Page 1

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 + + + + +

 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS PUBLIC MEETING

 ABOUT ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

 FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS

 + + + +

 TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2012

 + + + + +

 The Preliminary Analysis Meeting

convened in Room 8E-089, U.S. Department of

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, D.C., at 9:00 a.m., Doug Brookman,

moderator, presiding. 

PRESENT 

DOUG BROOKMAN, Public Solutions, Inc.,

Moderator 

LUCAS ADIN, U.S. Department of Energy

EMMANUEL AGAMLOH, Advanced Energy

KIRK ANDERSON, Underwriters Laboratories 

HISHAM ARAJI, Navigant Consulting, Inc.

TIMOTHY BALLO, Earthjustice

DALE BASSO, WEG Electric Corporation

THOMAS BISHOP, Electrical Apparatus Service

Association, Inc.

ALEX BOESENBERG, National Electrical

Manufacturers Association 

ROB BOTELER, Nidec Motor Corporation

EDWIN BRUSH, Consultant to Copper Development

Association, Inc.

KITT BUTLER, Advanced Energy

HAYDEN COOK, Navigant Consulting, Inc.

ROGER DAUGHERTY, National Electrical

Manufacturers Association 

DANIEL DELANEY, Regal-Beloit

ANDREW deLASKI, Appliance Standards Awareness

Project 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 2 

TOM ECKMAN, Northwest Power and Conservation

Council 

R. NEAL ELLIOTT, American Council for an

Energy Efficient Economy

GEORGE FLOLO, The Flolo Corporation

KEN GETTMAN, National Electrical Manufacturers

Association 

WILLIAM HOYT, National Electrical

Manufacturers Association 

SANAEE IYAMA, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

MICHAEL KIDO, U.S. Department of Energy

WILLIAM KOHSE, Navigant Consulting, Inc.

FRANK LADONNE, Underwriters Laboratory

PAUL LIN, Regal-Beloit

ROBERT BRUCE LUNG, Alliance to Save Energy

JOHN MALINOWSKI, Baldor Electric Company

MATT NARDOTTI, Navigant Consulting, Inc.

AL PADILLA, Underwriters Laboratories

JAMES RABA, U.S. Department of Energy

LINDA RAYNES, Electrical Apparatus Service

Association, Inc.

STEVE RUFFING, Nidec Motor Corporation

TIM SCHUMANN, SEW-EURODRIVE

CLARK SILCOX, National Electrical

Manufacturers Association 

CHARLIE STEPHENS, Northwest Energy Efficiency

Alliance 

MEG WALTNER, Natural Resources Defense Council

ROBERT WILKINS, Danfoss

DOUG RAWALD, U.S. epartment of Energy General

Counsel 

ATTENDING VIA WEBINAR 

ERIC ANDERSEN, Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory

AUSTIN BONNETT, Navigant Consulting, Inc.

BRIAN BOYD, Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory

JOHN COCKBURN, Natural Resources Canada

HELCLO BLUM, Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory

RICK BUDZYNSKI, Motors

BIJIT KUNDU, Energy Solutions 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 3
	

HOWARD JORDAN, Consultant 

ROBBIE McELVEEN, Baldor Electric Company 

DOUG MOORE, Kentucky Service 

CHUN CHUN NI, Berkeley National Laboratory 

DEREK SANDS, Platts 

ZOLAIKHA STRONG, Copper Development 

Association 

GREG TOWSLEY, Grundfos 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
 

Page 4

 C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 

Welcome, Introductions, and Agenda

Review

 Doug Brookman................... 5 

Purpose of the Public Meeting,

Rulemaking Overview, and Opening

Statements from Participants

Jim Raba......................... 14 

Test Procedure: 

Assessment

Market and Technology 

Hisham Araji and William Kohse... 24 

Screening Analysis and Engineering

Analysis

Hisham Araji and William Kohse... 104 

Markups, Energy-Use Characterization,

and Life-cycle Cost and Payback Period

Analysis

Sanaee Iyama..................... 187
	

National Impact Analysis

Sanaee Iyama..................... 203 

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact

Analysis

Hisham Araji.................... 293 

Closing Remarks

Jim Raba......................... 319 

Adjourn............................... 320
	

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 5

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

 (9:04 a.m.)

 MR. RABA: Good morning, everyone, 

and welcome, whether you are attending today's 

public meeting in person or via the webinar.

 This is the U.S. Department of 

Energy's public meeting about a preliminary 

analysis of energy conservation standards for 

electric motors.

 My name is Jim Raba. I am the 

project manager for motors. I will be the 

presiding officer.

 Today's public meeting will 

address the analytical framework and 

procedural framework, models, and other tools 

the Department of Energy will use to evaluate 

efficiency standards for this equipment. In 

all, the Department encourages you and other 

interested parties to discuss the analysis and 

submit information, data, and written 

comments. We want to hear from you.

 Good morning and welcome. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 6

 MR. BROOKMAN: It is our tradition 

to start with introductions. I will start 

here to my immediate left. Please say your 

name and organizational affiliation. You can 

also get used to turning these microphones on 

and off. And since we are doing a webinar, 

you need to get the microphone fairly close to 

your face. So please, name and organizational 

affiliation.

 MR. BISHOP: My name is Tom 

Bishop, Thomas Bishop with the Electrical 

Apparatus Service Association.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

 MR. BOESENBERG: Charlie Stephens, 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.

 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins with 

Danfoss.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Hang on, Robert. 

Please, just in time.

 MS. WALTNER: Meg Waltner with the 

Natural Resources Defense Council.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Robert, 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 7
	

thank you.

 MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg, 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty, 

Baldor Electric, Member of the ABB Group. I 

am also here as the Chairman of the Technical 

Committee of NEMA's Motor Generator Section.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

 MR. DELANEY: Dan Delaney with 

Regal-Beloit. I am also a member of the NEMA 

Motor and Generator Section.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski, 

Baldor Electric, also representing ABB, 

Incorporated. I am the Chairman of the NEMA 

Motor and Generator Section.

 MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler, Nidec 

Motor Corporation, Chairman of the NEMA Energy 

Committee.

 MR. BASSO: Dale Basso, Weg 

Electric Corp. I am also the Vice Chairman of 

the Motor Generator Section of NEMA.

 MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne, 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 8
	

Underwriters Laboratories.

 MR. AGAMLOH: Emmanuel Agamloh, 

Advanced Energy.

 MR. DE LASKI: Andrew deLaski, 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project.

 MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott, ACEEE.

 MR. LUNG: Bruce Lung, Alliance to 

Save Energy.

 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE, 

Office of the General Counsel.

 MR. RABA: Jim Raba, DOE.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Why don't you just 

stand and say your name?

 MR. ARAJI: Sure. Hisham Araji, 

Navigant Consulting.

 MS. IYAMA: Sanaee Iyama, with the 

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Louder, please.

 MR. KOHSE: William Kohse, with 

Navigant Consulting.

 MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti, 

Navigant Consulting. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 9

 MR. ADIN: Lucas Adin, DOE.

 MR. RAWALD: Doug Rawald, 

Department of Energy General Counsel.

 MR. SILCOX: Clark Silcox, NEMA.

 MR. RUFFING: Steve Ruffing, Nidec 

Motor Corporation and also representing NEMA.

 MR. BUTLER: Kitt Butler with 

Advanced Energy.

 MR. BRUSH: Ned Brush, consultant 

to the Copper Development Association.

 MS. RAYNES: Linda Raynes with 

electrical Apparatus Service Association.

 MR. FLOLO: George Flolo with the 

Flolo Corporation representing EASA.

 MR. ANDERSON: Kirk Anderson, 

Underwriters Laboratories.

