbers. We could also produce

10 this table that just said, you know, CSL2,

11 CSL3, that sort of thing.

12 And so you can see, for example,

13 in TSL2, 3 and 4 - rather, 2 and 3 are using

14 the same efficiency level for Design Line 7,

15 and then it goes up in four. So, there's a

16 whole lot of things that you can do in

17 constructing these TSLs.

18 And when they have been

19 constructed, then we produce - this is a table

20 of typical output of the national impacts

21 analysis. So, we get the total equipment cost

22 increment, we get the total operating cost
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 259

1 increment or decrement.

2 And when we get source energy

3 savings, this conversion from electricity to

4 fossil fuels. And then you can do the NPVs

5 under different discount rate assumptions.

6 So, again, these are the standard

7 output from an NIA. Different types of

8 metrics can be added if those are useful to

9 people.

10 MR. PATZNER: Katie, Tom Patzner

11 from Schneider Electric.

12 When you do this analysis with the

13 kVA quantities, can we do an analysis with the

14 fact that Schneider Electric is predicting on

15 the 15 kVA and the 30 kVA if you hit a certain

16 price mode, the industry is going to switch

17 from a distribution ventilator product to a

18 distribution sealed product.

19 So, because this industry is so

20 price sensitive at purchasing, when we do this

21 analysis on certain kVA sizes, the industry

22 already has readily available non-in-scope
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 260

1 product already available off the shelf that

2 if we hit a certain price point, they're going

3 to shift to those entities.

4 So, certain kVA sizes it's going

5 to go to zero - not zero. All the way to 80

6 percent would not buy it if we get to a

7 certain price level, because they can buy the

8 product for a lesser price outside the scope.

9 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, in a general

10 sense we generally try to model that product

11 switching if it can be demonstrated to occur,

12 yes.

13 MR. PATZNER: Okay.

14 MR. DeLASKI: Tom, just for those

15 of us who are not transformer manufacturers,

16 what's the market - what's the purpose in the

17 market? What's the user getting?

18 MR. PATZNER: So, manufacturer -

19 Thomas Patzner, Schneider Electric.

20 Manufacturers choose to build

21 certain units as sealed, and certain units as

22 ventilated. The sealed units become less
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 261

1 expensive for us to manufacture in lower VA

2 sizes.

3 So, everything 10 kVA and below in

4 the industry is going to most likely be

5 sealed. Everything 45 kVA and above is going

6 to be ventilated.

7 Manufacturers then choose on how

8 they're going to build the two entities

9 between 10 and 45. So, there are

10 manufacturers that do not start building TP1

11 product until 45 kVA.

12 MR. DeLASKI: Below that, they're

13 sealed.

14 MR. PATZNER: Below that, they're

15 sealed. And their price in their sealed unit

16 is still higher than my 15 kVA TP1.

17 MR. DeLASKI: Yes.

18 MR. PATZNER: But if we set an

19 efficiency level where I cross that price

20 point because it's a readily available in the

21 marketplace, it's off the shelf, we're

22 expecting those customers to shift to that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 262

1 entity.

2 MR. DeLASKI: What's the

3 purchaser's benefit in a sealed product

4 relative to a ventilated product?

5 Why would a purchaser spec one,

6 other than price?

7 MR. PATZNER: So, the reasons that

8 some people buy sealed units are on an oilrig

9 you want to keep everything completely not

10 exposed to the environment. In a wastewater

11 treatment plant, there's certain applications

12 where they're going to have a device in a

13 NEMA3R, NEMA4X enclosure, but that market is

14 extremely small.

15 However, due to manufacturing

16 techniques, some people build the sealed units

17 through 30 kVA and it's just their standard

18 offering.

19 MS. deLASKI: They're offering it

20 because that's what they want to compete in

21 the market. They're being put every which

22 place, not just being put on oilrigs.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 263

1 MR. PATZNER: I'll answer that a

2 better way. We put sand and resin in the

3 sealed units. So, we actually call them

4 encapsulated, which allows us to distribute

5 the heat from the core and coil faster to the

6 enclosure surface so we can make it more

7 compact installed.

8 At a point somewhere between 15

9 and 45 kVA, that becomes no longer technically

10 cost beneficial to us. And each manufacturing

11 makes that choice if it's going to be a 10

12 kVA, 15 kVA, 30 kVA or 45 kVA that they do the

13 choice based on their processes.

14 But somewhere between 10 kVA and

15 15 kVA it becomes - it's a cost to sell price

16 ratio. Below 10 kVA we almost all build them

17 as resin encapsulated because it allows us to

18 make a smaller compact device and distribute

19 the heat.

20 Westinghouse patented the device

21 back in the '60s, and now everybody builds it.

22 MR. PATTERSON: I'm Wes Patterson
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 264

1 here.

2 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes, Wes.

3 MR. PATTERSON: Don't the sealed

4 transformers have to comply with the standard?

5 MR. PATZNER: Sealed transformers

6 are in the law as not included as a

7 distribution transformer. So, in the -

8 MR. PATTERSON: But once they touch

9 into the kVA rating at the voltage class, then

10 they're under scope.

11 MR. PATZNER: It does not have that

12 wording in the public - I mean, if that's the

13 wording, I'll be ecstatic because then it's

14 not -

15 MR. PATTERSON: I mean, correct me

16 if I'm wrong, but the wording on the standard

17 provides a definition of the kVA and voltage

18 class, and then explicit exclusions.

19 They are not listed in the

20 exclusion. So, if they bump into the kVA and

21 voltage, they have to comply.

22 MR. PATZNER: Sealed transformers
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 265

1 are one of the listed exclusions.

2 MR. PATTERSON: They are listed as

3 an exclusion?

4 MR. PATZNER: Yes, they are.

5 MR. BALLO: This is Tim Ballo.

6 Section 321(35)(B) of EPCA, if

7 anyone wants to look it up. But, yes, sealed

8 and non-ventilating transformers are excluded

9 from the definition.

10 MR. DeLASKI: I guess that's a

11 question back to Dan. I think that was a

12 question to you, Dan, during our last

13 conversation, you know, is there authority for

14 the Agency to address those transformers or -

15 MR. PATZNER: The definitions are

16 actually in the text that was signed by

17 congress.

18 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay. So, the

19 point is that -

20 MS. COUGHLIN: I got it.

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: You got it.

22 MS. COUGHLIN: I got it, yes.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 266

1 MR. PATZNER: So, Katie, I can help

2 you with that on my predictions of what might

3 occur based on price point. So, it would only

4 occur once an efficiency gets to a certain

5 price point.

6 MS. COUGHLIN: Right, right, yes,

7 okay.

8 Okay, so only a couple more slides

9 left.

10 MR. SENTA: Katie.

11 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes.

12 MR. SENTA: This is Mahet Senta

13 from EMS Consulting. I've got one quick

14 question on Slide 15.

15 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay.

16 MR. SENTA: If I look at the

17 cumulative source savings, it's confusing as

18 CSL goes up, I expect, from four to five.

19 MS. COUGHLIN: Right.

20 MR. SENTA: I don't quite

21 understand. Is there a good explanation?

22 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, this is the -
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 267

1 again, this is the issue of the difference

2 between the efficiency in the test procedure

3 and what you might see in the field, because

4 the test procedure loadings are generally

5 significantly higher than the assumed loadings

6 in the new installations.

7 So, what's happening at CSL 5 is

8 that the efficiency level is being met by

9 greatly improving - greatly reducing the load

10 losses. And the new load losses are not

11 reduced.

12 So, when you take that transformer

13 and put it in installations that are loaded

14 less heavily, you don't get that benefit of

15 the improved load loss. So, you see the

16 actual energy savings go down.

17 MR. SENTA: Okay. Thank you.

18 MR. PATTERSON: This is Wes

19 Patterson again. I'd like to come back to the

20 sealed exclusion.

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: Very quickly,

22 Wes.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 268

1 MR. PATTERSON: That sealed

2 exclusion pertains to sealed gas-filled

3 transformers, not encapsulated transformers.

4 We're talking about the

5 temperature and pressure characteristic on

6 them. And when that was debated back on the

7 original standard, this had to do with a gas8 filled transformer which is almost

9 nonexistent.

10 MR. PATZNER: Wes, Tom Patzner here

11 from Schneider Electric.

12 The text on 35(a) -- 35(b) in the

13 actual EPACT 2005, small double I, it just

14 says regulating transformers, sealed

15 transformers are not ventilated transformers.

16 So, if this committee agrees that

17 we can define "sealed" differently, I'm all

18 for that.

19 MR. PATTERSON: Okay. There was a

20 definition -

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay, I'm

22 going to break this off. This is very good,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 269

1 but let's move on.

2 Wes, why don't you work with Tom

3 and Dan Cohen to look at it and give us a

4 report back and we'll pick it up at the next

5 session.

6 I want to move on, Steve. We're

7 running short of time. Is this something very

8 quick? Go ahead.

9 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just real quick on

10 the source energy estimates, I know they were

11 based on annual energy outlook 2011

12 projections for the source energy savings over

13 the next 30 years.

14 Is anybody doing a sensitivity

15 analysis based on all the announcements by

16 many companies over the last few months about

17 coal, power plants retiring, refueling, et

18 cetera?

19 MS. COUGHLIN: The Department -

20 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Because that will

21 be a significant change.

22 MS. COUGHLIN: The Department uses
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 270

1 NIMS.

2 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Right.

3 MS. COUGHLIN: So, we can run

4 anything that NIMS can produce. If NIMS has

5 a scenario in it that describes that

6 situation, we could use it, yes.

7 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Well, can we add a

8 new scenario, because it's based on, you know,

9 the last six months have been a whole slew of

10 announcements that would dramatically change

11 and lower, actually, any upstream estimates.

12 MS. COUGHLIN: We'll have to

13 discuss that internally. It's not purely a

14 technical issue.

15 Technically, you can do it.

16 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Right.

17 MS. COUGHLIN: It has to fit into

18 the rules of the larger process which normally

19 just use the AEO scenarios as sensitivities.

20 So, we'll discuss it.

21 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay, because as I

22 recall in the document, there was only one set
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 271

1 of values shown. There was no sensitivity

2 shown for those numbers.

3 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. So, I'll look

4 into it.

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you.

6 FACILITATOR PARKER: Great. Okay,

7 you have that?

8 As I understand it, though, and

9 you may be getting to this, each TSL is

10 generated by reference to some criteria,

11 right, that you want us to -

12 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, I'll get to

13 that.

14 FACILITATOR PARKER: -- approve,

15 right? And so that's -

16 MS. COUGHLIN: Well -

17 FACILITATOR PARKER: I guess the

18 question is where are the criteria that led to

19 these six?

20 MS. COUGHLIN: These are really

21 just trying to sample the design space in a

22 relatively uniform way.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 272

1 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay. So,

2 these are just more or less evenly spaced -

3 MS. COUGHLIN: More or less, yes.

4 FACILITATOR PARKER: -- efficiency

5 levels that you -

6 MS. COUGHLIN: I mean, again,

7 they're a necessary input. So, we have to do

8 something.

9 And the analytically sensible

10 thing to do when you have no other

11 information, is just try to sample the

12 existing design space more or less uniformly,

13 yes.

14 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay.

15 MS. COUGHLIN: The next slide is

16 just an illustration of the time development

17 of - so, the previous table was the NPVs and

18 things over the entire analysis period.

19 The standard approach in these

20 analyses is to do two lifetimes as the

21 analysis period. Again, these are just

22 accounting decisions. They're not necessarily
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 273

1 meant to be of any metaphysical importance.

2 So, what we do is we follow the

3 new purchases for a single lifetime. And then

4 beyond one lifetime we continue to account for

5 the existence of that product, but we don't

6 count additional new shipments after one

7 lifetime.

8 So, that's - so, what you're

9 seeing on this plot is the green bars are

10 showing the additional cost incurred by buying

11 the more efficient units over the first 30

12 years of the period.

13 The blue bars are the aggregate

14 energy savings. So, they go up because what's

15 happening in each year is you're getting more

16 efficient units in the population and retiring

17 the less efficient units.

18 So, there's a steady increase in

19 the overall energy savings attributable to the

20 standard.

21 And if there's any kind of new

22 material requirement related to a standard,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 274

1 you will see generically this type of pattern

2 where there will be some slow growth of demand

3 for that material as the product turns over in

4 the market.

5 So, again, given the set of TSLs

6 that we want to examine, we calculate all

7 these things in the national impact analysis. 

8 And there are - we discussed this in the

9 previous meeting, and I'll summarize here. 

10 We're coming to have certain types of TSLs as

11 being a standard set of criteria to examine in

12 each rulemaking.

13 Again, this isn't just

14 transformers. This is all rulemaking. So,

15 they've been proposed for the medium voltage

16 and liquid immersed.

17 One is the max tech. That's the

18 maximum efficiency that exists in the market. 

19 That's part of the legal requirement. So, we

20 always analyze that.

21 A favorite of OMB is maximum NTV. 

22 And typically in the way things work out, that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 275

1 tends to be the minimum LCC.

2 So, you would go to each design

3 line. You would pick the efficiency level

4 that has minimum LCC. And you would aggregate

5 those together to create the TSLs.

6 FACILITATOR PARKER: Do they ever

7 differ?

8 MS. COUGHLIN: It depends. They

9 could, yes. It depends.

10 And then the maximum energy

11 savings with non-negative LCC is another

12 choice. So, in that case you would

13 essentially have - you would break even on the

14 life cycle cost, but you would typically have

15 a larger energy savings.

16 And then so these three are going

17 to potentially create gaps in the efficiency

18 space. And it's generally useful to fill

19 those gaps with something just so you have

20 something to interpolate between.

21 And then other criteria that have

22 been discussed are technology breakpoints
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 276

1 where you move away from a diversity of

2 materials, one or two materials. And that's -

3 so, again, I assume part of the work of this

4 committee is to sit down and figure out how

5 many TSLs and what criteria you want to use to

6 inform your negotiations.

7 And once those have been selected,

8 again it's fairly straightforward to run

9 through the NIA and produce the results.

10 The manufacturer impacts is a

11 little more complicated. So, it is harder for

12 the manufacturer impacts analysis to cope with

13 a lot of last-minute changes in the choice of

14 TSLs.

15 So, I think that's it. That's all

16 I have.

17 FACILITATOR PARKER: Good. Thank

18 you. That was a perfect break point, and we

19 are right at our break time with an extra half

20 hour added in for lunch.

21 So, why don't we take a break,

22 come back at - why don't we say - we have to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 277

1 be out of here by 4:30, right, so that they

2 can - 4:45 so that they can get the computer

3 back by 5:00.

4 So, should we take a half an hour,

5 or is that too long? 15-minute break? How do

6 people feel? Who would prefer longer?

7 PARTICIPANT: I'd rather leave

8 earlier and get back sooner.

9 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay.

10 (Whereupon, the proceedings went

11 off the record at 2:59 p.m. for a break, and

12 went back on the record at 3:26 p.m.)

13 FACILITATOR PARKER: Somebody who

14 was on our call, left. There were 13 people

15 on the call. We now only have 11. So, we

16 surmise on the technical support side is that

17 one of those two people who left the call,

18 left their phone ringing.

19 And the only way to fix that is

20 for all the callers to hang up and then call

21 back in. But we're not ready for that to

22 happen yet, because the technical people who
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 278

1 have to resume the call from our end since we

2 don't control the phone here are not here yet. 

3 They've been summoned and are on their way.

4 So, as soon as they are here, we

5 will do our brief reprieve to reestablish the

6 phone connection without buzzing, and go from

7 there. Sorry about that.

8 This is going to be a test of

9 concentration. One quick thing on the ground

10 rules, by the way, just a typo.

11 In the goal, Jeremiah pointed out

12 in the first paragraph of the ground rules

13 while we're just waiting for this, you will

14 notice the phrase "liquid-immersed and medium15 voltage dry-type."

16 That's because this was cut and

17 pasted from the previous group. We will

18 correct that to say "low-voltage dry-type" in

19 the next iteration. So, that will be done.

20 Okay. The two things that we need

21 to accomplish now in the next hour or so

22 before we adjourn, is to discuss and come to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 279

1 agreement hopefully and adapt some criteria

2 for trial standard levels.

3 This was what the medium-voltage

4 group had done. And I think Katie can - gave

5 us a pretty good overview of the

6 possibilities.

7 I'm trying to think here if the -

8 Katie, do you have that slide? Is there -

9 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes.

10 FACILITATOR PARKER: Page down. 

11 Let's see. I want to go back which way? 

12 There you go.

13 So, just for the benefit of those

14 who were here for the first time, and again

15 this is not binding on this group. What the

16 medium-voltage group did is not binding on

17 this group.

18 But the TSLs that were, as I

19 recall, agreed on, the criteria that were

20 agreed on by the previous group is first max

21 tech, which is required by law, obviously.

22 Secondly, the maximum net present
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 280

1 value which is essentially required by OMB and

2 is an obvious choice in any case, the minimum

3 life cycle cost analysis.

4 The third thing was the maximum

5 energy savings with non-negative LCC. I think

6 the analysis for that has already been run,

7 right?

8 The filling in the gaps in the

9 design space, I think that's what Katie was

10 referring to when she was saying that they try

11 to make sure that there are no big gaps there.

12 The main thing that required

13 significant discussion in the previous group

14 and that I would just in the interest of

15 efficiency try to summarize for this group to

16 launch the discussion, and please correct me

17 if I misstate it, but is the TSL defined by

18 technology breakpoints.

19 And here the issue is at what

20 point do as you increase the CSL or the

21 efficiency level, do you reach a point where

22 even upgraded conventional steel can no longer
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 281

1 compete in some sense with amorphous metal

2 causing significant adverse harm to makers of

3 the conventional steels with bottom line

4 consequences for market competition and so

5 forth?

6 Those impacts are part of the -

7 they're one of the criteria that I think DOE

8 is expected to consider in setting an

9 appropriate standard. It's one of the factors

10 to consider. It's also something that the

11 Department of Justice in my conversations with

12 them, wants to look at. They are concerned

13 with anti-competitive impacts of any standard.

14 So, it's definitely a relevant

15 factor. The problem is that you can't - the

16 problem analytically is, and here Katie will

17 correct me if I misstate it, but the problem

18 is that in calculating manufacturing, it's

19 kind of an endogenous variable.

20 The manufacturing impacts depend

21 upon the TSL that was created, the TSL was

22 defined according to manufacturing input. So,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 282

1 you have the cat kind of chasing its tail.

2 The way we tried to deal with that

3 in the - proposed to deal with that in the

4 medium-voltage analysis - well, I think the

5 phone has stopped, actually. Oh, it's

6 disconnected.

7 Okay. So, could everybody - we've

8 just disconnected you. So, if you can't hear

9 me, please dial back in.

10 (Laughter.)

11 (Whereupon, the proceedings went

12 off the record at 3:32 p.m. and went back on

13 the record at 3:39 p.m.)

14 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay, can we

15 go back to that slide there's max tach?

16 MR. CASKEY: And there is the net

17 present value on -

18 FACILITATOR PARKER: There's the

19 max net present value, which is min life cycle

20 cost. There's maximum net energy savings with

21 positive life cycle cost. There is CSL0,

22 obviously, status quo.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 283

1 MR. PATZNER: In regards to the

2 maximum net present value, since the majority

3 of the marketplace does not see any value, I

4 don't know if an NPV for a low-voltage

5 transformer is actually a beneficial criteria.

6 MR. CYMBALSKY: This is John

7 Cymbalsky, OMB - DOE.

8 (Laughter.)

9 (Off-record comments.)

10 MR. CYMBALSKY: They actually -

11 that's the first thing they'll ask us for.

12 MR. PATZNER: I mean, because the

13 contractors don't actually get the benefit. 

14 The guy who's purchasing it -

15 MR. CYMBALSKY: I understand.

16 MR. PATZNER: I just -

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: There's an

18 executive order that came out in January that

19 says every regulation that the U.S. government

20 will put out will be subject to this maximum

21 net benefit provision. So, that's the first -

22 so, whether or not we pick that one -
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 284

1 FACILITATOR PARKER: I think the

2 way OMB, correct me if I'm wrong, John, but I

3 think what they're thinking of is social

4 benefit. These are economists who are looking

5 at social welfare curves. So, they're not

6 necessarily distinguishing between building

7 owners who buy the transformers and consumers.

8 You're absolutely right in terms

9 of who buys it, but I think they're talking in

10 terms of social benefits. So, it's a benefit

11 to a different person, but it's still a

12 benefit to society in lower consumption.

13 Is that fair enough?

14 MR. DeLASKI: No, I won't take

15 anything coming from economists.

16 FACILITATOR PARKER: What's that?

17 MR. DeLASKI: Economists can make

18 lots of assumptions about how benefit will

19 flow through.

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 MR. DeLASKI: Those benefits will

22 be accrued to the people who actually rent
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 285

1 those spaces.

2 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal

3 Pacific. I have a question for AK here.

4 When it comes to silicon steel,

5 let's say the market shifted dramatically

6 towards M3. I understand that in doing that,

7 that there's a certain amount of M4 that comes

8 out of that process. So, it's not like you

9 can just make all M3.

10 Is that an accurate statement?

11 MR. PETERSEN: There is a

12 portfolio. We don't have the potential just

13 to be able to produce a single product.

14 There is some portfolio aspects

15 associated with what we produce that is able

16 to swing our distribution of products so far

17 one way or the other.

18 I think that's what you're asking

19 here.

20 MR. GREESON: Yes, and what I'm

21 getting at is a TSL that - and we know that

22 the silicon steel manufacturers have a greater
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 286

1 capacity to provide the material that's

2 required.

3 And we know that the amorphous

4 steel has great advantage in certain areas as

5 well. So, I'm interested in a TSL that kind

6 of focuses on kind of optimum grade of silicon

7 steel.

8 For example, if it was maybe the -

9 that big cloud of dots for the M3, maybe on

10 the lower end of the cloud, if that makes any

11 sense. That way it would still sort of

12 encompass the M4 material.

13 I think that would be a meaningful

14 TSL to look at. I mean, am I making any

15 sense?

16 MR. PETERSEN: I think what I hear

17 you saying is that you want an efficiency

18 level that allows you a distribution of

19 potential products that you can use.

20 MR. GREESON: And be fair to the

21 amorphous folks too, if at all possible. Is

22 there such a level that we can pick?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 287

1 And I think Andrew sort of touched

2 on this in the medium-voltage side. He

3 suggested TSL with regards to the core steels,

4 and I'm trying to remember exactly how you

5 worded that.

6 Do you recall?

7 MR. CYMBALSKY: I think what he

8 said was a level at which you can get the

9 highest efficiency or energy savings, but

10 there is not a single supplier and there's

11 competition for the supply of the material.

12 MR. DeLASKI: Yes, that's a good

13 way to put it. I think that's different than

14 what you were - I'm not sure - I think that's

15 a good one to look at.

16 I think also in terms of this

17 mixture of products from steel manufacturers

18 maybe working the global marketplace, this is

19 not - the U.S. market is not insulated from

20 the global market.

21 So, I think we need to keep that

22 in mind as well as we think about how it
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 288

1 impacts -

2 MR. PETERSEN: That's correct. So,

3 the most we would be able to do is provide

4 some understanding associated with some of the

5 capability issues steel manufacturers will be

6 able to provide.

7 However, as you look at your total

8 scope of steel manufacturers, that's not just

9 AK, that's not just ATI, because it is a

10 global market.

11 So, even though you might consider

12 capability issues if you're to say, well, what

13 if we just threw it all down M3 and created a

14 huge market, we would be able to give you a

15 perspective associated with how that affects

16 AK Steel. ATI would be able to tell you from

17 their perspective.

18 But I think what this group would

19 have to consider is whether or not those two

20 suppliers really represents the sum total of

21 their supply in terms of how you would make

22 your decision.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 289

1 We recognize you have other

2 suppliers than the two here in the U.S. So,

3 we can provide you some feedback in regards to

4 how it affects us, but your decision, I think,

5 should certainly contemplate the full scope of

6 your suppliers.

7 MR. TENDULKAR: My understanding on

8 this, and maybe I'm wrong, but what if you 

9 decided to make all M3 steel. You cannot make

10 all M3 steel, a little bit will be M4.

11 MR. PETERSEN: Absolutely.

12 MR. TENDULKAR: That's something

13 that's going to be there. So, there will be

14 always some material which does not meet M3 or

15 M4 and will be there and it has to be used

16 somewhere.

17 MR. PETERSEN: That's correct. And

18 I guess that's the point I was making is that

19 we would end up producing actually a portfolio

20 or a distribution of products. I'm not going

21 to just produce this product. It would be a

22 portfolio.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 290

1 And so the impact that we would

2 end up taking a look at is depending upon the

3 size of this market, we are a global company,

4 would be my potential to be able to take those

5 other products and sell them outside the

6 United States.

7 FACILITATOR PARKER: Why do you

8 have to do a portfolio? I don't quite

9 understand that.

10 MR. PETERSEN: Probably the best

11 way I could explain it is it's largely

12 dependent upon the overall capability of our

13 process.

14 So, there is - and I'm using some

15 broad terms here because this isn't true for

16 each product. There's some differences. But

17 for the simplest terminology, I would just say

18 that we produce a product that has a bell

19 curve, if you will, of distributions.

20 There are certain portions of that

21 distribution that would make an M3 quality or

22 an M2 quality just as an example.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 291

1 My capability is the overall

2 distribution of the products that I make. So,

3 it's not necessarily that I'm always just

4 producing this product. It's that I'm

5 actually producing a bell curve of products.

6 And within that, I'm separating

7 them based upon the level of quality -

8 FACILITATOR PARKER: Like cookie

9 dough.

10 MR. PETERSEN: Exactly.

11 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay.

12 MR. PETERSEN: I'm making my cookie

13 dough and some of it is only acceptable for

14 chocolate, and some of it's only acceptable

15 for vanilla, if you will.

16 FACILITATOR PARKER: So, is that

17 relevant from the standpoint of, say,

18 environmental groups concerned about global

19 impacts from carbon emissions if you get

20 higher efficiency by having a high standard in

21 this market, that could be sort of like

22 pushing on a waterbed, right? It just bubbles
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 292

1 up somewhere else.

2 The less efficient steel will go

3 overseas or - what's that?

4 MR. DeLASKI: We're heading down -

5 that's a very - it's unknowable.

6 FACILITATOR PARKER: Unknowable.

7 MR. DeLASKI: Particularly in the

8 time we have today.

9 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay. I think

10 that was the concern.

11 MR. PETERSEN: I think what - I'm

12 sorry. I think what Rob's concern was just

13 basically based upon what is the overall

14 capacity of the steel suppliers to provide a

15 given grade recognizing that I can't just

16 take, for example, if I had a hundred tons,

17 can I put all hundred tons in M3, or does my

18 bell curve result in only 60 tons available

19 for M3?

20 And if he's basing it upon a

21 hundred, he wants to recognize that my

22 capacity is not the 100. It's actually only
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 293

1 the 60 that I can actually make it the M3.

2 I'm speaking for -

3 MR. GREESON: Yes, I was just - I'm

4 wondering if we can focus on a TSL that is -

5 provides a significant - or it's a good point

6 where the material - from a material

7 availability standpoint.

8 You don't want to - you want to

9 put one somewhere where it makes sense from a

10 material availability standpoint. And that's

11 what I'm trying to figure out, and I had just

12 wanted some feedback on that.

13 MR. PETERSEN: Our intent was to

14 speak to the capability issues that were the

15 capacities that are defined and provide that

16 type of feedback. So, we'll be prepared to do

17 so as we're ready as we continue in these

18 discussions.

19 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay, Robert.

20 MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman

21 Economics, qua Dave Millure, Metglas.

22 There's been a lot of talk around
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 294

1 the table about the users not being the

2 decision makers on the transformers. And I

3 think we need to reflect some of that in the

4 TSLs.

5 I'd like to see something based on

6 the cost per kilowatt hour of energy saved. 

7 Possibly calculated at a couple of different

8 load factors. And something on the impact of

9 the building's electric bill.

10 To some extent, arguably, some of

11 that may be embedded in the NPV and OCC

12 calculation, but that's not a number that you

13 can really focus on to get that result.

14 And if what we're looking for is

15 where the customer is, where the individual

16 is, where the user is going to be, it will be

17 that much better off than what are they saving

18 versus what is it costing them to save that,

19 and what does that mean to them in their

20 operations.

21 FACILITATOR PARKER: Well, we need

22 something that operates as a boundary
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 295

1 parameter, right?

2 MR. PATZNER: Tom Patzner,

3 Schneider Electric.

4 I concur and I think it would be

5 we want a TSL at a some percentage savings for

6 dollars per year. Because we have the kill

7 core loss, we have the I squared, we have the

8 A and B losses. So, we can determine using a

9 blended kilowatt rate, the dollar amount real

10 fast even if we just do it straight at 35

11 percent loading.

12 So, it's basically the end user,

13 what he would pay for the energy for the year. 

14 I think that would be a good - I don't know

15 what the matrix of where we choose that if

16 it's 20 percent less, 30 percent less, but the

17 industry has kind of been focusing on a 30

18 percent reduction and a 50 percent reduction.

19 So, if we had a TSL at a 30

20 percent reduction in dollars spent per year

21 and one at 50 percent reduction, we would have

22 the ability.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 296

1 FACILITATOR PARKER: That would

2 work.

3 MR. PATZNER: And the tool has both

4 values in. So, it's just adding a column in

5 the spreadsheet and multiplying it by -

6 MR. BERMAN: None of this is

7 additional information. This is a

8 transformation, arithmetic transformation of

9 what you've got in there already.

10 MR. DeLASKI: So, is there a 30

11 percent reduction and a 50 percent reduction

12 in the consumer energy bills?

13 MR. PATZNER: No, if they're going

14 for 30 percent reduction in energy or 50

15 percent reduction in energy, that's what the

16 industry is asking in energy.

17 So, just to translate it for which

18 TSLs to pick, I'm suggesting a 30 percent

19 reduction in what they spend, because the end

20 user is not making the decision.

21 MR. DeLASKI: In the LCC.

22 MR. PATZNER: No, for the TSL. To
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 297

1 pick the TSLs we use.

2 FACILITATOR PARKER: The 30 percent

3 reduction in what, though?

4 MR. PATZNER: So, we have this

5 CSL0.

6 MR. DeLASKI: In electric cost?

7 (Simultaneous speaking.)

8 MR. PATZNER: So, if it cost us

9 $200 to date on the TP1, it cost something to

10 run a CSL2, it cost something to run a CSL3

11 and so forth.

12 So, we pick a point that is a

13 reduction in how much they spend per year.

14 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, I think we can

15 just put those values to what we've already

16 done and see where that shakes out before we -

17

18 FACILITATOR PARKER: Hold on.

19 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Again, I think

20 what he is talking about is the goals for

21 building energy reductions at ASHRAE and some

22 other things are 30 percent. And then 50
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 298

1 percent. That's in the DOE's goals in terms

2 of building energy efficiency, goals for the

3 new buildings and building codes. So, I think

4 that's what he's referring to.

5 And he's looking at operating

6 costs. The actual operating costs of the

7 transformer per year before any discount rate. 

8 It would be like a first-year reduction annual

9 operating cost reduction. Don't worry about

10 the lifetime, don't worry about the discount

11 rates, because that gets all confusing and

12 everything like that.

13 MR. CYMBALSKY: We can assign those

14 values to each of the TSLs just to see where

15 they shake out.

16 FACILITATOR PARKER: Is there a

17 reason for choosing - you say 30 and 50 have

18 standards because they are in the ASHRAE

19 standards.

20 Is there -

21 MR. PATZNER: It's just the two

22 percentages always here.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 299

1 MR. CYMBALSKY: We may just by

2 luck, have them already. I don't know.

3 FACILITATOR PARKER: Katie, can you

4 tell us is that a viable, analytical -

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: It's energy cost

6 savings. You say highest energy savings. 

7 It's energy cost savings. You're trying to

8 write the notes. There's a big difference.

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: I'm sorry, this was

10 the one previous to the one we're talking

11 about now.

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Oh, okay. Okay.

13 MR. CYMBALSKY: I haven't typed

14 that one yet.

15 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay, sorry.

16 MR. CYMBALSKY: I'm still saying I

17 think we might already have that. So, I'm not

18 -

19 MR. ROSENSTOCK: It's basically a

20 first-year energy cost savings number.

21 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right.

22 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Not a lifetime,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 300

1 not discounted.

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: I fully understand

3 what you're asking.

4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I'm not asking. 

5 I'm just trying to interpret -

6 MR. CYMBALSKY: Whatever, yes.

7 FACILITATOR PARKER: So, this would

8 be a pair of TSLs, basically. One affecting

9 30 percent, and one affecting 50 percent.

10 This part of information, is there

11 a distinction here, a major distinction

12 between energy losses and operating cost? I

13 suppose maintenance would distinguish -

14 MR. PATZNER: Well, it becomes -

15 it's based on, I mean, it changes drastically

16 based on the loading curve. And basically

17 because if we just pick 35 percent, it's not

18 going to be any different.

19 But if we actually loaded it into

20 a software that actually did the typical

21 loading of a building, you would see a drastic

22 difference if we went to something that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 301

1 reduced the core loss from 200 watts to a

2 hundred than if you kept the core loss at 150

3 and you just removed the losses from I squared

4 R.

5 So, it would actually - it would

6 force us to do - it's an A and B - it impacts

7 the A and B and how the transformers are

8 actually loading. And it puts more - it

9 actually puts more emphasis on reducing the

10 core loss instead of the core losses for the

11 end product we pick.

12 FACILITATOR PARKER: Any other

13 thoughts around the table? Does that seem

14 like a reasonable TSL criteria?

15 Steve, did you want to comment?

16 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I want to wait for

17 the people at the table to comment before I

18 added some suggestions concerning the TSL.

19 MR. CASKEY: This is John Caskey at

20 NEMA.

21 And I think, Robert, when you

22 first started talking, you mentioned like two
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 302

1 things. And we sort of evolved into this

2 proposal of the 30 and the 50, but then there

3 was another thing that you said that I didn't

4 catch.

5 MR. BERMAN: What I was looking at

6 was a couple of different things that had the

7 flavor of capturing the savings due to a more

8 efficient transformer, the savings to the

9 user.

10 MR. CASKEY: Okay.

11 MR. BERMAN: And what I mentioned

12 were just measures off the top of my head that

13 were conventional measures that would do that.

14 What Tom was talking about was

15 another measure that - a transformation, if

16 you will, on that that would do the same

17 thing. If that - if everybody is comfortable

18 with that, if that makes more sense to the

19 manufacturers and so forth, then that's the

20 one we should use.

21 I mean, that's - I'm happy with

22 that.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 303

1 MR. CASKEY: John Caskey again.

2 So, did we capture the concept,

3 and Andrew said it and I think John said it,

4 did we capture that concept of trying to pick

5 a high efficiency level that does not lock us

6 in to basically one material in the design of

7 these transformers?

8 MR. CYMBALSKY: No, it's this one. 

9 The third line from the bottom here that the

10 cursor is on right here.

11 MR. CASKEY: Okay.

12 MR. CYMBALSKY: I put it in simpler

13 words, but -

14 MR. DeLASKI: Well, I think there's

15 a distinction here which I think was drawn by

16 Eric in the last meeting, which was that

17 there's a question of do you have - this is an

18 important TSL to evaluate. 

19 But I think the distinction that

20 Eric drew, and, Eric, you're going to have to

21 help me out here to make some kind of -

22 restate these in our last meeting, which is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 304

1 that there's question of what you make, well,

2 now, you've just changed it, right?

3 I want both, right? I want what

4 you had before, and I want this.

5 MR. PETERSEN: Oh, you want a

6 different one, okay.

7 MR. DeLASKI: Right, because here

8 the material availability, this is - this will

9 come out of the engineering analysis, right? 

10 This is just engineering.

11 But then you have a question of

12 you have to put into the pricing, which

13 affects competitive, right?

14 So, there's a question of - how

15 did you put it last time? Capability and

16 viability or something.

17 MR. PETERSEN: Capability and

18 competitiveness.

19 MR. DeLASKI: There's a capability

20 threshold and there's a competitive threshold.

21 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, this one is

22 going to be the competitive one?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 305

1 MR. DeLASKI: Yes.

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. Still

3 highest energy savings though.

4 MR. DeLASKI: Yes.

5 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay.

6 MR. DeLASKI: Right.

7 FACILITATOR PARKER: So, as Eric

8 commented last time, there was an outside

9 competition threshold which basically at what

10 point do you stop having multiple suppliers. 

11 And one the competitiveness threshold which

12 was a more difficult thing to determine at

13 which point you start getting severe

14 competitive impacts in the marketplace. And

15 there was a discussion about how we would

16 define severe anti-competitive.

17 And the way I recall it being left

18 was there were discussions about, well, let's

19 look at, you know, impacts on rate as a

20 surrogate for price.

21 But then Brian Coffey pointed out

22 that, well, why use weight as a surrogate for
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 306

1 price? We actually have data on price so we

2 can predict price impacts.

3 And we left it with the medium4 voltage group that the manufacturers would get

5 together and just try to work out amongst

6 themselves with Navigant and LBL a reasonable

7 TSL to propose based upon their estimate of

8 whatever - coming up with a criteria of what

9 price differential could be accepted as

10 defining by some measure, competition, the

11 remaining competition in the marketplace that

12 we're still - there is still competition in

13 some sense. It's not moving in.

14 And there are antitrust guidelines

15 that one could look at if we consulted an

16 antitrust expert. If people are interested,

17 Hirschman-Herfindahl Index, you can look at

18 market share, but it may not be necessary to

19 get that fancy.

20 I did have some concerns about

21 whether the extensive antitrust immunity that

22 we would have for this. And so, I urge people
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 307

1 to hold off having those discussions among

2 competitors in particular since virtually the

3 entire U.S. market was present in the room in

4 the last meeting and sort of to get an opinion

5 from the DOJ.

6 We didn't get a formal opinion,

7 but I did call a fellow over in the antitrust

8 shop at DOJ. And he said so long as the goal

9 is avoiding anti-competitive effects with the

10 standard we set and there's not deliberate

11 price setting going on, he didn't foresee

12 there being a problem.

13 So, I emailed back and said that

14 people should feel free to go ahead and

15 convene that working group and talk about what

16 the, you know, what the LBL is producing in

17 the way of forecasts for price impacts and

18 come up with a recommendation for the MV group

19 on what breakpoint criteria might be set for

20 defining that competition TSL in terms of

21 steel impacts.

22 Is that a fair summary of what you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 308

1 said before, Eric?

2 MR. PETERSEN: I can give you a bit

3 of an update since then.

4 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay.

5 MR. PETERSEN: We actually - Dave

6 Millure attempted to call a meeting with us. 

7 And I can't speak for Ray, but Ray Polinski of

8 ATI actually chose to speak directly with

9 Navigant rather than conduct a meeting with

10 the four of us. We were attempting to arrange

11 a group between the three, and Brian Coffey.

12 So, what we had done since ATI

13 chose to work directly with Navigant, the

14 recommendation was made that each group

15 individually work with Navigant.

16 So, I can't speak to what the

17 others are doing, but I can tell you that we

18 have put together essentially a recommendation

19 of the way the analysis can be conducted.

20 We don't necessarily have the

21 capability within some of the modeling work

22 that we have to be able to provide that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 309

1 analysis, neither would I think the group want

2 to see it from us individually as much as

3 they'd want to see it from Navigant.

4 So, we are putting together a

5 proposal that we intend on delivering to Brian

6 here either tomorrow or Friday. Jerry was

7 trying to set up that meeting to review with

8 him here's how our analysis would look like,

9 here would be our recommendation for a means

10 of trying to determine -

11 FACILITATOR PARKER: Are you all

12 coming in at the same time?

13 MR. PETERSEN: I'm sorry?

14 FACILITATOR PARKER: Is the

15 understanding that they're all coming in at

16 the same, Allegheny's and Metglas?

17 MR. PETERSEN: I don't know the

18 answer to that point.

19 FACILITATOR PARKER: But that would

20 be a way of proceeding here. In the meeting,

21 of course the issue is the competition between

22 amorphous and conventional metals.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 310

1 It sounds like here the

2 competitive aspects may be somewhat different

3 and the breakpoint may be somewhat altered. 

4 May be more M3, M4, I don't know. Something

5 in that range; is that right?

6 MR. PETERSEN: It would be, though,

7 I think the key difference there would be is

8 that you have a large multiplicity of

9 suppliers. As we mentioned, there are a large

10 number of M4, M5 suppliers out there that a

11 transformer manufacturer would do it.

12 FACILITATOR PARKER: So, it's a

13 much less salient TSL in this group than in

14 the other group.

15 Andrew, do you want -

16 MR. DeLASKI: I'm not sure that's

17 true based on the scatter plots I've seen. In

18 fact, I think it's not true. Based on the

19 scatter plots I've seen, it looks like

20 amorphous does do well in the analysis. In

21 fact, they look very similar between the

22 liquid-immersed and the dry-type markets. So,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 311

1 I would think that the criteria would be

2 applied in the same manner.

3 I also have a different

4 recollection of what we agreed on the process. 

5 I remember GE Prolec standing up at the last

6 meeting and say, I'm not so sure I'm happy

7 having the steel manufacturers get together

8 and tell me where they can compete, okay?

9 And I think I saw a lot of nodding

10 from the manufacturers that there was some

11 discomfort with having - so, I think the

12 process that you have ended up with is the

13 process that I thought we had agreed on. So,

14 I'm glad you ended there.

15 Because I think it makes sense

16 that we would have you guys provide your

17 individual input to the consultant, and then

18 try to for them then to make their judgment as

19 to what they think where there is competition.

20 MR. PETERSEN: The intent, Andrew,

21 was actually have the group work with Navigant

22 and Navigant to conduct the analysis.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 312

1 MR. DeLASKI: Yes.

2 MR. PETERSEN: We aren't going to

3 do it. We're going to have Navigant do it.

4 MR. DeLASKI: Right. But I think

5 to do that, they need to be able to talk to

6 you individually to get that what ultimately

7 is going to proprietary views of how the

8 market works.

9 I also think that -

10 FACILITATOR PARKER: Listen,

11 everybody. I didn't mean from my discussion,

12 that we're taking a position on how that

13 internal group organized its own affairs. 

14 They were just going to work out their own

15 procedures.

16 MR. DeLASKI: On a different point,

17 the other thing that occurs that I think we

18 had a discussion about last time and you

19 referenced this a few minutes ago, is using

20 weight.

21 And then I think you mentioned,

22 well, Brian said that while we've got prices,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 313

1 then we know what weight translates into to

2 user prices, therefore.

3 But the problem is that there are

4 different views as to what pricing scenarios

5 will play out. So, I think having weight is

6 a useful way - is useful data for stakeholders

7 to be able to look at.

8 And then we can talk about - then

9 different folks may have different assumptions

10 about how the pricing is going to play out

11 over these different scenarios.

12 It's engineering information as

13 opposed to views as to what's going to happen

14 with pricing, which is very unclear depending

15 on what market players had to do.

16 FACILITATOR PARKER: That's from

17 the industry? Is weight a - how did the

18 weight criteria be applied in this case?

19 MR. DeLASKI: The discussion we had

20 last time was if we mapped weight against

21 efficiency much as we do cost against

22 efficiency now, then we know what's entailed
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 314

1 in getting to a different efficiency with

2 various materials.

3 FACILITATOR PARKER: So, we would

4 look at the point at which there is a weight

5 differential that reaches some threshold?

6 MR. DeLASKI: Yes, I mean, you --

7 MR. PATTERSON: This is Wes with

8 ABB.

9 Using the weight versus

10 efficiency, there's a small bandwidth of the

11 dollar per pound of transformers that goes up

12 and down with changes in the major

13 commodities, and it's a mild bandwidth.

14 Other dimension on this thing is

15 there's still with the medium-voltage liquid16 filled, a big question as to the impact of the

17 weight is to the pole-mount transformers.

18 So, an analysis of weight versus

19 efficiency could be very handy.

20 MR. DeLASKI: In the medium21 voltage, you say?

22 MR. PATTERSON: On the medium-
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 315

1 voltage side.

2 MR. DeLASKI: Does that apply to

3 the low-voltage though?

4 MR. PATZNER: Tom Patzner,

5 Schneider Electric.

6 It would be beneficial for Design

7 Line 7 and Design Line 7 only. And the reason

8 being is, is the National Electric Code does

9 not allow you to put a panel board above a

10 transformer any longer. So, those

11 transformers get put on wall-mounted brackets

12 and hung above the panel board.

13 So, once again the NEC forces the

14 industry to do something in a certain way. 

15 So, the 15's, 30's, 45's and 75's get hung

16 above or they get put in drop ceilings.

17 So, for Design Line 7 only, a

18 weight to efficiency would be beneficial.

19 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. This is Katie

20 Coughlin at LBL.

21 This information is already in the

22 TSD and in the spreadsheets. So, in the - if
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 316

1 you - in the spreadsheets, the design table

2 includes the transformer weight and the core

3 weight. So, we can, you know, we can plot up

4 that data if that would be useful.

5 FACILITATOR PARKER: I guess the

6 question is do you have a TSD that's defined

7 by some kind of a weight threshold.

8 MR. CYMBALSKY: No - well, I think

9 again this comes back to looking at what we

10 have and then seeing if we need to put one in.

11 So, I'm not going to write that

12 one down, but -

13 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, I think there's

14 not a well-defined way to do a TSL based on

15 weight, but the information may be useful in

16 coming up with other criteria.

17 MR. DeLASKI: We're thinking about

18 how to use weight to help us understand where

19 the products compete. That's what we're

20 trying to get at as opposed to trying to

21 figure out how do you - that's what we're

22 working on.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 317

1 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. So, I don't

2 really need to -

3 MR. DeLASKI: No, it's not a new

4 TSL.

5 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right.

6 MR. DeLASKI: It's something that -

7 MR. CYMBALSKY: It's just an

8 analysis point that we -

9 MR. DeLASKI: Okay. Very good.

10 FACILITATOR PARKER: So, in terms

11 of a - it sounds to me like we have a rough

12 consensus anyway that - first, let me back up.

13 Are there any other criteria that

14 need to be tabled for draft TSLs? Steve, did

15 you want to chime in?

16 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock,

17 yes.

18 I suggested some of these last

19 time. I'll add these for your consideration

20 especially because of the fact that in many

21 cases the purchaser of the transformer does

22 not receive the energy savings or cost savings
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 318

1 benefits because of transfer of ownership.

2 Lowest total incremental equipment

3 cost which is already done in the analysis

4 based on TSL level - TSL level.

5 Minimal - it's another way of

6 looking at the competitive issue, but the

7 minimum domestic job impact, that would be

8 another possible criteria. Domestic job

9 impact would be another criteria.

10 And I guess those are two for

11 consideration. And I'm trying to think if

12 there was as third one. I think that -

13 especially for that market, for the dry-type

14 market, I think those two might be of

15 consideration there. Thank you.

16 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky,

17 DOE.

18 The job impact, that's calculated

19 at the end as opposed to in the beginning.

20 MR. ROSENSTOCK: It's not part of

21 the manufacturing impact analysis?

22 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right, but that -
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 319

1 you've already picked the - you're not going

2 to do a Monte Carlo simulation on job analysis

3 to come up with a TSL.

4 These guys do the work back there,

5 they can correct me, but I think that part of

6 the analysis is done at the end for each TSL. 

7 We don't design a TSL to minimize job impact.

8 MR. ROSENSTOCK: There's no

9 estimate done at the preliminary analysis or

10 at the NOPR analysis?

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: It's done at the

12 end once all of them are created.

13 MR. DeLASKI: And I think in this

14 case if you go back to the 2007 final rule,

15 you'll find that the Department estimated that

16 you actually - what you'd end up at is at the

17 higher efficiency levels, you have more jobs

18 because there's more labor.

19 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Domestic, or

20 global?

21 MR. DeLASKI: I'm not sure it's

22 going to get you a new TSL, is my point. You
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 320

1 can look at it, but I don't think it's going

2 to get you a new TSL. You can look back to -

3 I suggest you could look at the analysis to

4 see where it takes you, but I don't think it's

5 going to take you to a new TSL.

6 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, I think we can

7 look at other TSLs that we come up with and

8 look at the job impacts for each one, for

9 example.

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay, but I think

11 that could be a criteria for one of the TSLs

12 that - okay. All right. You're saying it's

13 afterwards. Okay. I understand.

14 MR. CYMBALSKY: Not all incremental

15 cost can be done at levels that are suggested

16 by a new committee.

17 I don't think we have people

18 guessing what an engineering cost curve would

19 be that would create the most jobs. Maybe I'm

20 wrong. But, again, Katie is shaking her head.

21 That would be - I could just

22 imagine how you would try to come up with
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 321

1 that. I don't know.

2 MR. ROSENSTOCK: But the lowest

3 incremental cost, you're already doing that

4 anyway. So, there's other TSLs suggested by

5 any committee member, which should be allowed

6 under this process. I think that's a fair TSL

7 to be considered under this process.

8 FACILITATOR PARKER: I guess I

9 would just put last time which I'm still

10 coming back to, was that the lowest TSL - the

11 lowest incremental cost would be zero.

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: And I had said as

13 a response, the lowest incremental cost above

14 the baseline. Because under the analysis for

15 liquid-filled, there were significant

16 differences in incremental cost.

17 You can actually go higher on the

18 ELs and have a lower incremental cost based on

19 the analysis. So, there could be a point

20 where it actually minimizes incremental cost

21 to the consumers. Many of whom for the low22 voltage dry-type won't receive any of the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 322

1 benefits of the energy savings.

2 MR. SMITH: Richard?

3 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes.

4 MR. SMITH: This is Bob Smith at

5 Federal Pacific.

6 FACILITATOR PARKER: All right.

7 MR. SMITH: I would like to go back

8 to the comments plotting weight versus

9 efficiency.

10 FACILITATOR PARKER: Okay.

11 MR. SMITH: I believe Wes' comments

12 that the pricing is relatively - in a

13 relatively narrow band as a function of weight

14 for transformers.

15 On the low-voltage drys, we need

16 to consider the fact that we have three

17 different temperature rises, 80, 115 and 150,

18 with the 150 being the lightest. But at the

19 present, they all have the same minimum

20 efficiency requirements.

21 Also with the low-voltage drys, we

22 have k factors to consider. And as the k
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 323

1 factors go up, the weight will go up. But the

2 efficiency levels are not changing as a

3 function of the k factors.

4 So, I think we're better off going

5 back and looking more seriously at plotting

6 cost as a function of efficiency.

7 FACILITATOR PARKER: Response,

8 anyone around the table? Focus on cost.

9 Remember, there is a criteria that

10 basically the goal here is not to cover every

11 conceivable point of interest, but to get a

12 reasonable spread across the range of

13 possibilities and understand the consequences

14 of each point that is chosen while choosing

15 some conceptually meaningful targets to look

16 at.

17 There is a criteria, a gap-filling

18 criteria that says look at their reports. And

19 this maybe, I think, is a way of dealing with

20 Steve's concern.

21 If there are areas that don't have

22 - aren't getting covered, you can put a TSL to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 324

1 just look at the impacts there and see if

2 there are - if there is useful information to

3 gain from looking at that.

4 I guess the question is you want

5 to have a finite range of - you want to have

6 a finite number of TSLs.

7 MR. CYMBALSKY: And you want it to

8 be a meaningful place to negotiate to or from,

9 I think. If we've got the whole range covered

10 and we're only going to move down one notch

11 from max tech or up one notch from the

12 baseline, are they places where this group

13 might end up negotiating?

14 And, you know, we need consensus

15 here. So -

16 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes. And not

17 only places where this group negotiating, but

18 also places where we have a story to tell to

19 the outside world about why we chose this

20 particular criteria to look at as relevant and

21 why we might make a decision based on it.

22 So, that was why I was querying
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 325

1 where 30 percent and 50 percent come from. 

2 Because to the insiders, those are numbers

3 that you often see. For outsiders, you go,

4 well, why did you choose those numbers and not

5 something else?

6 So, there needs to be some kind of

7 a story to tell, I think, as we think about

8 how we sell our product, because it's not

9 enough for us just to agree around the table.

10 So, with that let me ask if there

11 is anything else around the table, any other

12 candidates?

13 As I understand it then, is there

14 any objection to basically in this group

15 pursuing the same process for developing the

16 final manufacturing impact TSL that they're

17 doing in the medium-voltage group, which is

18 the manufacturers consulting with Navigant to

19 provide their information on a proprietary

20 basis and let Navigant come back with a

21 recommendation on why those set of TSLs would

22 be -
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 326

1 MR. GREESON: This is Ron Greeson,

2 Federal Pacific.

3 I think that's a pretty important

4 part of the whole process is to get that - I

5 mean, speaking for myself, a lot of these

6 analyses are suspect to me until I feel

7 comfortable with how the data is. And when

8 I'm seeing these discrepancies, it just makes

9 me not sure if I can trust what they're

10 saying.

11 But on the flip side of that is

12 we're going to be under a pretty severe time

13 crunch to get that worked out. So, I think

14 the other manufacturers, I think, will have to

15 act on that pretty quickly.

16 And I think what needs to happen

17 is if we get together as a group and then

18 maybe we could conference in OPS and Navigant

19 and we could all talk about sort of a data set

20 and then pick a finite number of things to

21 provide, because there can't be hundreds and

22 thousands like OPS did.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 327

1 But then if we can independently

2 provide that data and then OPS and Navigant

3 can overlay their methods onto what they see

4 manufacturers saying, and then they can kind

5 of see the validity of it, say, yes, that's a

6 good design and we see where we didn't mark

7 this up, or we didn't put enough money in

8 here, or whatever.

9 Hopefully when they discover that,

10 then they can use that knowledge to blanket

11 across their whole entire database of designs. 

12 And that's kind of where I'm seeing - but that

13 probably needs to happen within two or three

14 weeks, I would think.

15 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes, by the

16 next meeting.

17 MR. DeLASKI: Well, yes. The next

18 meeting is in 10 days. So, it needs to happen

19 - I hope it can happen by the time of that

20 meeting and at least there's been some initial

21 work on it, because I think you're right. I

22 agree with you, Rob, that that's the big data
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 328

1 discrepancy that needs to be sorted out.

2 Since we're on this topic, I think

3 as in the break, it occurred to me, Tom, it's

4 something that you said earlier today. You

5 said that when you look at your costs, you

6 know, you hold your manufacturing square

7 footage constant.

8 DOE is not doing that. DOE, I

9 think, in their rulemaking process, does not

10 assume that manufacturers don't make capital

11 investments. In fact, just the opposite.

12 Department of Manufacture Impact

13 Analysis does look at manufacture impacts, and

14 the manufacturers are going to have to make,

15 you know, may have to make more complex, more

16 costly, more labor intensive transformers.

17 So, I'm wondering if that's

18 affecting the cost curves and that that's

19 something for us to - it is a consideration in

20 this negotiating room. No doubt about it, you

21 know, one of the impacts of manufacturers.

22 But most rulemakings that I've
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 329

1 been involved with anticipate significant

2 investments on the part of the manufacturers. 

3 So, I think it is something that may be

4 affecting different views of what it cost to

5 get to a higher efficiency level, because some

6 may anticipate significant capital

7 investments, some anticipate no capital

8 investments.

9 I see you want to respond, Tom.

10 MR. PATZNER: Thomas Patzner,

11 Schneider Electric.

12 So, that was the initial look for

13 where we're looking. I agree once we get to

14 the manufacturing impact, in fact, until I get

15 TSLs, I can't really comment on what it's

16 going to do to us, but I'll be

17 straightforward, our goal is to not have to

18 build a new building.

19 I'm not saying we might not have

20 to buy a miter core-cutting machine, we might

21 not have to buy winding equipment, but we do

22 not want to have to pour concrete.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 330

1 MR. DeLASKI: Okay. So, then you

2 are not holding capital investments to zero. 

3 You're holding square footage to zero.

4 So, you may have more capital, you

5 may have more labor hours -

6 MR. PATZNER: We might have to add

7 a third shift.

8 MR. DeLASKI: Right.

9 MR. PATZNER: But we want to be

10 able to hold square footage to zero.

11 MR. DeLASKI: Okay.

12 MR. PATZNER: The square footage is

13 where it becomes expensive.

14 MR. DeLASKI: Okay.

15 MR. TENDULKAR: The other factor we

16 may want to talk about is -

17 FACILITATOR PARKER: Is that a

18 common concern across the industry, or is that

19 something unique to your company?

20 MR. DeLASKI: Well, I'm sure -

21 MR. TENDULKAR: It's a common

22 concern.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 331

1 MR. DeLASKI: I think also that's

2 going to shake out in the manufacture impact

3 analysis. You're going to see some

4 discontinuities where sometimes they've got to

5 make much bigger investments.

6 FACILITATOR PARKER: Is that always

7 affected in the analysis, the square footage? 

8 I mean, is it part of the standard -

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: The NIA would take

10 that all into account. If we would think

11 you'd have to build a new plant, yes, that is

12 absolutely part of the cost.

13 MR. PATZNER: So, and the impact on

14 me is a whole lot different than as you've

15 worded it earlier, to mom and pops.

16 Assume the company that's building

17 transformers, and some of these mom and pops

18 have been around since the 1930s. And, by the

19 way, they're in the same buildings they built

20 in 1930.

21 So, that impact is going to impact

22 them differently than a company like mine.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 332

1 FACILITATOR PARKER: Right. So,

2 the small business impacts are also part of

3 that.

4 MR. TENDULKAR: I can attest to

5 that because we are in a small business kind

6 of thing. But at the same time, we have a lot

7 of mixed product kind of thing. This is not

8 the only thing we make.

9 We make different kinds of

10 transformers and different kind of

11 requirements for those. Some of them are

12 exempt from the DOE requirement.

13 Now, we change this kind of thing. 

14 Now, we have to start some new materials and

15 there is a cost for the inventory and getting

16 the material processed. That is something

17 which is not reflected in some other thing.

18 That is also incurring cost, it's

19 not just a capital cost, but it's a daily,

20 every month, every year we are incurring extra

21 inventory cost.

22 Of course we have to borrow the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 333

1 money from the bank, and you know how it is

2 difficult these days. That's another point to

3 look at.

4 MR. DeLASKI: So, I want to come

5 back to the TSLs. I don't want to cut off

6 anybody else on that topic, but I want to talk

7 to TSLs.

8 I think you've got a list of - is

9 it eight there?

10 (Off-record comments.)

11 MR. DeLASKI: All right. That

12 seems like a reasonable number. And I guess

13 I would add, you know, the need for gapfill,

14 I think, is real.

15 I think the gapfill most likely

16 would capture the items that Steve is -

17 Steve's concerns. So, maybe there's a

18 gapfill, but seven is kind of a typical number

19 that you see in the DOE - in fact, it's a

20 little on the high side, I'd say, John. I

21 mean, a little more than normal.

22 As long as you've got a good
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 334

1 distribution, I mean, we're talking about

2 efficiency ranges of a couple percent.

3 (Off-record comments.)

4 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, I think the

5 other ones that we filled in on the bottom in

6 particular, they might already be there. That

7 might already be one that we did.

8 So, it may only be five or six,

9 but I think -

10 MR. DeLASKI: I think the phrasing

11 here isn't quite right on one of these.

12 MR. CYMBALSKY: All right. So,

13 let's do that.

14 MR. DeLASKI: You wrote "highest

15 energy savings not reducing competition among

16 the suppliers."

17 FACILITATOR PARKER: Highest energy

18 savings with positive LCC.

19 MR. DeLASKI: Okay.

20 FACILITATOR PARKER: That's how it

21 should read.

22 MR. CYMBALSKY: Just give me a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 335

1 second and let's do this -

2 FACILITATOR PARKER: While he's

3 doing that, I wanted to come back again to the

4 material availability thing, the M3, M4.

5 Is that what that was getting at,

6 that phrase?

7 MR. DeLASKI: Can I finish on that

8 one?

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: All right. Let's

10 do it, Andrew. Which bullet?

11 MR. DeLASKI: My concern is highest

12 energy savings not reducing competition among

13 suppliers.

14 That's a stricter criteria than

15 what we discussed last time or what I

16 intended, which was that I was -- the highest

17 energy savings with multiple competitive

18 suppliers.

19 FACILITATOR PARKER: As in more

20 than one supplier.

21 MR. DeLASKI: Yes, that's the

22 phrasing that I think we came up with last
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 336

1 time and I thought worked well.

2 FACILITATOR PARKER: Well, that was

3 one of the anti-competitive, and then there

4 was another -

5 MR. DeLASKI: No, that's the one -

6 FACILITATOR PARKER: That was the

7 extreme.

8 MR. DeLASKI: The one above it is

9 the more extreme one, material availability

10 and highest energy - so, multiple material

11 availability and highest energy savings is the

12 one -

13 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes, I think

14 we need the "multiple" in front of "material."

15 MR. DeLASKI: Yes.

16 MR. CASKEY: I think you can write

17 it like the one below, highest energy savings

18 with multiple suppliers. Get rid of

19 "competitive."

20 That's what you're looking at,

21 right?

22 MR. DeLASKI: Yes - no, editing the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 337

1 one above to be exactly the same. Take out

2 the word "competitive."

3 MR. ROY: Delete the one above,

4 copy that one, and then just delete the word

5 "competitive."

6 MR. CYMBALSKY: So delete this one. 

7 You guys are really testing my skills here. 

8 I'm supposed to be a manager. I don't know

9 how to do this, okay. Let's do it.

10 MR. ROY: And delete the word

11 "competitive."

12 MR. PATTERSON: May we put the -

13 may we put the term "raw material" in front of

14 the word "suppliers"?

15 MR. DeLASKI: Yes, what we're

16 talking about here is core material suppliers,

17 right? That's what we're talking about. 

18 We'll just call them core material suppliers.

19 (Off-record comments.)

20 MR. CASKEY: This is John Caskey.

21 I'm not sure that that's exactly

22 what I was thinking. I mean, what I was
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 338

1 looking for ideally is highest energy savings

2 and still being able to meet those energy

3 requirements with more than one transformer

4 design. So, I'm not sure if that's the same

5 thing or not.

6 MR. PATZNER: Tom Patzner.

7 Basically, what John's saying is,

8 is besides material, we want to be able to do

9 full miter, partial miter, butt-lap, etcetera. 

10 And so we might end up all decided it's M3.

11 But because we're going to build

12 60,000 75 kVAs, it might not be the same way

13 as a 300 kVA where we're only going to build

14 a thousand of them.

15 So, we have to have flexibility

16 because of one manufacturers is going to be

17 building a hundred of them, and another

18 manufacturer is going to be building 15,000.

19 So, I mean, no matter what we do,

20 us manufacturers are going to have to work out

21 the multiple designs just because we're going

22 to make that decision based on our volume.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 339

1 MR. CASKEY: Yes. I don't think

2 you can design a TSL around that.

3 MS. COUGHLIN: I'd just like to

4 make a suggestion. This is Katie Coughlin,

5 LBL.

6 We can scope out for the - for the

7 TSLs, we can begin by just filling out a table

8 of which efficiency levels would correspond to

9 those TSLs. And that we can do for a very

10 long list.

11 And then when you have that list

12 in front of you, it may be easier to pick out

13 the ones you want to use for the full follow14 up analysis.

15 So, if you want to have a long

16 list now, what we will do is then go in and

17 plug in the efficiency levels. Depending on

18 how different they might be, we can proceed

19 from there to the subset of TSLs that will

20 actually go through the full analysis

21 procedure.

22 MR. CASKEY: I think I understand
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 340

1 what -- let me try this one more time.

2 So, I'd like your expert opinion

3 on the one there that says highest energy

4 savings with multiple core material suppliers.

5 Would that be better stated to say

6 "multiple core material designs"? I agree

7 that it would probably be better to say

8 design, because we might decide on it being M3

9 with a miter cut compared to a butt-lap cut.

10 So, it's not just the suppliers

11 that is going to determine that TSL. It could

12 be the way that that material is actually

13 produced.

14 Robert or Ethan, what do you --

15 I'm just one manufacturer. So --

16 MR. ROY: Robin, NRDC.

17 I'm really more concerned about

18 the core steel as opposed to the design of the

19 core, because I've heard so much about there

20 being only one manufacturer of the amorphous

21 steel. And the concern there being that they

22 will then be able to dominate a market.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 341

1 So, unless there's something which

2 is similar about the different types of non3 amorphous steels that leads to sort of a

4 monopoly, effective monopoly position by a

5 supplier, I don't feel the same concern.

6 MR. TENDULKAR: There are two

7 factors. We are talking two - there are two

8 different factors. One is we are talking

9 about core material suppliers, but when it

10 gets to processes also there are equipment

11 manufacturer for certain processes, and there

12 are only one or two manufacturers for a

13 certain kind of equipment who want to cut a

14 miter cut. I think there is only one

15 manufacturer. And that's another problem we

16 have.

17 So, the designs is also important

18 factor in the things, and maybe we ought to

19 put another bullet for that. I do not know.

20 MR. PETERSEN: I think it is a new

21 topic. I don't think it's the same thing,

22 because it's wrote up on the board as really
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 342

1 talking the supply of your core material. As

2 what you're talking about is how I take that

3 core material and what are the different

4 configurations, designs I can do to meet the

5 market need.

6 So, I think it's really a

7 secondary issue that John Caskey is bringing

8 up.

9 MR. TENDULKAR: It's two issues. 

10 Separate issues.

11 MR. PATZNER: It's definitely going

12 to impact us based on the timeline. So, this

13 industry is different than the medium-voltage

14 industry because I believe there is a fair

15 amount of us still butt-lapping our designs.

16 And if we get to a level where we

17 have to convert to non-butt-lapping, that

18 employment impact thing is going to be huge

19 because we have people stacking butt-lap. 

20 Machines actually will create the meters for

21 us.

22 So, this topic will come up a lot
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 343

1 more in depth when we do the manufacturing

2 impacts. But if we can put a TSL where we

3 actually ask for multiple design techniques,

4 it would be beneficial long term.

5 And Vijay is correct. Right now

6 for miter cut core machine manufacturers,

7 there's two. One in Amsterdam and one in

8 Germany.

9 MR. BALLO: This is Tim Ballo.

10 I'm wondering do you actually have

11 the engineering analysis that we have now? Do

12 we have the capability to look at butt-lap

13 cores and all the different permeations of

14 core material?

15 I'm not sure -

16 FACILITATOR PARKER: Matt, can you

17 comment on that?

18 MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti,

19 Navigant.

20 So, right now each of the design

21 option combinations has a specific core design

22 like a miter core or butt-lap core associated
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 344

1 with it.

2 We haven't exhausted every core

3 design that's possible with every core steel. 

4 So, up to like an M2, we didn't consider every

5 conceivable like a butt-lap or a fully mitered

6 core.

7 So, I don't think with the data we

8 have right now, you'd be able to necessarily

9 say that like Efficiency Level 6 you'd be able

10 to design it with mitered core or a butt-lap

11 core.

12 MR. BALLO: That would seem to

13 create some problems for trying to use this as

14 a criteria to make TSLs.

15 FACILITATOR PARKER: Does the

16 industry have any data that they could provide

17 on this?

18 MR. PATZNER: I don't know if we

19 need it in TSLs. We need it to be discussed,

20 and it's going to come up when we bring up the

21 manufacturing analysis. And when we do the

22 employment analysis in these topics.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 345

1 So, just be aware that it could

2 impact, because the low-voltage transformers

3 do not have all the miter core-cutting

4 equipment already in place, because we are not

5 - the largest volume is below 150 kVA. And

6 that today, has the most maximum amount of

7 waste to build the devices.

8 And when we get to the

9 manufacturing analysis, that's going to be our

10 biggest concern making sure we have multiple

11 configurations for those high-volume units.

12 When we get to the higher volume

13 units - I mean the lower volume units like the

14 300 kVA and above, I'll be honest, I'm already

15 miter cutting them.

16 So, if I have to switch from an M6

17 to an M3, that's possible. But when I'm using

18 a butt-lap on a 75 kVA and, as I said earlier,

19 the industry has 60,000 of them, I know -

20 marked units are a higher volume than the low21 voltage transformers, but they're already

22 doing these. They're already producing these
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 346

1 multiple cores. We are not.

2 MR. SMITH: Richard, this is Bob

3 Smith.

4 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes.

5 MR. SMITH: I would like to add

6 that there is another core configuration that

7 will have even more of an impact or an

8 investment if the manufacturers have to go to

9 it, and that is a wound core.

10 Here, you're not only talking

11 about a new core cutter, but you're talking

12 about annealing ovens. And in that case,

13 you're also talking about a limited number of

14 suppliers who can furnish wound cores as most

15 of the dry-type manufacturers do not have

16 enough volume to justify the investment in

17 core cutting an oven.

18 So, I think that's - we just need

19 to remember there's another configuration that

20 can have a greater impact on the investment

21 that we may have to make.

22 FACILITATOR PARKER: Well, I think
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 347

1 there's a number of manufacturing impacts, I'm

2 gathering, that will have to be considered. 

3 The question is whether we try to define the

4 TSL around them or whether we just consider

5 them when they come up in the analysis as

6 we're choosing them on other TSLs.

7 Again, if we have a reasonable

8 range of TSL, there's a lot of criteria that

9 one could apply in choosing among them and

10 you're not slavishly, you're not required to

11 choose one single TSL for every product line,

12 right? You can choose among them.

13 So, we just have to have that

14 analysis when it comes up, but it might overly

15 complicate and burden us up front if we try to

16 prejudge that now.

17 So, what I would propose is that

18 we particularly since we're short of time, is

19 that we see if we can agree on this going

20 forward with the understanding that we will

21 consider these other things when the analysis,

22 you know, if we get data that supports it when
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 348

1 we're discussing manufacturing impacts as part

2 of the criteria. And we certainly will have

3 to do that.

4 MR. DeLASKI: I wonder if we should

5 add to this list just gapfill. I mean -

6 FACILITATOR PARKER: Gapfill, yes.

7 MR. DeLASKI: If you end up at the

8 end, these are all clustered in the top one

9 percent point and these are all the top 50

10 percent, we want something telling us what's

11 happening in the bottom.

12 FACILITATOR PARKER: And there

13 could be more than one. Again, if we're

14 covering a range and looking at the impacts

15 along that range, we can always interpolate

16 based upon manufacturing impacts or something

17 else. We will have covered the range.

18 The last thing I want to cover

19 real quickly is what - at some point we're

20 going to have to get clarity on what

21 constitutes competitive impacts. And we're

22 just, you know, we're going to have to have a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 349

1 specific criteria that will translate into

2 something quantitative and, hopefully, not

3 arbitrary.

4 I don't think we have time to

5 really try to come to consensus on that now,

6 but we will. Let's try to have an online

7 discussion of that as we go forward. And

8 let's do it, if we could, report for the next

9 meeting so that we could table that and

10 hopefully get some analysis of it going to

11 report to the next meeting. That would be

12 nice since we're running short of meetings

13 here.

14 Steve, we're going to have to

15 very, very quickly -

16 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I guess in terms

17 of competitiveness, is there a way to talk to

18 the Justice Department? Because they have

19 done some rulemakings on DOE where they said

20 there are competitive concerns based on their

21 analysis. So, they might have some criteria

22 already that might be available.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 350

1 I'm just trying to think, you

2 know, like the last incandescent reflector

3 lamp they said they had some competitive

4 concerns because of the TSL that was chosen

5 for the standard.

6 FACILITATOR PARKER: That's a nice

7 suggestion, okay.

8 MR. ROSENSTOCK: So, maybe they

9 have some criteria that they could pass on to

10 you.

11 FACILITATOR PARKER: I will ask my

12 contact there and see. That's a nice idea.

13 Okay. So, just to wrap up very

14 quickly, I think we've had a good session. 

15 There's a lot of - I will try to get the

16 minutes up for this meeting by the end of next

17 week.

18 We have a working group formed to

19 try to resolve the data discrepancies that --

20 and the analytical discrepancies with --

21 problems that seem to be surfacing. And

22 hopefully that group can also get us something
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 351

1 out in writing so that we can ponder it before

2 the next meeting.

3 We need to really at the next

4 meeting, wade into the TSD work. I think none

5 of us really were on top of it for this

6 meeting, but let's really immerse ourselves in

7 it for the next one.

8 Our reply to circulate as part of

9 the minutes, a list of the issues that were

10 raised here. And, please, when you respond to

11 that, feel free to raise additional issues.

12 And let's have - let's try to have

13 sort of, I guess, an online discussion if we

14 can, about what issues require further

15 analysis and what is possible since we can't

16 finalize that here.

17 We have only a couple of weeks

18 before the next meeting. So, it's going to be

19 pretty intense. And I will actually try to

20 expedite getting the minutes and the reactions

21 out to you so that we can be ready for the

22 next meeting. Anything else we need to cover
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 352

1 before -- yes.