 MR. PADILLA: Al Padilla, 

Underwriters Laboratories.

 MR. SCHUMANN: Tim Schumann, SEWEURODRIVE also here with NEMA.

 MR. GETTMAN: Ken Gettman with 

NEMA. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 10

 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council.

 MR. HOYT: Bill Hoyt with NEMA.

 MR. LIN: Paul Lin, Regal-Beloit, 

also a member of NEMA.

 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, 

Earthjustice.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay did everyone 

get a chance to introduce him or herself? I 

think so. 

Well once again, welcome and glad 

you are here. And welcome also to those that 

are joining us via the web. Can you tell us 

the names of those that are joining us via the 

web and read them into the record?

 MR. GRAUL: We have got Austin 

Bonnett, Bijit Kundu, Greg Towsley, and Howard 

Jordan.

 MR. BROOKMAN: So far.

 MR. GRAUL: Yes.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for 

joining us. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 11

 All of you received a packet of 

information as you came in to the room today. 

I am going to refer to the agenda first.

 Immediately following this agenda 

review there is an opportunity -- well we are 

going to have brief opening remarks about the 

purpose of the public meeting and we will make 

an overview and opening statements from Jim 

Raba. Following that brief overview, there is 

an opportunity for opening statements. 

Anybody that wishes to do so can make an 

opening statement surrounding this rulemaking. 

Immediately following that, comments on the 

test procedure: market and technology 

assessment. We will take a break mid-morning 

around about 10:45 or so.

 When we return from the break, 

screening analysis and engineering analysis, 

and then markups, energy-use characterization, 

and life-cycle cost and payback period 

analysis.

 We will take lunch around about 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 12
	

12:30 or so. Returning from lunch, life-cycle 

cost and payback period analysis and national 

impact analysis. We will take a break midafternoon as we need to and where it fits 

appropriately.

 Following the break or whenever we 

get there, preliminary manufacturer impact 

analysis. We will close out the day today 

with next steps and another opportunity for 

public comment. Any other issues that haven't 

been adequately covered, that would be another 

occasion when you can raise them at the end of 

the day.

 We will have closing remarks from 

Jim Raba. We plan to adjourn today around 

about four o'clock, however we will go as 

quickly and efficiently as we can as the day 

proceeds.

 Questions here at the outset on 

the agenda? I see none.

 I would ask for your 

consideration, please. If you would, speak 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 13
	

one at a time. Please say your name for the 

record each time you speak. You don't need to 

say your organizational affiliation. All of 

you registered as you entered today. 

Typically, the Department will provide a 

photocopy of the business cards of those 

present, so we will have a record for you to 

take home with you.

 I am going to be queuing 

individuals by name, as best I can. I would 

like to encourage follow-on comment among 

commenters. Please again say your name. 

Sometimes the back and forth is very useful 

for the Department as they review this record. 

There will be a complete transcript of this 

meeting available on the DOE website.

 If you can please be concise, 

share the airtime. There is a lot to be said 

and I know that there is the potential for 

some extended commentary this morning, based 

on the petition and other events. So if you 

can be as concise as possible, that would be 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 14
	

helpful.

 Please keep the focus here. Turn 

your cell phones on silent mode, if you would. 

Those of you who are on the webinar, if you 

keep your phones on mute, then we will have 

less feedback here in the room. And if you 

wish to speak, then you can raise your hand 

and our webmaster moderator will pass a note 

to me and we will get you in the queue for a 

comment. Please be patient and we will --

then when you un-mute your phone we can hear 

you in the room. At least that is the way it 

has worked for the last couple of meetings we 

have done this.

 So additional questions before we 

proceed? Then I am going to turn it back to 

Jim Raba for an overview.

 MR. RABA: Well thank you, Doug. 

And again, welcome to our public meeting about 

energy conservation standards for electric 

motors.

 With the Energy Policy and 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 15 

Conservation Act, as amended, prescribes 

energy conservation standards for certain 

commercial and industrial electric motors, the 

Department of Energy is considering further 

amendments to those standards. 

At today's public meeting, again, 

we will address the procedural and analytical 

framework, models and other tools the 

department would use to evaluate efficiency 

standards for this equipment, present the 

results of information gathered thus far about 

motors, the results of the preliminary 

analyses. The potential energy conservation 

standards will be derived from these analyses.

 In all, we encourage you and other 

interested parties to discuss these analyses 

and presentations and further submit 

information, data and written comments. We 

want to hear from you.

 Throughout today's presentations, 

our experts from Navigant Consulting and 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, you 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 16
	

will see slides like this. And they will 

prompt certain issues. I mean discussion 

slides like this. Otherwise, comments about 

any part of the presentation are welcome 

throughout.

 Before we address the regulatory 

history, steps in the standards rulemaking 

process, all the analyses, does anybody wish 

to make an opening statement or brief comments 

about the preliminary analysis and the 

potential energy conservation standards for 

electric motors?

 Doug?

 MR. BROOKMAN: So now as we had 

promised, an opportunity for opening 

statements. Neal, first. Please say your 

name, Neal.

 MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott and I 

am speaking on behalf of NEMA, motor 

manufacturers, and the energy efficiency 

advocates.

 The advocates and manufacturers 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 17 

have now had a 14-year partnership working on 

motor standards. And this has led to many of 

the steps that we are discussing today. In 

particular, the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 motor standards that went 

into place.

 Two years ago in this room I had 

the opportunity again to speak on behalf of 

the coalition and present a concept for the 

next round of standards. Last week we 

formally submitted and is in the packet of 

materials that was circulated today a petition 

seeking consensus with respect to the 

standards. And I wanted to speak briefly in 

terms of what the coverage of that petition is 

and why I think this is important.

 We have taken the approach in the 

petition of expanding coverage to cover almost 

all of the three phase induction motors one to 

500 horsepower. The concept is in the 

original Energy Policy Act was to specify 

certain covered product. We think that it is 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 18 

much more administrable rather to approach 

this by specifying that all motors, one to 500 

horsepower polyphase induction should be 

covered products and then explicitly exclude 

those motors which we feel are inappropriate 

for the application of the standard.

 We recommend that the vast 

majority of those motors be implemented at the 

NEMA premium, which is the NEMA MG1 12-12, 

efficiency level. We think that level is 

achievable by manufacturers without undue 

burden. The expansion of coverage and the 

raising of motors to the NEMA 12-12 level will 

result in significant savings of energy and 

also result in substantial cost savings to 

motor consumers in the marketplace.

 We are pleased to see that the 

PTSD confirmed that indicating that almost 

five quads of energy would be saved during the 

study period from that proposal. 

We also would note that by 

changing the approach and focusing on the fact 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 19 

that all motors are covered except those that 

are explicitly excluded enhances enforcement. 

The coalition has been very concerned about 

enforcement issues. For many years we had 

extensive discussion two years ago when we met 

to initiate these proceedings with respect to 

enforcement.

 We think by explicitly excluding a 

small group of motors and including coverage 

to all other motors, that this will enhance 

enforcement by the Department and by the folks 

at the Homeland Security.

 We also think that this path 

forward will be beneficial on the long-term 

because this has the opportunity for motor 

manufacturers to take resources that would be 

allocated to meeting a higher efficiency 

target and deploy those toward building the 

next generation of electric motor. It is the 

feeling of the coalition that advance motor 

designs represent the future for efficiency 

within the motor marketplace and that it is 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 20 

appropriate for the motor community to move 

forward with that.

 I would note that NEMA has begun 

to explore the standards-setting process, 

including advance motor designs in the MG1 

standards.

 Finally, I did want to note that 

while we were very pleased to see the 

standard, our proposal ranked well and 

similarly to what we had analyzed within the 

PTSD. We, as the coalition, do have some 

concerns about the CSL Level 3 analysis and 

are concerned that we may not have captured 

the full cost in that analysis to the industry 

of the transition. And those members from the 

NEMA section will be discussing that in 

greater detail, as appropriate through the 

proceedings today.

 I appreciate the opportunity to 

speak. Thank you.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Neal. 

And as you reference, I think all of you 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 21 

received a copy of the joint petition. That 

was a part of the packet for today.

 Who would like to speak next? 

Yes, Robert.

 MR. WILKINS: Thank you. I'm 

Robert Wilkins with Danfoss. 

I would like to start by 

commending the work that has been done in this 

PTSD and noted that for several types of 

motors, there are several CSLs provided. Most 

of the CSLs are around, near, or exceed 90 

percent energy efficiency. And typically the 

cost for CSL 4 and 5 rise very sharply, 

yielding a lengthy payback period for perhaps 

one or maybe two percent improvements in 

energy efficiency. This reflects that for 

these covered motors we are reaching the point 

of diminishing returns in motor efficiency.

 I would like to step back and call 

attention to the EERE study entitled United 

States Industrial Motor System Market 

Opportunity Assessment which was revised in 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 22 

December of 2002, ten years ago. This study 

states that on average, manufacturing sector 

could reduce industrial motor energy use by 11 

to 18 percent, using mature proven efficiency 

technologies. But it went on to say system 

efficiency can be improved by improving the 

match between the component size and load 

requirements and the use of speed control, 

instead of throttling in bypass mechanisms.

 The report stated that while motor 

efficiency upgrades can achieve potential 

savings of 19.8 kilowatt hours -- billion 

kilowatt hours per year, system efficiency 

improvements are potentially much larger, 37 

to 79 billion kilowatt hours per year. It 

goes on to cite the contribution of adjustable 

speed drives, also known as variable frequency 

drives or VFDs.

 Motor efficiencies have indeed 

improved since 2002 but the points regarding 

the system efficiency opportunities remain 

largely valid to date. And VFDs have improved 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 23 

dramatically in the ten years since this 

report, just as our cell phones, PCs, and 

other electronic technologies have 

dramatically improved. Yet, the technology 

remains largely underutilized in the U.S. 

compared to other countries.

 I have had in written comments 

some explanation about how these devices save 

energy and I will pass that, in the spirit of 

brevity. But applying VFD to many motor 

systems can realistically save 20 percent, 30 

percent, or more of the energy and the case 

studies abound.

 Furthermore, applying VFDs on 

motor systems enhances the demand response 

capabilities for both peak load reduction and 

momentary or transient situations on the 

electric grid.

 So comparing this to a possible 

one percent or maybe two percent efficiency 

savings by improving the covered motor 

efficiency, there is a dramatic difference. So 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 24 

Danfoss urges DOE to consider the motor 

system, not just the motor. We should pursue 

the much greater energy savings potential that 

can be afforded by variable frequency drives 

that continuously match motor output to the 

actual load of the system, while enhancing 

demand response capabilities.

 I appreciate the opportunity to 

speak today. Thank you.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Robert.

 Other opening statements here at 

the outset? No additional comments at this 

time? Okay. Then let's proceed.

 All of you received a packet of 

PowerPoint slides. As Jim referenced, this 

material will reflect the flow of presentation 

followed by discussion.

 First we are going to hear from 

Hisham.

 MR. ARAJI: Good morning everyone. 

My name is Hisham Araji with Navigant 

Consulting. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 25

 So as Jim previously mentioned 

earlier on, DOE will be presenting today some 

of the preliminary results of the Electric 

Motor Standards rulemaking. But before we 

dive into that, I would like first to give 

some statutory background on where this 

rulemaking comes from.

 Going all the way back to the 

1970s and the era of the energy crises, an Act 

of Congress called the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act or EPCA signed into law in 

1975 establishing energy conservation 

standards.

 EPACT in 1992 directed DOE to 

establish efficiency standards for certain 

industrial and commercial motors. More 

recently in 2007, another Act of Congress 

called EISA updated those efficiency standards 

and also established new efficiency standards 

for motor types not previously covered, which 

brings us to today's rulemaking.

 DOE is required by statute to 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 26 

revisit the most recent standards for electric 

motors, which would be those standards set by 

EISA, and to publish a final rule determining 

whether to amend those standards. Any amended 

standards that DOE does establish would have 

a compliance date no sooner than December 19, 

2015.

 As directed by statute, DOE will 

determine whether to amend standards for 

electric motors and if so, what level those 

new standards should be set at, based on an 

in-depth consideration of three factors: 

technological feasibility, economic 

justification, and energy savings potential.

 When determining whether a 

standard is economically justified, DOE 

considered seven different factors and it does 

so in eight specific analyses. Here you can 

see those factors and their corresponding 

analyses. So for example, the total projected 

energy savings is considered in the National 

Impacts Analysis. We will be discussing each 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 27 

of these in greater detail today.

 So there are four main phases of a 

standards rulemaking: framework, preliminary 

analysis, notice of proposed rulemaking, and 

final rule. Each stage includes a Federal 

Register notice to place information in public 

view. At multiple points in the process, DOE 

invites both oral and written comments on it 

analysis. Those comments can be in response 

to not only the Federal Register notice but 

also technical support documents and 

analytical spreadsheets posted on DOE's 

website.

 The first phase for this 

rulemaking, the framework document was 

published on September 28th of 2010 and a 

public meeting was held a few weeks later here 

in Washington, D.C. The framework document 

provides an overview of the rulemaking process 

and encourages early participation by 

interested parties.

 Yes, do we have a comment? 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 28

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Roger 

Daugherty.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty, 

speaking on behalf of NEMA. Back at your 

slide where you indicated current rulemaking 

process, you do note that EPCA requires the 

DOE to determine the rule whether to amend the 

Energy Conservation Standard. However, you 

don't mention there that you are given 24 

months to do that. Is there a reason you 

skipped mentioning that it is within 24 

months?

 MR. ARAJI: I think I will let GC 

comment on this.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido.

 MR. KIDO: I don't think there is 

any reason why we just didn't indicate that in 

there. There is nothing insidious about it.

 MR. ARAJI: I will state 24 

months. You are correct.

 So after the framework document, 

you go into the preliminary analysis stage, 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 29 

which is the phase we are in right now.

 This is where DOE presents its 

initial analytical results. Here you see the 

different analyses that form the preliminary 

analysis and we will go -- it's all done in 

greater detail today.

 Eventually DOE may publish a 

Federal Register notice proposing a standard, 

called a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or NOPR 

and hold a public meeting similar to this one 

to receive feedback on that proposal. I say 

"may" because DOE also has the option of 

publishing a determination asserting that 

these standards are not warranted. Here are 

the NOPR analyses, which also include a round 

of revisions to the preliminary analysis.

 So if DOE does publish a NOPR 

proposing amended standards, then it will move 

on to the last phase of the rulemaking 

process, which is the final rule. In that 

phase, DOE once again revises its analysis and 

incorporates feedback received during the NOPR 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 30
	

phase.

 So let's take a look at the 

timeline for all these steps. So here you can 

see all the milestones that we just talked 

about. So the notice announcing today's 

meeting was published almost one month ago on 

July 23rd of 2012. The next milestone DOE 

will publish either a notice proposing new 

standards or a determination asserting that 

none are wanted.

 A final rule, if needed, will be 

published in October of 2013 and a compliance 

date of not sooner than December of 2015. 

That's another comment.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger Daugherty.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

But that gets back to my previous question. 

2013 is beyond 24 months and it is as much as 

the time that you are proposing there is 12 

months' past. And that only leaves two years 

between the possible time of the determination 

and having to come into compliance. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 31

 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido.