2 MR. PATZNER: Richard, will there

3 be guest WiFi at the meeting facility we're

4 going to next time?

5 FACILITATOR PARKER: Yes, I think

6 there will be. I don't have Bob Saint here,

7 but I understand there will be WiFi.

8 MR. PATZNER: I knew there wasn't

9 going to be any here, but is there capability

10 at the other -

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: I don't want to say

12 yes, because they're not here, but -

13 FACILITATOR PARKER: I would hope

14 so.

15 MR. CYMBALSKY: It would be

16 infinitely nicer than this.

17 MR. PATZNER: Well, I'm not coming. 

18 And that's why I want it, because I want to be

19 able to IM with -

20 FACILITATOR PARKER: Oh, I see. I

21 will ask Bob Saint if there will be

22 facilities. Great. Sorry we missed Dunkin'
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 353

1 Donuts, but I thank everybody for a great

2 session and we'll see you next time.

3 (Whereupon, the proceedings were

4 adjourned at 4:44 o'clock p.m.)

5

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 354

A

abandoned 90:12

ABB 2:14 13:2,5,7

314:8

ability 31:21 80:10

138:9 157:1 233:4

295:22

able 25:4 31:21

32:12 34:20,22

63:13,22 64:2

71:7 73:7 75:5,15

77:1,1 79:21 84:5

84:7 85:11 89:1

124:5 143:18

161:4,8 173:10

232:18 234:7

244:19 285:13,15

288:3,6,14,16

290:4 308:22

312:5 313:7

330:10 338:2,8

340:22 344:8,9

352:19

absent 20:4 98:4

absolutely 152:13

155:21 284:8

289:11 331:12

abstained 19:2

abstentions 17:6

accept 96:9 244:8

acceptable 291:13

291:14

accepted 306:9

access 33:14 186:7

229:6

accidentally 185:1

accommodate

10:22 11:1

accomplish 278:21

account 56:15

105:15 150:17

171:8 205:19

254:12 273:4

331:10

accounted 57:7

169:11,13 171:14

accounting 272:22

accrued 284:22

accuracy 79:15

accurate 53:5

66:13 115:15

118:4 285:10

accurately 84:14

acknowledge 98:13

acquire 172:3

acronym 216:13

act 9:10 15:20

133:3 144:4

326:15

activities 224:21

activity 227:13

actual 66:6,7 96:19

116:5 121:16

175:9 178:15

198:5 201:10

207:2 216:21

221:18 225:7,13

225:18 234:7

267:16 268:13

298:6

adapt 279:1

adapters 191:3,17

add 62:6,7,15,16,17

62:18 63:4,6,7,13

63:22 64:2 67:8,8

67:11 68:1 69:18

70:13 75:8 76:17

90:6 99:3 128:20

189:9 215:17,19

270:7 317:19

330:6 333:13

346:5 348:5

added 62:4,9 64:1

80:12 213:20

214:2 217:12

259:8 276:20

301:18

adding 64:5 296:4

addition 100:10

additional 182:1

185:10 199:6

211:6 273:6,10

296:7 351:11

additionally 57:7

address 33:19 41:4

197:10 265:14

addressed 63:15

68:8

addresses 71:21

adequate 62:6

249:7

adhere 101:2

adjacently 9:21

adjourn 27:18

278:22

adjourned 353:4

adjust 114:2 192:9

adjustable 223:20

adjustment 63:18

69:10

adjustments 123:4

256:7

administer 96:6

administrative

7:13,14 96:1

104:15,21

adopt 202:8 240:17

adopted 25:1 28:1

38:22 39:4

adopting 29:7

38:17

advance 37:15 39:1

advanced 117:22

advancement

155:2

advantage 286:4

adverse 281:2

advice 144:13

advisor 142:14

Advisory 2:1 133:2

143:10

advocates 6:5

AEO 236:17

270:19

affairs 7:2 312:13

affect 123:13 144:6

144:10 177:1

182:20 192:7

196:13 236:6

253:17

affiliated 14:18

affiliation 4:11

12:6

affirmatively 17:7

afternoon 26:7

32:5 40:9 132:11

142:12 247:14

agencies 6:6 15:17

agency 8:10 14:18

265:14

agenda 4:9 14:12

24:15 27:9,22

28:1

aggregate 139:10

141:2 256:12

273:13 275:4

aggregately 148:2

ago 142:22 182:3

225:20 237:18

312:19

agree 14:11,22

20:17 23:8 29:17

30:3 66:16 69:16

70:7 73:15 92:10

98:11,21 116:14

125:22 126:16

175:22 232:15,17

244:14 247:19

325:9 327:22

329:13 340:6

347:19

agreed 15:3 18:8

18:17 19:1 22:21

23:12,13 40:20

49:14 279:19,20

311:4,13

agreeing 27:10

127:8

agreement 131:8

279:1

agrees 268:16

ahead 12:21 39:5

42:1 46:2 74:12

114:6 133:13

147:3 167:9

218:22 247:4

269:8 307:14

aim 25:10

aiming 3:14

air 191:22 192:4

193:14,15 216:3

aired 117:7

airport 41:16,20

AK 1:25 2:18 5:12

13:13 285:3 288:9

288:16

alert 159:15

Alex 2:6 7:1

algorithm 182:16

188:17 200:11

Allegheny 22:7

Allegheny's 309:16

Allen 2:5 12:15,15

12:16

allow 128:16 144:2

144:4 211:7 315:9

allowances 60:20

61:9

allowed 110:8

321:5

allows 93:1 181:13

257:18 263:4,17

286:18

altered 16:9 310:3

alternate 20:5 23:2

23:3 36:12 44:4

alternates 11:1

20:2 34:19 36:8

248:20

alternative 7:15

8:6

aluminum 55:15

183:22

ambient 82:17

amenable 38:16

amend 111:8

America 2:18

American 47:13

amorphous 4:21

5:15 55:14 57:1,6

60:6 111:5 151:5

151:5 281:1 286:3

286:21 309:22

310:20 340:20

341:3
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 355

AMOS 2:5

amount 43:15

182:14 207:22

208:2 252:8 285:7

295:9 342:15

345:6

Amsterdam 343:7

analyses 51:10

52:12 137:12

272:20 326:6

analysis 8:18 9:8

17:20 26:1,2,4,15

26:17,18,21,22

29:16 49:8 50:10

50:11,12,14,15,17

50:21 51:2,4,8,9

51:11,12,15 52:19

53:8 54:22 55:10

56:5,15 58:8 61:3

63:20 66:17,18

67:3 68:13 71:9

74:14 75:12,21

83:22 84:2,3 85:6

85:12 89:12,20

95:9,14 99:21

105:13 106:5,15

107:6,6 108:2

109:8,14 110:17

113:8,12,20

115:14 117:4

120:21 121:6,7

126:20 127:1

128:17 129:22

130:3 132:12,17

138:6,7 139:1,3,9

140:10,14,22

141:1,3,16,19

142:3,8 157:11,13

157:17,22 168:4

168:18,21 169:16

170:9,17 173:14

173:19 180:13

183:7 185:20

199:5 200:3 203:7

206:6,8 207:18

211:17 221:20

229:14 233:20

238:6 240:2 241:2

241:22 242:2,18

244:17 247:9

248:12,18 249:11

249:13 251:10

255:16,22 258:21

259:12,13,21

269:15 272:18,21

274:7 276:12

280:3,6 282:4

304:9 308:19

309:1,8 310:20

311:22 314:18

317:8 318:3,21

319:2,6,9,10

320:3 321:14,19

328:13 331:3,7

339:14,20 343:11

344:21,22 345:9

347:5,14,21

349:10,21 351:15

analytical 26:11

29:8 32:11 256:20

299:4 350:20

analytically 272:9

281:16

analyze 53:11

85:20 109:15

110:8 124:6

274:20

analyzed 51:19

52:12 54:9,15

86:6 112:20

analyzing 114:12

anchor 72:17,20

Andrew 1:22 6:2

21:2 35:7 80:13

91:9 212:3 241:16

244:14 249:15

287:1 303:3

310:15 311:20

335:10

Andy 195:3

anecdotal 108:7

173:15

annealing 346:12

announce 12:5

announcement

41:1

announcements

269:15 270:10

annual 222:14

269:11 298:8

anomaly 195:5

answer 31:1 76:6

86:7 105:8 106:10

106:12 119:22

173:16 200:20

214:7 245:19

263:1 309:18

answered 217:6

anticipate 144:15

239:1 329:1,6,7

anticipation 236:2

antitrust 306:14,16

306:21 307:7

anti-competitive

281:13 305:16

307:9 336:3

anybody 113:9

172:7 269:14

333:6

anybody's 91:2

115:2

anymore 195:1

212:2 218:19

anyway 24:3

213:10 251:9

317:12 321:4

apart 159:12

apologies 8:2 11:21

163:1

apologize 22:17

34:1

apologized 21:20

APPA 47:14 48:21

apparatus 104:16

Apparently 219:21

appendices 242:17

appendix 215:11

apples 121:3,3

185:2,3

appliance 1:22 6:3

6:10 95:22

applicability 96:3

144:18 152:1

154:12 156:8

applicable 156:9

application 95:19

102:18 105:2

170:17

applications 71:2,5

71:8 72:2,4 94:7

96:10 97:21 100:4

100:6 102:4

105:21 262:11

applied 37:9 57:5

57:18 58:7 59:9

75:17 104:12

311:2 313:18

applies 73:15

114:16

apply 29:11 70:19

94:7 96:7 315:2

347:9

appointed 146:7

appointment

147:18 150:5

153:5,13,14,22

156:2

appreciate 10:17

44:18 87:16

128:11 132:21

162:21 213:17

220:10

apprised 129:15

approach 126:1

272:19

appropriate 31:4

69:22 76:17

108:15 112:6

130:16 131:16

281:9

appropriateness

114:10

approve 271:14

approximately

75:8 222:4

April 61:21 116:21

141:14,21 164:10

172:22 200:7

arbitrary 349:3

architecture 117:4

area 49:2 103:3

124:21 127:15

144:11 148:16

151:20

areas 157:12 286:4

323:21

arguably 294:10

argued 191:7

argument 17:21

74:2

arithmetic 296:8

arose 28:11

arrange 308:10

array 8:15

Art 2:1 49:9,13

135:12,20 137:15

145:18,20 146:3

articulate 160:9

artificial 105:20

ascending 56:1

ASHRAE 215:10

239:14,17,17

240:2,16,18

297:21 298:18

aside 66:21

asked 49:14 61:21

62:2 78:11 115:10

209:11 210:21

247:21

asking 26:22 61:19

78:22 172:9

191:12 192:19

200:17 210:15

232:6 285:18

296:16 300:3,4

aspect 86:19 203:9

203:10,11

aspects 120:5

285:14 310:2

assess 129:6

assessment 50:10

50:16,18

assessments 27:16

assign 298:13

assigning 174:9
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 356

196:14

associate 171:17

associated 165:8,22

174:4 176:7,11,12

252:19 285:15

288:4,15 343:22

association 1:21

2:6,9 5:10 6:16

47:14 175:13

208:18

assume 23:17

57:14 81:2 82:2

112:16 124:1

163:6 165:20

179:12 204:3

211:20 227:15

234:20 235:3,5

257:14 276:3

328:10 331:16

assumed 163:22

204:13 209:3

267:5

assumes 204:15

assuming 111:7

112:3 170:9,12

180:3 234:18

235:12

assumption 93:7

226:22

assumptions 124:7

124:13 126:19

163:5 241:21

242:13 243:13

249:10 259:5

284:18 313:9

ATI 288:9,16 308:8

308:12

attach 163:18

attached 59:10

134:17 163:13

168:4 179:13

attachments

136:12

attempt 105:14

attempted 308:6

attempting 308:10

attend 129:9

162:11 175:20,21

attending 21:15

attention 9:9

159:14

attest 203:17 332:4

attributable 273:19

attribute 184:18

audience 37:22

38:6

August 116:21

142:4,5 180:15

200:8 254:21

257:3 258:4

authority 31:21

104:13,14 105:4

265:13

automatically

118:18

AV 47:4

availability 10:19

141:8 293:7,10

304:8 335:4 336:9

336:11

available 33:2 43:8

44:21 50:19

130:11 173:12

175:11 244:22

251:22 259:22

260:1 261:20

292:18 349:22

avenue 1:14 91:20

108:8

average 95:15

98:11 169:19

177:14 184:3

223:16,18

avoid 101:2 105:20

avoiding 100:16

307:9

aware 144:1 145:5

152:16,17 158:16

159:3 160:15

184:21 228:18

345:1

Awareness 1:22 6:3

awfully 205:20

awkward 133:6

axis 222:19,21

230:9,9,17 253:1

253:9 254:3

a.m 1:14 3:2

132:14

A/B 182:9 183:12

183:14 184:4

188:21

A/Bs 167:3

B

B 52:7 71:16,17,20

74:19,19 165:18

165:22 166:2

182:7,11 191:3

192:17 295:8

301:6,7

back 6:13,13 26:5

28:10 37:22 40:5

40:16,16 43:13,21

44:6 52:8 61:19

62:1 74:4,5 83:18

94:20 99:22

113:11 116:5

132:15 138:16

141:20 145:8

154:3 157:4 163:1

188:9 197:15

220:17 221:3

222:8 251:16

252:15 263:21

265:11 267:19

268:6 269:4

276:22 277:3,8,12

277:21 279:11

282:9,12,15

307:13 316:9

317:12 319:4,14

320:2 321:10

322:7 323:5

325:20 333:5

335:3

background 182:1

208:19

backroom 156:17

backs 229:19

backstop 43:16

44:14

backup 45:7

backwards 137:7,8

backyard 102:1

bad 92:10 131:10

balance 96:4,8 98:7

100:14 205:7

balanced 8:14

ball 246:5,6,10

247:13

Ballo 1:18 5:22,22

21:19 22:10 89:9

89:9 265:5,5

343:9,9 344:12

ballpark 100:1

157:20 244:20

band 181:3 223:2

322:13

bands 209:2

bandwidth 314:10

314:13

bank 333:1

banking 102:13

barraged 248:21

bars 273:9,13

base 81:12 173:9

173:10 181:12

189:9,15 190:9

195:7,9,15,21,22

196:15 253:7,12

based 8:8 15:12

29:15,16,16 52:21

74:18 76:2 78:2

93:6 104:10 111:9

111:11 126:14

164:5 165:5,14

166:2 173:15

191:2 195:17

210:6 223:12

224:2,7 228:12,20

229:20 232:21

233:8 257:2

263:13 266:3

269:11,15 270:8

291:7 292:13

294:5 300:15,16

306:7 310:17,18

316:14 318:4

321:18 324:21

338:22 342:12

348:16 349:20

baseline 109:19

110:4 164:3

201:17 321:14

324:12

basic 15:20,21

20:21 110:16

117:8 163:20

basically 8:4 14:11

15:10 16:3 32:21

38:4 39:21 40:16

68:5 75:2 101:5

104:8 121:10

126:19 130:5

139:7 173:2,13

197:6,22 198:2,7

199:4 231:13

254:22 292:13

295:12 299:19

300:8,16 303:6

305:9 323:10

325:14 338:7

basing 292:20

basis 15:5 53:8

70:3 81:5 110:10

115:8 218:7

228:10,11 325:20

batch 182:15

beat 86:5 132:4

Beck 1:19 4:19,19

beg 42:8

beginning 25:11

202:10 318:19

behalf 108:20

144:4

believe 39:8 42:10

45:14,14 47:12

48:8 61:15 62:5

67:22 79:19 106:7

106:20 170:11

172:17 175:2

180:9 182:17

191:9 192:17

200:13 202:21
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 357

218:1 235:7 255:9

322:11 342:14

believes 226:13

bell 73:8,11 227:7

290:18 291:5

292:18

benchmark 109:15

110:6

beneficial 65:2

263:10 283:5

315:6,18 343:4

benefit 7:22 95:4,6

95:10,11,15

156:19 183:15

212:22 262:3

267:14 279:13

283:13,21 284:4

284:10,12,18

benefits 4:17 95:15

96:16 256:13

284:10,21 318:1

322:1

Berkeley 2:1,7,10

2:15 6:20 12:12

50:6 106:12

Berman 1:19,19

7:3,3,3 84:16,16

84:16 85:21 86:11

86:16 87:6,12

107:2,2,2 167:11

167:11,11,19

168:8,12,22 169:8

169:13,17 217:19

217:20,20,20

293:20,20,20

296:6 302:5,11

best 8:13 19:2

148:2,4 250:9

290:10

better 36:15,17

66:10 94:16

126:13 133:13

137:21 138:1

193:10 263:2

294:17 323:4

340:5,7

beyond 104:13

273:4

bias 107:7,11

118:20 125:14

bidding 214:14

bids 42:5

bifurcated 105:1

big 43:14 120:11

154:17 160:3

161:16 178:18

280:11 286:9

299:8 314:16

327:22

bigger 43:1 121:19

123:18 193:7

242:13 331:5

biggest 63:12 72:14

215:6 345:10

bill 75:12,13

114:15 180:5

294:9

billed 180:4

bills 296:12

binding 279:15,16

bit 11:12 15:12,15

18:21 61:11 81:3

92:22 93:15

115:16 123:7,8

133:6 138:16

157:8 189:9 203:7

203:14 204:21

219:22 241:12

289:10 308:2

black 252:22

blanket 327:10

blended 295:9

blob 254:5

blobs 254:1

blocking 17:13

blow 44:12

blue 141:18,18

198:12 252:21

254:5 273:13

bluntness 94:2

board 315:9,12

341:22

Bob 2:19 14:5,7

322:4 346:2 352:6

352:21

bodies 91:7

Boesenberg 2:6 7:1

7:1

boilerplate 18:19

Bolduc 2:7 12:11

12:11 106:11,11

135:14,15,16

238:11 246:8,8,14

251:13,13,20

BOMA 175:12,19

book 46:1,3 90:17

booked 46:6

boos 159:19

bored 136:15

boring 136:20

borne 57:11

borrow 332:22

Boston 226:6

bottom 140:9

184:18 189:16

198:7 210:20

281:3 303:9 334:5

348:11

bought 95:3 96:22

bound 9:3 10:10

15:7 25:14 63:21

64:16

boundary 294:22

bowing 214:5

box 69:12 123:6

boxes 53:18

BPA 233:17

brackets 315:11

break 12:20 26:5

101:13,13 130:5

132:3 220:12

233:18 268:22

275:13 276:18,19

276:21 277:5,11

328:3

breakpoint 307:19

310:3

breakpoints 275:22

280:18

breaks 224:11

breath 46:11

BRENDA 2:11

Brian 77:4 83:13

200:2 305:21

308:11 309:5

312:22

brief 146:11 278:5

briefed 142:21

briefing 143:2

briefly 120:17

133:11

bring 159:4 160:8

204:9 344:20

bringing 342:7

broad 92:12 115:9

174:1 241:12

290:15

broader 108:20

116:22 130:18

broad-based

148:11 156:21

broke 64:14 234:3

234:5

broken 65:5

brought 143:5

149:3

BTUs 191:15

bubbles 291:22

build 56:9 58:19

79:21 84:22 85:1

86:17 112:17

117:14 122:11

205:20 207:9

260:20 261:8

262:16 263:16

329:18 331:11

338:11,13 345:7

building 83:6 103:4

164:2,7 167:21,22

168:5,6,14,15

169:1,6,9,20,21

169:22 170:2,3,5

170:21 171:17

172:2 174:4,16

176:21 177:6

178:11,12,13

179:13,14 206:15

207:6 210:22

211:1 215:10,19

222:19 224:2,17

224:21 225:4

226:9,12 227:3

229:8,13 231:21

232:3,9 233:19

234:2,21 236:19

240:1,8 261:10

284:6 297:21

298:2,3 300:21

329:18 331:16

338:17,18

buildings 97:12

164:1 169:4,14

170:21 173:1

174:18 175:7

176:19 179:2

215:15 216:6

219:10,11 231:9

231:14,16 232:6

232:14 236:3

239:15,17 240:15

240:20 298:3

331:19

building's 223:1

294:9

builds 167:22

263:21

built 85:14 192:8

218:5,7 331:19

bulk 11:15

bullet 88:21 335:10

341:19

bump 264:20

bunch 213:14

burden 248:6

347:15

burdened 56:18

59:3

business 91:2

133:19 148:15

332:2,5

button 137:5

butt-lap 338:9

340:9 342:19

343:12,22 344:5

344:10 345:18
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 358

butt-lapping

342:15

buy 92:17 96:17

97:4 192:21 198:8

212:21 260:6,7

262:8 284:7

329:20,21

buyers 215:1

buying 104:17

191:13,14,17,19

195:22 208:12

209:9,14 215:7,8

273:10

buys 68:5 97:7

284:9

buzzing 278:6

bylaws 35:5

bypass 101:4

bypassing 101:7

B-O-L-D-U 135:16

C

C 2:18 60:18 76:4

76:19 77:15,16,21

77:22 79:8,8,15

79:16,22 81:2,7

82:16 83:3,9

87:20 135:17

Cadmus 226:5

227:4,21 228:15

237:12

calculate 119:17

123:9 164:8,11,15

182:8,11 274:6

calculated 56:14,18

82:19,20,21 294:7

318:18

calculating 123:19

281:18

calculation 57:8

77:17 121:15

163:4 186:15

189:1,4 254:15

294:12

calculations 57:12

142:11 163:17

calculus 43:10

calendar 40:1

calibrate 122:18

123:1

calibrations 124:8

California 49:11

call 18:20 20:9

31:22 36:10 49:9

49:18 118:12

119:11 128:22

163:11 263:3

277:14,15,17,20

278:1 307:7 308:6

337:18

called 19:4 87:7

104:22 107:20

callers 277:20

calling 11:20 12:3

139:4,5 159:14

191:11

call-in 41:2

call-ins 11:22

Canadian 238:2

canal 101:16 132:3

canceled 44:16

candidate 79:20

92:20 138:19

139:4,19

candidates 325:12

capability 288:5,12

290:12 291:1

293:14 304:15,17

304:19 308:21

343:12 352:9

capacities 293:15

capacity 71:13

143:15 177:17,21

206:3,15 208:3

286:1 292:14,22

capital 207:18

208:1,2 216:11

328:10 329:6,7

330:2,4 332:19

capture 55:2 303:2

303:4 333:16

capturing 302:7

carbon 61:11

256:16 291:19

care 46:20 118:18

140:20

careful 81:13

Carlo 245:22 246:2

246:4 319:2

case 23:3 38:21

55:19 56:12,13

78:5 100:12

107:14 132:1

140:4 148:1 151:2

176:9 177:5

181:12 189:9,15

190:9 195:7,9,15

195:22 196:15

223:17 253:7,13

256:1 257:21

275:12 280:2

313:18 319:14

346:12

cases 147:12,13

203:6 250:10

253:15 256:8

317:21

Caskey 1:20 5:9,9

30:14,14 32:15

34:5 70:21,22

72:6,13 98:22

99:2 101:19 113:1

113:1 114:4

127:11,14 147:4,4

149:8,10 153:16

153:16 154:4

157:7,9 161:6,6

162:4 197:13,13

197:17 198:11

199:4,12,20 200:4

200:16 201:3,18

201:18 202:9,14

208:17 209:8,13

209:19 221:13,14

222:2 231:11

233:11 244:12,12

245:4 282:16

301:19,19 302:10

303:1,1,11 336:16

337:20,20 339:1

339:22 342:7

cat 282:1

catch 302:4

catchall 241:20

categories 99:14

100:8

category 99:14

199:9 256:3

caucus 40:5

caught 37:20

107:21

cause 62:13 205:3

causes 73:4

causing 281:2

cautioning 128:7

CBECS 177:7

236:17

ceilings 315:16

cell 102:12

center 71:5 73:19

103:8 169:2,10

171:3,4 175:4

257:22

centers 61:13 102:8

170:19

Centigrade 82:2

certain 9:5 31:12

71:18 88:18 92:5

92:8,17 94:1

108:9 112:18

120:5 122:13

143:16 158:2

161:10 163:13

168:19 173:1

174:16 247:22

259:15,21 260:2,4

260:7,21,21

262:11 266:4

274:10 285:7

286:4 290:20

315:14 341:11,13

certainly 25:14

30:21 31:3 35:6

63:16 71:3 99:3

107:21 113:17

114:8 115:12

122:6 123:5

131:10 147:5

172:11 229:4

234:10 289:5

348:2

certification 88:17

88:18 240:10

certified 240:6

certify 86:3

certifying 104:18

cetera 269:18

chair 20:9

chairing 145:17

challenges 158:21

chance 20:17 24:20

24:21 39:2 160:9

change 76:13 77:15

82:7 83:5 116:20

139:1 142:8

163:16 169:14

171:11 176:9,9

196:20 197:5

205:8 211:20,22

243:7,13 245:10

252:13,14 269:21

270:10 332:13

changed 113:13

214:17 228:22

235:11 304:2

changes 16:13

20:19 26:17 27:21

38:3 78:14 109:8

133:22 183:7

234:19 245:15

276:13 300:15

314:12

changing 108:8

233:5 253:18

323:2

chapter 75:2 134:3

251:15,22

chapters 34:14

134:2,5 136:2

characteristic

184:21 268:5

characteristics

54:11,14 104:11

112:16 163:13,15

163:15,18 171:18
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 359

176:16

characterize 51:21

54:19 111:15

195:20

characterizes

50:18

charge 94:8 104:9

charged 143:12

241:19

chart 50:15 67:16

141:13 181:8

chasing 282:1

cheapest 186:2

189:12

cheat 133:21

check 43:8 77:3,6

219:18 227:20

checked 136:3

checking 22:2

chevrons 137:12

chime 105:6 317:15

Chinese 107:19

chocolate 291:14

choice 31:1 116:19

117:5 192:7,12

253:18 256:21

263:11,13 275:12

276:13 280:2

choices 61:20

190:16

Choinski 2:8 6:14

6:15

choose 164:12

165:12 228:19

260:20 261:7

295:15 325:4

347:11,12

chooses 16:2

choosing 298:17

323:14 347:6,9

chorus 159:19

chose 308:8,13

324:19

chosen 164:14

165:13 182:19

323:14 350:4

Chris 2:7 12:11,13

106:11 135:14,15

245:18 246:8

251:13,19

Chris's 136:10

circles 190:9,10,11

circuits 168:19

circulate 22:15

251:5,8 351:8

clarification 89:10

221:15

clarify 28:14

111:21 136:10

clarity 348:20

class 54:5 94:12

113:15 140:4

150:7 154:15

171:2 178:3

255:20 256:16

264:9,18

classes 28:22 51:16

52:17,20 53:17,19

111:16

clear 23:15 127:4

138:18 179:11,17

192:11 211:10

251:19

clearly 17:8 197:18

close 24:17 44:11

66:4,11 97:6

190:2 199:3,3,8

244:22

closer 73:20 205:17

226:13 227:2

clothes 95:1,2,3,7

cloud 140:15

150:18 187:21

188:4,7 286:9,10

clouds 58:1,12

clustered 348:8

coal 269:17

coalition 6:4

Coast 134:21

Coasters 46:17

code 91:14 233:1,2

315:8

codes 298:3

coefficient 76:17

coffee 101:13

Coffey 77:4 200:2

305:21 308:11

cognizance 125:16

cognizant 27:3

Cohen 2:9 7:7,7

144:13 269:3

cohorts 131:12

coil 116:7 263:5

colleague 77:4

colleagues 203:17

collected 170:4,6

collection 140:1

255:19

collective 248:9

collectively 92:9

color 205:9

colors 111:2 180:17

column 296:4

combination 64:9

74:17 163:12

229:12 256:18

combinations 52:6

52:8 55:18 64:10

71:19,20 74:18

75:3,4,7 111:3

180:18 202:20

343:21

come 4:17 8:19 9:7

9:12 11:18 26:5

28:10 40:7 50:2

71:4 76:3 94:10

94:18 108:14

113:22 119:16

120:14 126:4

131:8 132:7,19

146:13 159:2,6

163:1,5 174:7

188:1 239:4 240:9

247:16 256:10

267:19 276:22

278:22 304:9

307:18 319:3

320:7,22 325:1,20

333:4 335:3

342:22 344:20

347:5 349:5

comes 32:1 133:8

144:8 152:4,7

157:4 162:6

164:13 176:21

188:18 206:5

227:2 228:1,2

229:6 285:4,7

316:9 347:14

comfortable 117:9

121:6,7,8,9

302:17 326:7

coming 26:12 44:5

60:18 99:5 118:7

128:4 129:17

135:4 152:16

159:19 190:12

209:6 216:8

220:17 221:3,10

248:20 274:10

284:15 306:8

309:12,15 316:16

321:10 352:17

coming-in 17:22

comment 8:8 20:9

28:3 66:2,19

67:14 68:16 69:17

79:18 83:16 90:7

96:14 98:8 101:19

117:10 123:22

159:8 191:2

205:15,15 214:8

301:15,17 329:15

343:17

commented 191:17

219:6 305:8

comments 8:9 20:6

49:4 70:8 113:11

113:14,18,22

116:18 142:2

147:1 160:13

172:22 200:22

230:4 239:11

283:9 322:8,11

333:10 334:3

337:19

commercial 164:1

170:1 173:1 175:7

219:10 222:19

223:5 226:9 227:3

231:8 239:15

240:15

commercially

90:13

commercial/indu...