 MR. KIDO: I think the Agency will 

take that into account when it sets whatever 

compliance date. And clearly with respect to 

the timelines, we have to make adjustments, 

given the current situation.

 So to the extent that the Agency 

can stay within the timetables that have been 

set out in the statute, it will try to do so.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

 MR. ARAJI: So --

MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew deLaski.

 MR. DE LASKI: Just a brief 

comment on process because I think the 

petition, of course that we submitted to you, 

was just received last Wednesday. We 

understand that that is newly received, even 

though we have been making recommendation 

along these lines for, you know, at both the 

framework stage and at the RFI stage for the 

coverage.

 But I just wanted to comment that 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 32 

in the event the Department decides to treat 

this petition as a petition for a direct final 

rule, that would then change this process 

somewhat. And Michael maybe you want to 

comment on that just so on the record that 

process -- if the DFR process goes forward, it 

would look a little bit different than what 

you have just described. I just want to 

address that.

 MR. KIDO: That is correct. That 

is a possibility, depending on what the 

Department decides to. If it treats the 

petition as a petition for direct final rule, 

those particular timelines could change. 

These timelines are based on the assumption 

that a more, for lack of a better word, a 

traditional notice of proposed rulemaking 

process is filed so there is a proposal, a 

comment period, and then a final rule is 

issued.

 If a direct final rule process is 

filed, if that is followed, then those 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 33 

timelines could alter somewhat. It could make 

for a more truncated timeline. It sort of 

depends on how the agency decides to treat the 

petition and I would imagine it would also 

depend on the timing of certain decisions as 

well.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you, 

Michael. Thank you, Andrew.

 MR. ARAJI: All right. Now that 

we have some background on the standards 

rulemaking, I would like to talk a little bit 

about the test procedure final rule for 

electric motors and some of the changes 

recently made.

 So in December of 2008, DOE 

published a NOPR that proposed establishing 

test procedures for small electric motors and 

amending the test procedures for medium 

electric motors. However, DOE deferred 

amending the test procedure for medium 

electric motors to a later date and that later 

date was in January of 2011. That is when DOE 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 34 

published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking or SNOPR to address the issues that 

were deferred by the previous NOPR.

 For medium electric motors, that 

SNOPR proposed four things: (1) updating the 

referenced industry standards to more recent 

versions; (2) clarifying the scope of coverage 

for existing efficiency standards; (3) 

revising or adding definitions for certain 

terms; and (4) revising the guidance in 

Appendix A to Subpart B of 10 CFR 431.

 So DOE received lots of feedback 

from interested parties and on May 4th of this 

year, published the final rule, which 

finalized many of the issues proposed in the 

2011 SNOPR. However, rather than revise 

Appendix A as initially proposed, DOE elected 

to remove it from the CFR and will instead 

post updated guidance on DOE's website.

 Now this slide just gives a broad 

overview of some of the clarifications made in 

the most recent test procedure final rule. So 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 35 

EISA 2007 had previously struck the definition 

for the term electric motor. The May 2012 

final rule went ahead and incorporated into 

the CFR a broad definition of that term, 

defining electric motor as a machine that 

converts electrical power into rotational 

mechanical power.

 EISA 2007 also established 

efficiency standards for these four types of 

motors. Now, EISA did not provide definitions 

for two of them, NEMA Design B motors and fire 

pump motors. So the May 2012 final rule added 

definitions for these previously undefined 

terms and then clarified coverage for all four 

of these categories.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger Daugherty.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Again on behalf of NEMA we certainly welcome 

the clarification of the coverage and the 

definitions of subtype I and subtype II that 

were included. We would like to take this 

opportunity to publicly thank DOE to listening 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 36 

to NEMA's proposal for that structure back at 

the framework document and NEMA written 

comments. However, seeing as how DOE 

sometimes technical term "tinker" with things, 

I will note that under the definition of 

subtype I in trying to cover IEC motors that 

you expanded on the definition of equivalent 

frame size to NEMA T frame with equivalent IEC 

and also trying to interpret those frame sizes 

that are between standard frame sizes.

 In the definition of subtype II 

you duplicated the same definition. So in the 

interest of those who are manufacturing IEC 

motors to IEC standards, there is some 

confusion here as to whether or not an IEC say 

180 metric frame motor is now a subtype I or 

a subtype II because you have defined it to be 

related through both definitions.

 So efficiency standards are 

certainly different and this is a present day 

issue. This doesn't have to do with your 

proposal in the future. So it is a present 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 37 

day issue as to whether or not IEC motors are 

being covered and included as subtype II's at 

lower efficiency levels than NEMA motors are 

required to meet that are equivalent as 

subtype I's.

 So, if you could offer some 

clarification on why you structured the 

definition of subtype I and subtype II with 

respect to frames identical, we would 

certainly appreciate it.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Well of 

course these comments, you will put them in 

writing and send them in. Correct?

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty, 

yes. They will be in writing.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes and I am 

certain the Department will address them at 

that point.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty 

again. But as I said, this is a present 

issue, which goes toward clarifying some of 

the additional scope of covered products. But 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 38 

it would certainly help that we get this 

cleared up.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido.

 MR. KIDO: Okay, to the extent 

that there is an issue regarding some 

confusion as to that particular aspect, maybe 

the best solution for that would be to 

articulate that in writing for the agency to 

consider as part of a guidance document or we 

have a process by which manufacturers and 

associations can submit questions regarding 

the application of our various regulations. 

So maybe that would be the best vehicle to 

ensure that there is some consistent and 

clarifying guidance provided to manufacturers 

as well as to the rest of the public.

 MR. BROOKMAN: And Michael, what 

would you anticipate to be the timing for that 

question and response sort of thing?

 MR. KIDO: I couldn't say exactly 

but typically in the past what the agency has 

done is when it has come up with draft 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 39 

guidance there is a comment period for 

interested parties to provide some input on 

that draft guidance but we would first have to 

get some sort of initial question first. And 

I can't give you a specific timeline on when 

a response would be forthcoming. I would not 

anticipate it taking years or anything like 

that.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Just to be clear, 

what I heard you do there was invite NEMA to 

submit their questions and comments to you 

with the hope that they would get a response 

in a relatively short time frame.

 MR. KIDO: That's correct and it 

is through the -- there is a frequently asked 

questions section of our webpage that I 

believe that will enable you to do that.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, that's 

helpful. Thank you.

 MR. ARAJI: So yes, thank you for 

bringing that issue up. So if it is an issue 

that currently affects the manufacturers, we 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 40 

can try to address it in guidance.

 Also as mentioned earlier in the 

meeting, DOE is considering expanding scope of 

coverage and if that happens, another test 

procedure will also have to be published to 

accommodate those new motors brought into 

coverage and at that point also changes to the 

test procedure could be made, based on 

comments or issues that manufacturers raise 

today.

 All right, so also as I previously 

mentioned, the final rule also updated 

references to industry standards to more 

recent versions. And these referenced 

industry standards also include NEMA MG1-2009. 

Now DOE is aware that NEMA updated MG1 shortly 

before the publication of the test procedure 

final rule.

 Now the preliminary analysis 

results presented today cite NEMA MG1-2011, 

which is the more recent version. And as I 

just mentioned, we are considering expanding 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 41 

scope of coverage to other motor types. And 

if we do a test procedure to include those new 

motor types, we could also update references 

to MG1 to the more recent version as well.

 And we will elaborate a little bit 

more on that when we get into that discussion 

in the next section, the market technology 

assessment.

 So at this point, I would like to 

invite my colleague William Kohse up to 

discuss the market and tech assessment.

 MR. KOHSE: Good morning, William 

Kohse, Navigant Consulting.

 Okay, so again we see an overview 

of the preliminary analysis stage and we see 

that the market and technology assessment as 

well as the screening analysis are the two 

most upstream components of the preliminary 

analysis. We will start with the discussion 

of those. Also in this section, we will be 

talking about the issue of scope expansion.

 So the market and technology 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 42 

assessment or the MTA characterizes the 

electric motor market and industry, which 

includes defining the scope of electric motor 

types that are subject to energy conservation 

standards for this rulemaking. It also 

identifies technology options which are used 

to improve efficiency and it also establishes 

the equipment classes which are used 

downstream in the analysis.

 Screening analysis filters out 

technology options for improving efficiency 

that DOE will not consider in the engineering 

analysis.

 So here we see a diagram of the 

relationship between the MTA screening and 

engineering analyses. The MTA yields 

technology options that are considered in the 

screening analysis. The technology options 

that aren't screened out are renamed a design 

option and are considered in engineering 

analysis. The MTA also yields equipment 

classes, which feed directly into the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 43
	

engineering analysis.

 So before we continue with that 

discussion of technology options and equipment 

classes, let's talk about the expansion of 

scope of coverage. And a quick note here for 

the sake of brevity, I am going to use the 

phrase "scope of coverage" to mean scope of 

motor types subject to energy conservation 

standards for this rulemaking. And I may also 

use the term "standards" to refer to energy 

conservation standards. 

So having said that, let me go 

over a bit of background on the topic of scope 

expansion. The first part of this slide lists 

the three categories of general purpose and 

fire pump motor types that are currently 

subject to standards as established by EISA in 

2007. EPACT 1992's definition of electric 

motor only included general purpose motors 

with special and definite purpose motors 

separately defined. EISA 2007 struck EPCA's 

definition of electric motor and then, through 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 44 

the May 4, 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE 

adopted a broad definition of the term 

electric motor which encompasses both special 

and definite purpose motors.

 Consistent with the amended 

statute and DOE's recently promulgated 

definition of the term electric motor, DOE is 

considering requiring other motor types that 

do not fit into one of these three categories 

noted above to meet minimum energy 

conservation standards. This approach could 

include setting standards for motor types that 

DOE has not regulated in the past, including 

definite and special purpose electric motors.

 In response to the September 2010 

Framework Document, as well as the March 2011 

RFI document, DOE received numerous comments 

that advocated the expansion of scope of 

coverage to include many of these special and 

definite purpose motors.

 Commenters also stress this 

approach would save considerably more energy 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 45 

than increasing the current standard 

efficiency levels for the categories of motors 

currently subject to standards.

 So as a result of that, DOE looked 

into the issue after the framework and the RFI 

meeting and further discussed expanding the 

scope of coverage with NEMA, industry experts, 

energy advocacy groups, as well as motor 

testing labs. These technical discussions 

involved whether those motor types that are 

not currently addressed by standards are 

capable of being tested under the current test 

procedures as well as any characteristics a 

particular motor may exhibit that could impact 

its tested efficiency.

 DOE came up with a list of motor 

characteristics shown on the bottom portion of 

this slide, which it believes describe the 

basic characteristics of a motor that should 

be able to meet minimum efficiency standards.

 DOE feels that this list will help 

simplify guidelines for motor types that it 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 46 

plans to include in the expanded scope of 

coverage and, as previously mentioned, it 

would also help enforcement efforts by the 

DOE.

 Essentially, DOE plans to expand 

the scope of coverage to include motor types, 

exhibiting each of the characteristics in this 

list. Motor types that fail to exhibit each 

of these characteristics or motor types DOE 

believes should not be subject to conservation 

standards or whatever justified reasons will 

be specifically called out in any DOE-provided 

guidance as not subject to standards.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger Daugherty.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

In your list on the previous slide of the 

common characteristics that are going to apply 

to the expanded scope of coverage, down toward 

the bottom you do indicate the correlation 

between continuous duty of MG1, its definition 

and duty type S1 of IEC. In the next line, 

again we come to this type of frame size issue 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 47 

-- the next line not the next slide.

 MR. KOHSE: Oh, sorry about that.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: -- and you don't 

mention IEC. Just to note that that should be 

included there.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay, we will take 

note of that. Okay, thank you.

 So now that we have gone over a 

bit of background on the issue, let's look at 

the currently unregulated motor types that may 

be subject to efficiency standards, should DOE 

decide to move forward with scope expansion.

 The table in this slide lists 

motor types that are currently not subject to 

minimum standards, but which DOE is 

considering to include in the expanded scope 

of coverage. Should DOE decide to include 

these motor types in the expanded scope, they 

will be subject to standards based on their 

NEMA design type.

 For example, a NEMA design B 

integral break motor will be subject to the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 48 

same standards as a general purpose NEMA 

design B motor that has both the same 

horsepower rating, pole, configuration and 

frame enclosure.

 So let's pause here for a minute 

and open the floor to any comment regarding 

the list of motor types that DOE is 

considering to include in the expanded scope, 

as well as any additional motor types that DOE 

should consider including in this list.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's go back to 

the previous slide that shows them all, the 

list. Comments here? Roger Daugherty.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

But from your list of things that you are 

wanting to bring up, are you wanting to go 

through those definitions at this time?

 MR. KOHSE: Yes, for these motor 

types. The definitions in the supplementary 

handout --

MR. BROOKMAN: Do we have the 

supplementary handout? 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 49

 MR. KOHSE: I believe everybody 

should have a copy of that. It has got a --

I will have it up on the computer but it has 

got a table that looks like this.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Apparently Neal is holding up this copy. 

That's the way it looks apparently.

 MR. KOHSE: Yes, it wasn't 

included in the original package.

 MR. BROOKMAN: So maybe you can 

look on with your neighbor if you don't have 

one. Because at least half of you I believe 

have the supplementary document. Okay.

 So Roger, definitions?

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Are you going to display the list and we will 

go through them or we will just go through 

them?

 MR. BROOKMAN: Give us a sense, 

Roger. Do you have a lot of comments on these 

definitions or --

(Laughter.) 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 50

 MR. BROOKMAN: No. It strikes me 

that you are doing diligence here quite a bit 

of detail and specificity. That's good and we 

want that either on the record now or in 

written comments in the same level of detail. 

And I am just, in my mind, I am asking what is 

the best way for us to do this.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Maybe it is just 

to give a few examples --

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, that would be 

great.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: -- and not try to 

cover every one of them. Roger Daugherty 

again.

 But and I know my first comment 

also deals with a later slide where you talk 

about those which are to be excluded. And 

this is a general comment on definitions as to 

how the titles of items are labeled. And for 

example, you and I said this is later but it 

is a good example, you offer a definition of 

submersible electric motor for the purpose of 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 51 

excluding that type of motor.

 What appears to be in conflict is 

that there is a requirement in 431.2 that if 

those definitions are included in 431.12 of 

covered equipment and electric motors being 

covered equipment, then 431.2 requires any 

electric motor that is defined in the 431.12 

is covered equipment, it would therefore imply 

its standards apply.

 There is some precedence in the 

present definitions where DOE did not define 

NEMA Design B electric motors but instead 

defined a NEMA Design B motor. So that 

possibly the condition of 431.2 then did not 

apply because there was not a definition of an 

electric motor as a type.

 Then there was the association 

between the NEMA Design B motor as being 

following those which fell into the subclass 

subtypes I and II as then being covered by 

standards.

 So it is just a caution of when 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 52 

you use the term "electric motor" as part of 

the definition.

 Most of the other comments deal 

more with DOE's interpretation of maybe what 

the common meaning of things are and 

especially if I refer to the NEMA MG1 

standard.