176:20

commit 35:6

commitment 16:17

40:15

committed 16:17

41:18

committee 2:2 8:14

10:5 15:1 16:2,4,9

17:5 18:5 19:12

19:13,20 20:1

21:4,8,13,14,22

23:1,2,11,12 25:9

25:12,13 29:11,12

30:18,22 31:11,15

34:19 36:6,10,19

36:21 40:12 49:11

53:20 65:6 84:11

88:2,9 90:5 92:9

94:1,8,15,18 98:6

111:8 113:18,22

133:3,19 142:15

143:10,11 145:13

145:13 146:6

153:19,21 159:6

161:11 162:6

217:3 236:5

242:14 248:19

250:16 268:16

276:4 320:16

321:5

committees 3:13

16:6,8 18:7

commodities

314:13

commodity 157:22

203:16

common 19:18

24:4 55:2 60:22

330:18,21

compact 263:7,18
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 360

companies 92:15

149:2,14 150:12

155:11 159:20

161:8 269:16

company 1:23 2:19

84:5 90:7,8

144:10 145:7

149:21 150:3,15

150:22 151:18

156:19 290:3

330:19 331:16,22

compare 121:3

122:22 221:6

compared 123:10

225:13 340:9

comparing 186:12

comparison 115:7

compels 69:1

compensate 161:4

compete 262:20

281:1 311:8

316:19

competing 149:15

competition 281:4

287:11 305:9

306:10,11,12

307:20 309:21

311:19 334:15

335:12

competitive 304:13

304:20,22 305:14

310:2 318:6

335:17 336:19

337:2,5,11 348:21

349:20 350:3

competitiveness

304:18 305:11

349:17

competitor 160:16

competitors 150:2

150:3 160:18,22

307:2

complement

160:11

completely 25:9

58:14 67:22 90:16

160:20,20 232:17

262:9

complex 48:14

169:10 328:15

complexity 62:19

compliance 88:13

88:18

compliant 188:5

217:10

complicate 347:15

complicated 224:7

276:11

complied 190:1

comply 82:15

91:12 264:4,21

complying 86:3

component 238:18

comprise 140:7

computer 190:5,11

220:9 226:19

277:2

computers 103:10

171:5 173:3

236:22 237:8

conceivable 323:11

344:5

concentration

278:9

concept 303:2,4

conceptual 105:3

conceptually

110:21 323:15

concern 68:4,12

116:19 127:11

292:10,12 323:20

330:18,22 335:11

340:21 341:5

345:10

concerned 108:13

115:12 125:2

281:12 291:18

340:17

concerning 301:18

concerns 19:12

20:13 23:20 30:9

67:15 117:2

125:20 306:20

333:17 349:20

350:4

concludes 33:3

concluding 39:19

conclusion 33:11

157:17 198:4

concrete 119:14

329:22

concur 295:4

concurrently 9:21

condition 193:14

conditioners 216:4

conditioning

191:22 192:4

193:15

conditions 105:19

255:11

conduct 24:1 308:9

311:22

conducted 229:15

308:19

conducting 193:11

conductor 59:19

60:3 115:7 121:2

202:21 203:3

conference 10:19

42:18 326:18

confidence 89:15

confident 249:6

confidential 128:3

confidentiality

128:14

confidentially

68:19

configuration 84:6

346:6,19

configurations

53:1 55:6 342:4

345:11

confirm 41:8

confirmed 42:4

47:12

conflict 144:1

146:13 152:6

confused 167:12

211:19

confusing 266:17

298:11

confusion 81:20

confusions 120:11

congratulations

39:4

congress 18:15

94:6 104:5 158:10

265:17

conjunction 115:20

connected 88:20

Connecticut 1:17

7:10

connection 21:1

219:22 220:1

278:6

consensus 7:20

16:15,19,20,22

17:2,3,9 18:2

29:21 91:10 94:10

112:4 229:2

242:12 317:12

324:14 349:5

consent 17:4 18:11

18:12 19:5

consequences

281:4 323:13

conservative 179:7

consider 28:1 39:3

83:21 91:21 94:8

110:5 281:8,10

288:11,19 322:16

322:22 344:4

347:4,21

consideration

164:8 317:19

318:11,15 328:19

considered 17:9

55:9,11 84:1 87:6

106:14 107:5

108:4,7 109:6,20

111:4 113:19

168:5 173:10

192:5 321:7 347:2

considering 105:19

114:1 221:11

consistent 19:21

35:12 70:17 124:9

161:9 183:4

consistently 182:12

consists 6:4

constant 112:18

231:22 234:19

235:5,13 328:7

constantly 65:3

constitute 17:6

constitutes 18:2,6

29:21 348:21

constrained 10:18

constrains 104:7

constraint 63:13

64:13 138:8

206:20 208:15

constraints 64:18

164:16 178:1

211:6

construct 65:9

204:17

constructed 258:19

constructing

258:17

construction 52:22

75:11 115:6

constructions 37:8

constructive 40:7

45:17 69:7 97:22

consult 40:4

consultant 68:17

311:17

consultants 8:18

27:1 32:11 242:9

243:3 247:18

248:8 249:12

consultant's 214:18

consulted 159:20

306:15

consulting 2:13,14

6:22 50:5,8 114:8

266:13 325:18

consumer 6:6

296:12

consumers 284:7

321:21

consumer's 208:6

consumption 170:2

177:3 227:5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 361

284:12

contact 22:3,15

77:6 129:12

144:13 350:12

contain 164:7

238:6

containers 170:20

contemplate 289:5

contention 89:21

context 243:11

contexts 15:18

continue 39:17

44:15 83:19

109:10 145:9

273:4 293:17

continuous 257:17

contractor 214:20

contractors 283:13

contributing 224:9

control 278:2

convene 8:13 39:17

307:15

convening 14:20

conventional

280:22 281:3

302:13 309:22

conversation 12:2

93:18 97:19 98:1

145:10 148:19

233:4 265:13

conversations

56:10 281:11

conversion 259:3

convert 83:8

342:17

conveyed 168:6

cookie 291:8,12

cooler 80:5,21 81:1

81:10 215:4

cooling 173:5 175:1

178:21

Cooperative 40:20

cope 276:12

copper 55:15 111:5

111:5,6 210:7

copy 337:4

core 4:21 53:1 55:6

55:7,13 57:1 60:5

60:6,13 74:20

83:21 84:6,21

85:18 86:5 88:20

89:13 90:2,19

91:20 106:3,5,13

106:18 107:9,20

115:6,6 116:6

118:13 119:3,4,4

119:6,8,9 120:8

121:2 180:18

194:3,14 202:20

203:2 263:5 287:3

295:7 301:1,2,10

301:10 316:2

337:16,18 340:4,6

340:18,19 341:9

342:1,3 343:6,14

343:21,22,22

344:2,3,6,10,11

346:6,9,11,17

cores 5:16 55:12

86:17 107:5,17

198:15,15,16,20

343:13 346:1,14

core-cutting

329:20 345:3

Corporation 1:25

1:25 2:18 5:1

correct 13:14 39:11

76:20 79:14 80:7

80:17 81:15 107:3

152:20 166:8,15

194:13 196:16

213:22 264:15

278:18 280:16

281:17 284:2

288:2 289:17

319:5 343:5

corrected 77:22

79:8 90:1

correcting 81:16

correction 76:2,14

78:1 82:22

corrective 78:9

correctly 89:2

correlation 225:11

correspond 155:18

183:14 188:20

235:21 339:8

corresponded

115:5

corroborate 202:22

corroboration

123:3

cost 27:2 51:11

52:2 56:5 63:2

65:16 75:15,16,17

75:18 90:21

105:12 106:15

107:7,9,12 108:9

111:13 121:5

127:17 132:18

140:15,17,18,19

141:16 147:7

149:18 164:15

165:14 166:14,17

167:2 177:10

183:19,19 184:7

184:13 185:10,15

190:2 193:11,14

199:6 201:2,10

205:16 206:1

212:19 215:1

218:7,8,19 253:2

253:6,8,16 255:3

258:21,22 263:10

263:15 273:10

275:14 280:3

282:20,21 294:6

297:6,8,9,10

298:9 299:5,7,20

300:12 313:21

317:22 318:3

320:15,18 321:3

321:11,13,16,18

321:20 323:6,8

328:18 329:4

331:12 332:15,18

332:19,21

costed 212:12

costing 203:9

294:18

costly 42:6 328:16

costs 51:9 56:17,19

57:8,10 67:19

111:13 112:20

137:11 191:22

196:8 212:6

252:18 253:21

256:12,13 298:6,6

328:5

cost-efficiency

180:12

cost-justified 99:5

Coughlin 2:10 6:19

6:19 105:7,10,11

105:12 134:4,10

135:2,14,16

136:17 137:2,6,10

137:18 138:4,14

139:17 163:2

165:2,7,17 166:9

166:18 167:4,6,10

167:17 168:3,11

168:16 169:3,11

169:15,21 170:11

171:12 172:10

173:16 175:16

176:6 179:3,6

184:11,15 185:4

186:1 188:13,16

190:8,21 192:1,6

193:1 195:10

196:1,11,16,18,21

197:2,16 198:9,13

198:19 199:2,10

199:19 200:1,5,19

202:2 203:22

207:1 208:13

209:7 211:3,18

213:3 219:1,14,18

220:5,8,14 222:6

222:11 223:9

224:4,14,20 225:3

225:15,22 226:10

228:13 229:11

230:1,11,19 231:7

233:22 234:6,10

234:15 235:2,7,10

235:15 237:1,3,15

237:21 238:9,15

242:15 243:8,16

243:22 245:3,8,18

246:1,5,7 247:6

250:12,19 251:4,8

251:18 252:2

260:9 265:20,22

266:6,11,15,19,22

269:19,22 270:3

270:12,17 271:3

271:12,16,20

272:3,6,15 275:8

279:9 315:19,20

316:13 339:3,4

Council 2:2,19 4:14

238:3

counsel 9:4 24:22

25:4 36:19,21

39:3

Counsel's 7:8

142:14

count 151:12 273:6

counterproposal

242:8

country 44:2

106:18

couple 21:3 25:3

30:15 39:20 74:10

142:21 154:3

202:13 205:4

266:8 294:7 302:6

334:2 351:17

course 46:19

121:20 122:10

146:14,20 175:4

309:21 332:22

court 12:18 64:20

216:10 246:21

courts 158:10

cover 47:15 130:2

323:10 348:18

351:22

covered 72:16

84:21 87:7,9

218:21 240:15

323:22 324:9

348:17
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 362

covering 348:14

cranked 179:14

create 23:20

149:20 242:10

257:18 275:5,17

320:19 342:20

344:13

created 74:18

281:21 288:13

319:12

creating 11:8

creative 40:7 42:12

69:3

criteria 27:12,14

51:1 60:18 85:10

104:1 109:21

111:17 165:13

271:10,18 274:11

275:21 276:5

279:1,19 281:7

283:5 301:14

306:8 307:19

311:1 313:18

316:16 317:13

318:8,9 320:11

323:9,17,18

324:20 335:14

344:14 347:8

348:2 349:1,21

350:9

criterion 105:21

critical 83:4 102:16

critically 157:20

cross 261:19

crosses 252:22

cross-cutting 244:3

crowd 43:2

crunch 326:13

crystal 246:5,6,10

247:12

CSL 67:5,5 110:20

110:20 140:7

181:6 190:10

253:5,12 266:18

267:7 280:20

CSLs 110:2 116:19

116:20 117:5

186:9 252:19

255:3,18 258:7

CSL0 186:19

195:16 198:1

210:3 213:5

216:16 282:21

297:5

CSL1 186:5,16

CSL2 187:22 188:2

188:3,6 258:10

297:10

CSL3 76:18 78:5

185:10 186:17

188:4,6 198:9

201:9 205:18

209:14 210:11

216:16,18 258:11

297:10

CSL4 198:2,12

199:9 205:18

209:9 252:21

253:14,20

CSL5 189:22

CSL6 252:22

253:20 255:5

CSL7 255:6

cumulative 266:17

curiosity 231:12

current 88:22 99:8

109:19 155:1

177:18 191:6

235:22

cursor 303:10

curve 73:9,11

187:1 189:16

190:17 203:1

205:19 212:12

213:1 214:3

216:16,20 220:21

221:4 227:7 257:9

257:16,19 290:19

291:5 292:18

300:16 320:18

curves 202:21

221:8,16 284:5

328:18

custom 122:14

customarily 14:13

customer 93:1,4,11

95:2 183:15

294:15

customers 74:22

92:13,17 94:16

95:10,14,20 97:18

191:19 210:14

213:14 261:22

customized 153:4

cut 27:11 278:16

333:5 340:9,9

341:13,14 343:6

cutoff 181:11,12

cutter 346:11

cutting 345:15

346:17

cycle 27:15 51:11

105:12 106:4,15

111:12 121:5

132:18 137:11

140:17,17,19

141:16 275:14

280:3 282:19,21

Cymbalsky 1:21

6:9,10 42:2,2,20

43:6,11,19 44:3,9

45:4,8,22 46:8

47:5 65:7,7,14,18

65:22 66:15,15

67:13,14 68:11,12

85:4,4,13,19 86:1

86:14,22 136:9

201:14,15 208:4,4

208:14 209:11,17

236:14,15 237:2,4

283:6,7,10,15,17

287:7 297:14

298:13 299:1,9,13

299:16,21 300:2,6

303:8,12 304:21

305:2,5 316:8

317:1,5,7 318:16

318:16,22 319:11

320:6,14 324:7

331:9 334:4,12,22

335:9 337:6

352:11,15

D

daily 332:19

Dan 2:9 7:7 36:21

36:22 37:1 144:13

146:16 153:12

155:14 265:11,12

269:3

danger 135:4

Daniel 2:21 13:15

13:17

data 17:20 27:4

61:12 65:1,6,14

65:19,21 67:11

68:17 71:5 73:19

75:11 76:17 80:7

80:12 102:8 103:8

107:4 115:13,15

125:6 126:12,14

128:15 129:21

130:11 160:18

164:2 169:2,9,22

170:4,5,19 171:3

171:4,13,19,21

172:1,3 173:11

175:2,4,8,11

176:14,21 177:7

180:13,14,16

185:20 187:2

197:4 199:20

201:22 212:7

217:6 220:20

221:21 222:3

223:12 224:17,21

225:10,13,16,18

227:19 229:6,7,8

229:9,13,15,17,20

233:14,15,15,18

234:1,2,5,14

236:17 237:13,17

237:19 243:17

249:6,13 306:1

313:6 316:4 326:7

326:19 327:2,22

344:7,16 347:22

350:19

database 120:20

327:11

date 171:5,5 297:9

dates 43:17,21 44:2

daunting 48:15

Dave 5:14 106:2

152:21 185:6

202:15 211:14

293:21 308:5

David 1:23 153:2

day 3:8 9:22 10:1,2

10:2,6,7 20:12

23:5 31:10 37:4

39:22 40:15 42:11

44:22 45:3 46:20

103:5,9 159:17

161:13,17 162:12

233:12

days 33:10,10,11

40:1,12,13 102:14

129:5 161:19

327:18 333:2

daytime 134:22

deal 70:11 90:2

147:15 153:12

172:4 282:2,3

dealing 122:18

129:21,21,22

143:3 151:22

154:9,11 156:18

156:22 323:19

deals 30:16 71:1

152:4

dealt 152:5 229:1

debated 268:6

December 47:11,13

47:17 48:3,7

decide 10:14 67:1

67:10 82:12 84:11

88:2,10,11 94:12

94:14 105:17

112:5 126:13

131:14 340:8

decided 26:12

139:1 175:20

218:9 289:9

338:10
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 363

decides 51:1 111:7

111:8

deciding 91:21

decision 148:10

182:2 288:22

289:4 294:2

296:20 324:21

338:22

decisions 100:19

272:22

declared 82:1

102:21

declining 235:4

decrease 236:2

decrement 259:1

dedicate 161:12

Defense 2:2,19 4:14

defer 104:8

deference 158:12

deficiencies 122:22

define 16:21 91:13

98:2 268:17

305:16 347:3

defined 16:20

91:14 139:8,11,21

139:22 140:2,3

141:2 153:9

280:17 281:22

293:15 316:6

defining 306:10

307:20

definite 240:13,19

definitely 32:12

39:11 70:6 131:13

187:11 281:14

342:11

definition 140:11

264:17 265:9

268:20

definitions 265:15

definitive 237:20

degradation

118:12

degree 79:15

107:20

degrees 60:17,21

60:21 76:4,19

77:15,16,21,22

78:17 79:22 81:22

82:2,3,4,6,16 83:9

87:20 103:20,21

191:11

DeLASKI 1:22 6:2

6:2 21:3,9,16 22:4

22:8,11,19 23:10

23:16,19 24:10

35:9,15,20 36:4

36:19 37:1,6,12

37:18 42:14 43:7

44:20 45:6,16

46:15 68:15 80:13

80:14,20 88:6,15

89:6,8 91:8,9

93:14 97:8 133:15

133:18 134:8,14

134:18,21 135:6,9

186:14 187:12,18

188:14 190:6

192:2 195:2,3,11

196:9,12,17,19,22

197:12 198:14,22

202:6,12 212:3,4

213:4,16 214:1

216:22 236:8

237:11,16 242:7

243:1,9,20 245:14

245:20 246:3,6

247:11 249:16

250:4,14,20 251:2

251:6 260:14

261:12,17 262:2

262:19 265:10

284:14,17,21

287:12 292:4,7

296:10,21 297:6

303:14 304:7,19

305:1,4,6 310:16

312:1,4,16 313:19

314:6,20 315:2

316:17 317:3,6,9

319:13,21 327:17

330:1,8,11,14,20

331:1 333:4,11

334:10,14,19

335:7,11,21 336:5

336:8,15,22

337:15 348:4,7

delete 337:3,4,6,10

deliberate 307:10

deliver 107:8

delivering 309:5

delta 61:6,10,10

199:7

demand 177:4

274:2

demonstrate 53:16

demonstrated

260:11

denoted 110:20

density 119:6

193:10

departed 187:2

department 1:1,13

1:21 2:9,11,12

6:17 16:16 50:7

69:4 78:16 94:5

94:20 95:9,13

145:1 156:15

157:5 243:2

247:22 250:9

269:19,22 281:11

319:15 328:12

349:18

depend 4:4 86:12

140:10,18 141:4,9

165:16 176:13

256:18 281:20

dependent 78:12

147:9 157:21

290:12

depending 186:9

203:18 205:2

290:2 313:14

339:17

depends 174:17

203:16,20 255:17

275:8,9

depth 343:1

describe 8:1

described 35:16,17

217:9

describes 50:18

270:5

descriptive 54:11

design 26:13 28:22

51:1,7,16,17,20

52:6,20,21 53:3,6

53:7,17 54:3,4,7

54:18,20 55:1,5

55:10,12,17,19,21

56:9,22 57:3,3

60:6,11,18 61:6,8

61:20 62:2,4,8,9

63:5,7 64:9,9

67:17,21 68:4

70:3,9 71:3 72:17

73:17,21 74:17

75:4,16,16 76:3

82:7 84:12 85:15

86:10 87:2,4,10

89:18 93:8 99:6

107:14 110:14

111:1,3,16 112:16

115:3 116:5

117:19 118:16

120:6,7 122:7

124:13 127:16

130:9 131:2,2,4

139:9,11,21 140:3

140:5,16 163:10

164:12 167:2

180:9,19 182:9,19

184:6,19 185:2

186:6 189:12

194:19 196:7

198:6 203:13

204:7 206:2 207:6

212:1 216:14

252:20 253:5,6

256:1 257:10,11

257:12,20,21,22

258:5,14 271:21

272:12 275:2

280:9 303:6 315:6

315:7,17 316:1

319:7 327:6 338:4

339:2 340:8,18

343:3,20,21 344:3

344:10

designed 210:20

215:16 228:21

designer 119:2

designing 232:5,13

designs 52:5,9 55:2

55:3,8,9 57:6

59:11 61:10 74:15

74:18 75:6,8,10

83:21 109:13

117:13 119:19

122:3 124:16

140:15 147:6

165:13 166:22

179:22 181:2,13

181:16,20 182:12

183:4 184:8,22

188:20 190:19

196:3 198:21

201:9,9 205:10

206:2,14 212:1

218:12 232:10

327:11 338:21

340:6 341:17

342:4,15

Despite 11:22

destruction 118:13

119:11,12 123:2

detail 75:2 100:6

125:3 138:10

141:20 164:10

168:17,21 254:16

detailed 171:13

172:1 224:5

details 49:3 122:7

123:6 173:17

219:5 224:15

determine 56:19

69:22 72:9 75:15

75:18 295:8

305:12 309:10

340:11

determined 56:7,9

62:11 75:21

develop 51:4 72:2

84:9 104:10,16

108:4 125:20
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 364

developed 56:5

developing 8:6

325:15

development

133:20 272:16

develops 52:2

device 210:8 227:4

262:12 263:18,20

devices 227:14

345:7

diagram 221:5

diagrams 221:6

223:7

dial 282:9

dialogue 11:3,4,6

dice 69:2

dicey 130:12

dictated 243:15

differ 160:11

224:17 275:7

difference 118:6,7

122:9 169:1,4

178:19 187:10

201:7 210:16

224:15 235:9

253:11 267:1

299:8 300:22

310:7

differences 119:16

120:10 122:8

125:12 290:16

321:16

different 8:9 22:20

28:21,22 30:15

32:9 35:15 37:9

37:10 55:17 64:11

66:9 71:21 75:3

78:4,6,7,19 86:17

86:18 87:3 97:14

103:12 111:2,15

118:14,15 119:18

128:5 130:7 131:7

139:2 140:10

141:3 147:5

149:14,16,17,18

149:19 153:18

155:7 161:15

163:5,16 168:2,9

168:19 169:19

175:5 180:17,18

182:10,18 183:13

185:13 194:2

196:7 198:6 209:2

210:6 211:21,21

219:9 223:15

243:12 252:13

255:10 259:5,7

284:11 287:13

294:7 300:18

302:6 304:6 310:2

311:3 312:16

313:4,9,9,11

314:1 322:17

329:4 331:14

332:9,10 339:18

341:2,8 342:3,13

343:13

differential 202:19

306:9 314:5

differently 81:17

190:4 192:4

268:17 331:22

difficult 90:20

100:5 101:14

104:1 116:4

123:20 151:7

171:16 256:21

305:12 333:2

difficulties 3:5

difficulty 96:2

125:6

digging 99:11

diligence 124:15

diligently 37:14

dimension 314:14

dimensions 112:19

diminish 4:3

directly 18:8 51:19

106:13 109:16

125:4 196:5 308:8

308:13

disadvantaged

3:21

disaggregate

113:21

discharge 9:2

disclosure 152:11

discomfort 311:11

disconnected 282:6

282:8

discontinued 90:15

discontinuities

331:4

discount 177:6

241:6 243:14

244:4 254:8 259:5

298:7,10

discounted 300:1

discover 327:9

discovered 183:17

discrepancies

115:9 182:20

183:18 326:8

350:19,20

discrepancy 328:1

discrete 110:8

discretion 128:13

discuss 24:11 25:17

38:12 39:7 88:3

161:14 162:12

270:13,20 278:22

discussed 19:16

20:19,20 23:17

31:12 33:6 75:14

90:5 113:4 135:21

151:20 256:5

274:8 275:22

335:15 344:19

discussing 30:2

97:2 147:5 245:11

348:1

discussion 10:16

11:9,12 14:21

15:5 16:22 18:18

24:1,19 25:7,15

26:20 27:6 28:5,9

29:6 30:4 31:9

37:15 48:20 63:4

87:16 116:8,15

147:15 220:18

224:5 235:18

280:13,16 305:15

312:11,18 313:19

349:7 351:13

discussions 19:15

28:12 62:11 68:21

94:19 99:1 127:4

133:11 144:5

146:15 293:18

305:18 307:1

dispersed 158:19

displaying 190:4

dispute 7:15

dissent 17:8,10

dissuade 143:20

distinct 151:8

distinction 300:11

300:11 303:15,19

distinguish 300:13

distinguishing

284:6

distribute 246:14

263:4,18

distributed 15:2

134:9,12

distribution 1:4 5:8

5:20 34:20 102:22

103:1 109:17

170:13 171:15

174:2 177:22

195:17 196:14

219:3 223:15

226:8 229:5

230:13 254:10,11

259:17,18 264:7

285:16 286:18

289:20 290:21

291:2 334:1

distributions

222:17 229:18,19

252:11 290:19

distributors 144:21

diverge 150:1

160:10

diverse 8:15

diversity 105:15,19

223:4 224:8 252:8

276:1

divided 54:7

176:19

DL7 254:19

docket 97:20

dockets 93:21

document 25:6

270:22

documented 142:1

documents 139:14

228:7

DOE 6:11 7:7 8:10

31:20 34:17 35:7

42:3 51:6,20 52:2

52:4,10,13,17,19

53:1,3,6,9,12 54:2

54:7,18,20 55:1,4

55:11 56:5,11,14

56:21 57:5,7,10

65:8 66:16 67:14

68:12 74:15 75:10

75:17 83:21 84:5

85:5 93:21 99:8

101:3 109:12,20

109:21 110:1,5,8

111:7,11 112:8,12

112:18 187:2

201:15 208:5

236:15 240:1,5

245:9 281:7 283:7

318:17 328:8,8

332:12 333:19

349:19

DOE's 8:18 112:3

228:7 298:1

dog 7:17

doing 4:7 9:10

12:21 26:19 27:15

40:13,15 45:2

64:17 65:10 95:16

129:19 142:16

146:14 154:16

157:13 188:21

191:20,21 195:21

206:7 227:15

239:9 243:4

248:12 269:14

285:6 308:17
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 365

321:3 325:17

328:8 335:3

345:22

DOJ 307:5,8

dollar 218:13

256:12 295:9

314:11

dollars 253:22,22

295:6,20

domain 225:18,21

227:22

domestic 318:7,8

319:19

dominant 151:19

dominate 340:22

Donuts 353:1

dot 211:2

dots 110:22 111:4

187:21 189:8,22

195:8 207:21

210:5 220:18

252:21 286:9

dotted 188:3,4

double 61:11

206:15,16,17

245:1 268:13

doubles 157:15

double-check

106:9

doubt 328:20

dough 291:9,13

download 136:8

245:9 246:9,13

downs 122:21

downsize 232:18

downstream 51:10

52:12 141:8

256:14

downward 240:19

draconian 38:3

draft 8:19 15:10

34:14 35:13,21

257:3 258:3

317:14

drafted 104:6

drafting 8:12

dramatically 205:8

270:10 285:5

drastic 300:21

drastically 300:15

draw 16:5

drawn 303:15

drew 303:20

drive 98:3

driven 178:20,22

driving 184:7

196:10,12

drop 315:16

dry 5:20 53:21

55:21 87:8 99:4,9

100:14,18 101:20

102:3,5 103:13,15

110:7,14 113:2,10

113:11 114:14

122:9,11,20

123:11,14,19

140:6 163:21

166:6 173:1,7,13

174:19 223:7

drys 322:15,21

dry-type 1:3

178:10 179:1

223:10 225:8

231:18 257:10

278:15,18 310:22

318:13 321:22

346:15

dry-types 180:10

DSL6 73:10

DTFLs 139:16

Duckett 229:15

ducts 121:18

due 64:19 73:18,21

85:7 124:15 191:3

226:11,14 236:5

262:15 302:7

Dunkin 352:22

duties 146:20

duty 108:19

dynamic 213:17

D.C 1:14

D/Schneider 1:24

E

eager 92:17 217:4

EAI 229:10

ear 36:16

earlier 46:12 71:16

111:17 195:11,19

215:3 216:3 277:8

328:4 331:15

345:18

early 27:13 101:13

132:3 191:2,16

239:10

Earthjustice 1:18

6:1 89:10

easier 123:9 176:14

339:12

easily 223:20

228:22 235:11

236:18

East 46:16 134:21

Eastern 136:11

easy 62:13 192:9

244:10 254:14

eat 67:19

Eaton 1:25 4:22

economical 90:14

economically 9:14

91:18 92:1 99:17

economics 1:19 7:4

84:17 107:3

167:12 217:21

236:7 293:21

economists 284:4

284:15,17

ecstatic 264:13

Edison 2:15

editing 336:22

Eduardo 1:25 4:22

47:20

educate 244:18

education 245:5

EDWARDS 2:11

EEI 42:10 45:14

47:2 87:6 174:16

178:6 223:22

EEIs 44:21

effect 60:22 80:14

92:6 239:1

effective 218:9

341:4

effectiveness 147:7

effects 254:12

307:9

efficiencies 51:22

54:19 58:13 60:19

62:14 70:1 76:9

76:10,14 78:8

79:9,19 98:15

109:17,22 122:13

131:17 189:17

191:14,18,21

196:14 199:18

204:3

efficiency 2:1 4:16

6:5,7 26:13 51:5,9

52:10,11 55:4

56:1,2 61:1 63:3

67:4,9 73:1 75:6

75:20 76:21 77:11

77:17 78:22 80:15

80:19 82:1,13

85:15 87:10 91:4

92:11,15,16 93:7

94:2,6 98:3 99:7

100:16,18,21

101:6,8 102:10,21

103:11 105:21

107:8 108:8

109:15,16 110:6,9

110:17,19,22

111:10,11 116:8

121:21 138:20

139:6,13,20 140:1

140:11,15,18

141:9 147:8

163:16 164:13

176:10 179:17,18

179:22 181:2,9,11

181:15,19 183:21

185:15 193:20,21

195:18 199:6

203:20 204:9,17

204:18,19,22

205:1 207:10,14

209:2 216:12,14

217:15 218:2,8

226:15 231:15

232:8,9 255:2,19

256:18 257:7

258:9,14 261:19

266:4 267:2,8

272:4 274:18

275:3,17 280:15

280:21 286:17

287:9 291:20

298:2 303:5

313:21,22 314:1

314:10,19 315:18

319:17 322:9,20

323:2,6 329:5

334:2 339:8,17

344:9

efficient 11:17 81:3

93:1,4 167:1

203:14 214:7

215:5 217:17

226:16 231:15

232:14 234:22

236:4,21 240:3,7

273:11,16,17

292:2 302:8

efficiently 93:11

EIA 170:1 236:17

237:5

eight 333:9

either 20:8 73:15

140:11,13 144:13

146:15 175:8

176:8 230:20

238:17 248:15

309:6

elaborate 36:11

ELCAP 229:17

233:14,19 234:3

electric 1:24 2:15

2:21 5:7 13:16,18

61:18 87:16 96:13

191:1 192:14

205:14 210:1

214:9 226:4,13

232:16,22 233:2

235:1 259:11,14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 366

260:19 268:11

294:9 295:3 297:6

315:5,8 329:11

electrical 1:20 2:6

2:8 4:20 5:8,10,12

6:15 7:16 75:12

75:21

electricity 164:4

167:18,20 170:2

177:3,3,4,6 180:4

180:6 215:18

216:7 236:19

239:21,21 240:14

244:4 245:12

259:3

Electrics 40:19

eliminated 54:22

eliminating 190:15

ELs 109:15 110:3,8

116:20,20 321:18

email 34:13,21

134:13,14 136:10

136:12 139:15

emailed 307:13

emails 11:13 136:5

embedded 294:11

emerging 11:6

emissions 256:15

291:19

emphasis 301:9

emphasize 9:1 15:6

17:15

employer 144:7

148:14 149:6

150:9

employment

342:18 344:22

empty 160:1

EMS 266:13

encapsulated 263:4

263:17 268:3

enclosure 262:13

263:6

encompass 286:12

encourage 38:8

146:15

ended 311:12,14

endogenous 281:19

ends 67:7 70:5

181:4

energy 1:1,13,21

2:9,11,12 4:16 6:7

6:18 16:16 50:7

65:2 77:10 94:5

97:4 99:6 143:10

164:3,3 193:15

205:3 209:2

212:12 213:9

215:14,20 216:13

227:1 232:8 233:3

236:4 238:2

239:20,21 240:14

240:15,19 241:5

252:19 253:10

254:3 256:14

259:2 267:16

269:10,11,12

273:14,19 275:10

275:15 280:5

282:20 287:9

294:6 295:13

296:12,14,15,16

297:21 298:2

299:5,6,7,20

300:12 305:3

317:22 322:1

334:15,17 335:12

335:17 336:10,11

336:17 338:1,2

340:3

energy-saving

227:13

engage 98:1

engineer 86:4

engineering 5:18

26:2 49:7 50:11

50:14,17 51:2,3,9

51:14 52:19 53:8

56:5 72:2 74:14

85:11 99:6 109:14

120:20 126:22

129:22 130:3

131:22 138:5

140:12,14 176:14

180:13,16 181:20

185:19 196:2

197:3 200:3 211:5

241:5,11 304:9,10

313:12 320:18

343:11

engineers 116:13

118:9 124:5 232:4

241:13

entailed 313:22

enter 164:17 189:1

entire 17:14 104:15

131:19 224:2

272:18 307:3

327:11

entities 83:8 214:17

260:3 261:8

entitled 20:1,2

entity 262:1

environment

262:10

environmental

4:17 6:5 291:18

EPACT 268:13

EPCA 265:6

equal 3:14

equally 145:2

equipment 5:8

28:22 51:16 52:17

52:20 53:16,19

54:5 111:16

112:11 147:22

148:8 173:3,4,5

173:13 175:10

178:10,14,15,21

178:22 179:19

206:17 212:21

218:3,4 226:16

256:2 258:21

318:2 329:21

341:10,13 345:4

equitably 156:10

equivalent 76:18

196:8

ERAC 49:12

137:16 143:11,12

145:15,15

Eric 1:25 5:11

303:16,20,20

305:7 308:1

especially 68:3

120:8 174:18

178:19 239:19

252:10,12 317:20

318:13

essentially 93:10

115:4 138:8

140:12 166:7,14

173:18 177:12

181:18,19 189:8

199:7 205:9

209:15 231:19

256:13 257:13

275:13 280:1

308:18

establishments

174:19

estimate 76:15

80:10 177:10

306:7 319:9

estimated 319:15

estimates 127:18

269:10 270:11

et 269:17

etcetera 338:9

Ethan 340:14

ethical 152:19

158:4 160:20

ethics 142:18,18

143:22 146:11

Europe 106:22

107:18,22

evaluate 166:6

303:18

evaluated 70:3

evaluates 188:22

evaluating 213:9

evaluation 165:20

evaluations 182:4

evaluators 177:4

189:7,8 202:4

evening 103:3

evenly 110:2,3

272:2

everybody 3:4 4:10

19:10 21:7 34:13

34:15,20 35:19

38:17 44:8 46:14

81:14 118:14

144:19 151:21

152:1,17 209:9,14

237:8 249:1

263:21 282:7

302:17 312:11

353:1

Everybody's

144:19

Everything's 93:6

evidence 17:22

84:14

evolved 302:1

exact 66:4,5 227:16

exactly 59:12 60:14

80:2 89:7 119:21

128:18 155:18

183:12 184:14

287:4 291:10

337:1,21

exam 101:15

examine 53:10

274:6,11

examined 56:12

examines 51:7

example 4:6 28:17

36:5 55:17 76:18

84:20 92:14 111:4

111:10 116:7

119:3 167:1

186:13 187:22

188:12 207:6

230:15 243:14

258:12 286:8

290:22 292:16

320:9

Excellent 129:19

exception 215:1

excited 64:14

excluded 265:8

exclusion 264:20

265:3 267:20

268:2
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 367

exclusions 264:18

265:1

excuse 14:4 28:6

35:18 63:10 110:3

112:11 114:6

135:11 137:20

152:21 153:1

258:8

executive 283:18

exempt 332:12

exemption 103:14

exhausted 344:2

exhaustive 244:1

exhorted 175:20

existence 273:5

existing 231:14,17

234:20,21 272:12

exists 274:18

exogenous 250:6

expand 96:13 97:9

expect 114:13

145:3 195:15

223:3 236:4

266:18

expectation 235:22

expected 281:8

expecting 261:22

expedite 4:7 351:20

expenditure 207:19

expensive 214:18

261:1 330:13

experience 16:6

40:2 122:16

experienced 19:17

experimenting

11:10

expert 8:16 104:9

159:13 306:16

340:2

expertise 249:20

experts 56:11

114:17 201:6

explain 9:10 36:13

77:9 194:22

290:11

explains 224:15

explanation 39:21

266:21

explicit 264:18

explicitly 114:13

explore 126:18

242:1

exponent 257:16

exponentially

187:1

exposed 262:10

express 31:6

extend 45:9

extending 47:15

extensive 120:4

306:21

extent 89:4 107:4

142:1 155:4

160:10 294:10

extra 119:10,10

185:15 193:12

276:19 332:20

extrapolate 256:3

257:7

extreme 73:3 96:11

336:7,9

extremely 42:6

101:14 262:14

extremes 98:9

extremities 114:11

F

FACA 28:8 108:18

154:10,10 155:19

155:20 156:6

157:4

faces 3:10

facilitate 7:18

11:11

facilitator 1:14,18

3:3 6:12 7:9 12:9

12:13,16 13:3,6,9

13:12,17,21 14:3

14:7,17 21:6,11

21:18 22:6,10,14

23:7,14,18,21

24:12 30:20 31:4

31:14 32:7 33:18

34:6 35:14,18

36:3,18,22 37:5,7

37:17,19 38:1,20

41:9,12 43:3

46:21 47:10 49:1

50:1 63:6 64:4

69:14 72:19 73:14

74:5,11 77:8

78:20 79:3 83:12

84:14 86:8 88:4,8

91:17 95:21

101:10 104:2

105:9 106:16,21

108:1 111:20

112:21 116:16

118:19 123:21

124:11,17 126:15

127:10 128:11,19

131:1,21 132:16

133:17 134:1,11

134:16,20 135:3,8

135:19 136:14,22

137:4,9,20 138:2

138:12 145:20

146:22 149:11

150:13,20 151:15

152:10,14 153:1

155:16,22 158:1

161:21 162:14,17

162:20 164:22

165:4,10 167:9

168:1 170:7

172:14,19 175:18

185:21 187:7,15

193:17 206:19

207:8,12 213:8

214:5,22 216:10

217:19 218:20

219:21 220:6,11

220:22 222:8

227:9,18 228:4,9

230:3 235:17

236:11 237:7

238:4,14 240:21

244:11 246:18,21

247:7 248:3

250:13,18,22

251:11 264:2

265:18,21 267:21

268:21 271:6,14

271:17 272:1,4,14

275:6 276:17

277:9,13 279:10

282:14,18 284:1

284:16 290:7

291:8,11,16 292:6

292:9 293:19

294:21 296:1

297:2,18 298:16

299:3 300:7

301:12 305:7

308:4 309:11,14

309:19 310:12

312:10 313:16

314:3 316:5

317:10 321:8

322:3,6,10 323:7

324:16 327:15

330:17 331:6

332:1 334:17,20

335:2,19 336:2,6

336:13 343:16

344:15 346:4,22

348:6,12 350:6,11

352:5,13,20

FACILITATORY

250:2

facilities 206:4

352:22

facility 120:4 207:5

352:3

fact 97:2 98:14

100:20 131:18

151:12,16 158:13

160:2 166:4

190:11 192:18

226:11,14 259:14

310:18,21 317:20

322:16 328:11

329:14 333:19

faction 173:20

factor 57:1,4 59:22

62:5,9,10,12,20

62:21 63:19 65:9

66:2,6,8,13,20

67:12 69:11,22

71:7 76:12 78:1,4

78:9 117:6 118:11

118:13,13 119:11

119:13 130:6,15

131:18 177:8,9,11

177:15 178:9,9

254:1,7 281:15

330:15 341:18

factored 32:6 72:12

78:16

factors 69:9 71:16

71:17 75:18

105:16 123:2,13

130:8 165:16

174:2 178:17

179:8,9 184:4

241:3 281:9 294:8

322:22 323:1,3

341:7,8

factory 56:16 57:5

117:20 118:1

facts 9:8 149:17

fair 17:2 24:8 157:2

284:13 286:20

307:22 321:6

342:14

fairly 96:7 115:8

150:21 171:19

174:1 255:14

256:22 276:8

faith 18:6 48:16

fallback 48:6

familiar 3:10,12,19

176:19 226:1

228:16 238:5

families 41:17

famous 149:20

fancy 306:19

far 61:14 118:4,11

141:18 158:16

248:17 285:16

fast 214:13 295:10

faster 263:5

favor 18:21 19:4

38:20

favorite 274:21
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 368

feasibility 91:18

feasible 9:15 10:21

90:13 91:22 96:5

109:20 110:4

features 168:5

176:7,12

fed 51:10

federal 1:23 2:19

5:18 14:5,8 69:15

77:21 79:5 82:14

92:2 98:5 114:19

120:2 125:21

130:20 133:2

154:2 165:11

183:9 230:5 240:5

285:2 322:5 326:2

feed 50:16

feedback 175:14

289:3 293:12,16

feeding 241:5

feeds 138:6,7

feel 12:1 30:21 31:3

45:10 54:2 121:6

121:7,8,9 126:13

131:13 277:6

307:14 326:6

341:5 351:11

feelers 44:18

fell 72:15

fellow 307:7

FEMP 238:1

fewer 160:3

field 105:21 204:19

267:3

fifty 184:1

figure 32:17 125:4

126:2,10 137:7

206:2,14 250:9

276:4 293:11

316:21

figures 53:15 180:8

filibuster 28:4

fill 275:18

filled 268:8 314:16

334:5

filling 280:8 339:7

filtered 183:20

184:1,22

final 25:10,13

57:19 58:15

319:14 325:16

finalize 25:10

351:16

finalized 8:8

finally 52:13 90:11

90:14 112:8

find 69:8 90:18

91:10 101:5 123:8

171:21 182:21

186:10 217:4

225:17 243:17

244:10 319:15

finding 101:14

121:14 184:10

205:16

fine 44:7 47:2

92:19 249:8

finger 249:17

finish 335:7

finished 247:4

finite 90:11 324:5,6

326:20

fire 107:21

fires 233:3,6

first 3:8,11 11:20

14:10,14 16:13

24:15 27:11 31:1

31:16,17 36:7

44:22 51:15 62:22

104:13 109:21

166:17 172:17

181:15 183:19

184:7 185:16

203:12 212:19

214:16 215:1

218:7 228:13

253:8 273:11

278:12 279:14,20

283:11,21 301:22

317:12

first-year 298:8

299:20

fit 16:10 96:10

137:13 270:17

five 31:10 33:10

114:5 127:20

161:9,19 162:7

222:20 242:17

266:18 334:8

fix 277:19

fixed 43:18

flag 177:4

flat 187:1 197:5,18

203:1,4,6 209:1

211:17 212:13,14

212:17 216:16

221:12 235:4,12

flatness 189:15

203:9 220:18

221:4

flatter 220:21

221:8,16,19,20,22

flavor 302:7

flexibility 92:12

98:17 338:15

flip 326:11

floor 12:3 20:12

30:9,12

flow 18:1 50:15

141:13 284:19

fluctuating 174:22

fluctuation 118:22

flux 119:6 193:10

flying 41:20

focus 26:10 27:6

142:9 167:1 186:6

293:4 294:13

323:8

focused 183:19

184:9

focuses 286:6

focusing 295:17

folks 3:12 35:11

38:5 97:12 159:1

220:16 286:21

313:9

follow 83:16 88:16

91:8 273:2 339:13

followed 15:22

following 88:15

166:3

follows 93:15

follow-on 88:6

187:18 195:2

follow-up 87:15

93:14

foot 240:20

footage 205:22

206:12 207:11

233:9 328:7 330:3

330:10,12 331:7

footprint 103:21

force 301:6

forces 315:13

forcing 92:7 93:3,9

forecast 256:10

forecasts 307:17

foregoing 132:13

foresee 307:11

forge 7:20

forgive 87:17

forgiving 123:16

form 28:21 83:15

124:18,22 241:10

formal 307:6

formalized 69:5

format 19:10

formed 28:18

126:17 249:18

350:18

formula 76:13

82:21 83:11

forth 4:6 10:20

27:16 29:1,22

37:22 40:7 63:2

129:12 138:17

226:15 248:5

281:5 297:11

302:19

forum 11:9 18:14

forward 11:5 25:20

68:14,20 69:8

122:7 148:4

241:10 347:20

349:7

forwarded 145:12

fossil 239:22 259:4

found 76:9 122:15

125:10

four 40:13 48:13,19

50:22 161:9

194:15 199:15

209:2 242:17

258:15 266:18

308:10

fraction 174:8

175:4

fragmented 158:18

frame 33:10 34:8

56:7

framed 26:15

framework 9:2

15:19 20:21

155:17

free 27:2 129:17

246:11 255:2

307:14 351:11

FREEMAN 2:12

frequency 112:17

165:6 230:10,11

Friday 39:19 41:10

41:15,18 134:19

135:4 136:15

309:6

fringe 63:15

front 14:22 19:22

81:13,15 336:14

337:13 339:12

347:15

fruit 185:9

fuel 80:15

fuels 239:22 259:4

full 77:13,19 78:2,3

82:6 83:10 164:20

194:16 210:10

256:4 289:5 338:9

339:13,20

fully 56:17 57:3

59:3 60:11 300:2

344:5

function 138:22

168:14 169:5

242:9 257:7

322:13 323:3,6

furnish 346:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 369

further 48:20

52:12 123:8

248:12 250:10

351:14

future 10:3 34:3

39:8 74:20 113:14

155:2 227:12

228:11 232:14

236:3

G

G 2:5

gain 324:3

gap 92:22

gapfill 333:13,15

333:18 348:5,6

gaps 275:17,19

280:8,11

gap-filling 323:17

Gary 2:5 12:15,16

gas 2:17,21 13:16

13:18,20,22 14:1

14:3 268:7

gas-filled 268:2

gather 84:7 104:16

235:17

gathered 235:20

gathering 8:11

347:2

GE 311:5

geared 111:21

gee 100:22 209:3

245:1

general 7:7 9:4

55:21 71:1 96:3

99:1 142:13

144:17 152:1

154:12 156:8

171:1 194:12

260:9

generalized 29:20

generally 14:16

19:1 56:3,21 96:2

260:10 267:4

275:18

generate 158:7

183:3 254:14

generated 109:13

271:10

generating 193:18

generically 274:1

gentleman 87:15

193:3

geographic 176:22

geometry 119:3,9

119:15

Germany 343:8

getting 33:7 34:1

34:18 37:20 38:9

41:15,16 43:20

76:19 104:12

113:15 115:12,15

127:14,15,21

136:2 153:22

215:4 221:16,19

221:20,22 236:20

242:12 255:2,3

260:17 271:9

273:15 285:21

305:13 314:1

323:22 332:15

335:5 351:20

give 18:12 20:16

28:10 31:10,14

39:22 41:1 62:19

69:6 75:4,5 77:1

106:16 127:3

129:14 133:10

143:18 158:11

160:8 175:14

176:2 181:22

207:14 248:18,18

269:3 288:14

308:2 334:22

given 18:11 36:7

68:21 94:5 98:20

99:10 108:8 161:7

182:8 183:15

185:19 274:5

292:15

gives 20:21 133:3

140:9 163:7

177:13,15 179:17

183:12 184:12

189:2 228:16

253:7

giving 17:17,19

glad 146:18 311:14

glancing 116:17

global 149:5

287:18,20 288:10

290:3 291:18

319:20

go 3:6,18 4:3,9 6:12

12:21 18:13 37:10

37:22 42:1 43:21

45:11 46:2,20

56:1 61:19,22

68:20 74:5,11

86:2 99:20 100:20

102:8 114:6 124:7

132:5,22 133:13

138:9 141:12

143:1 147:3 163:3

163:10,16 167:9

173:17 180:22

181:18 185:10

188:9 194:6

197:15 203:2

205:3 211:22

214:11,12 218:22

227:16 231:19

237:3 239:8

241:22 244:3

245:10 247:3

252:9,14,15

255:14 260:5

267:16 269:8

273:14 275:2

278:6 279:11,12

282:15 292:2

307:14 319:14

321:17 322:7

323:1,1 325:3

339:16,20 346:8

349:7

goal 97:3 156:20

233:6 257:6

278:11 307:8

323:10 329:17

goals 111:18

297:20 298:1,2

goes 23:22 48:19

103:8 135:20

154:20 157:4

193:11 214:15

241:1 255:6

258:15 266:18

314:11

going 4:9 10:8

11:16 12:22 16:4

19:13 23:7,9,17

25:20 26:20 29:18

30:5,6 32:17,21

33:2,15 44:12

45:19 48:13 49:9

49:10,16 50:12,13

57:15 63:17 64:22

65:1 66:17 67:19

67:20 68:14 70:18

73:10,19 77:20

78:6 79:21 80:1

80:15,18,20 82:14

82:16 83:1,2,7

88:17 93:3,16

94:9,11,18,21

96:17 97:13 101:4

102:14 104:13,18

104:20 108:17

115:13,15,18

121:4,5 124:21

126:2,11 131:8

132:5 134:17

137:10 139:12

140:7 141:17,21

142:17 143:6,9,19

144:16,19,22

145:2,16 148:10

148:11,14 151:6

151:14,20 152:1

154:18 155:3,8

156:9,11,12,18,22

168:14 170:22

171:3 174:20

176:22 178:16

180:8 181:6,17

197:4 198:8

202:18 205:1,14

205:18,20 211:20

212:8,10 213:11

214:3,21 215:16

215:19,21 217:10

217:16 218:16,17

220:12,13 227:14

227:16 237:6,8

238:10,17,17

239:1,3 250:4

257:1 259:16

260:2,4 261:4,5,8

262:12 263:11

268:22 275:16

278:8 289:13,20

294:16 296:13

300:18 303:20

304:22 307:11

312:2,3,7,14

313:10,13 316:11

319:1,22 320:1,5

323:4 324:10

326:12 328:14

329:16 331:2,3,21

338:11,13,16,18

338:20,21 340:11

342:11,18 344:20

345:9 347:19

348:20,22 349:10

349:14 351:18

352:4,9

good 18:6 33:21

35:11 43:12 45:7

45:8,22 48:16,16

50:4 66:8 68:14

70:12 72:17,20

92:11 104:3 108:1

123:3 128:21

131:21 132:2

142:12 158:2

175:14 225:12

241:18 248:7

266:21 268:22

276:17 279:5

287:12,15 293:5

295:14 317:9

327:6 333:22

350:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 370

Google 228:2

Googled 228:1

goosy 19:10

Gordon 2:12

142:12,13 145:22

146:3,10 147:2,17

149:9 150:4,14

151:11,16 152:13

152:20 153:6,11

154:1,5 155:21

156:3 162:15,18

gosh 157:15

gotten 98:22 136:5

government 6:6

96:18 283:19

grab 73:12

graciously 40:20

grade 286:6 292:15

grades 203:2

graph 59:17 110:13

111:1,2 190:3

195:5 208:7

graphic 166:19

great 4:16 7:9

28:10 38:4 39:5

41:5 47:11 65:22

70:11 83:17 105:2

126:16 129:7

151:10 162:14

233:11 252:3

271:6 286:4

352:22 353:1

greater 65:17

158:12 183:15

285:22 346:20

greatly 267:9,9

green 189:8 190:8

190:12 195:8

273:9

Greeson 1:23 5:17

5:17 57:13,22

58:4,16 59:7,13

69:15,15 79:5,5

80:2,22,22 92:2,2

98:5,5 114:19,19

120:2,2 125:21,21

130:20,20 131:3

165:11,11 166:8

166:15,21 167:5

183:9,9 184:14,17

185:5,16 186:4,18

187:9,14 203:5

230:5,5,15,22

285:2,2,20 286:20

293:3 326:1,1

GREG 2:15

grid 182:7

ground 4:6 15:1,1

15:9,11,13 16:2,7

16:20 18:20 19:21

20:18 21:2 24:1

24:14,18,19 25:1

25:8 28:2,3,6,16

28:20 29:3,6,8,9,9

32:20 38:13 278:9

278:12

grounded 9:7,8

243:4

group 1:4,13 3:7

4:5 7:18 9:19,22

10:1,8,9,10,10,11

11:5,7 14:14,20

14:22 15:4,6

16:19,21 17:1,3

17:14,17 18:22

20:16 26:8,9

28:13,14 35:3

37:11 39:5,13,14

39:17,22 40:11

42:14,16,19 52:21

67:7 83:16 91:10

108:5,19,20 109:2

111:11 112:1,5

113:21 124:19

125:1,15,17,19

126:17 127:3,4,20

128:8,12,22 129:1

129:11,14,15,20

130:16 133:4

143:16 146:8

158:6,13,22

159:15,22 187:16

226:5 227:4,21

241:11,15,19,20

244:15 247:19

248:9,16 249:3,14

249:18 250:15

278:17 279:4,15

279:16,17,20

280:13,15 288:18

306:4 307:15,18

308:11,14 309:1

310:13,14 311:21

312:13 324:12,17

325:14,17 326:17

350:18,22

grouping 167:2

groupings 111:10

groups 6:5,6 10:3

11:14 14:15 15:14

28:19,21 40:6

153:8 291:18

growth 73:18 222:1

222:4 274:2

gruesome 41:15

guarantees 48:15

guess 23:16 36:20

42:21 46:9 68:11

84:10,17 108:5,12

111:19 119:13

180:14 184:17

201:20 212:11

213:5 216:22

229:14 237:11

242:7 247:8

265:10 271:17

289:18 316:5

318:10 321:8

324:4 333:12

349:16 351:13

guessing 320:18

guest 30:18 352:3

guests 31:5

guidance 144:12

145:8 146:18

148:18

guidelines 133:4

306:14

guilty 244:16

guy 97:7 152:3

210:17 211:1

283:14

guys 28:5 62:1 92:3

120:17 126:5

153:14 154:7

156:22 182:22

190:15 202:8

207:14 210:19

212:7,8 213:19

243:4 311:16

319:4 337:7

H

half 10:1,2 39:22

40:15 120:14

276:19 277:4

hand 96:6 98:19

handle 29:18 84:12

159:12

handles 30:21

handling 56:16,21

handouts 21:19

handy 314:19

hang 277:20

happen 37:3 98:4

144:16 148:5

212:10 238:10

277:22 313:13

326:16 327:13,18

327:19

happened 153:10

happening 129:16

197:1,1 209:5

267:7 273:15

348:11

happens 114:11

146:16,19 157:15

181:10 189:12

238:7 242:3

happy 24:16 26:14

37:10 126:1 127:5

130:22 162:4

224:6 234:11

244:1,8 302:21

311:6

hard 48:17 116:12

159:16 160:16,19

182:17 230:7

harder 204:16

276:11

harm 281:2

harmonization

111:12

harmonized 109:22

hashing 127:21

hate 122:3

head 132:10 302:12

320:20

heading 254:20

292:4

healthy 98:14

hear 12:18 108:17

143:1 282:8

286:16

heard 22:22 23:6

25:2 36:2 217:22

236:8,12,13

340:19

hearing 152:11

195:19 212:5,18

heat 193:18 263:5

263:19

heating 173:5

175:1 178:21

heavily 267:14

help 7:19 30:7

37:19 73:7 96:18

97:4,15 111:14

131:4 157:18

172:7 214:4

238:11 250:14

266:1 303:21

316:18

helped 72:9 191:6

helpful 28:14 32:8

40:3,8 69:12 88:5

109:9 124:18

162:22

helping 14:19

helps 69:8 98:2

126:10 243:1

hey 73:6 76:1

150:15

Hi 4:13 6:14 22:11

113:1 142:12
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 371

178:5

high 56:13 71:6

92:5 100:16,21

101:6,8 165:20

173:4 185:1

291:20 303:5

333:20

higher 53:11 80:16

80:19 85:16 92:15

98:15 99:7,20

120:19 185:18

188:20,21 191:15

193:20,22 202:18

203:2 205:19

207:15 213:20

214:2 222:5

261:16 267:5

291:20 319:17

321:17 329:5

345:12,20

highest 287:9 299:6

305:3 334:14,17

335:11,16 336:10

336:11,17 338:1

340:3

highlight 16:12

51:13

high-volume

345:11

Hirschman-Herf...