 For example, if we go to 

encapsulated electric motors, then NEMA would 

like to point out that that definition which 

DOE proposes for encapsulated electric motors 

and attributes to MG1 1.27.2 is actually a 

based on the NEMA definition of a machine with 

sealed windings.

 A definition of a machine with 

encapsulated windings was in MG1 back at 1967 

but that definition was replaced in later 

years with a definition of a machine with 

moisture-resistant windings so that today 

there is no definition in MG1 of a machine 

with encapsulated windings.

 The other issue here is that in 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 53 

using the title encapsulated electric motor, 

it tends to imply that the motor is 

encapsulated, not that the item that we are 

talking about is that the windings are 

encapsulated.

 So it is trying to clarify those 

kind of things and they will certainly be in 

the written comments of those particular type 

of things.

 Another one that I think becomes 

very important in many of the new scope of 

covered products deals with a discussion in 

PTSD and I think it is in two different 

chapters and that has to do with component 

sets and partial motors and that the 

definition that DOE has proposed for component 

set states that these parts may consist of any 

combination of stator frame, wound stator, 

rotator, shaft, or endshields.

 If you take that list as a whole, 

that list describes a complete electric motor 

but lacking just bearings. So I don't think 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 54 

it is the intent of DOE to classify a complete 

motor as a component set. And so again, we 

are looking to try to help DOE clarify exactly 

what a component set is.

 We suggest that if it is defined 

as a combination of motor parts that require 

more than the addition of two endshields to 

create an operable motor, then that will be a 

workable definition. And the reason we 

propose that definition has to do with our 

discussion of the partial motor, which is 

defined as one that requires the addition of 

two endshields.

 So a component set would require 

more than the addition of the parts that are 

added to a partial motor to make it a complete 

motor.

 So those are just a couple of 

examples but I don't think we need to go into 

a lot of detail on some of the other 

definitions.

 You will find a couple 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 55 

clarifications in the petition that we propose 

a modification of the DOE proposed definition 

to be more in harmony. So you will also find 

it in the petition.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Roger. 

Those clarifications are helpful.

 Yes, John.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski, 

Baldor Electric. I think I am speaking on 

behalf of NEMA in this. 

William you do a good job of 

listing a lot of things here, as far as motor 

types. You mention IEC Design N but you have 

eliminated IEC Design H, which is the 

equivalent to a NEMA Design C. You might 

consider adding that to your list.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: You refer to it 

in the report in Chapter 2.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: The other part 

here that on the partial electric motor, one 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 56 

of the things we have tried doing is adding 

all of these motors into covered product 

because there are companies that are trying to 

get around energy standards by modifying their 

motors.

 Partial electric motor is a case 

where we as motor manufacturers would sell 

incomplete motors, typically a stator and a 

rotor set to another company. And in some 

cases, that other company would complete that 

into a product that should be a covered motor. 

And we would urge the DOE to add some notes 

where that company that is doing the 

conversion must register the motor with DOE 

and get their compliance certificates and such 

in line. We think that may be a 

misunderstanding in the marketplace.

 And then again we liked the 

statement that was in Appendix A regarding 

inverter-capable motors. The DOE had a 

statement that said a Design A or B motor is 

not an inverter duty motor just because it is 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 57
	

run on an inverter. It is still a covered 

product under the rules.

 So adding something back into the 

regulation, you know, just emphasizing that. 

In the marketplace, people would like to see 

inverter duty put on -- or inverter capable 

put on there. But to have that excluded would 

be a bad thing, using that as a loophole, if 

you will.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: We want to 

eliminate loopholes in the new regulations.

 MR. KOHSE: All right.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: Thank you.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, John.

 MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler with 

Nidec Motor Corporation. A couple of 

comments. On the chart with the air-over 

motor we note the test procedure revision is 

not necessary. And I think the answer would 

be that is necessary. There is no test 

procedure for an air-over because we don't 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 58 

know that the air supply would be.

 The other one would be that you 

have included in this the integral brake motor 

and I think you will note in our petition that 

while we considered the integral brake motor 

for quite a while, we have had a lot of 

discussion amongst the members of the 

coalition. We have concluded that it is a 

very, very small number of units and the units 

that are sold are all predominantly very low 

horse power. So the connected horse power is 

a very small number. And our conclusion was 

that it was, I guess, more trouble than it was 

worth to go through and try and sort through 

what the losses would be with an integral 

brake motor with the brake attached. And it 

would slow down the process of implementing. 

So we will recommend it in the petition to 

remove that.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

 MR. KOHSE: Roger, I will just 

clarify right quick -- I'm sorry -- Rob. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 59

 So air-over electric motors we 

don't have a test procedure revision for that 

because we don't plan to include it in the 

expanded scope of coverage.

 MR. BROOKMAN: I saw both Frank 

and Neal at the same time. I'm sorry. Is it 

Dale? I apologize, Dale. Dale, why don't you 

start, since I misnamed you?

 MR. BASSO: All right, thank you. 

Dale Basso. The concern was maybe that test 

procedure heading. Does it mean -- is it one 

sentence or is it two sentences? Test 

procedure meaning one exists and revision 

necessary is a second question or is it --

MR. KOHSE: It is one sentence. 

So does DOE feel that a test procedure 

revision would be necessary for this motor 

were it to be subject to standards?

 MR. BASSO: So I think in that 

case probably several would be wrong because 

it is assuming there is a test procedure in 

place. And in the case of, as Rob said, airNeal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 60 

over, there is no definition for the amount of 

air on the test procedure.

 MR. KOHSE: Right.

 MR. BASSO: And immersible motors 

are really nothing more than a fan-cooled 

motor. So again, the definition of saying --

that one says yes, it is necessary and I'm not 

sure why. So we probably would have more 

comments about that.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Frank?

 MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne, 

Underwriters Laboratories.

 While UL supports the incremental 

scope expansion, UL agrees and supports the 

statement of our colleague from the American 

Council for an Energy Efficient Economy in 

that far better clarity of intent and less 

ambiguity should be realized through making 

the statement that all motors except those 

specifically excluded are intended to be 

covered. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 61

 As the scope and definitions 

continue to expand, it would seem that 

navigation and interpretation of intent 

becomes increasingly complex.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Got you. Okay, 

thank you. Rob and then back to Roger.

 MR. BOTELER: I just had one 

comment that I noticed on the document. We 

have got to be careful with our terms because 

we have "test procedure" as the term. And 

several of us have had conversations amongst 

the coalition and with DOE that we are really 

not talking about changes to test procedures 

as much as just to the test configuration. 

When we look at some of the incremental 

product, the expanded scope of product, we are 

never changing going away from the IEEE or the 

CSA test procedures or test methods. All we 

are really looking at is some minor mechanical 

changes to the configuration, so that the 

product can be mounted to a dynamometer and 

tested using the existing test procedures 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 62
	

within the regulation.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Got you. So those 

specifics would be very helpful to the 

Department. Thank you.

 Roger.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

 I was just going to follow up on 

the statements with regards to the totally 

enclosed air or the air-over machines. While 

it is true that you have to be able to specify 

what the air flow air, the other significant 

problem in doing the test is many times that 

motor is connected with a fan and that is 

enclosed in a particular enclosure which helps 

to control that air flow that goes over the 

motor, according to the arrangement in the 

application.

 So bringing that motor in and 

trying to put it on a dynamometer and simulate 

all its real operating conditions is the big 

problem, not just having air flow but it is 

getting everything correctly. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 63

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Michael Kido.

 MR. KIDO: I just have a couple of 

quick follow-up questions. With respect to 

that type of air-over condition for that type 

of motor, are there any assumptions that could 

be applied in applying, for example, those 

types of conditions and then factoring that in 

to calculate what the overall efficiency of 

the motor would be?

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

 Well, certainly from the 

standpoint of the manufacturer with his design 

analysis programs, then he works with the 

customer who has his particular application 

and can calculate what the fan performance is, 

what the load is going to be on the motor, 

assumes that the temperature of the motor is 

going to be controlled. And within that 

temperature range that the [manufacturer] 

expects, he could calculate an efficiency 

using his AEDM. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 64

 The real aspect is whether then 

when the customer gets that in a prototype 

testing situation that he verifies that he has 

the right amount of flow, that the 

temperatures are staying where he expected 

them to be and everything is operating 

correctly. So there is a good deal of followup that would go. But back at the design 

stage, yes, we calculate and try to determine 

what the efficiency is going to be in the 

actual application. However, there may be 

instances where this motor that we are talking 

about, because it may have a very high airflow stream over it, the power density in the 

motor may be significantly different than it 

would be in a NEMA Design B.

 It may also not have to meet the 

performance requirements of a NEMA Design B, 

knowing it goes on a fan, in a particular fan, 

and what energy it takes to start the fan up. 

So it could dip under locked rotor torque 

required for Design B, so it can't be a Design 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 65
	

B. It is not a Design A and it is certainly 

not a Design C. So then it falls out of the 

range of these are the common characteristics 

and, therefore, it wouldn't apply in the first 

place.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Neal, I think John 

has a follow-on comment and then I am going to 

Neal.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: Yes, this is John 

Malinowski at Baldor. What I was going to 

say, Michael, is when we supply an air-over 

motor and it might be totally enclosed or an 

open motor, that motor goes in the application 

at the customer's location, let's say as a 

tunnel fan motor. It has the fan mounted to 

it and we supply the motor in most cases with 

temperature-monitoring thermocouples where the 

customer can run it in application and measure 

the temperature rise to make sure that we are 

in compliance there and certainly monitoring 

power input and such, he can determine 

efficiency in the application. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 66

 MR. BROOKMAN: Neal, please.

 MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott. I 

guess, Michael, what I would say is as we 

discussed this within our coalition, these are 

specialty products and they are really sort of 

one-offs in a lot of cases. They are designed 

for a particular client for a particular 

application. They represent a minute number 

of the motors sold out there. I think this is 

one of those that we thought fairly clearly 

was suitable for exclusion, simply because it 

is not a lot of savings. Their trying to do 

testing, trying to do certification for a 

product that is not an off-the-shelf type 

product just didn't make sense from a resource 

perspective. So we had recommended in our 

petition that we exclude this motor.

 MR. KIDO: And just a quick follow 

up to that, would the same rationale apply to 

the exclusion of any of the brake motor 

variants, integral brake motor, external brake 

motors? 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 67

 MR. BROOKMAN: I see, Dale. 

Please.

 MR. BASSO: I think brake motors 

and air-over motors both apply in a way in a 

way that as manufacturers we feel we can come 

up with a number that is close to what we are 

looking for. Our biggest concern really comes 

down to the verification testing. If 

something is covered, you have to be able to 

verify it in a third-party lab situation. And 

brake motors, we have really struggled with it 

because even though we think we can build a 

premium efficient type brake motor, it comes 

down to being able to test down to the 

tolerances allowed, the actual efficiency of 

that motor in a laboratory condition without 

the brake losses being considered.

 So it is really, it is something 

we have tried to figure out how to address but 

it really falls into the exclusion and becomes 

not quite worth the effort to gain the 

efficiency. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 68

 MR. BROOKMAN: Neal Elliott.

 MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott again, 

following up on Dale Basso's comment.

 One of the things I think that is 

worth sort of keeping in mind here is this 

issue of enforcement and testing. You know, 

this again doesn't really -- it is not a big 

number from an energy savings standpoint. 

This adds to the complexity and diminishes 

administrability of the law. And so that is 

why we can get just the exclusion of these 

products has been the best interest.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Did you say your 

name is Mano?

 MR. AGAMLOH: Emmanuel Agamloh.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Emmanuel, okay.

 MR. AGAMLOH: Yes, I wanted to 

come back to the air-over motors and also the 

brake motors. I think that there are 

assumptions that can be made and there have 

been attempts in the past, especially for 

small motors, single phase motors to make 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 69 

assumptions as far as air-over motors are 

concerned to test them based on the 

temperature rise. It is more complicated, I 

think, for integral motors primarily because 

of the testing that has been used, which is 

based on loss segregation.

 So for regulatory purposes, it 

would not be a repeatable process if you make 

such assumptions. So I think it would be very 

complicated to make assumptions for that case.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank?

 MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne, 

Underwriters Laboratories.

 I think when we start talking 

about air-over motors we are now going into 

the realm that one of my colleagues made in 

the opening statements that we need to start 

thinking more in terms of system efficiencies 

because it is really very similar to the 

situation you encounter when you take a half 

horsepower motor, you can test it and certify 

that the motor is going to produce 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 70 

efficiencies in the mid- to high 90 percent. 

But if it is not properly matched in size and 

coupled with a load, you know, you could be 20 

or 30 percent off. You know, I don't think 

that you are going to see those kinds of 

differences with making assumptions with airover motors but I think it is more of a system 

issue than it is anything else.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

 Final comments on these issues 

listed in the scope of coverage because we are 

about to move on. Okay, we are moving on.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay, great. So that 

takes us to the next table and this table 

lists motor types which DOE considered 

including in the expanded scope of coverage 

but is no longer planning to cover them 

because many of them present what DOE would 

consider insurmountable testing difficulties 

when testing with either IEEE Standard 112B or 

CSA C390. And here we see air-over motors in 

this list, component sets and submersible 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 71 

motors from the motors previously mentioned.

 Another example is liquid-cooled 

electric motors. It requires a separate and 

external cooling means, very similar to airover electric motors. And DOE feels like that 

would present insurmountable testing 

difficulties or testing configurations, as we 

said earlier.

 Other motor types in this list may 

remain not subject to standards because they 

don't meet all the criteria listed. Back in 

slide 25, for example, intermittent duty 

motors, they are not continuous duty rated. 

Single phase motors don't operate on polyphase 

power.

 MR. BROOKMAN: We have comments 

from both Dan and Roger and also Robert. So 

you all can choose. I haven't heard from you 

yet, Dan. Go ahead.

 MR. DELANEY: I'll go. Dan 

Delaney, Regal-Beloit. I just wanted to ask 

a question and ask for clarification on your 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 72 

number one there on the totally enclosed airover. You have that obviously identified as 

totally enclosed and the prior document we 

just reviewed being the air-over designation 

there. I wanted to understand from your 

perspective if there was a difference there. 

It is not defined as totally enclosed airover.

 MR. KOHSE: Right. So and I guess 

that is my fault. This table is not up-todate with regards to that heading. It should 

just be air-over motors. Part of this stems 

from the decision to look at air-over motors 

with both open frames and totally enclosed 

frames. So by saying just air-over electric 

motor, DOE is trying to be a little bit more 

comprehensive in the motor types that it 

captures that heading.

 So this totally enclosed, those 

words would probably drop off of this list.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert.

 MR. WILKINS: Thank you. Robert 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 73
	

Wilkins.

 I would urge the DOE to consider 

adding for the sake of reducing or avoiding 

ambiguity or misunderstanding, add hermetic 

motors or motors for hermetic compressors to 

this list. And the reason is that these 

motors are integral parts of compressors. 

There is a rotor and a stator that is 

inherently designed into the compressor and 

optimized together with the compressor 

performance. So just simply measuring the 

motor performance is almost meaningless.

 And furthermore, these devices are 

ultimately applied in products that are 

covered by the DOE, unitary air conditioning, 

for example, chillers. So the end product is 

covered, which obviates the need to have the 

subsidiary components covered and it would 

just add unnecessary work with little or no 

benefit.