306:17

histogram 220:19

222:13 230:8,16

234:19

histograms 219:15

222:7,9,12 223:11

224:1

histories 245:17

history 15:8 243:5

hit 62:13 76:10

259:15 260:2

Hitachi 2:18 7:5

151:3 155:10,11

Hitachi's 151:9

hitting 92:3

hold 23:22 24:12

42:4,19 66:8

101:10 116:4

137:14 297:18

307:1 328:6

330:10

holding 17:8 48:6

100:2 112:18

330:2,3

holds 257:14

holidays 48:4

home 40:5 41:16,21

144:6 150:8

homes 95:5 102:2

honest 67:20

345:14

honestly 201:22

hope 17:10 24:18

34:15 92:9 232:3

236:4 327:19

352:13

hopefully 4:2 8:16

10:21 24:20 30:1

34:18 48:4,15

100:1 115:16

129:2 136:6,20

141:11 175:14

279:1 327:9 349:2

349:10 350:22

hoping 25:21

116:14 126:11

Hopkinson 2:13

12:7,7

horizontal 222:21

253:1

horsepower 115:19

hospital 71:6 169:2

169:10

hospitality 47:15

hospitals 224:22

host 40:20

hotels 41:4

hour 26:5 276:20

277:4 278:21

294:6

hourly 59:3,3

223:12 229:12,17

229:20 234:7

hours 31:13 45:9

45:10 56:8 59:10

103:2,3,9 220:13

220:13 330:5

house 154:10

housing 231:21

how's 137:21

huge 179:5 235:9

252:12 288:14

342:18

hundred 166:22

171:10 184:2

187:4 194:10,11

232:20 253:21

292:16,17,21

301:2 338:17

hundreds 52:5

326:21

hung 315:12,15

HVOLT 2:13 12:8

I

idea 28:17 39:21

40:11 45:9 98:9

105:18 157:9

160:14 163:2

241:19 248:7

249:3 251:12

350:12

ideal 161:3

ideally 129:3 338:1

ideas 42:12 68:14

identical 138:21

identified 52:7,17

53:6 113:6

identifies 50:19

51:20

identify 53:11 84:5

247:1 250:14

identifying 26:10

27:7 54:17 246:22

idling 103:7

IECC 240:17

IEEE 166:4

illustrate 219:2,3

252:5,16

illustrating 189:21

illustration 189:20

272:16

illustrative 110:16

257:2

IM 352:19

imagine 241:4

320:22

immerse 351:6

immersed 164:19

274:16

immunity 306:21

impact 50:12 89:13

179:5 196:20

252:12 274:7

290:1 294:8

314:16 318:7,9,18

318:21 319:7

325:16 328:12

329:14 331:2,13

331:21,21 342:12

342:18 345:2

346:7,20

impacted 161:1

impacts 51:12

137:12 138:7

140:22,22 141:4,5

255:22 256:15,17

258:20 276:10,12

281:6,13,20 288:1

291:19 301:6

305:14,19 306:2

307:17,21 320:8

324:1 328:13,21

332:2 343:2 347:1

348:1,14,16,21

impartial 7:19

imperfectly 96:10

implement 19:20

104:22 171:22

implemented 24:6

24:8 201:1

implicated 149:19

implications

125:11 158:5

implies 71:18

implying 220:2

importance 17:17

273:1

important 16:14,16

27:13 32:16 33:17

37:13 48:18 97:10

102:9,11,17 104:4

109:4 116:2

158:14 160:14

243:10 248:11

303:18 326:3

341:17

impose 189:21

190:14

imposed 181:11

imposing 105:20

improved 6:7

267:15

improvements

204:8 232:9

improves 56:3

improving 267:9

inability 85:7

inadvertent 21:21

incandescent 350:2

incentive 212:20

include 55:6 58:2,3

58:13 84:19

154:17

included 57:12

59:8 64:21 178:3

198:21 256:2,11

264:6

includes 59:4 60:5

156:1 164:2 316:2

including 10:12

55:12 57:6 107:10

108:16 215:14

256:15

inconvenience 44:8

incorporate 173:11

174:12

increase 186:16

193:5,6 194:14

201:10 206:3

208:3,21 273:18

280:20

increased 57:4

231:16

increases 110:9
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 372

increasing 205:21

235:6

incredibly 218:8

increment 258:22

259:1

incremental 52:11

110:9 252:18

253:1,7,16,21

318:2 320:14

321:3,11,13,16,18

321:20

incurred 273:10

incurring 332:18

332:20

Independence 1:14

independent 155:5

independently

327:1

Index 306:17

indicate 125:10

208:21

indication 222:15

individual 36:11

95:19 118:10

119:2 124:14

127:16 139:9,11

149:6 150:22

153:4 176:2 229:8

294:15 311:17

individualized

128:9

individually 128:2

308:15 309:2

312:6

individuals 25:3

248:19

individual's 119:13

indoors 102:4

industrial 164:1

219:10 222:22

223:4 231:8

industry 55:3

56:10 61:21 75:1

102:7 108:15

122:15 151:6,8,19

152:18 155:1

158:15 184:5

191:4 210:13,20

211:6 259:16,19

259:21 261:4

295:17 296:16

313:17 315:14

330:18 342:13,14

344:16 345:19

inevitably 96:10

infinitely 352:16

inflection 212:15

influence 154:19

inform 276:6

information 27:2

33:8 41:2,4 58:6

58:16 80:8 84:7,9

99:11 104:17

116:6 120:7

124:14 126:7

128:4,15 129:12

131:4,16 174:11

218:14 244:7

272:11 296:7

300:10 313:12

315:21 316:15

324:2 325:19

inherent 152:8

initial 327:20

329:12

initially 79:17

input 8:11 103:16

187:21 196:2

272:7 281:22

311:17

inputs 51:10 52:2

56:6 58:7 74:22

124:6,9 141:16,19

142:2

inside 170:20

insiders 325:2

installation 58:20

58:21 163:12,14

164:16 165:21

176:11,13 178:1

253:10

installations

163:11 230:12

253:4 267:6,13

installed 164:15

201:2 253:2,16

263:7

instances 252:7

Institute 2:15

institution 144:7

insulated 287:19

intend 128:1 309:5

intended 164:6

335:16

intense 351:19

intensive 328:16

intent 293:13

311:20

interaction 111:15

interest 4:16 8:21

9:16 32:16 40:6

98:14 143:16

144:1,3 146:13

151:8,9 152:7

153:8 162:2

175:22 176:4,17

248:22,22 280:14

323:11

interested 115:3

124:20 225:16

286:5 306:16

interesting 180:20

interests 8:16,20

109:5 143:19,21

147:21 149:1

150:1,7 154:14,15

160:10

interject 31:20

intermediate 252:4

254:15

internal 128:13

312:13

internally 270:13

interpolate 275:20

348:15

interpret 300:5

interpretation

107:3

interpreting 89:2

interrupt 133:9

interruption 163:1

intervals 44:11

interviews 158:16

200:15

introduce 4:10

introducing 125:14

introductory 134:3

intuitively 208:20

inventory 332:15

332:21

invest 207:22

investigate 183:6

investigating 89:3

investment 346:8

346:16,20

investments 328:11

329:2,7,8 330:2

331:5

invite 38:13

invited 129:9

153:15 175:19

involve 14:16

involved 64:5

93:20,21 148:19

329:1

in-house 24:22

25:4 39:2

iron 114:22

ironed 115:21

irrespective 170:22

isolated 115:4

issue 16:14 18:1

22:1 28:11 30:10

31:12 37:21,22

45:15 63:15 88:1

90:4 100:3,11

114:9,13 116:2,2

116:16 117:6

121:13 127:6

130:7,18 152:7,19

160:6,14 165:18

172:5 178:7 221:3

234:16,17 247:8

248:4 267:1

270:14 280:19

309:21 318:6

342:7

issues 8:16 26:7,11

26:11 27:7 30:11

31:2 108:4,5

113:4 114:22

121:10 126:18,21

126:22 130:3

145:3 146:12,13

146:19,21 154:10

157:6 158:4

161:10,15 162:7,7

162:13 184:10

200:12 205:12

215:2 225:8

228:14 240:22

288:5,12 293:14

342:9,10 351:9,11

351:14

items 32:19 56:16

333:16

iteration 278:19

it'll 47:3 112:4

J

January 283:18

Jeremiah 2:12 39:9

39:15 49:9 278:11

Jerry 2:18 13:11,12

13:13 309:6

Jim 6:17

job 98:7 184:8

318:7,8,18 319:2

319:7 320:8

jobs 319:17 320:19

John 1:20,21 2:17

5:9 6:9 13:19,21

28:7 30:13,14

42:1,2 44:21 65:7

66:15 67:14 68:11

70:22 72:7 85:4

93:21 99:2 112:22

113:1 127:10,13

144:12 146:16

147:4 150:8

153:16 157:6,8

161:5,6 197:13

201:14,18 208:4

221:13 232:17

236:14 244:11,12
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 373

283:6 284:2

301:19 303:1,3

318:16 333:20

337:20 342:7

John's 35:9 338:7

join 49:16 129:17

joining 49:10,17

Jointly 9:18

judge 116:12

judgment 311:18

July 202:10

jump 205:17

236:13,14

jumped 120:22

jumping 210:18

jury 9:11

Justice 281:11

349:18

justified 9:14 91:19

92:1 99:18

justify 346:16

K

k 77:14 215:7,8,13

322:22,22 323:3

Katie 2:10 6:19

105:6,9,11 132:18

133:1 136:16

162:22 167:12

187:19 190:20

197:13 205:13

219:12 223:6,21

259:10 266:1,10

279:4,8 280:9

281:16 299:3

315:19 320:20

339:4

keenly 158:15

160:15

keep 10:3 12:21

19:14 30:1 46:16

62:8 96:11 128:15

129:3,14 185:1

186:11 203:1,4,6

204:1 207:18

248:1 262:9

287:21

keeping 18:16

202:19

kept 62:10 231:13

301:2

key 17:16 27:7

51:14 81:18 92:4

152:11 249:17

310:7

kill 295:6

kilowatt 294:6

295:9

kilter 70:14

kind 11:6 29:3,5,6

29:7 30:1 45:18

46:6,10 53:16

69:6,9,20 81:11

93:15 98:13 102:2

103:6 104:22

108:6 114:21

115:7,9 117:2

118:18,21 120:6

121:22 123:17

124:22 126:1,6

130:14 131:8,9

142:6 144:2 148:8

148:12,12 149:3

155:12 163:3

173:12 184:10

187:1,9 192:11

194:17 211:9,10

222:15 225:10

228:16 242:20

244:5 248:8

249:14 273:21

281:19 282:1

286:5,6 295:17

303:21 316:7

325:6 327:4,12

332:5,7,10,13

333:18 341:13

kindly 47:14 49:14

kinds 29:10 117:15

332:9

knew 352:8

know 3:17 9:11

12:4 14:13 16:10

19:2 26:21 27:1

29:13,14 31:10

32:4,19 33:9,13

36:5,9,20 37:6,13

37:21 38:5,5

41:17 42:9 43:1,4

43:7,19 45:19

46:11,18 48:1,1,4

48:10,18 52:16

61:14 65:11 66:16

66:20 68:17 69:10

69:12 70:13 71:17

74:19 76:6 77:5

79:12 81:11 88:10

88:10 89:18 91:16

93:19 94:1,3,11

94:19 95:10 96:3

96:6 97:13,15,18

97:22 98:12,15

101:15 104:11,20

105:5 106:9 108:3

108:6,14,19 109:9

111:22 112:5

114:16 116:10,11

116:12 117:3,16

117:22 118:2,7

119:2 120:18

122:2,6,15 123:3

123:5 124:6,14

125:5,10 127:14

127:20 128:3

129:3,4,8,8,13,18

129:18 136:7

137:16 145:18

147:9 148:13,21

149:21,22 150:10

151:7,9 152:15

154:18,22 156:7

156:13 157:22

158:6,21 159:1,11

159:12 160:2,4,17

161:12,19 162:1,2

162:6 168:17,22

169:3 173:4 174:5

174:8 175:6,9

183:1 185:17

190:12 193:22

196:8 197:3,6

199:11 200:11,20

200:22 201:4,16

201:20 206:5

208:8,8 224:6

225:6,15 234:11

234:13 238:20

249:15 251:7

254:17 258:10

265:13 269:10

270:8 283:4

285:21 286:3

295:14 299:2

305:19 307:16

309:17 310:4

313:1,22 316:3

321:1 324:14

328:6,15,21 333:1

333:13 337:8

341:19 344:18

345:19 347:22

348:22 350:2

knowledge 327:10

knows 81:14

151:21

kVA 52:15,18,21

53:2,4,13 54:6,15

54:16 55:20 62:4

62:16 63:1,16

64:11 67:8,9 68:3

70:1,12 72:3,15

72:16 73:2,11,22

87:8 90:11 112:11

112:14 115:4

130:7 194:4

197:21 220:20

221:4,7,17 222:5

256:4,11 257:6,8

257:11 259:13,15

259:15,21 260:4

261:3,5,11,16

262:17 263:9,12

263:12,12,12,14

263:15,16 264:9

264:17,20 338:13

345:5,14,18

kVAs 73:8 114:9

338:12

K13 210:8

L

Lab 12:12 50:6

106:12

labels 181:7

labor 52:3 56:8,18

56:19 58:10,17,18

58:21,21 59:10

64:6 319:18

328:16 330:5

Laboratory 2:1,8

2:10,16 6:20

lack 17:9

laid 16:1

Lakeview 1:19

4:19

lamp 350:3

language 19:6 37:9

large 55:11 96:20

104:21 142:8

158:8 181:1

182:14 183:3

202:5 205:21

207:22 252:8

310:8,9

largely 250:6 255:1

290:11

larger 54:6 68:9

191:9,19 270:18

275:15

largest 180:10

208:2 345:5

lastly 110:5

last-minute 276:13

late 3:4 46:20 90:7

129:17 152:4

225:6 233:16

latest 41:19 238:5

Laughter 101:17

216:1 230:21

236:10 246:20

282:10 283:8

launch 280:16

launched 96:21

laundry 95:6

law 1:18 7:11,13,13
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 374

96:1 240:5 264:6

279:21

Lawrence 2:1,7,10

2:15 6:20 12:12

50:6 106:12

lays 15:20

LBL 26:18 27:14

31:22 32:8 34:12

105:10 126:20

132:7,17 199:14

200:2 246:8

251:13 306:6

307:16 315:20

339:5

LBL's 132:11

LBNL 248:13

LCC 105:17 106:1

138:6 163:3,8,9

163:18,20 164:20

166:10 178:4

179:5,12 180:2

181:6,10,14

187:21 196:4,6

197:5 211:13

222:12 223:14

228:22 238:18

241:2,22 251:22

252:9 254:7,18

255:1,6,13 275:1

275:4,11 280:5

296:21 334:18

lead 182:18 204:22

leader 146:5

Leadership 216:13

leads 341:3

leap 253:20 254:2

learn 233:12

learned 99:11

leave 250:8 277:7

leaves 92:12

led 271:18

LEED 215:15,17

216:6,11

leeway 30:20 31:14

left 68:7 119:1

137:5 141:18

212:14 215:9

222:20 226:20

227:8 230:16

266:9 277:14,17

277:18 305:17

306:3

legal 9:13 16:17

25:5 84:18 133:5

142:14 158:4

274:19

legend 190:7

lesser 260:8

letter 147:18,19

153:22

letters 150:5 153:5

153:13,14 155:5

156:2,4

let's 4:8 6:12 9:21

14:9 23:21 24:12

24:13 33:18 39:6

45:11 47:5 108:2

120:15 132:3,5,17

137:21 138:10

151:2 179:10,10

180:1,7,22 205:11

208:9 245:13,18

247:10 249:8

269:1 279:11

285:5 305:18

334:13 335:1,9

337:9 349:6,8

351:6,12,12

level 27:11 55:5

68:22 69:1 92:11

98:16 99:7 105:18

110:5,22 116:15

118:21 140:3,11

141:1 142:6

163:17 164:13

165:20 168:17,20

171:11 179:17

181:9,12,16,19

185:21 186:20

190:15 204:6,17

207:15 234:1,8

256:9 258:14

260:7 261:19

267:8 275:3

280:21 286:18,22

287:8 291:7 303:5

318:4,4 329:5

342:16 344:9

levels 52:11 63:4

67:2,4 75:6 79:20

82:13 92:20 108:9

109:15,16,21

110:6,10,19 111:9

111:10,11 122:12

131:15 138:19,20

139:4,6,13,19,20

139:22 140:1,19

140:20 141:10,10

176:10 185:19

202:18 211:21

255:18,19 256:18

272:5 279:2

319:17 320:15

323:2 339:8,17

life 27:15 51:11

105:12 106:4,14

111:12 121:5

132:18 137:11

140:17,17,19

141:16 170:9

235:14 275:14

280:3 282:19,21

lifetime 170:12

172:3 177:22

213:14 253:10

273:3,4,7 298:10

299:22

lifetimes 171:15

254:11 272:20

light 2:17 13:20,22

14:1,3 198:12

lightest 322:18

lighting 216:5

232:8

likelihood 155:1

164:6

likewise 100:19

limit 20:14 68:13

183:5

limitations 27:4,5

160:17

limited 107:17

157:12 190:1

346:13

limits 62:20 63:1

line 12:5 53:7 54:4

55:19 61:20 62:4

63:7 67:17,21

68:4 70:9 72:17

73:17,21 90:15

109:3 110:14

115:3 130:9 131:2

131:2 139:9,11,21

140:16 163:10

180:9,21 184:18

188:3,4 198:7

207:6 210:20

252:20 256:1

257:11,11,12,20

257:21 258:5,14

275:3 281:3 303:9

315:7,7,17 347:11

lines 26:14 29:1

51:17,17 52:20

53:3,6,17 54:4,8

62:2,8,9 63:5

104:10 111:16

123:2 132:4 140:4

140:5 149:16

205:5 239:16

link 246:13

liquid 123:18

164:18 168:10

274:16 314:15

liquid-filled 90:10

99:10 113:3

123:10,15 321:15

liquid-immersed

42:15 158:20

165:19 278:14

310:22

list 21:19 22:16

34:20 54:21 56:6

108:4 114:5

133:21 141:15

162:6 251:9 333:8

339:10,11,16

348:5 351:9

listed 55:22 58:9

251:14 254:19

264:19 265:1,2

Listen 312:10

listening 33:14

191:9

little 11:12 15:8,12

24:19 46:12,12

58:5 81:3,9 92:22

93:15 95:6 97:14

98:17 115:16,18

123:7,8 125:9

127:3 130:5

138:10 140:8

157:8 158:18,18

167:12 189:9

203:7,14 241:10

241:12,15 249:3

276:11 289:10

333:20,21

live 46:17

load 77:13 78:2,3

78:18 81:10 82:3

82:3,6 83:10 93:6

93:9 102:21 103:9

105:15 130:8

164:11 171:9,10

171:11,18 173:9

173:10 174:2

177:11,13,16

179:7,20 182:4

183:16 193:20

194:7,8,10,16

204:4,8,11 205:7

223:16,18 224:3,9

229:13,17 230:9

230:16 231:2

232:7 238:18

267:9,10,15 294:8

loaded 204:6 205:2

267:13 300:19

loading 71:3,18

169:18 173:22

178:15 219:7

225:8,18 226:7

227:3,6,16 231:17

234:17 236:1,2
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 375

238:8 241:3

295:11 300:16,21

301:8

loadings 71:22

105:12,13 222:16

267:4,5

loads 102:16

105:16 168:20

174:10 175:9

177:1,14,15,20

178:12 179:13,14

191:15 193:22

204:13 219:4

222:13 223:4,5,13

224:8 230:14

235:4,12 254:10

loathe 43:21

lobby 18:13,21

19:4

location 48:22

176:22

locations 39:7

lock 303:5

locked 47:18

log 256:5

long 79:11,13 129:5

152:14,16 157:16

182:3 277:5 307:8

333:22 339:10,15

343:4

longer 79:22 263:9

277:6 280:22

315:10

look 8:17 11:5

24:15,21,22 25:4

41:14 70:6,12

71:4,11 72:4

90:17 98:10

100:20 121:5

122:6 123:6 126:6

128:21 131:6,10

149:4 153:13

156:17,21 158:9,9

158:10,11,15

174:12 178:8

187:22 193:16

206:10 208:7

210:2,3 220:19

221:3,5 225:11

227:12 229:22

236:16,18 239:16

241:15,21 242:3

242:19 251:16

265:7 266:16

269:3 271:3

281:12 286:14

287:15 288:7

290:2 305:19

306:15,17 309:8

310:21 313:7

314:4 320:1,2,3,7

320:8 323:15,18

324:1,20 328:5,13

329:12 333:3

343:12

looked 70:2 71:19

72:3,6,7 113:9

115:3 117:12

147:18 186:4,17

191:16 243:18

244:17

looking 35:20

37:18 42:12,16

72:1 88:22 114:17

131:9 149:5 157:3

183:18 187:20

204:1 207:13,20

207:21 241:19

258:5 284:4

294:14 298:5

302:5 316:9 318:6

323:5 324:3

329:13 336:20

338:1 348:14

looks 185:8,14

197:19 211:17

212:2 225:12

310:19

loop 127:5 163:10

loopholes 101:5

loosy 19:10

lose 220:7

losers 149:21

loss 112:14 119:8

177:8 178:8

179:20,21 193:5

194:14 226:15

238:18 267:15

295:7 301:1,2,10

losses 74:21,21

77:13,18,19 78:7

78:11 79:8,14,22

80:3 81:17 82:18

82:19,20,22 83:6

83:10 112:19

119:10,11 120:8

177:10 182:5,5

191:10 192:3,17

192:21 194:5,6,9

194:11 204:8,11

204:11 205:7,8

253:11,12 267:10

267:10 295:8

300:12 301:3,10

lost 3:6 119:6 135:5

219:22 220:2

lot 3:9 33:5 48:16

65:17 77:7 80:5

90:21 95:4,18

102:3,5 103:17,19

113:3 117:22

120:13 123:12,13

123:16 132:22

141:17,20 143:13

147:12 148:15

149:14 160:1

174:19 175:6

181:6 183:1 185:9

196:7 198:11

201:6,12 205:18

208:8 218:1,4,5

225:7 232:1,4

238:19 240:18,20

244:2 245:10

248:17 258:16

276:13 293:22

311:9 326:5

331:14 332:6

342:22 347:8

350:15

lots 49:3 284:18

low 1:3 39:16 55:20

56:13 64:20 67:18

87:7 99:3 103:20

114:16 164:17

173:3 174:21

183:19,19 192:19

202:3 205:1

207:19 212:7

216:12 321:21

345:20

lower 76:9,10

79:10,22 80:3

100:17 107:9

121:16,18,21

191:10,14,21

192:20 193:10,20

193:21 204:6,14

215:1 255:2 261:1

270:11 284:12

286:10 321:18

345:13

lowering 192:2

lowest 166:16

167:2 181:2 184:7

184:13,13 190:2

190:17 318:2

321:2,10,11,13

low-cost 181:3

185:2

low-hanging 185:9

low-voltage 3:7 5:4

5:20 10:7 11:7

26:2 27:12 38:14

40:17 47:16,19

53:21,21 64:22

96:14 103:15

108:22 110:7,14

113:11 114:2,14

122:9,11,21 140:5

140:6 158:17

159:9 166:1,5

167:13 171:1

173:8 175:10

223:7,10 224:12

224:16 225:8

226:8 257:9

278:18 283:4

315:3 322:15,21

345:2

LPS 189:13

luck 299:2

Ludlum 22:7

lunch 26:5 101:13

130:5 132:3,22

276:20

lying 101:22

L'Enfant 43:13

L-E-E-D 216:11

M

machine 329:20

343:6

machines 206:16

342:20

Mahet 266:12

main 77:5 280:12

maintenance

300:13

major 122:9

300:11 314:12

majority 97:6

283:2

makers 281:2

294:2

making 90:9,22

96:2 100:19 109:3

148:9 192:11

226:15 232:2

286:14 289:18

291:12 296:20

345:10

manage 6:10 243:3

manager 5:18 7:2

337:8

mandate 9:3 94:4

98:10 130:17

mandated 97:1

manner 311:2

manufacture 5:19

261:1 328:12,13

331:2

manufactured

204:20 211:8

manufacturer 4:21
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 376

5:3,7 86:14 87:1

91:2,6,12 101:3

107:19 127:12

161:16,16 162:8

200:15 201:8

208:18 213:18

221:18 222:1

250:7 260:18

276:10,12 310:11

338:18 340:15,20

341:11,15

manufacturers

1:20 2:6,9 5:10

6:16 56:10 57:9

57:11 59:6 75:19

84:8 92:7 108:22

109:2 110:18

115:19 124:15

126:3 127:17

128:1 144:20

147:21 159:10

160:8 161:12

191:13 195:12

199:14,21 201:13

206:9,10 212:6

216:17 249:19

260:15,20 261:7

261:10 285:22

287:17 288:5,8

302:19 306:4

311:7,10 325:18

326:14 327:4

328:10,14,21

329:2 338:16,20

341:12 343:6

346:8,15

manufacturing

50:11 51:6 58:12

58:19 59:2 141:5

158:17 206:6,8

207:2,17 262:15

263:10 281:18,20

281:22 318:21

325:16 328:6

329:14 343:1

344:21 345:9

347:1 348:1,16

mapped 313:20

margin 177:2

marginal 164:4

mark 47:7 93:9

327:6

marked 58:14

345:20

market 50:9,16,17

50:18 68:1,5,10

70:10 73:19,21

74:1 81:4 92:13

92:18,19 97:16

98:3 116:11

122:12 151:4

158:17 159:9

167:13 180:10

195:20 196:4

201:16 202:5

208:11 209:12,20

210:2,9,12,13,17

212:18 214:6

216:19 217:13,14

217:16 218:1,15

218:15,17 260:16

260:17 262:13,21

274:4,18 281:4

285:5 287:19,20

288:10,14 290:3

291:21 306:18

307:3 312:8

313:15 318:13,14

340:22 342:5

marketing 92:15

marketplace 221:7

261:21 283:3

287:18 305:14

306:11

markets 106:22

310:22

markup 56:22 57:6

57:9,12 58:14

60:8 116:3

markups 52:3

56:15,19 57:17

58:2,3,7 59:9

75:18 115:10,11

120:10 201:1

matches 225:11

material 52:3 56:6

56:11 59:8 86:20

121:20 141:7

186:10,12 201:7

202:20 221:12

273:22 274:3

286:1,12 287:11

289:14 293:6,6,10

303:6 304:8

332:16 335:4

336:9,10,14

337:13,16,18

338:8 340:4,6,12

341:9 342:1,3

343:14

materials 33:6,16

55:7 66:7 75:12

75:13,14,15,17

86:13 121:1 131:9

141:7,7,14 147:9

147:10 180:18

182:12,17 183:4,7

200:6,10,14,18

211:21 241:4

276:2,2 314:2

332:14

mathematically

192:11

matrix 295:15

Matt 2:13 6:21

49:19,20 50:5

61:17 70:21 73:6

76:1 83:18 85:5

88:21 132:20

343:16,18

matter 67:18 87:9

132:13 143:6

144:15,17 151:22

154:11 156:8

186:2 207:10

250:11 338:19

matters 16:21

109:1 133:18

144:5 156:22

max 274:17 279:20

282:15,19 324:11

maximizing 65:2

maximum 20:16

55:4 109:20 110:4

111:13 184:3

274:18,21 275:10

279:22 280:4

282:20 283:2,20

345:6

mean 17:3 29:9

30:18 32:3,5

42:16 43:4,11

44:9 45:1,19 46:5

46:22 47:2 63:14

64:20 65:21 72:20

80:9 84:19,20

85:3,14 108:12

126:8 151:3 158:8

168:16 169:8

170:12 173:14

174:6,11 178:12

179:6 192:7 197:4

197:18 199:2,12

201:20 208:11

225:22 235:10

238:15 243:16

244:16 245:20

250:9 252:5

264:12,15 272:6

283:12 286:14

294:19 300:15

302:21 312:11

314:6 326:5 331:8

333:21 334:1

337:22 338:19

345:13 348:5

meaning 181:4

meaningful 286:13

323:15 324:8

means 105:4

143:15 144:18

193:6,9 194:3

309:9

meant 23:15 63:9

131:2 273:1

measure 82:16

122:22 154:21

302:15 306:10

measured 77:20

83:2,3

measurement

82:17

measures 139:10

302:12,13

measuring 88:13

mechanics 142:11

163:4 166:12

238:22

media 18:15 158:9

median 228:17

232:11 235:19

236:1

medium 10:9 15:3

25:11 42:22 64:18

113:9 116:18

158:20 220:19

274:15 278:14

306:3 314:20,22

medium-volt 5:4

medium-voltage

3:22 4:5 5:5,19

9:19,22 10:11,16

11:5 16:9 17:1

18:22 19:9 25:8

26:8 28:13 39:13

39:14 40:16 46:9

47:16 64:2,15,17

65:4 66:19 99:9

113:2 114:12,15

114:20 122:10,14

122:19 123:11

165:19 168:12

221:5 224:16

248:16 279:3,16

282:4 287:2

314:15 325:17

342:13

meet 9:5,18,22 10:1

10:5 26:6,6 39:11

39:15,22 63:3

87:2 92:6 103:18

103:22,22 166:22

179:22 204:17

239:17 289:14

338:2 342:4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 377

meeting 1:6 3:13

7:12 10:6,19 11:7

14:12 15:12 19:9

22:21 25:2,11

32:13,14,18 33:3

33:12 34:4,10

35:1 38:15 39:9

39:13 41:6,22

43:20 44:8 45:1,2

45:3 47:11 48:2

49:17 61:21 62:3

62:11 63:17,20

94:15 111:18

125:9 129:1,4,6

133:19 136:19,21

141:15 176:1,2

188:5,6 250:21

274:9 303:16,22

307:4 308:6,9

309:7,20 311:6

327:16,18,20

349:9,11 350:16

351:2,4,6,18,22

352:3

meetings 11:3,16

11:17 19:8 25:20

39:8 40:21 41:19

42:3,4 47:21

48:12,17 49:13

145:18 159:3,7

349:12

Meg 2:19 13:8,9

member 19:11 20:4

23:2 31:11 36:10

93:22 145:16

321:5

members 4:15 17:4

18:5,8 19:22 20:3

23:1 30:22 31:16

34:19 36:6 142:20

143:14

membership 162:1

memo 134:4

Memphis 2:17

13:20,22 14:1

mention 14:15 22:8

181:22 204:1

mentioned 8:22

60:16 61:6 71:15

112:12 178:2

301:22 302:11

310:9 312:21

mentioning 241:17

merits 30:5

messed 70:5

met 1:13 77:5

267:8

metal 5:15 148:12

151:6 281:1

metals 1:19 2:18

4:20 7:6 151:5

198:7 309:22

metaphysical 273:1

meters 342:20

Metglas 1:23 2:5

5:15 7:6 12:15,17

106:3 151:3

152:22 185:7

202:16 211:15

293:21 309:16

methodologies

70:20

methodology 50:13

129:21

methods 327:3

metrics 259:8

mic 20:11

middle 32:14 254:1

254:6

midpoint 242:5

Mike 2:14 114:7

115:22 122:5

127:6

mild 314:13

million 4:15

Millure 1:23 5:14

5:14 106:2,2

107:16 152:21,22

153:3,7 185:6,6

202:15,15 211:14

211:14,19 293:21

308:6

min 282:19

mind 30:8 46:12

81:20 83:14 133:9

204:1 213:7

287:22

mine 173:15

331:22

mined 237:14

Minimal 318:5

minimize 319:7

minimizes 321:20

minimum 111:12

166:14 184:3

217:10 275:1,4

280:2 318:7

322:19

mining 97:20 100:7

Minnesota 97:1

minute 44:17

minutes 20:14,15

31:10 32:22 34:1

34:2,3,7 35:3,4

52:9 132:8 133:7

142:17 312:19

350:16 351:9,20

misinformed 89:17

missed 20:22 59:19

352:22

missing 115:11

149:13 208:15

212:7 244:9

misstate 280:17

281:17

mistaken 202:11

MIT 90:18

miter 183:22

329:20 338:9,9

340:9 341:14

343:6,22 345:3,15

mitered 57:2,3

60:11,13 344:5,10

mitering 55:13

mix 186:10

mixed 139:6 332:7

mixture 287:17

mixtures 198:6

mode 259:16

model 52:5 74:14

84:6,14 85:7,11

99:12 113:7

122:22 124:1

128:5,10 174:7

179:15 182:3

192:12 206:21

208:22 209:1,5

224:8 229:18

235:19 245:16

260:10

modeled 175:8

180:11

modeling 185:13

198:19 225:12

241:2 308:21

models 122:18

123:1 164:9 219:9

224:16 242:10

model's 124:4

moderating 14:20

modifications

142:7

modified 15:11

142:3

modify 256:21

257:16

module 246:10

mom 331:15,17

moment 139:18

166:20 174:14

188:9

moms 158:19

money 90:21

193:15 213:14

214:21 327:7

333:1

monopoly 341:4,4

Monte 245:22

246:1,4 319:2

month 332:20

monthly 164:3

177:7 178:8 180:5

180:5

months 154:3

269:16 270:9

morning 40:9

42:22 46:18 47:3

50:4,12 103:2

187:17

motivations 202:3

move 4:8 17:21

28:1 37:19 39:6

93:2,8 179:10

205:9,12 213:19

218:21 223:14

249:8 252:12

255:21 269:1,6

276:1 324:10

moved 126:16

214:19

moving 10:3 49:5

89:13 214:3

252:11 255:13

258:2 306:13

multiple 54:3

237:17 305:10

335:17 336:10,14

336:18 338:21

340:4,6 343:3

345:10 346:1

multiplicity 310:8

multiply 119:7

multiplying 296:5

MV 35:3 39:5

307:18

M12 55:14

M2 290:22 344:4

M3 186:13 203:13

211:22 285:6,9

286:9 288:13

289:9,10,14

290:21 292:17,19

293:1 310:4 335:4

338:10 340:8

345:17

M4 285:7 286:12

289:10,15 310:4

310:10 335:4

M5 310:10

M6 186:12 211:21

345:16

N

Nadel 21:14

nail 45:18
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 378

name 21:9,11,21

135:12 139:1

names 12:17

Nardotti 2:13 6:21

6:21 49:19,22

50:4,5 57:20 58:1

58:11 59:1,12,21

60:4,10,14 61:2

61:14 63:12 64:7

71:15 72:11,14,21

74:7,13 76:5 77:3

83:20 85:9,17

89:5,7,16 106:7

106:20 107:1,13

109:12 112:8

113:17 132:20

343:18,18

narrow 131:9

322:13

narrower 223:2

national 1:20 2:1,6

2:7,8,10,15 5:9

6:15,20 12:12

40:19 50:6 51:12

95:16 106:12

137:11 138:7

140:21,22 141:4

232:22 233:2

238:2 255:22

256:9,17 258:20

274:7 315:8

Natural 2:2,19 4:14

nature 81:6 155:8

Navigant 2:13,14

6:22 26:18 31:22

32:9 49:7,19 50:5

50:8 113:8 114:7

115:20 122:6

124:20 125:4

126:20,22 127:1

128:2,9,16 129:11

159:13 187:13

199:13 248:14

306:6 308:9,13,15

309:3 311:21,22

312:3 325:18,20

326:18 327:2

343:19

Navigant's 26:1

near 113:14

NEC 315:13

necessarily 32:22

66:13 73:2 99:15

99:20 118:3

119:13 146:6

167:22 181:5

214:6 231:21

272:22 284:6

291:3 308:20

344:8

necessary 27:13

48:6 114:3 127:5

272:7 306:18

need 10:13,13

14:10,21 15:21,22

17:7,11 24:14

25:16,19 26:12,18

27:6 31:19,21

36:13 37:14 38:7

38:11 41:22 43:8

45:1 48:5 49:20

53:2 54:3 67:11

76:15,20 79:3

83:4 98:19 100:8

114:5 130:2 131:5

133:11 136:5

141:1,2 148:17

159:15 160:4

172:3 173:18,19

174:5,8 187:13

191:3 192:10

200:12 206:10

207:18 236:16

237:16 244:15

245:4 255:21

278:20 287:21

294:3,21 312:5

316:10 317:2,14

322:15 324:14

333:13 336:14

342:5 344:19,19

346:18 351:3,22

needed 48:7 112:9

146:11

needs 16:11 32:5

49:12 69:20 83:14

92:14 125:15

211:11 227:8

325:6 326:16

327:13,18 328:1

negative 17:6 255:7

neglected 11:19

14:14

negotiate 112:1

324:8

negotiated 1:4 8:5

14:15,16 15:13,15

15:19 48:11 64:19

64:20 154:8

155:17 156:12

negotiating 8:1

324:13,17 328:20

negotiation 18:7

247:21

negotiations 93:17

247:20 276:6

neither 309:1

NEMA 7:2 30:15

70:22 99:2 110:7

113:2 127:14

147:4 153:17

157:9 161:7,21

197:14 198:10

201:17 202:7

209:15 210:11,12

244:13 301:20

NEMA3R 262:13

NEMA4X 262:13

net 111:13 279:22

282:16,19,20

283:2,21

network 219:22

220:1

neutral 7:19

never 83:1 153:10

234:19

new 2:12 3:20 7:22

8:2 82:7 90:17

101:2 141:7

215:18 232:3,7

233:12 235:1

239:17 248:5

267:6,10 270:8

273:3,6,21 298:3

317:3 319:22

320:2,5,16 329:18

331:11 332:14

341:20 346:11

newcomers 3:12

15:10

NGOs 42:17

NIA 196:13 255:14

256:9,12 258:2

259:7 276:9 331:9

nice 65:5 75:5

80:11 92:21

349:12 350:6,12

nicer 352:16

niche 159:10

night 22:17 120:17

134:19,22 135:2,5

136:3,15

NIMS 270:1,4,4

nitty-gritty 145:6

noble 160:20

nodding 311:9

noise 101:12

189:10

nominal 189:6

nominate 153:18

nomination 22:2

non 57:8 59:4

174:22,22 241:12

341:2

nonexistent 268:9

non-analyzed

112:10

non-butt-lapping

342:17

non-in-scope

259:22

non-negative

275:11 280:5

non-production

56:17

non-transformer

77:9

non-ventilating

265:8

noon 39:14

NOPR 63:21 89:22

110:11 319:10

normal 8:8 333:21

normally 270:18

Northwest 233:16

notch 324:10,11

note 81:8

noted 19:9 111:17

notes 299:8

notice 278:14

noticed 22:16 61:8

notifications

155:14

noting 231:13

November 41:22

42:3,10,12 44:6

46:2 47:12,17

novice 104:4

no-load 179:20

182:5 204:10

205:7

NPV 241:22 283:4

294:11

NPVs 259:4 272:17

NRDC 13:8,10

340:16

NTV 274:21

number 21:17

33:11 35:21 41:13

55:11 59:19 71:12

82:9 118:11,14,20

121:18 122:20

157:12 179:18

181:1 183:3 189:6

191:9,19 202:3

205:21 206:16,17

220:4 231:1 233:9

253:15 294:12

299:20 310:10

324:6 326:20

333:12,18 346:13

347:1

numbers 89:15

117:15 118:3,4,17

119:19,20,20,21
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 379

185:16 192:15

197:8 206:20

230:17 231:3

258:9 271:2 325:2

325:4

numerical 142:6

O

objection 325:14

obligations 18:5

observation 212:11

observations 30:16

obtain 65:1,6

obvious 208:20

238:9 280:2

obviously 98:10

111:22 175:5

176:13 279:21

282:22

OCC 294:11

occupant 97:13

occupying 159:10

occur 67:20 260:11

266:3,4

occurred 115:1

328:3

occurs 67:19 95:22

96:1 214:10

312:17

October 25:12

39:10 40:21 41:6

63:22

offer 42:9

offered 42:10 202:9

offering 210:13

262:18,19

office 7:8 133:3

142:14 169:1,10

173:3 174:18

officially 202:7

offline 126:4

Off-record 239:11

283:9 333:10

334:3 337:19

oftentimes 74:22

oh 22:11 103:14

114:6 137:18

147:3 157:14

207:8 247:4 282:5

299:12 304:5

352:20

oilrig 262:8

oilrigs 262:22

oil-filled 100:12,16

okay 3:3 13:18 14:9

23:16,21 28:8

34:5 36:3,18 38:1

38:21 41:5 44:3

47:5,10,21,21

48:19 49:4,22

50:1 58:4 59:7,14

60:9,15,16 61:5

61:16 65:22 72:8

72:13 74:11 83:9

84:15 85:22 89:6

95:1 109:10

112:22 114:4

123:22 124:11

126:15 127:10

128:20 132:16

135:18 136:15,17

137:9,10,18 138:2

138:14 142:11

146:1,3 147:2

153:12,15 154:5

162:18,22 163:2

165:10 167:5,10

168:8 169:17

170:7 175:16,16

176:6 180:7 185:4

190:8 192:1 193:1

195:8 197:12,17

199:1,4 200:1,4

200:16,19 201:3

211:3,18 217:19

218:20 219:1,18

220:5 222:2,6

224:18 225:5,12

226:1,10 230:4

238:14 244:11

247:5,7 250:11,18

250:22 251:18

252:2 255:12

260:13 265:18

266:7,8,15 267:17

268:19,21 270:21

271:3,6 272:1,14

277:9 278:20

282:7,14 291:11

292:9 293:19

299:12,12,15

302:10 303:11

304:6 305:2,5

308:4 311:8

315:19 317:1,9

320:10,12,13

322:10 330:1,11

330:14 334:19

337:9 350:7,13

old 101:1 117:21

181:7 212:1

OMB 158:9 239:8

274:21 280:1

283:7 284:2

omission 21:21

omissions 22:17

once 8:3 22:16 31:2

53:5 67:1 82:12

82:12 109:12

123:4 126:12

131:14 140:16

143:7 145:11

164:14,19 171:3

189:18 197:6

207:17 238:21

264:8 266:4 276:7

315:13 319:12

329:13

ones 20:1 112:2

198:16 212:21

224:11,12 237:22

250:1,11,17 334:5

339:13

online 11:3,4,9,11

28:5,11 34:9

129:3 134:12

136:3 248:20

349:6 351:13

ONYX 2:3 5:3

59:16

open 12:3 20:12

25:15 30:9,13

43:21 123:5 157:2

243:20 248:7

opened 153:17

operate 16:5

operates 294:22

operating 93:12

165:14 255:3

256:13 258:22

298:5,6,9 300:12

operation 104:21

operations 158:19

294:20

opinion 307:4,6

340:2

opinions 143:18

opportunity 31:18

117:1 159:22

214:20

oppose 18:10

opposed 31:9 37:4

38:21 65:9 161:18

313:13 316:20

318:19 340:18

opposite 328:11

OPS 65:10 66:22

74:17,17 75:10

76:4,15 77:1

80:10 81:17 99:12

113:7 114:21

117:13,17,21,21

118:5,8,21 119:20

120:4 121:13,15

121:22 122:3,22

124:1 125:13

128:5 182:1,8,11

182:21 183:2

184:19 187:2

200:10 221:21

222:3 326:18,22

327:2

OPS's 75:22

optimal 182:9,18

optimization

182:16 184:12

optimized 52:5

74:15,16 111:1

183:3

optimum 286:6

option 52:6 54:18

55:17 64:9,10

74:17 84:12 85:15

87:10 93:2,4

106:6 111:3 161:9

343:21

options 50:20,22

51:2,7,21 54:20

54:21 55:1,6,10

55:22 93:10 99:13

131:7 180:19

196:7

order 55:22 56:1

64:20 75:1 113:6

283:18

orders 70:11,15

ordinary 155:19

organization

143:12 148:2

154:14 247:14

organizational

150:16

organizations

149:1 150:9,11

153:18

organized 312:13

origin 15:9

original 59:22

268:7

originally 63:21

96:22

ought 70:6 249:18

341:18

outcome 121:8

outcomes 125:7

outer 62:12,20,22

65:12 67:11

outlet 232:21

233:10

outlets 232:22

233:6,9

outline 163:6

outlined 166:3

outlook 269:11

output 103:16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 380

142:8 182:22

226:6 254:18

258:20 259:7

outputs 51:8 77:19

110:16 124:9

outreach 160:7

outset 29:4

outside 260:8 290:5

305:8 324:19

outsiders 325:3

oven 346:17

ovens 346:12

overall 68:1,2,10

224:9 273:19

290:12 291:1

292:13

overarching

144:17

overhead 56:17

57:5 58:10

overheads 221:11

overlap 151:10

overlay 327:3

overloading 238:13

overly 347:14

overnight 40:4,11

overseas 292:3

oversight 11:22

151:17

oversized 177:19

overview 279:5

over-budget

214:11,16

owner 163:12,14

164:5 165:1,8

167:14,21 180:3

owners 163:22

284:7

ownership 318:1

o'clock 353:4

P

P 158:5

Pacific 1:23 2:19

2:21 5:18 13:15

13:18 14:6,8

57:13 69:16 79:6

92:3 98:6 114:20

120:3 125:22

130:21 165:12

183:10 230:6

233:16 285:3

322:5 326:2

packet 41:5

page 35:22 279:10

pair 300:8

panel 315:9,12

paper 237:9

paragraph 278:12

parallel 3:14

parameter 177:12

223:13,14 228:19

235:11 241:21

295:1

parameters 70:4

71:3 112:18 120:7

125:2 126:19

164:11 165:18

166:13 177:18

179:19 228:21

238:7 239:5 241:1

242:22 249:22

250:5 252:9

parent 142:15

143:11 145:12,13

146:6

Parker 1:14,17 3:3

6:12 7:9,10 12:9

12:13,16 13:3,6,9

13:12,17,21 14:3

14:7 21:6,11,18

22:6,10,14 23:7

23:14,18,21 24:12

32:7 33:18 34:6

35:14,18 36:3,18

36:22 37:5,7,17

38:1,20 41:9,12

43:3 46:21 47:10

49:1 50:1 63:6

64:4 69:14 72:19

73:14 74:5,11

77:8 78:20 79:3

83:12 84:15 86:8

88:4,8 91:17

95:21 101:10

104:2 105:9

106:16,21 108:1

111:20 112:21

116:16 118:19

123:21 124:11,17

126:15 127:10

128:11,19 131:1

131:21 132:16

133:17 134:1,11

134:16,20 135:3,8

135:19 136:14,22

137:4,9,20 138:2

138:12 145:20

146:22 149:11

150:13,20 151:15

152:10,14 153:1

155:16,22 158:1

161:21 162:14,17

162:20 164:22

165:4,10 167:9

168:1 170:7

172:14,19 175:18

185:21 187:7,15

193:17 206:19

207:8,12 213:8

214:5,22 216:10

217:19 218:20

219:21 220:6,11

220:22 222:8

227:9,18 228:4,9

230:3 235:17

236:11 237:7

238:4,14 240:21

244:11 246:18,21

247:7 248:3 250:2

250:13,18,22

251:11 264:2

265:18,21 267:21

268:21 271:6,14

271:17 272:1,4,14

275:6 276:17

277:9,13 279:10

282:14,18 284:1

284:16 290:7

291:8,11,16 292:6

292:9 293:19

294:21 296:1

297:2,18 298:16

299:3 300:7

301:12 305:7

308:4 309:11,14

309:19 310:12

312:10 313:16

314:3 316:5

317:10 321:8

322:3,6,10 323:7

324:16 327:15

330:17 331:6

332:1 334:17,20

335:2,19 336:2,6

336:13 343:16

344:15 346:4,22

348:6,12 350:6,11

352:5,13,20

part 12:1 14:18

16:18 83:10 84:4

88:10 93:18

130:17 133:4

146:5 154:8 174:7

183:7 242:21

243:18 251:10

255:16 274:19

276:3 281:6

300:10 318:20

319:5 326:4 329:2

331:8,12 332:2

348:1 351:8

partial 171:9 338:9

PARTICIPANT

277:7

participate 144:14

145:9 159:21

162:10

participated 3:22

participating

146:21

participation 19:8

25:16 29:14,22

30:11 35:22 38:8

particular 19:3

20:5 31:6 61:8

71:13 109:3 119:6

119:9 147:7,14

150:7,11,11 151:2

151:18,20 156:19

157:21 159:8

161:13 162:12

165:6 170:16

171:18 174:3,10

183:16 223:17

249:19 253:5,12

307:2 324:20

334:6

particularly 38:6

38:13 83:13

147:10 212:17

292:7 347:18

parties 8:21

pass 51:7 62:22

185:16 350:9

passed 19:21 85:10

passes 50:22

pasted 278:17

patented 263:20

path 148:4

pattern 274:1

Patterson 2:14

13:1,1,4,4,7

220:16 221:2,21

222:3 246:12,16

246:17,19 263:22

263:22 264:3,8,15

265:2 267:18,19

268:1,19 314:7,22

337:12

Patzner 1:24 5:6,6

61:17,18 63:9

64:12 65:11,16,20

67:1,17 73:6,16

76:1,8 77:12

79:18 80:6,18

82:11 96:12,12

131:13 190:20,22

190:22 192:13,13

205:13,14 207:4,9

207:13 208:16,16

209:22,22 213:21

214:8,9 215:6

216:2 226:3,3,11

227:11,20 228:6
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 381

229:10,21 230:2

232:15,16 259:10

259:10 260:13,18

260:19 261:14,18

262:7 263:1 264:5

264:11,22 265:4

265:15 266:1

268:10,10 283:1

283:12,16 295:2,2

296:3,13,22 297:4

297:8 298:21

300:14 315:4,4

329:10,10 330:6,9

330:12 331:13

338:6,6 342:11

344:18 352:2,8,17

Paul 2:18 7:5

pay 9:9 211:1

213:11 215:21

295:13

payback 252:1

paying 193:12

210:4,17,19

pays 167:18,20

peak 73:9,10,13,18

73:19 74:1 93:7

105:15 177:8,11

177:14,16,20

178:9,11,20 179:7

penny 213:12

people 3:18,20 8:14

10:22 11:20 12:3

17:10,13 18:8,20

19:1,16 20:12,22

21:5,6,7,12 24:16

24:20 27:18,22

30:7 33:13 37:21

38:14,22 40:4,13

41:14 43:15 47:19

49:18 77:9 90:19

90:22 95:5 97:4,6

97:11 100:15,19

101:4 108:16

116:21 118:1,9

124:3 125:1

127:20 129:13,16

133:20 142:21

144:21 148:3

150:5,18 152:15

152:15 153:18

154:12,18 155:15

156:6 158:11

159:1,12,19

160:13 161:2

166:6 168:2

170:19 182:21

191:6,10 192:17

192:19 193:2,12

194:18,21 195:12

195:22 209:13

210:3 212:21

213:19 215:21

222:7 231:1 241:8

241:18 242:18

249:5,9 259:9

262:8,16 277:6,14

277:17,22 284:22

301:17 306:16,22

307:14 320:17

342:19

peopled 150:10

pep 133:3

peppering 249:12

percent 56:21 57:2

57:4,5 59:17,21

60:7,8,12 68:2

76:21 77:17 78:1

81:10 82:3,19,20

83:3 93:6,9 97:7

97:17 102:21

103:12 120:18,22

166:11,22 171:10

177:21 183:21

185:14,18 186:15

186:19,22 187:5

189:7 194:8,9,10

194:11 201:10,21

202:18 204:4,7

205:17 209:19

213:21 215:18,20

216:3,4 219:8

222:20,21 223:1,2

223:18,19 226:7

226:13 227:1,2,5

227:10,10 230:9

230:16 231:2

232:21 240:3,3

260:6 295:11,16

295:16,18,18,20

295:21 296:11,11

296:14,15,18

297:2,22 298:1

300:9,9,17 325:1

325:1 334:2 348:9

348:10

percentage 68:10

70:10 191:4,7

221:11 295:5

percentages 298:22

perfect 96:8 276:18

perfectly 29:1

92:19

performance 85:7

86:9 91:11

period 31:7 252:1

272:18,21 273:12

permeations

343:13

permits 37:3 115:1

person 7:16,17

17:12 20:6,10

22:5,9 31:10

49:14 108:18

215:7 236:22

248:22 249:11

284:11

personal 99:18

144:7

personally 46:13

145:7 162:11

245:5

perspective 99:18

143:22 145:4

149:5,6 152:6

154:6 155:4

156:17 207:21

208:7 288:15,17

pertains 268:2

pertinent 53:20

perturb 242:11

per-unit 115:8

PETER 2:5

Petersen 1:25 5:11

5:11 41:7,10

48:21 285:11

286:16 288:2

289:11,17 290:10

291:10,12 292:11

293:13 304:5,17

308:2,5 309:13,17

310:6 311:20

312:2 341:20

phase 110:1 111:12

139:5

Phil 2:13 12:7,10

phone 2:2,5,8,13,14

2:17,18,19,20,22

33:14 123:22,22

135:22 145:21,22

222:7 247:2

277:18 278:2,6

282:5

phones 12:2,20

102:12

phrase 278:14

335:6

phrasing 334:10

335:22

pick 53:13 68:21

69:1 75:6 81:11

93:1,4 98:16

164:4 166:16

189:18 190:16

269:4 275:3

283:22 286:22

296:18 297:1,12

300:17 301:11

303:4 326:20

339:12

picked 71:10 73:22

74:4 319:1

picking 92:11

185:1 189:11,16

206:2

picture 127:19,20

189:3 195:5 257:5

piece 244:7

pieces 137:13

pink 111:4

place 42:4 66:22

99:16 262:22

324:8 345:4

places 102:8

324:12,17,18

placing 75:1

plan 45:7 49:5

205:20

planning 251:1

plant 207:2 262:11

331:11

plants 269:17

plausible 213:6

217:1,2,7,8

play 71:4 124:3

179:20 242:9

250:3 313:5,10

players 154:18

155:10 156:10

160:3 313:15

playing 220:8

plead 244:16

please 4:10 12:4

35:19 62:1 129:7

188:10 247:1

280:16 282:9

351:10

pleasure 7:12

plenary 130:19

plot 59:8 222:19

255:10 258:1

273:9 316:3

plots 57:15,17 58:3

89:11,14 204:2

254:13 255:8

310:17,19

plotted 252:17

plotting 322:8

323:5

plug 339:17

plugging 226:17

plunge 49:8

plus 239:22

pocket 214:21

point 22:13,19 24:3

30:2 33:21,21,22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 382

35:20 36:11 42:11

43:12 53:14 58:8

59:13 73:3 74:2

76:22 77:6 78:7

82:18 91:9,10

94:14 99:19

100:12 103:11

104:3,4 105:3,8

116:10 146:4

148:9 149:22

157:14 158:2

167:13 170:18

172:7 179:16

182:19 184:13

189:11 206:8

212:15,15 221:15

231:11 237:19

247:16 260:2

261:20 263:8

265:19 266:3,5

276:18 280:20,21

289:18 293:5

297:12 305:10,13

309:18 312:16

314:4 317:8

319:22 321:19

323:11,14 333:2

348:9,19

pointed 28:7 116:1

278:11 305:21

points 30:16 66:9

113:13 147:6

182:10 186:3

199:21 215:17

233:13

pole-mount 314:17

policy 26:11 29:17

Polinski 22:1,6

308:7

political 158:5

politics 29:16

poll 162:1

ponder 351:1

pool 161:11

pops 158:19 331:15

331:17

popular 107:18

population 165:3

176:20 273:16

populations 165:5

portfolio 285:12,14

289:19,22 290:8

portion 95:13

portions 290:20

position 17:22

148:5 312:12

341:4

positioned 161:22

positions 17:18,19

positive 255:6

282:21 334:18

possibilities 211:5

211:7 279:6

323:13

possibility 48:2

99:4

possible 11:17

20:17 39:7 51:22

55:5 66:18 169:19

174:6 179:21

190:16,18 206:12

206:19 207:19

239:6 246:13

286:21 318:8

344:3 345:17

351:15

possibly 120:11

234:20 294:7

post 69:20 129:2

posted 33:8,12 34:9

34:12,17,18 124:3

134:12 136:2

potential 54:21

108:8 165:8 206:1

227:13 285:12

286:19 290:4

potentially 275:17

pound 119:5

314:11

pounds 116:9,13

pour 329:22

power 2:3,5 5:3

47:13 59:16 102:1

112:15 269:17

PowerPoint 228:8

powers 102:16

practical 105:4

161:18 206:18

practically 117:14

practice 15:16

19:19 24:4 181:5

204:5

precedence 36:7

precisely 149:22

predict 306:2

predicted 118:6

predicting 121:22

122:3 259:14

predictions 266:2

prefabricated

56:22 60:6

prefer 67:21 277:6

preference 31:15

46:15

prejudge 347:16

preliminary 63:19

83:22 84:3 89:20

129:10 139:3

228:5 240:1 319:9

premium 92:16

110:7 198:10

201:17 202:7

209:15 210:12,12

215:22 218:2,16

prepared 8:18

170:1 293:16

preparing 125:8

present 1:17 2:4

20:4,7 27:16 31:2

49:13,20 55:16

74:20 92:20 106:1

111:13 180:8

186:19 257:2

279:22 282:17,19

283:2 307:3

322:19

presentation 26:1

108:18 132:21

136:19 141:14

228:8

presentations 33:5

33:7,16 34:9

presented 26:16

56:20 84:2 164:10

225:13

presenting 32:14

presents 30:20 55:8

158:21

presiding 1:15

pressing 127:18

pressure 226:12

268:5

pretty 11:4 19:10

33:17 35:12 94:19

113:19 115:14

117:6 120:3

166:18 179:7

211:12 223:3

224:7 225:12

232:12 238:9

244:1 279:5 326:3

326:12,15 351:19

prevent 233:3

previous 15:11,13

16:6,8 18:7 24:5

38:15 74:9 84:1

136:19 229:13

272:17 274:9

278:17 279:20

280:13 299:10

previously 25:2

41:3 75:14 84:10

pre-NOPR 139:5

price 51:6 56:13

58:12 59:9 75:19

77:11 89:14 104:1

110:18 116:11

120:10,19,20

128:5 157:13,21

188:8,8,15,16

189:10,19 198:3

203:15 207:16

209:1 210:10,17

216:18 218:12

221:10,18 245:1

245:12 259:16,20

260:2,7,8 261:15

261:19 262:6

263:15 266:3,5

305:20 306:1,1,2

306:9 307:11,17

prices 52:3 56:6,11

57:19 58:2 75:13

75:14 128:4 164:4

166:3 177:2 180:6

182:13,18 183:5,8

183:13 188:1,20

199:16 200:6,10

200:14,17,18

201:5,7,8 203:18

221:22 241:4,6

244:4 312:22

313:2

pricing 57:16 59:8

185:18 203:11

249:20 304:12

313:4,10,14

322:12

Primarily 256:10

primary 111:6

prime 247:20

principal 20:7,8

principally 126:21

principals 40:5

principle 144:17

principles 52:22

print 34:22

printouts 237:10

prior 18:19 57:8

proactive 160:7

probably 34:8

67:19 70:2,18,19

71:16 81:8 90:3

115:2 131:11,19

135:22 144:12

160:5 174:19

175:13 202:22

222:18 227:7

240:9 290:10

327:13 340:7

problem 24:2

42:21 47:19 81:7

83:10 95:8 117:17

122:2,4 130:8

183:11 197:10
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 383

212:20 281:15,16

281:17 307:12

313:3 341:15

problems 62:13

136:1 197:7

344:13 350:21

procedure 10:12

28:12,15 29:10,20

30:6 38:3,12

49:16 87:19,21

88:1 105:13

128:14 154:9

166:3 179:12

204:3,15,22 205:1

219:7 267:2,4

339:21

procedures 15:21

88:3,12 312:15

proceed 27:21

29:13 35:10

339:18

proceeding 309:20

proceedings 277:10

282:11 353:3

proceeds 163:8

process 3:20 7:15

8:1,5 18:6,12,13

19:18 33:7 69:6

69:20 108:10

111:22 126:11

129:15 139:3

145:4 151:13,17

152:9 154:2

155:19 156:14

157:2,4 159:3

197:9 212:9

239:14 243:3,5

244:18 247:16

248:9 249:14

270:18 285:8

290:13 311:4,12

311:13 321:6,7

325:15 326:4

328:9

processed 332:16

processes 263:13

341:10,11

processing 64:11

produce 116:6

159:17 258:9,19

270:4 276:9

285:13,15 289:21

290:18

produced 180:13

221:7 237:9

340:13

producers 144:20

147:22

produces 99:6

209:1

producing 3:15

128:6 289:19

291:4,5 307:16

345:22

product 76:18

77:18 83:7 87:7,9

90:13 93:12 96:15

96:16,21,22 97:5

104:10 109:3

140:4 147:14

148:16 149:16

159:16,17 178:3

180:21 191:20

192:7 202:5 205:5

214:2 215:7,9

217:12,17 255:20

255:20 259:17,18

260:1,8,10 261:11

262:3,4 273:5

274:3 285:13

289:21 290:16,18

291:4 301:11

325:8 332:7

347:11

production 57:9

59:5 118:5

products 50:19

51:16 53:12,21,22

54:1,2,7,14 65:21

79:10 92:16 94:7

97:16 98:2 140:8

141:4 213:20

231:15 235:1

244:3 249:21

285:16 286:19

287:17 289:20

290:5 291:2,5

316:19

professor 7:13

profile 183:16

profiles 224:3

profit 57:12

program 6:11 52:5

74:16 77:19 120:5

167:1 207:16

209:21

progress 11:2

17:13 19:14 38:7

project 1:22 6:3,4

214:15,19

projecting 157:14

227:11 228:11

236:18

projections 269:12

projects 214:11

Prolec 311:5

promptly 26:6

27:18

prompts 114:9

promulgate 145:1

proper 44:10 78:8

83:5 98:7

properly 81:16

93:5 98:7

properties 86:18

proponent 37:14

proposal 40:18

46:1 302:2 309:5

propose 16:18

19:19 23:8,9 26:9

27:22 132:1 306:7

347:17

proposed 3:15 7:20

8:7,12 9:13 18:10

18:16,17 68:13

112:1 158:7 166:4

274:15 282:3

proprietary 124:1

124:5 126:8

128:15,16 149:17

160:18 312:7

325:19

proven 99:15

provide 50:6 53:5

55:4 93:11 98:17

124:13 126:6

130:22 131:4

162:9 246:13

286:1 288:3,6

289:3 292:14

293:15 308:22

311:16 325:19

326:21 327:2

344:16

provided 84:8

172:21 174:12

245:6

provides 228:10

264:17 293:5

providing 126:9

provision 19:3,5

283:21

provisionally 15:3

provisions 18:19

public 1:6 8:9,21

9:16 47:13 63:20

141:15 202:10

225:17,21 227:22

264:12

publication 254:21

258:4

published 90:18

119:20 142:4,5

180:15 239:16

242:16

pull 192:15

purchase 92:19

188:8,15,16 198:5

purchaser 96:15

167:17,19 262:5

317:21

purchasers 96:18

purchaser's 262:3

purchases 213:4

273:3

purchasing 259:20

283:14

purely 270:13

purpose 51:3 171:1

260:16

purposes 108:10

110:15 168:3

pursuing 325:15

push 92:5

pushing 63:2 137:4

157:10 291:22

put 8:7 35:5 42:8

43:9 44:13,18

64:15 81:4 89:11

94:20 118:11,14

118:17 131:15

151:2 155:13,15

157:5 159:18

160:21 194:2,3

206:11,21 215:10

218:15,18 241:14

249:17 256:19

258:4 262:21,22

263:2 267:13

283:20 287:13

292:17 293:9

297:15 303:12

304:12,15 308:18

315:9,11,16

316:10 321:9

323:22 327:7

337:12,13 341:19

343:2

puts 301:8,9

putting 97:11

154:7 170:20

218:2 309:4

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-...

3:1

p.m 132:15 136:11

277:11,12 282:12

282:13 353:4

Q

QA/QC 249:7

qua 293:21

quality 290:21,22

291:7

quantitative

237:22 349:2
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 384

quantities 73:12

259:13

quarter 32:4

querying 324:22

quest 130:6

question 16:14

19:7 22:12 28:15

32:1 33:1 47:6

57:14 59:15 71:10

76:6,7 78:11

79:16 84:18,18

86:7 88:7 105:3

106:13 114:15

115:10 130:6,10

133:16 141:6

162:16 171:20

172:15,17 187:19

195:3 217:5,6

233:21 245:21

247:9 265:11,12

266:14 271:18

285:3 303:17

304:1,11,14

314:16 316:6

324:4 347:3

questioning 208:22

questions 18:4 26:3

29:2 30:9 31:1,2

61:19 62:7 71:1

112:22 117:8

146:12,22 147:2

167:7

quick 133:16

266:13 269:8,9

278:9

quickly 7:21 25:21

35:3 114:20

255:15 267:21

326:15 348:19

349:15 350:14

quit 132:8

quite 22:20 61:11

141:17 182:3

205:8 254:2

266:20 290:8

334:11

quo 282:22

quota 193:7

quoting 214:15

R

R 77:12 78:6 192:3

192:20 193:5

215:3 301:4

Rabun 6:17,17

race 7:17

radar 213:11

radiation 123:12

raise 20:13 21:1

25:18 30:12

351:11

raised 19:13 117:7

351:10

raises 158:3

ramping 240:13

ran 183:11

random 118:21

165:15 189:10

randomly 164:22

range 51:22 52:9

52:18 53:4 54:19

67:5,9 109:17

131:20 179:21

182:4 183:13

188:1 210:10

222:16 223:1

242:1,4 256:4,22

310:5 323:12

324:5,9 347:8

348:14,15,17

ranges 62:12 65:12

67:12 219:7 222:5

334:2

rapporteur 127:2

rate 56:18 59:3,4

254:8 259:5 295:9

298:7 305:19

rates 121:15 177:6

241:6 243:14

244:4 298:11

rating 53:13 64:11

72:15 73:2 79:7

79:11 80:16 81:7

264:9

ratings 52:15,18,21

53:3,4 54:6 63:16

72:3,16 81:12

112:11,15 130:7

ratio 71:17 112:14

131:17 205:16

263:16

raw 201:22 337:13

Ray 21:22 22:6

308:7,7

reach 112:4 158:22

181:18 280:21

reaches 314:5

reaching 241:12

reactions 351:20

read 163:7 190:6

230:17,19 334:21

readily 259:22

261:20

reading 58:5

116:17

ready 38:16 49:6

49:18,21 277:21

293:17 351:21

real 37:4 46:9

66:11 82:11 99:4

114:20 158:21

214:13 269:9

295:9 333:14

348:19

realistic 79:4

105:22 131:5

realistically 156:20

reality 154:21

195:21 204:12

216:21 231:20

realize 11:19

realized 24:13

really 10:14,15,18

17:11,16 26:7,10

47:2 66:11 69:7

69:12 72:4 80:5

81:6 87:17 99:22

112:4 127:12

132:21 145:7

149:4 160:14,16

160:21 165:20

178:11 196:4

200:17 203:16

209:3 213:17

248:13 249:5

250:11 253:17

271:20 288:20

294:13 317:2

329:15 337:7

340:17 341:22

342:6 349:5 351:3

351:5,6

reason 16:15 17:11

40:1 41:13 84:4

90:22 100:9

102:22 192:21

215:9 217:2,8,9

217:13 218:1

225:5 298:17

315:7

reasonable 25:6

27:20 31:8 34:8

36:1 37:8 41:21

242:1,5 301:14

306:6 323:12

333:12 347:7

reasons 17:14,18

17:19 34:16 64:13

262:7

rebuilt 101:1

recalculate 192:16

recall 116:17

270:22 279:19

287:6 305:17

receive 41:1 317:22

321:22

received 40:22

75:11 113:18

134:14 142:2

171:13 196:3

recognition 36:8

94:22

recognize 20:10

35:11 37:13 94:3

124:8 289:1

292:21

recognizing 292:15

recollection 311:4

recommend 31:13

recommendation

30:19 156:14

215:11,13 229:3

307:18 308:14,18

309:9 325:21

recommendations

113:4 143:8 144:6

145:11,14 157:19

recommended

156:13

recommending

145:1

recommends 16:19

reconcile 115:17

120:6,9 125:7

212:8

reconciling 122:8

reconditioned

101:1

reconvene 132:6,9

record 132:14,15

153:3 277:11,12

282:12,13

rectangles 141:18

recursiveness 24:2

red 190:10 258:6

redo 138:9

reduce 193:4 194:2

194:14 215:3

reduced 57:2 82:8

227:1 232:7

267:11 301:1

reducing 193:13

267:9 301:9

334:15 335:12

reduction 215:20

216:8 227:5

295:18,18,20,21

296:11,11,14,15

296:19 297:3,13

298:8,9

reductions 297:21

reestablish 278:5

reestablished 220:2

reevaluate 191:4

refer 139:2 229:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 385

reference 53:14

56:12 78:21 79:4

140:13 141:11

271:10

referenced 228:7

312:19

referred 139:16

referring 58:18,22

169:6 228:15

280:10 298:4

refined 75:5 96:7

reflect 113:14

143:19 164:6

196:4,7 200:9,13

294:3

reflected 235:19

332:17

reflecting 160:2

reflector 350:2

reflects 154:21,22

refrigerators

208:10

refueling 269:17

refusal 31:17

regard 19:2 120:8

175:15

regarding 57:14

128:14 143:8

regards 64:12

214:9 283:1 287:3

289:3

register 77:18

154:2

registry 77:21

82:14

regulating 91:7

268:14

regulation 91:5

98:4 99:8 101:3

148:16 283:19

regulations 100:13

144:9 145:12

regulatory 7:2

84:18 146:14

rein 19:15

reinforce 98:9

related 53:18 71:10

88:16 127:18

157:8 273:22

relationship 51:4

68:18 172:1

177:14,16 257:5

257:14

relative 30:17

32:18 33:2 71:8

71:12 72:15 101:3

113:7 262:4

relatively 201:19

223:20 254:14

271:22 322:12,13

relevant 36:11

164:17,18 178:2

281:14 291:17

324:20

reliability 102:9

103:21

reliable 171:21

relied 112:12

rely 237:17

remain 112:17

remainder 49:17

remaining 306:11

remember 97:3

153:22 205:6

237:5,7 287:4

311:5 323:9

346:19

remind 9:4 39:9

remove 67:21

removed 89:18,22

211:11 301:3

Renewables 2:1

143:10

rent 284:22

reopened 25:7

rep 53:7

repeat 221:1

251:19

repeating 12:17

repetition 4:1

replicability

126:18

replicating 125:6

replication 130:1

reply 351:8

report 81:13,14

125:9 127:3

128:21 129:11

135:20 176:2

227:21 228:5

269:4 349:8,11

reported 79:14

reporter 12:18

246:22

reporting 81:5

reports 234:4

323:18

represent 8:15

74:20 111:2,5

141:19 147:20

150:6 155:10

169:18 180:17

representation

252:18

representational

144:3 155:5 156:5

representative 28:8

51:18,20 52:1,14

53:9,17 54:8,12

54:18 55:19 63:7

63:10,11,14 64:1

66:10 67:3,6

69:17,19 71:11

72:9,22 73:9,12

73:17 74:3,8 75:9

79:6 109:18

111:14 112:10

115:5 130:8,9,12

130:15 133:2

143:15 145:16

146:7 148:6

150:16,17 257:8

257:15,20

representatives

156:6 159:5

represented 18:9

258:8

representing 4:15

143:17 148:3,21

148:22 153:9

154:13,15

represents 53:19

111:1 182:10

288:20

reprieve 278:5

request 25:7

requests 248:4,17

248:21 249:12

require 104:12,15

156:4 351:14

required 56:8

279:21 280:1,12

286:2 347:10

requirement

103:19 133:5

156:1 183:2

273:22 274:19

332:12

requirements 52:4

88:19 171:19

322:20 332:11

338:3

requires 48:12

rerun 64:10

research 225:7

245:5

reserve 160:5

251:1

reside 43:14

residential 103:3

resin 263:2,17

resolution 7:15

resolve 45:16 65:10

187:4 350:19

resolved 45:21

resource 27:3

238:3

Resources 2:2,19

4:14

respect 145:3

151:18 155:12

respectively 56:14

respond 92:13

127:7 129:7 329:9

351:10

response 83:18

321:13 323:7

responses 162:10

responsibilities

142:19

responsibility

177:9 178:9,20

179:9

responsible 50:9

98:19 178:11

rest 9:20 72:16

103:7 158:14

restate 303:22

restricted 190:18

restrictive 36:1

result 3:21 58:15

62:6 292:18

294:13

resulted 142:7

results 52:13 53:5

53:14 107:11

112:9 118:5

125:13 129:2

130:1 140:17

141:3 142:5 159:7

180:15 221:19

242:18 244:18

251:21 256:4,10

257:2 258:2 276:9

resume 132:11

133:12 278:1

resumes 101:12

retail 174:19

retarded 232:4

retiring 269:17

273:16

review 49:15

137:11 138:15

159:7 309:7

reviewed 141:20

revised 22:15 94:9

revising 88:3

revision 94:13

rewarding 101:7

re-optimized 200:7

Richard 1:14,17

7:10 22:12 41:7

111:16 133:15

322:2 346:2 352:2

Richard's 45:19
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 386

rid 336:18

right 13:7 14:8,9

21:14 23:18 24:11

30:17 31:17 32:7

34:10,21 35:14,16

36:6,18 37:5,17

38:21 42:20 44:22

45:4 48:7 49:5,8

54:13 60:4 68:8

72:11 84:13 85:9

87:22 89:1,5 92:4

92:16 100:1

108:10 113:21

114:18 117:7

119:21 128:19

134:20 139:19

146:9 150:13

151:15 154:4

157:19 166:10

167:4 168:11

171:22 179:3

181:17 183:12

187:12 188:13

192:6 196:13,21

199:19 202:13,22

203:4 204:9 209:5

209:7,8 213:3

214:1 215:9,12

222:22 224:10

225:2 228:14

230:12,18 231:4

234:6 237:1 243:8

243:16 244:20

245:3 250:12,13

266:6,6,19 270:2

270:16 271:11,15

276:19 277:1

280:7 284:8

291:22 295:1

299:21 303:10

304:2,3,7,9,13

305:6 310:5 312:4

317:5 318:22

320:12 322:6

327:21 330:8

332:1 333:11

334:11,12 335:9

336:21 337:17

343:5,20 344:8

347:12

rights 29:22 30:10

right-hand 67:15

176:16

rigid 35:17

ringing 277:18

rise 60:17 76:3,19

77:2 78:2,3 79:8

79:11,12 80:4,11

81:22 82:6 103:18

103:20,21 123:14

192:20 210:8

rises 60:20 61:4

123:9 322:17

risk 93:3

Rivest 2:14 114:7,7

115:22,22 122:5,5

124:4,12 127:8

128:18

RMS 204:4 219:4

222:13 223:16,18

230:13 254:10

Rob 5:17 69:14,15

79:5 80:22 92:1,2

97:14 98:5 114:19

120:2 124:20

125:21 130:20

165:11 183:9

185:12 186:14

202:17 230:4,5

285:2 327:22

Robert 1:19,23 7:3

80:19 84:15,16

107:2 167:11

217:20 293:19,20

301:21 340:14

Robert's 205:15

Robin 2:2 4:12,13

93:19 340:16

Robles 1:25 4:22

4:22

robust 11:4

Rob's 292:12

role 146:4

roles 142:20

roll 49:21

Ron 326:1

rooftop 101:22

room 1:13 23:4

36:13 42:7,16

44:14,15,17 45:11

46:2,3 48:7 77:10

142:22 148:22

154:7,13 155:13

307:3 328:20

rooms 10:20 42:18

room's 43:14

root 101:16 132:3

Rosenfeld 2:1

49:10 135:11,12

135:15,18 136:13

137:14,15,22

139:14 145:18,20

146:2,9 219:12,16

219:20 220:4,10

222:10 223:6

ROSENQUIST

2:15

Rosenstock 2:15

42:9 45:13,13

46:4 47:1,2,8 87:5

87:5,14 172:16,20

172:21 174:15,15

178:5,6 179:4

223:21,22 224:10

224:18 225:2,5,19

226:2 233:13

234:3,9,13,16

235:3,8,13,16

239:12,13 269:9

269:20 270:2,7,16

270:21 271:5

297:19 299:5,12

299:15,19,22

300:4 301:16

317:16,16 318:20

319:8,19 320:10

321:2,12 349:16

350:8

Rosetti 13:21

Rossetti 2:17 13:19

13:19 14:1

rough 317:11

roughly 198:1

231:10 253:22

row 161:20

Roy 2:2 4:13,13

337:3,10 340:16

rule 3:15 7:20 8:7

8:12 9:13 16:18

18:10,10 28:15,16

28:20 29:8,9 53:5

64:19 67:8 88:10

96:5 99:17 112:1

112:13,19 114:10

158:7,12 192:11

194:12 258:1

319:14

rulemaking 1:4 8:5

15:14,16,19 18:15

19:17 34:15 48:11

50:8 69:5,6 74:9

84:1 139:2 143:6

144:9,16 149:3

152:3 154:8,19

155:18 242:21

243:5 274:12,14

328:9

rulemakings 14:16

328:22 349:19

rules 4:6 10:12

15:1,2,9,11,13

16:2,7,10,20

18:20 19:21 20:19

21:2 24:1,5,14,18

24:20 25:1,8,15

28:2,4,6,12 29:3,6

29:10,13,18,20

30:6 32:20 38:3

38:12,13 39:1

49:11,15 96:2,9

128:14 142:18

143:8 144:2,22

149:19,20 152:2

154:16 155:20

156:9,12 239:4

243:7 270:18

278:10,12

run 39:2 67:3 76:10

80:21 81:2,9 93:3

132:2 143:13

189:4 206:20

222:12 231:9

238:12 245:16

246:10 247:12,18

247:22 250:16

251:21 270:3

276:8 280:6

297:10,10

running 66:22 75:7

80:5 82:5 166:10

269:7 349:12

runs 81:1 248:5

Rural 40:19

Ryan 2:18 7:5,5

S

Saint 352:6,21

sales 72:8 106:17

209:20 232:1

salient 310:13

sample 163:21

164:2,5 165:1

230:14 238:1

271:21 272:11

sand 263:2

SAN4 183:22

sat 10:15

satisfied 249:5

save 97:4 213:13

215:14,17 233:3

237:9 294:18

saved 65:3 294:6

saving 193:14

294:17

savings 205:3

212:22 213:9

239:20 252:19

253:10 254:4

255:1,4,6 256:14

259:3 266:17

267:16 269:12

273:14,19 275:11

275:15 280:5

282:20 287:9

295:5 299:6,6,7
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 387

299:20 302:7,8

305:3 317:22,22

322:1 334:15,18

335:12,17 336:11

336:17 338:1

340:4

saw 120:17 311:9

saying 82:4,10 83:1

93:5 98:12 106:4

118:20 127:9

128:7 185:12

187:5 193:3,22

206:22 217:1

221:18 280:10

286:17 299:16

320:12 326:10

327:4 329:19

338:7

says 28:20 36:9

137:15 156:7

207:16 216:20

218:18 220:1

268:14 283:19

323:18 340:3

scale 53:2,14 66:12

72:18 73:1 87:21

112:9,19

scaled 112:14

scales 52:13

scaling 53:4 62:5,8

62:10,12,20,21

63:18 65:9 66:2,6

66:7,12,20 67:8

67:12 69:9,10,22

70:17 73:4 112:13

114:9 117:6 130:6

131:18 223:14

256:5 257:5

scaling-type 257:14

scatter 57:15,16

59:7 89:11,14

221:4 310:17,19

scenario 270:5,8

scenarios 247:17

250:16 270:19

313:4,11

schedule 9:20

10:14,15,18,21

25:19 47:8 48:20

65:4

schedules 39:7

Schneider 5:7

61:18 87:15 96:13

191:1 192:14

205:14 210:1

214:9 226:4,12

232:16 259:11,14

260:19 268:11

295:3 315:5

329:11

Schneider's 70:7

Schoen 2:18 13:11

13:11,12,13,14

school 1:18 7:11

71:6 103:4 169:2

232:2

schools 174:18

215:13 224:22

232:3

science 66:4,5,14

scope 129:20 260:8

264:10 288:8

289:5 339:6

Scott 1:19 2:8 4:19

6:14

scrap 56:16,20 57:1

57:3 59:22

screen 33:20

137:15 190:4

screened 85:6

198:17

screening 50:10,15

50:21,22 51:8

54:22 69:20 85:10

se 152:19 153:22

sealed 259:18

260:21,22 261:5

261:13,15,15

262:3,8,16 263:3

264:3,5,22 265:7

267:20 268:1,2,14

268:17

season 248:8

seasonal 177:1,2

seats 160:1

second 24:13 35:21

95:5 101:11 110:1

234:16 335:1

secondary 71:9

111:6 342:7

Secondly 279:22

Secretary 145:15

Section 265:6

see 11:11 14:11

31:5 33:15,20

41:16 48:19 50:14

53:22 54:13 55:11

78:20 80:15 91:5

101:12 113:10

117:14 118:5

131:16 138:10

142:20 152:6

153:13 162:5

172:12 179:10

180:1,7,22 181:1

181:5 189:14

196:8,9 197:18

201:6 205:4,11

207:8,12 212:12

212:16 218:16,17

219:11 220:3

222:7,9,18 225:16

227:21 231:3

244:1 245:13,18

248:1,20 250:20

253:14,19 254:16

254:22 255:8

258:12 267:3,15

274:1 279:11

283:3 294:5

297:16 298:14

300:21 309:2,3

320:4 324:1 325:3

327:3,5,6 329:9

331:3 333:19

347:19 350:12

352:20 353:2

seeing 115:8

120:12 185:17,22

186:16 187:20

216:7 219:16

248:16 253:17

273:9 316:10

326:8 327:12

seen 69:17 80:3

148:5 226:1

310:17,19

sees 8:13 116:11

segment 92:18,18

segments 159:9

select 51:17 52:10

165:1

selected 53:3,6 54:8

54:12,20 55:18

109:14,21 110:11

153:21 181:13,17

189:3 219:4 253:5

253:6 276:7

selecting 51:19

53:9 55:1 111:17

selection 154:6

188:17 189:10,21

189:22

selections 190:9,10

selects 54:18 111:9

167:15

sell 149:15 158:8

217:10,11 221:19

263:15 290:5

325:8

selling 51:6 58:12

75:19 110:18

200:17 201:5

217:16

send 48:22 49:2

129:13 176:1

sense 10:6 16:3,5

37:2 64:5 98:16

106:17 120:13

125:19,20 128:20

132:9 149:9,12

151:6 155:3

160:12 162:3

235:18 242:6

248:10 260:10

281:1 286:11,15

293:9 302:18

306:13 311:15

sensible 272:9

sensitive 38:2,6

212:19 252:6

254:8 259:20

sensitivities 176:15

251:9,14,21 252:1

255:9 270:19

sensitivity 56:13

61:3 84:2,10

106:8 157:11,13

157:17 166:13

183:6 229:4 238:6

238:12 239:6

242:2,18 244:17

247:9 269:14

271:1

sent 34:13 41:2,3

134:5,7,13,18

135:12 136:10

139:15

Senta 266:10,12,12

266:16,20 267:17

separate 3:14 40:1

54:3 128:13 225:1

342:10

separated 100:9

separately 10:5,8

separating 3:13

291:6

September 1:9

136:10

series 234:8 236:17

seriously 323:5

serve 53:13 110:9

153:19 168:19

served 173:13

178:10,15,22

224:11

servers 171:4

service 65:1 74:16

serving 173:2,8

177:10 178:14

session 33:4 161:13

161:14,17 269:5

350:14 353:2

sessions 9:17,20

161:9,20
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 388

set 16:7 47:3 49:21

75:5 94:6,22

95:18 104:16

128:13 140:19

162:16,17 166:13

176:15 177:18

182:6 187:16

190:18 212:9

225:10 232:22

233:15 242:12,14

248:2 258:3

261:18 270:22

274:5,11 307:10

307:19 309:7

325:21 326:19

sets 138:18 139:18

170:1 233:15

setting 96:1 147:16

176:5 281:8

307:11

seven 31:13 333:18

severe 305:13,16

326:12

shake 298:15 331:2

shakes 297:16

shaking 320:20

shape 177:13

shapes 105:15

222:17 223:11

229:5

share 11:14 68:16

116:6 126:1 151:4

180:10 196:5

201:16 202:5

209:12,20 216:19

217:16 306:18

shared 17:14

sharing 122:7

162:21

sheet 133:21

shelf 260:1 261:21

shift 73:20 182:17

238:17 260:3

261:22 330:7

shifted 227:8 285:5

shifting 238:16

shipment 53:10

shipments 72:8

256:11 273:6

shipping 57:7

shoes 160:21

shoot 47:6

shop 307:8

short 133:3 173:16

269:7 347:18

349:12

shortly 116:15

show 65:20 95:10

115:2 120:16

126:4 137:12

160:18 166:19

173:12

showed 57:17

185:13

showing 133:5

198:22 230:22

273:10

shown 57:16 271:1

271:2

shows 53:15 54:10

110:16 141:15

222:4

side 54:13 59:2,6

67:15 68:7,9

154:10 156:7

176:16 241:5

277:16 287:2

315:1 326:11

333:20

signed 265:16

significant 95:13

106:17 109:2

125:14,15 175:3

248:11 253:15

254:2 269:21

280:13 281:2

293:5 321:15

329:1,6

significantly 42:15

237:6 267:5

silicon 285:4,22

286:6

similar 52:21 70:3

131:17 136:18

163:17 186:8

218:12 222:18

310:21 341:2

similarity 107:21

similarly 108:21

simple 82:11 96:5

252:17

simpler 303:12

simplest 290:17

simplify 66:17

78:10

simply 98:8

simulate 230:13

simulated 222:14

simulation 164:11

188:22 189:6

246:2 319:2

simulations 64:8

65:10 66:22 219:3

Simultaneous

284:20 297:7

simultaneously

101:16

single 53:7 109:22

140:2 179:18,22

224:9 231:9

237:12,17 273:3

285:13 287:10

347:11

single-phase 54:1,2

54:15 197:21

sir 147:3,18 162:16

sit 8:3,17 276:4

sitting 31:16 32:2

112:2 145:17

191:8

situated 108:21

situation 148:13

150:14 156:16

213:6 218:11

270:6

situations 17:12

148:20 149:13,18

247:17,22

six 48:12 127:20

270:9 271:19

334:8

size 42:19 43:13

71:13 102:11

147:8 192:3 193:5

193:7 194:3

206:20 232:21

233:8 236:7 290:3

sizes 73:22 238:1

259:21 260:4

261:2

sizing 105:16

177:12,15

skills 337:7

skip 219:5

skyrocketed

186:21

slated 39:11

slavishly 347:10

slew 270:9

slice 69:2

slide 14:11 51:13

53:15 55:16 57:18

61:20 109:11

111:21 112:3

114:8 115:2

120:16 132:19

188:9 189:2

197:15 219:13,15

219:17 266:14

272:15 279:8

282:15

slides 62:1 74:10

266:8

slightly 121:21

slow 274:2

small 5:3,4 68:6

70:10 103:21

125:12 158:5

161:7,16 162:8

179:8,9 201:19

238:1 262:14

268:13 314:10

332:2,5

smaller 42:15 67:9

159:1 160:1

190:18 220:20

221:8,17 263:18

smart 99:5

Smith 2:19 14:5,5,7

322:2,4,4,7,11

346:2,3,5

smooth 257:19

snowmobiling

29:12

social 256:15 284:3

284:5,10

society 284:12

software 52:4

75:22 117:17,19

118:16 121:13,15

189:13 198:20

300:20

sold 71:13 195:18

sole 148:7 154:13

solely 184:19

solid 53:14

solution 130:13

214:18

solutions 40:8

solves 237:19

somebody 49:12

123:21 150:8

167:14,15 176:1

199:7 210:7,8

277:13

someway 31:20

somewhat 16:10

19:14 70:17

136:18 176:14

206:13 254:8

310:2,3

soon 49:18 94:20

136:7 278:4

sooner 34:2 277:8

sorry 3:4 13:3

22:15,18 23:22

63:10 76:7 89:16

99:2 105:11 138:2

175:11 198:16

251:20 278:7

292:12 299:9,15

309:13 352:22

sort 4:4 7:14 10:14

11:10 14:17 16:11

20:21 24:6,15
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 389

25:5 26:21 27:7

31:3,17 32:9,21

33:3 68:20 70:4

70:22 71:9,21

81:7 84:10 100:2

101:7 105:20

108:20 113:12

117:1,3,7 124:18

127:2,11,21 128:8

129:14,20 142:10

147:16 157:7,18

158:4 161:11

163:7 164:9

165:15 166:2

169:18 173:22

181:2 196:2 197:6

211:5,17 212:2

223:13 224:22

225:7,17,19

231:11 238:20

241:14,20 248:7,9

252:10,13 255:2

258:11 286:11

287:1 291:21

302:1 307:4

326:19 341:3

351:13

sorted 200:13

328:1

sorting 197:10

sorts 254:12

sounded 87:18

sounds 130:12

197:7 211:4

212:10 237:14

240:22 310:1

317:11

source 174:13

259:2 266:17

269:10,12

sources 235:20

237:13,17

space 10:19 42:9

44:10 110:2,3

118:11 181:20

204:7 271:21

272:12 275:18

280:9

spaced 272:2

spaces 285:1

spacing 75:4 117:5

span 53:3 54:7

109:16

spans 52:18

spared 49:15

speak 20:2,3,10

23:1,3,4,4 30:17

32:3,13 46:13

108:20 213:19

293:14 308:7,8,16

speakers 247:1

speaking 150:2

284:20 293:2

297:7 326:5

spec 192:17 195:13

262:5

special 173:21

specialty 7:14

specific 55:9 92:14

97:21 100:6

122:12 142:2

224:21 258:8

343:21 349:1

specifically 60:7

126:9 144:10

184:9 186:5

192:19

specifications

210:6

specifying 191:10

spend 142:17 244:6

296:19 297:13

spent 43:20 199:14

295:20

split 43:4 125:19

212:20

spoke 19:11

spokesmen 109:6

spread 323:12

spreadsheet 163:9

296:5

spreadsheets 192:9

245:9 315:22

316:1

square 1:24 194:7

205:22 206:11

207:11 233:9

240:20 328:6

330:3,10,12 331:7

squared 77:12 78:6

192:3,20 193:4

215:3 295:7 301:3

squaring 195:6,14

stacked 55:12

stacking 206:17

342:19

stadium 107:20

stages 139:2 140:10

stakeholder 8:15

14:19 20:5

stakeholders 32:10

108:21 129:8

313:6

stand 32:9 90:1

216:13

standard 8:19 9:16

15:16 16:18 27:11

59:22 67:2 79:20

84:20,22 85:22

86:2,3 87:2 91:17

91:22 92:20 95:4

105:1,18 109:19

110:10 111:9

131:14 138:19

139:4,19,22 140:3

140:20 141:1,10

166:4 190:2,14

218:18,19 239:15

242:20 251:10

255:18 259:6

262:17 264:4,16

268:7 272:19

273:20,22 274:11

279:2 281:9,13

291:20 307:10

331:8 350:5

standardized 61:4

122:13

standards 1:22 6:3

6:8,10 9:5,6 26:3

26:13 86:6,10

88:12,14 91:11

92:5 93:2,8 94:2,6

94:9,21,22 95:1,7

95:12,16,19 101:6

101:8 104:10

111:8 142:16

143:4 218:6 235:1

239:18 240:8,12

298:18,19

standing 311:5

standpoint 241:3

291:17 293:7,10

start 3:4 14:9 46:16

132:8,10,17,19

133:1 136:16

203:12 208:22

212:13 238:21

261:10 305:13

332:14

started 4:12 62:12

133:8,13 138:15

239:18 301:22

starting 99:19

116:10 239:19

starts 63:2

state 6:6 49:12

79:13 97:1 154:22

stated 199:7 216:2

340:5

statement 211:11

285:10

statements 195:12

states 32:20 112:13

240:7,11 290:6

statistical 164:9

174:2 179:15

status 88:22 235:22

282:22

statute 9:3 16:1

104:6 155:20

243:6

statutory 9:2,2,5

9:15 15:18 104:13

104:14 155:17

stay 130:18 185:2

231:22 232:12

staying 46:19 233:8

stays 170:6

stead 20:3,10 32:9

112:3

steady 273:18

steel 1:25 2:18 4:20

5:12,12 13:13

59:18 115:6 116:9

116:13 121:2

183:22 193:10

202:20 203:3,17

203:18 280:22

285:4,22 286:4,7

287:17 288:5,8,16

289:9,10 292:2,14

307:21 311:7

340:18,21 344:3

steels 55:7,14,14

147:10 281:3

287:3 341:3

steeper 222:1

step 27:14 51:15

56:4 74:13 145:8

241:10

steps 51:14 163:21

254:15

Steve 2:15 21:14

42:9 45:10,13

46:1 47:2 87:4,5

172:14,19 174:15

178:5 223:21

239:13 269:6

301:15 317:14,16

333:16 349:14

Steve's 323:20

333:17

stick 139:12

stock 231:14,21,22

stop 132:9 233:6

305:10

stopped 282:5

stops 197:5

story 175:5 324:18

325:7

straight 4:8 295:10

straightforward

150:21 151:1

211:12 276:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 390

329:17

streamlined 11:12

street 154:20 157:6

strength 48:11

62:19

strict 171:20

stricter 335:14

strictly 223:7

strike 96:4,8

strikes 68:19

strongly 30:22

struck 19:6 98:8

structure 26:16

40:10 136:18

152:18

structured 256:20

structures 149:18

stuck 48:1

studies 132:18

241:16

study 225:14,20

226:5,6,7,19

228:15 229:15

237:6,12,13,18

241:17

stuff 33:12 35:2

48:14 105:16

113:9 175:1

182:22 226:12

256:15

subcircuits 225:4

subclasses 28:18,21

30:5

subcommittee

142:15,20 143:3

143:14 145:17

subcontracted

74:16

subcut 77:14

subdivide 51:15

subdivided 52:19

subject 85:21 86:2

144:22 155:20

173:21 283:20

submitting 83:15

subset 33:3 174:3

174:10 178:14,16

339:19

substance 29:15,18

substantial 151:4

substantive 29:5

substitute 161:1

substituting 100:17

substitution 100:11

100:15

subtract 253:6

success 17:16

sufficient 84:13

suggest 29:2

247:12 320:3

suggested 62:3

287:3 317:18

320:15 321:4

suggesting 296:18

suggestion 35:10

62:15,16,17 339:4

350:7

suggestions 301:18

suit 16:11

suite 240:22

sum 288:20

summaries 32:18

234:14

summarize 113:12

211:4 274:9

280:15

summarizes 134:6

176:7

summarizing 23:11

summary 32:22

33:1 34:6 140:9

142:4 175:17

307:22

summoned 278:3

super 100:21,21

superimposed

110:19

supplier 5:13

147:14 148:7

287:10 335:20

341:5

suppliers 147:13

147:22 148:7

157:12 288:20

289:2,6 292:14

305:10 310:9,10

334:16 335:13,18

336:18 337:14,16

337:18 340:4,10

341:9 346:14

supply 20:6 287:11

288:21 342:1

supplying 102:1,16

210:5,9

support 32:11 50:7

65:15 127:13,13

154:21 232:7

277:16

supporting 17:19

33:8 113:20

supports 347:22

suppose 300:13

supposed 143:17

143:17 147:20

149:22 337:8

sure 3:19 12:18

20:16 21:15,22

24:16 26:4,14

30:14 38:9 46:7

65:18 70:14 80:9

83:4 87:1 93:5

99:10,13,21 104:5

109:5 117:8 121:4

127:22 137:2

145:5 147:3 149:8

155:22 162:9

166:11 175:12

197:16 199:13

231:12 243:21

244:15,21 245:15

280:11 287:14

310:16 311:6

319:21 326:9

330:20 337:21

338:4 343:15

345:10

surface 263:6

surfacing 350:21

surmise 277:16

surprised 243:17

244:9

surrogate 305:20

305:22

Survey 170:2

suspect 326:6

swing 285:16

switch 259:16

345:16

switching 260:11

symmetric 83:21

84:21 86:5,19

88:20 89:13 90:2

90:19 91:20 106:3

106:5,13,18 107:5

107:9,14,17

198:20

symmetrical

198:16

synopsis 251:15

system 102:13

systematic 118:20

systematically

211:8

systems 232:2

S-C-H-O-E-N

13:13

S.W 1:14

T

table 4:9 8:17 18:3

18:9 20:7,13 21:1

21:5,7,10,12 24:6

25:18 28:9 31:16

40:8 54:10 55:7

56:2,20 64:16

69:4 88:22 108:3

108:10,17 109:7

117:2 127:21

130:5 140:8 151:3

152:4,5 153:15

160:2,12 161:2

172:17 176:4

258:10,19 272:17

294:1 301:13,17

316:1 323:8 325:9

325:11 339:7

349:9

tabled 16:7 28:17

30:10 317:14

tables 32:3

tach 282:15

tags 21:9,11

tail 282:1

tailored 15:12

take 24:15 33:22

38:16 51:14 69:7

101:12 105:14

115:18 117:1

125:16 130:4

138:5 148:1

150:17 167:7

194:17 205:19

211:12 220:11

226:22 227:12

229:22 251:15

253:4 267:12

276:21 277:4

284:14 290:4

292:16 320:5

331:9 337:1 342:2

taken 24:3 33:21

118:18 143:7,9

254:12

takes 50:21 320:4

talk 10:20 25:19

49:6 75:1 95:18

115:16 126:4

130:21 131:12

133:4,4,10,12

141:21 146:16

151:7 153:8

155:14 160:6

187:13 224:1

293:22 307:15

312:5 313:8

326:19 330:16

333:6 349:17

talked 63:17 97:19

102:20

talking 29:4,19

46:10 57:20 66:11

79:1 87:11,20

91:11 100:3

142:18 144:3

148:20 156:4,5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 391

178:19 186:2

202:17 203:10

207:2,4 215:2

268:4 284:9

297:20 299:10

301:22 302:14

334:1 337:16,17

341:7,8 342:1,2

346:10,11,13

talks 29:4 146:14

tandem 10:4

tangential 81:8

taps 23:2

targets 67:10

323:15

task 98:20 242:13

taxpayer 42:6

155:3

taxpayers 42:7

44:19

teach 7:13

tear 122:20

tech 50:17 274:17

279:21 324:11

technical 3:5 32:1

34:16 90:4 113:4

124:19 125:1

126:17 129:1

130:13,16 136:1

208:19 270:14

277:16,22

technically 81:1

138:20 171:16

263:9 270:15

techniques 262:16

343:3

technological 91:18

155:2

technologically

9:14 91:22

technologies 2:12

92:6

technology 50:9,16

50:20,21 54:21

85:6 109:20 110:4

275:22 280:18

teleconference

162:10

telephones 102:13

tell 21:4 36:14,17

91:2 95:12 288:16

299:4 308:17

311:8 324:18

325:7

telling 81:21

133:21 194:18

230:8 348:10

tells 73:16 177:12

temperature 60:17

60:20 61:3,4 76:2

76:3,12,14,16,20

77:2 78:2,3,13,14

78:15,17,18,22

79:4,11,12,13

80:11 82:4,8,17

82:22 83:5 103:18

103:20 121:14,16

123:9,14,20

192:20 268:5

322:17

temperatures

81:14

temperature-cor...

75:20

temperature-wise

76:11

ten 162:7 194:8

225:20 237:18

tend 135:5 177:19

177:20 179:8,9

212:14 237:22

tends 122:11

240:17 275:1

Tendulkar 2:3 5:2

5:2 38:18 43:17

44:1,5 59:15,16

60:2,9,12,15 61:5

61:16 66:1 78:10

78:21 81:19 90:6

101:9,18 117:11

119:1 121:12

123:7 170:8,14

172:6,12 193:2,19

201:4 216:15

217:18 289:7,12

330:15,21 332:4

341:6 342:9

tentatively 46:6

term 138:19 139:12

337:13 343:4

terminology

138:16 290:17

terms 72:1 73:1

107:7,11 116:11

138:18,22 139:19

143:21 149:2

152:3 154:6 155:7

175:6 198:6

225:11 284:8,10

287:16 288:21

290:15 298:1

307:20 317:10

349:16

test 77:18 78:14,16

87:19,20,21,22

88:3,12 105:13

119:18 122:17

179:12 204:2,14

204:22 205:1

219:7 267:2,4

278:8

testing 77:20 78:15

87:13 337:7

text 265:16 268:12

thank 12:9,13 14:9

32:8 39:15 49:4

59:14 61:16 69:13

70:20 88:4 89:8

115:21 121:11

132:20 136:13

162:20 167:5

175:15 185:5

195:1 222:10

226:2 230:2

235:16 267:17

271:5 276:17

318:15 353:1

thanks 47:10 93:13

112:22 126:14

131:12 132:12

135:10 138:4

146:20 162:18

197:12 219:20

222:2 231:6

233:11 247:3

Thanksgiving

44:12

theoretical 77:2

theory 119:14

203:12

thereof 16:18

they'd 309:3

thing 14:10 17:15

25:16 27:8 29:8

31:19 32:15 68:20

69:18 72:14 86:19

90:12 91:4 92:10

92:11 110:21,21

118:18 121:22

130:14 138:4,21

139:7 152:3 158:3

171:6,14 174:5

176:3 180:20

181:21 187:10

190:12 192:10

194:18 197:4

201:13 204:1

211:10 214:10

225:1 238:16

239:6 244:5

252:13 258:11

272:10 278:9

280:4,12 283:11

302:3,17 305:12

312:17 314:14

332:6,7,8,13,17

335:4 338:5

341:21 342:18

348:18

things 14:21 15:20

16:1 21:3 25:17

28:16 29:10 37:19

43:9 52:22 59:2,4

80:20 81:5 99:13

100:4 102:2

103:22 108:13

117:12,16 118:8

119:18 120:13

122:17,17 123:17

127:22 128:6

135:4 138:9,17

139:20 143:13

151:22 156:15

157:10 173:19

178:13 187:3

190:1 192:8 218:5

224:22 236:3,20

238:19 242:4

243:11 244:2

245:2,10 248:2

250:5 252:6,12

258:16 272:18

274:7,22 278:20

297:22 302:1,6

326:20 341:18

347:21

think 3:17 4:4 9:15

17:2,16 18:22

20:20 21:8,14

23:12,19 31:12

32:8,12,16,18

33:20 34:7,13

35:7,9,11,17 36:1

36:4,5 37:2,3,12

39:10 40:11,13

41:2,3 42:7,21

43:2,11,12,14

44:11 45:6,17

47:1,17 48:3,6,14

49:6 64:22 65:8

66:16,20 67:11

68:13 69:7,8,9

74:9 76:15 77:4

79:6,11 81:18

84:12 86:4,4 90:1

90:3 91:1,9 93:17

93:19 95:17 97:9

97:10,11,14,22

98:6,10,18,19,20

99:3 100:5 101:20

101:21 102:17

104:4 106:8 108:2

109:1 115:13,18

116:1,4,10,13

117:5 119:2 124:5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 392

126:12,21 130:17

132:4,7,8,22

133:12 134:6,10

134:19 135:20,21

137:18 147:13

150:21 151:7,21

152:8,17 155:7

158:1,22 159:4,14

160:3,4,22 162:8

166:10 172:16

174:16 175:8

176:18 178:6

185:12 186:5

189:7 190:3 191:3

197:9 198:14

201:19 202:10,17

206:13,14 207:1

211:3 212:5

213:16 216:17

218:20 219:15

222:14 231:2,5,9

232:11,18 235:12

236:16 239:7

241:18 242:13

243:1,9 247:15,19

249:9,16,22

254:14,19 265:11

276:15 279:4,7

280:5,9 281:7

282:4 284:1,3,9

285:18 286:13,16

287:1,7,13,14,16

287:21,22 288:18

289:4 292:9,11,12

294:3 295:4,14

297:14,19 298:3

299:17 301:21

303:3,14,15,19

309:1 310:7,18

311:1,9,11,15,19

312:4,9,17,21

313:5 316:8,13

318:11,12,14

319:5,13 320:1,4

320:6,10,17 321:6

323:4,19 324:9

325:7,7 326:3,13

326:14,16 327:14

327:21 328:2,9

329:3 331:1,10

333:8,14,15 334:4

334:9,10 335:22

336:13,16 339:1

339:22 341:14,20

341:21 342:6

344:7 346:18,22

349:4 350:1,14

351:4 352:5

thinking 42:17

117:12 284:3

316:17 337:22

third 280:4 303:9

318:12 330:7

Thomas 1:24 5:6

61:17 96:12

190:22 214:9

231:13 236:9

260:19 329:10

thought 15:4 19:15

22:20 23:10 28:13

44:20 61:22 89:17

89:20,22 115:11

115:14 162:22

169:6 195:18

198:17 227:22

248:6 249:2

311:13 336:1

thoughts 48:3

130:19 160:13

301:13

thousand 253:22

338:14

thousands 149:1

326:22

thread 93:16,18

three 26:13 54:1

61:8 113:5 186:21

194:15 199:15

236:21 254:1

275:16 308:11

322:16 327:13

three-phase 54:5

54:16 55:20 62:4

110:1 257:10

three-quarters

66:3

threshold 26:22

304:20,20 305:9

305:11 314:5

316:7

threw 288:13

thrown 73:4

thumb 194:12

239:4

tied 65:3 83:7

tighter 19:15

till 41:11 45:11

46:22 47:6 121:8

tilt 213:2

Tim 1:18 5:22

21:19,20 22:9,10

22:11 89:9 93:19

265:5 343:9

time 3:6,16 10:4,17

22:21 31:7 33:4

33:10 34:8 35:5

37:3,4,16 41:21

42:8 43:20 46:4,6

49:3,20 56:7

58:19 63:13 64:13

64:16 65:4 69:18

70:15,15 83:9

84:4 90:9 102:6

103:1,7 115:1

120:1 121:14,14

129:6 134:21

136:11 159:2

160:5,5 162:19

163:7 175:21

182:3 183:4

199:14 227:22

230:7 231:16,22

234:7,18,22

236:17 239:10

269:7 272:16

276:19 279:14

292:8 304:15

305:8 309:12

312:18 313:20

317:19 321:9

326:12 327:19

332:6 335:15

336:1 340:1

347:18 349:4

352:4 353:2

timeline 342:12

timelines 64:19

times 10:22 11:1

37:10 103:18,19

timing 133:6

today 3:18 4:2

21:15 27:9 33:14

99:8 112:7 115:2

120:16 141:22

142:10 160:5,5

206:12 207:5

209:10,14 210:2

210:17 215:7

226:14,20 227:16

232:2,6 245:11

251:6 292:8 328:4

345:6

today's 14:12

111:18 117:21

told 133:1 166:5

177:18 195:6

Tom 79:15 192:13

195:19 205:13

208:16 209:22

213:18 217:9

226:3 232:15

259:10 260:14

268:10 269:2

295:2 302:14

315:4 328:3 329:9

338:6

tomorrow 309:6

ton 45:20

tons 292:16,17,18

tool 94:2,4 245:22

296:3

tools 256:20

top 35:22 114:5

117:7 302:12

348:8,9 351:5

topic 92:4 328:2

333:6 341:21

342:22

topics 344:22

total 21:16 56:8

75:16,19 112:13

164:15 201:2

253:1,16 258:21

258:22 288:7,20

318:2

totally 175:5 238:5

touch 146:17 264:8

touched 100:7

287:1

TP1 92:20 96:21

195:13,16 201:9

202:4,6,7 215:20

261:10,16 297:9

tracking 244:6

trade 175:13

tradeoff 204:10,13

traditional 85:17

128:8 175:7 179:1

transcriber 216:11

transcript 34:11

transfer 113:11

318:1

transformation

296:8,8 302:15

transformer 3:7

5:19 7:16 26:3

51:5 56:3 57:13

58:19 66:7 69:16

71:14 78:18 81:1

82:5 84:21 85:20

86:5 87:3,8 90:18

91:13,14 92:3

93:17 96:19

100:21 101:20,21

102:18,22 103:1

103:13 104:17

112:14 116:5

117:15,19 120:3

121:20 123:14,19

147:6,8 163:11,19

164:8,12,14

165:12 167:15,16

168:4,7,9,13

170:10,15,22

171:1,6 172:2
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 393

173:2 176:8

177:17 178:16

180:4 185:11

188:2 194:19,20

195:15 197:22

201:8,11 205:2

207:3 217:11

225:18 226:8

229:8 234:21

235:14 236:7

238:12 250:6

260:15 264:7

267:12 268:8

283:5 298:7 302:8

310:11 315:10

316:2 317:21

338:3

transformers 1:4

5:5,21 27:12

61:12 68:22 69:2

71:2,12,22 78:12

81:9 90:10,10,15

91:3 92:8 95:8

96:14 97:20 99:15

100:7,14,17,18

101:4 102:3,5,7

102:15 103:15

106:14 113:16

122:21 123:10,11

123:16 127:16,19

137:16 140:6

163:22 168:18

171:9 173:7,14,20

174:9,20 177:19

178:10,13 179:1

183:21 184:6

188:5 193:13

194:22 195:7,9,13

199:17 201:17

204:6 208:9

213:10 214:11

215:14 221:17

224:12 225:9

231:17,18 232:6

232:19,20 233:7

234:18 235:5

264:4,5,22 265:8

265:14 268:3,3,14

268:15,15 274:14

284:7 294:2 301:7

303:7 314:11,17

315:11 322:14

328:16 331:17

332:10 345:2,21

translate 174:1

193:21 296:17

349:1

translated 177:7

translates 77:10

313:1

transparency

151:13 152:12

156:16 157:1

trash 171:6

treatment 262:11

trend 239:16

240:19

trends 245:12

trial 27:11 67:2

110:10 111:9

131:14 139:22

140:2,20 141:1,10

246:9 255:18

279:2

tried 40:10 44:10

53:10,12 55:1

110:2,5 118:2

154:17 247:12

282:2

trifurcated 105:2

triples 157:15

trouble 103:17

195:6,14 246:22

249:10

true 199:5,11 209:6

216:20 217:4

290:15 310:17,18

trust 126:12 326:9

try 3:5 4:3 7:18

8:19 9:12,18 10:2

11:2,16 27:17

35:1 36:16 37:15

41:18 44:15 48:13

48:18 66:17 68:12

83:18 96:11

101:11 108:3

114:21 115:20

117:17 121:3

126:2 128:9 130:4

130:22 131:4

139:12 160:8

184:22 185:2

192:16 196:6

199:15 215:3

239:3 255:14

260:10 272:11

280:10,15 306:5

311:18 320:22

340:1 347:3,15

349:5,6 350:15,19

351:12,19

trying 9:19 36:14

45:20 117:13

120:9 125:4 131:6

137:6 161:18

170:18 186:11

187:4 203:8,21

271:21 279:7

287:4 293:11

299:7 300:5 303:4

309:7,10 316:20

316:20 318:11

344:13 350:1

TSD 34:14 134:3,5

224:5,11,14

229:21 238:5

241:2 242:16

315:22 316:6

351:4

TSL 27:12 140:7

140:12 141:5

256:19 271:9

280:17 281:21,21

285:21 286:5,14

287:3 293:4 295:5

295:19 296:22

301:14,18 303:18

306:7 307:20

310:13 316:14

317:4 318:4,4

319:3,6,7,22

320:2,5 321:6,10

323:22 325:16

339:2 340:11

343:2 347:4,8,11

350:4

TSLs 67:10 111:14

112:6 139:22

255:17 256:22

257:3 258:3,7,17

274:5,10 275:5

276:5,14 279:18

294:4 296:18

297:1 298:14

300:8 317:14

320:7,11 321:4

324:6 325:21

329:15 333:5,7

339:7,9,19 344:14

344:19 347:6

TSL2 258:13

TST 142:1

turn 12:2 25:22

28:4 50:2 138:6

188:7 226:19

turning 48:3

turns 226:20 274:3

twice 120:15

two 3:13 10:3 17:13

33:10 40:1,12

53:15,19 54:7,8

61:22 62:7 70:22

92:22 99:14 113:5

119:18 138:18

139:18 161:19

168:1 173:19

179:19 181:20

186:17,20 189:7

209:19 218:13

219:9,15 220:12

220:13 222:7

228:14 233:13

240:8,11 246:10

252:19 254:7

257:8,15 261:8

272:20 276:2

277:17 278:20

288:19 289:2

298:21 301:22

318:10,14 327:13

341:6,7,7,12

342:9 343:7

two-year 209:20

type 5:20 53:21

55:21 76:18 86:12

87:8 99:4,9

100:14,18 101:20

102:3,5 103:13,15

110:7,15 113:2,10

113:12 123:11,14

123:19 131:17

140:6 145:18

148:7 163:21

164:7 168:13

171:13,17 172:2,4

173:2,7,12,14,21

174:4,20 175:1,7

192:10 202:5

223:8 247:21

274:1 293:16

typed 299:13

types 55:12 71:22

86:16 147:9

168:19,20 169:4

174:17 187:3

199:17 254:13

259:7 274:10

341:2

typical 258:20

300:20 333:18

typically 57:11

95:9 97:12 173:3

173:6 175:10

178:22 184:5,7

212:13 242:9

274:22 275:14

typo 278:10

U

ultimately 53:2,12

312:6

unaffected 95:11

unanalyzed 52:14

53:2

unanimous 17:4,7
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 394

unavoidable 4:2

unclear 58:5

313:14

uncommon 212:12

underestimates

197:8

underestimating

196:19

undergo 72:1

understand 10:17

12:19,19 19:18

34:16 38:22 64:17

79:9 80:10,14

85:14 97:10,15

104:5,7 118:9

134:2 135:9

152:15 163:4

192:18 193:3

231:2,5 238:22

245:15 266:21

271:8 283:15

285:6 290:9 300:2

316:18 320:13

323:13 325:13

339:22 352:7

understanding

17:5 107:16

142:10 194:20

199:16 200:5

230:8 288:4 289:7

309:15 347:20

understands 57:10

understood 104:6

199:13

undertake 18:9

34:2

unfortunately

181:8

uniform 271:22

uniformly 272:12

unilateral 111:22

unique 75:8 95:8

96:15 111:1

330:19

uniquely 144:10

unit 51:18,20 53:7

54:15 55:20 63:8

63:10,14 64:1

69:17 73:9,12,17

73:20 79:21 80:4

81:22 110:15

130:9,12,15 215:4

257:20 261:15

United 290:6

units 52:1,14 53:9

53:17 54:6,8,12

54:18 55:19 63:11

66:10 67:3,6 68:2

69:19 71:11 72:10

72:22 74:3,8 75:9

79:7 109:18 110:1

111:14 112:10,20

115:5 123:18

210:9 257:8,15

260:21,21,22

262:8,16 263:3

273:11,16,17

345:11,13,13,20

universe 122:10

248:2

university 1:17

7:10 229:16

unknowable 292:5

292:6

unpack 15:15

unstructured 8:12

unusual 218:3

update 240:11

308:3

updated 34:14

134:3,5 180:14

200:6,9,14 219:13

242:17

updates 228:10

upgrade 240:8

upgraded 280:22

upper 120:21

UPS 102:7

upset 102:15

UPSs 100:7

upstream 270:11

upward 107:7,11

urge 306:22

usage 216:8,9

use 27:15 37:15

53:11 56:15 66:6

66:6 69:21 76:20

78:8 80:7 87:12

104:18,20 112:6

112:19 118:1,2

120:4 133:20

164:3,10 169:22

170:3,5 171:10

172:4,11,22

174:10 175:9,13

177:6 183:22

193:9 204:8 212:1

215:11 224:17

231:15 233:19

234:1,5,8,14

237:16 240:15,19

242:2 258:1 270:6

270:19 276:5

286:19 297:1

302:20 305:22

316:18 327:10

339:13 344:13

useful 116:22

124:22 141:11

241:14 248:1,2

249:4,13 259:8

275:18 313:6,6

316:4,15 324:2

user 96:19 97:8

207:16 260:17

294:16 295:12

296:20 302:9

313:2

users 218:10 294:1

uses 169:7,14,20

174:21 233:19

269:22

usually 48:12

145:15 150:5

155:6 239:8

U.S 1:1,13,21 2:9

2:11,12 283:19

287:19 289:2

307:3

V

VA 232:21 233:5,9

261:1

valid 29:2 170:18

validate 157:18

199:21

validated 128:10

validation 153:20

validity 327:5

valuable 218:15

valuation 74:21

value 27:16 68:1

74:20 76:13 77:16

111:13 165:22

182:9,11 213:20

214:2 217:12,15

227:1 228:17

280:1 282:17,19

283:2,3

values 71:21 74:19

166:2 177:8 182:7

183:14 188:21

221:12 222:15

223:16 242:1

271:1 296:4

297:15 298:14

vanilla 291:15

variable 43:18

223:20 281:19

variation 120:19

177:1 181:6

184:19

variations 122:1

255:11

varies 93:7 188:9

variety 15:17,18

various 52:7 55:6

55:13 71:2,4,8,19

104:11 111:3,9

129:8 137:13

141:19 143:8,19

149:16 161:3

199:17,17 241:15

252:9 314:2

vary 238:7 242:4

242:21

varying 188:11

veering 87:18,22

ventilated 260:22

261:6 262:4

268:15

ventilation 173:6

175:1

ventilator 259:17

venture 147:19

verdict 9:12

verification 153:20

verify 203:8

verifying 104:19

versa 73:5

version 15:10

180:2 240:2,4,6,7

246:9

versions 239:20

versus 58:13 77:11

173:4 176:10

201:17 294:18

314:9,18 322:8

vertical 253:9

254:3

viability 304:16

viable 299:4

vice 73:5

vice-versa 199:22

vicious 212:20

view 31:6 74:3

206:8

views 312:7 313:4

313:13 329:4

vigorous 143:21

Vijay 2:3 5:2 47:19

59:16 117:10

126:15 343:5

virtually 307:2

virtue 158:12

visually 70:2

voice 96:20

volt 103:16,16

173:6,7 216:8,9

227:6

voltage 1:3 10:10

15:4 25:12 39:17

43:1 55:21 64:19

64:21 87:8 99:4

113:10 114:17
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 395

116:19 164:18

173:4,5 174:22

220:20 264:9,17

264:21 274:15

278:15 306:4

314:21 315:1

321:22 345:21

volts 61:7,7 226:17

volume 53:11

67:18 68:6,7 72:7

73:8 106:18

338:22 345:5,12

345:13,20 346:16

volumes 53:10 72:3

vote 17:6 38:16,19

143:9 145:13

148:15

voted 25:1

W

W 1:14,17

wade 351:4

wait 301:16

waiting 94:12

236:12 278:13

walk 146:18

wall-mounted

315:11

Waltner 2:19 13:8

13:8,9

want 3:11,19 8:22

11:22 21:1 24:10

24:11 25:18 29:2

30:12,13 31:6

32:3 35:5,8 38:7,8

38:13 44:7 46:13

46:17 49:8 83:19

85:1 88:2 91:15

99:1 103:19 105:6

113:6 117:9 125:3

125:17 127:7

129:17 136:14,16

143:20 145:5

156:15 162:12

167:7,7 179:11,16

193:4 194:1,2

207:9 213:19

217:11,14 224:6

229:3 244:21

247:17 248:1,14

248:15 251:15

262:9,20 269:6

271:11 274:6

276:5 279:11

286:17 293:8,8

295:5 301:15,16

304:3,3,4,5 309:1

309:3 310:15

317:15 324:4,5,7

329:9,22 330:9,16

333:4,5,6 338:8

339:13,15 341:13

348:10,18 352:11

352:18,18

wanted 33:22 62:2

66:1 70:7 72:17

73:2 99:2 105:7

121:3 138:15,17

142:22 146:4

160:19 182:3

252:5 293:12

335:3

wants 210:7,8

265:7 281:12

292:21

Warner 2:5

warrant 248:12

washer 95:3,7

washers 95:1,2

Washington 1:14

46:17

wasn't 73:2 84:5

134:12 251:19

352:8

waste 345:7

wastewater 262:10

wasting 46:11

Water 2:17 13:20

13:22 14:2,4

waterbed 291:22

watt 194:14

watts 119:5,7

194:15 301:1

way 6:13 7:19 8:4,6

8:8,11,12 11:11

11:13 16:4 18:1

24:5,7 26:15,16

27:21 29:9 45:16

45:17 55:14 69:8

73:3,15 87:19

90:1 91:15 92:8

101:2 109:18

117:1 128:1

130:14 132:20

137:13 138:22

140:18 148:14

150:4 162:5 163:8

173:19,22 178:4

182:6 184:6

189:17 190:13

194:2 198:1,2

199:8 210:4

232:13 248:15

255:5 260:5 263:2

271:22 274:22

277:19 278:3,10

279:11 282:2

284:2 285:17

286:11 287:13

290:11 305:17

307:17 308:19

309:20 313:6

315:14 316:14

318:5 323:19

331:19 338:12

340:12 349:17

Wayne 2:12 142:13

ways 37:9 69:3,4

86:17 149:20

161:4

weaknesses 113:7

weathered 132:2

webinar 11:22

33:19 137:17

website 33:9,15

34:12,17 35:2

136:4,6 245:9

WEDNESDAY 1:9

weeds 24:14 125:18

week 34:4,7,10

35:4 89:12 129:4

207:7 350:17

weeks 113:5 142:22

246:10 327:14

351:17

weigh 162:8

weight 119:4,7

120:14,15,15

164:5,6 165:7,8

171:17 173:20

176:21 305:22

312:20 313:1,5,17

313:18,20 314:4,9

314:17,18 315:18

316:2,3,7,15,18

322:8,13 323:1

weighted 169:19

weighting 174:17

weights 116:7,7

120:12

welcome 3:3,11

11:19,21 12:10

14:9 126:3 137:16

welfare 284:5

well-defined

316:14

went 42:5 72:5

121:9 132:14,14

154:2 186:22

187:1 277:10,12

282:11,12 300:22

weren't 63:13,22

64:2 85:11 161:8

Wes 2:14 13:1,4,6

221:13 246:16,19

247:3 263:22

264:2 267:18,22

268:10 269:2

314:7 322:11

West 2:12

Westinghouse

263:20

we'll 3:5 4:3 10:20

11:7,14 20:14

24:17 25:10,14

26:4 27:17 28:1,9

29:17 35:3 42:7

44:15 47:3 48:18

49:2 83:18 94:12

101:11 105:22

108:3 110:11

112:6 114:1 123:5

124:13 126:12,13

127:1 128:21,22

131:19 132:9,10

132:11 133:1,9,10

133:12 136:7

219:18 250:22

269:4 270:12,20

293:16 337:18

353:2

we're 4:20 6:4 9:10

9:19 11:10,16

22:2,2 26:14,19

29:7,18,19 30:2

37:20 38:9 40:15

41:17 42:7,11

43:8 45:19 46:10

48:6,13 61:18

64:22 66:17 67:19

74:9 76:13,19

77:20 78:15,22

79:20 81:16 82:13

83:7 91:11 93:9

93:10 94:4,17

95:18 98:20 100:3

108:17 112:2

113:20 116:14

117:9 121:5 125:5

127:14,15 131:8

139:5 148:9,11,20

151:21 157:3,10

157:14 166:10

169:22 170:12

179:6 180:3,5

184:7 187:4 191:4

196:13,19 203:10

205:16,20 207:20

207:21 210:22,22

211:19,20 216:7

219:6 226:16

227:11 228:18,20

239:3 244:7

245:11 248:16

255:1 261:21
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 396

268:4 269:6

274:10 277:21

278:13 292:4

293:17 294:14

299:10 306:12

312:3,12 316:17

316:19,21 323:4

324:10 326:12

328:2 329:13

334:1 337:15,17

338:11,13,21

347:6,18 348:1,13

348:19,21,22

349:12,14 352:3

we've 11:3 40:9

65:3,5 68:8 69:17

80:3 98:22 99:11

99:16 110:18

117:6 132:2,2

154:17 164:9

211:16 212:9

218:21 220:12,13

247:12,20 249:16

256:4,19 282:7

297:15 312:22

324:9 350:14

wheeling 156:18

whisper 36:16

who've 8:3

wide 15:17,17

170:13 182:4

183:13 254:10,11

256:22

WiFi 352:3,7

willing 17:21 131:3

131:11 176:1

211:1 241:8

winding 55:7 74:21

191:10 193:6,8

194:4,5,6,6,10,11

194:15 206:16

329:21

windings 55:15

75:11 76:16 78:12

78:13 111:6

121:19,19

winners 149:20

wire 148:12

wisely 37:16

wonder 216:15

348:4

wonderful 251:12

wondering 119:19

221:9 293:4

328:17 343:10

word 16:22 44:13

98:13 133:21

337:2,4,10,14

worded 287:5

331:15

wording 264:12,13

264:16

words 39:20 69:21

85:3 86:9 107:7

123:1 183:20

185:3 226:18

303:13

work 4:4 6:7 7:18

10:8,13 11:8,13

11:18 26:19 37:14

38:9 42:18 46:22

47:21 48:13,17

65:8 70:19 77:7

118:10 123:17

124:19 125:3,8

128:2 130:17

138:13 142:11,16

143:5 148:11

149:4 155:8,12

166:12 176:3

182:1,15 208:18

217:3 236:5

239:14 241:11

243:10 269:2

274:22 276:3

296:2 306:5

308:13,15,21

311:21 312:14

319:4 327:21

338:20 351:4

worked 45:20

159:16 237:4

326:13 336:1

workers 59:5

working 1:4,13 3:7

9:19 10:9 14:15

15:4,14 34:18

90:8,9 94:4

102:12,13,14

103:10,10 114:21

119:22 124:19

125:1,19 126:5,17

127:2,19 128:8,9

128:12,22 129:1

130:16 137:1

138:11 144:3

148:6 187:16

220:17 241:10

244:15 249:3,18

287:18 307:15

316:22 350:18

works 8:2,5 47:9

180:21 312:8

world 158:8 168:10

185:8 324:19

worry 125:13

156:10 298:9,10

worth 175:21

211:16

worthwhile 100:22

241:8

wouldn't 46:11

126:8 131:10

186:12 208:11

209:9 216:17

217:14

wound 55:12

198:15,15 346:9

346:14

wrap 350:13

wrapping 31:3

write 299:8 316:11

336:16

writing 351:1

written 83:15

wrong 61:9 209:4

254:20 264:16

284:2 289:8

320:20

wrote 334:14

341:22

X

x 33:11 230:9

Y

y 61:6 230:9,17

Yea 239:14

year 102:14 170:4

170:5 240:10

273:15 295:6,13

295:20 297:13

298:7 332:20

years 102:6 170:10

170:10,15,16

202:13 225:20,20

227:17 237:5,18

240:8,11 244:6

269:13 273:12

yellow 211:2

Yellowstone 29:12

yield 52:9

yielding 171:9

Young 2:21 13:15

13:15,17

Z

zero 199:8,8 253:16

260:5,5 321:11

330:2,3,10

zigzag 61:10,11

$

$2,000 197:20

198:1

$2,100 214:12

$200 297:9

$4,000 214:12

$4,800 210:18

$5,000 210:4

$5,500 210:13

$51 58:17

$5500 188:12

$700 188:12

0

0.5 215:20,22

0.6 185:14

0.75 53:4 66:8

69:21 112:12,15

114:10 258:1

1

1 67:5 110:14

119:12

1st 63:22

1,000 67:9 131:5

1,000s 63:2 65:12

1.3 4:15

1.5 57:2 59:17 60:7

1:00 108:18 132:5

133:6

10 68:2 136:12

142:17 170:16

201:21 219:8

223:1 261:3,9

263:11,14,16

327:18

10th 42:13 44:15

10,000 163:10

230:12 253:4

10,000-member

230:14

10:30 25:22

100 82:20 83:3

213:21 254:6

292:22

1000 1:13

11 277:15

11:00 25:22

11:35 132:2

11:36 132:14

11:40 132:6

115 60:21 78:5

103:20 191:11

192:16 322:17

12 215:8,8,13

219:15 225:20

226:13 227:2,10

12th 39:10,12

12.5 57:5

12:00 132:5

12:40 132:6,10

12:53 132:15

120 216:9 226:17

227:5

120-volt 227:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 397

13 277:14

13th 39:12,14,16

44:6,7

130 76:19 78:5 82:6

14 52:20 64:9

215:17 216:3,4

14th 39:10,18,19

41:11

15 20:14 62:4,15

63:1 67:8 68:5

70:1 97:17 131:5

259:15 261:16

263:8,12,15

266:14

15s 65:12

15's 315:15

15,000 338:18

15-minute 277:5

150 60:17 76:4,11

76:21 78:3 79:7

79:21 80:4 81:22

301:2 322:17,18

345:5

16 131:6

16.6 226:7

160-some 120:22

167 62:17 70:12,18

186:21

17 131:6

170 79:16

180 232:21 233:9

1930 331:20

1930s 331:18

1942 90:17

1960s 90:7,7,16

1980 239:18

1990s 117:18

1996 15:20 96:22

1999 97:2

2

2 35:21 67:7,8

166:11 258:13

2nd 47:13,17

2,500 75:8

2-day 45:1,3

2-hour 161:13

2.5 56:21 59:21

60:8

2:00 39:15,16

2:59 277:11

20 20:14 77:15,21

78:17 82:16 83:3

87:20 102:6 132:8

201:21 237:5

254:3 295:16

20th 48:8

200 207:10 301:1

2001-2004 239:19

2002 74:4,6

2004 240:4,7

2005 268:13

2006 56:7,14 99:22

2007 99:22 240:6

319:14

2008 56:13

2009 202:10,11

2010 56:8,11 99:17

240:2,10,12

2011 1:9 269:11

2100 210:4,19

22 223:19

22nd 48:8

23 240:3

23rd 136:11 257:3

258:4

24 103:8 240:3

24/7 102:14

25 54:15 70:18

73:10 223:18

227:9 230:16

231:1

250 62:18

275 207:6

277 173:7

28 1:9 103:16

3

3 161:14 186:5

258:13,13

3-day 45:2

3.5 215:22

3:00 39:19 41:11,13

41:19 103:5

3:26 277:12

3:30 41:19

3:32 282:12

3:39 282:13

30 20:15 62:15

170:10,15 219:8

223:1 227:1,5

259:15 262:17

263:12 269:13

273:11 295:16,17

295:19 296:10,14

296:18 297:2,22

298:17 300:9

302:2 325:1

30th 47:12,17

30's 315:15

30-year 170:12

300 54:16 115:4

257:12 338:13

345:14

321(35)(B) 265:6

33 227:17

333 68:6

35 76:21 77:17,22

81:10 82:3,3,19

83:2 93:6,9

102:21 103:12

204:3,7 295:10

300:17

35(a) 268:12

35(b) 268:12

365 102:14

4

4 57:4 60:11,12

67:7,8 161:14

258:13

4:00 103:5

4:30 277:1

4:44 353:4

4:45 277:2

40 170:10 254:3

431 77:14

45 222:20 261:5,9

261:11 263:9,12

45's 315:15

480 61:6 103:16

173:6 216:8

5

5 75:2 267:7

5,500 210:18 211:2

5-year 56:7

5:00 27:18 32:4

39:16 41:11,15

45:11 46:6 277:3

5:35 136:11

50 68:3,5 295:18,21

296:11,14 297:22

298:17 300:9

302:2 325:1 348:9

50/50 231:10

500 71:20 73:20

74:18 222:4

500-plus 75:3

6

6 67:17,21 68:4

70:9 130:9 131:2

140:5 256:1

257:21 344:9

6:00 45:12 46:22

47:9

60 82:9 185:18

186:15,18 201:9

202:18 205:17

254:6 292:18

293:1

60s 263:21

60,000 338:12

345:19

60-70 120:18

7

7 55:20 67:6 131:2

140:5 180:9

252:20 257:11,11

258:5,14 315:7,7

315:17

7s 207:7

7:00 103:4

70 185:18 186:15

186:19 201:9

75 54:16 55:20 68:6

70:1 77:16,22

79:8,15 81:2,7

82:1,3,8 83:8

197:21 221:4

257:11 338:12

345:18

75's 315:15

750 62:16 73:20

750s 63:1

8

8 61:7 73:17,21

115:3 140:5

219:17 220:4

251:15,22 256:2

257:11,12

8E089 1:13

8th 42:10 46:2

80 60:21 78:4 97:6

97:16 103:20

191:11 192:16

254:6 260:5

322:17

80s 233:16

80-degree 210:7

80-90 177:20

85 97:7

9

9th 42:13,22 44:14

46:3

9:00 46:5,16 47:6,6

9:20 1:14 3:2

90s 225:6

90.1 239:15

98.6 166:22 183:21
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 

398

Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group

Richard W. Parker, Facilitator

09-28-11

Washington, DC