 But I do think it would be useful 

just to eliminate the ambiguity by making that 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 74
	

explicit on this list.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger, John has a 

follow-on. John.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski, 

Baldor. That is a good point. However, is 

that covered under component sets?

 MR. KOHSE: Yes, it sounds a lot 

like a component set of a motor.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks. Robert, go 

ahead.

 MR. WILKINS: It's Robert again. 

Yes, I saw that and I put a tick by it because 

in a sense it is component sets but it is such 

a big sector that it could be --

MR. BROOKMAN: Roger?

 MR. WILKINS: Or you might say, 

Robert, again, component sets including 

hermetic motors is another way of doing it.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Clarifications are 

helpful. Roger, go ahead.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

We certainly agree with your comment about the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 75 

difficulty of testing liquid-cooled but that 

is similar to the air-over situation that the 

reason that motor is liquid-cooled is 

generally that it is into a requirement that 

requires a very high-power density. So you 

are very restricted on size. And as we have 

heard and read a lot in previous rulemakings 

and through this PTSD, size carries a lot of 

weight in trying to determine what efficiency 

you can reach.

 But it is just a point of 

clarification. It is not only a testing 

problem. It is again an application-related 

power density relation problem and trying to 

get to the same level of efficiencies that you 

are wanting for a normal general purpose 

design A and B motors is just not a practical 

thing to accomplish.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay, great.

 MR. BROOKMAN: We do have one more 

additional comment. Please use the microphone 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 76 

and make sure it is -- stand up. Use the 

microphone and make sure it is turned on. Use 

the microphone right there. Yes, thank you. 

Is it turned on? Tap it.

 MR. RUFFING: Steve Ruffing 

speaking on behalf of NEMA.

 In the joint petition that Neal 

alluded to in his opening statement, there is 

an additional recommendation that integral 

brake motors be included on this list of 

excluded motors.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay, so well here is 

a comment slide. We have already taken 

comment on a lot of the exempted motor types 

that are not included motor types. Is there 

any additional comment, especially with 

regards to I know you said integral brake 

motors but any other motor types that should 

be included in that list? Okay.

 MR. BROOKMAN: John, please.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski, 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 77 

Baldor talking on behalf of NEMA. 

NEMA Design D motors seem to be 

omitted from this.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

 MR. BROOKMAN: And Jim Raba just 

clarified over here that the list is for not 

covered. Correct?

 MR. KOHSE: Correct.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Just to make sure 

that is clear.

 Okay, final comments on this and 

then we are going to move on.

 MR. KOHSE: John, you are 

suggesting that NEMA Design D motors be put on 

this list?

 MR. MALINOWSKI: Yes, they are not 

covered now. They shouldn't be.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Not to counteract my colleague but if you put 

it on an exclusion list, then you have to 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 78
	

define it. And you have been pretty clear of 

this listed characteristics that are common to 

all this additional scope of product being 

Design A, B, or C to which you are defining A, 

B and C.

 So isn't it rather obvious that 

Design D is not covered?

 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew deLaski.

 MR. DE LASKI: Just to follow on, 

I think I agree with Roger on this. I think 

what needs to be excluded are things that fall 

within the scope of your definition on back to 

slide whatever it is, slide 25.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

 MR. DE LASKI: So if you are not 

within those bullet points, and D clearly is 

not, then you don't need to define it to 

exclude it.

 MR. BROOKMAN: So John --

MR. DE LASKI: It just has to do 

with structure. It is the same point. It 

just has to do with how you structure what has 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 79
	

to be defined.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: I understand it 

from that aspect but --

MR. BROOKMAN: John.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski. 

I understand it from that aspect but we all 

know that somebody perhaps from Europe or 

wherever is going to be looking at this 

legislation and looking for whether Design D 

is covered or not. And if we can make it 

obvious that it is not covered, it would be 

better for enforcement.

 MR. DE LASKI: And just to follow 

on to that, this is Andrew again, that just 

strikes me as belonging in the guidance 

somewhere.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: Somewhere.

 MR. DE LASKI: It is a guidance 

thing. It is not a regulation. It is 

guidance.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: Right. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 80

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

 MR. KOHSE: Right and DOE is 

planning to provide guidance which lists all 

these motor types that would not be covered 

and which ones would be covered.

 MR. DE LASKI: And I think to the 

extent that you can do it, you know, if it is 

outside the scope of that, you don't have to 

go to the trouble of negotiating over the 

definition so it will expedite the process.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Provided there is 

guidance.

 MR. DE LASKI: Provided there is 

guidance, yes.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good, that 

was useful discussion there. Meg.

 MS. WALTNER: And just to follow 

on that point, there is a bit of inconsistency 

between the list on slide 25 or I guess 

redundancy we should say --

MR. KOHSE: Okay.

 MS. WALTNER: -- between the list 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 81 

on slide 25 and slide 28 now. So just 

clarifying for example, slide 25 already 

clarifies that it is a single speed motor and 

then you list multi-speed on slide 28.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

 MS. WALTNER: So just 

crystallizing that.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, good. So 

let's go.

 MR. KOHSE: Great. Okay, so 

moving on. Now to discuss the new test 

procedure rulemaking, test procedure NOPR that 

DOE is developing in parallel with this 

standards rulemaking.

 The new test procedure rulemaking 

will address new definitions and any 

additional test procedure guidance language or 

test procedure configuration language, which 

it believes will be necessary to test these 

motor types.

 Now I should mention that DOE is 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 82 

not planning to modify either the IEEE or CSA 

C390 test methodologies themselves but is only 

planning to issue additional guidance 

language, configuration language, or 

preparatory setup steps that would allow the 

motor to either be attached to a test bench or 

a dynamometer or to allow the motor to operate 

as a general purpose motor so that it may be 

tested.

 DOE has initiated discussions with 

various motor testing labs and industry 

experts concerning the difficulties of testing 

some of these motor types, as well as how to 

get around those difficulties.

 Discussions with these interested 

parties indicated that many of these motor 

types could be tested using current DOE 

accepted test methods with minor testing 

configuration steps.

 For example, DOE may issue 

guidance that would allow a testing lab to 

machine a custom endplate and provide a deepNeal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 83 

groove radial ball bearing that would allow a 

partial motor to operate as a general purpose 

motor so that it may be tested.

 Alternatively, DOE is also 

considering the possibility of allowing the 

original motor manufacturer to supply the 

endplate and necessary bearing component. So 

again, that the partial motor could be tested 

as though it were a general purpose motor.

 The supplementary handout 

discusses more of these additional test 

configuration steps that DOE is considering so 

that all of these motor types may be tested in 

repeatable, manageable, and consistent 

manners, using currently accepted DOE test 

procedures.

 So I know we have kind of looked 

at some of the test configuration steps but if 

there is any additional comments on these 

steps, specifically the test procedure 

configuration steps.

 MR. BROOKMAN: We have begun to 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 84
	

cover that. Roger, please.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Rather than go into detail here, I just note 

that that was considered in the submittal of 

the petition and that you will find in 

Appendix B of that petition some recommended 

arrangements to be able to test various types 

of these additional scope products.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

 Additional comments related to 

test procedure modifications that perhaps may 

not be in that appendix that was referenced. 

Any additions? No? Nothing additional? 

Okay.

 MR. KOHSE: Great. Okay, so let's 

move on from the discussion of scope expansion 

and continue with the market and technology 

assessment discussion picking it back up with 

the discussion of how DOE divided covered 

motor types into its equipment classes.

 When DOE amends energy 

conservation standards, it often divides 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 85 

covered equipment into classes by statute. 

These classes are based on the type of energy 

used, the capacity of the equipment, or any 

other performance-related feature that 

justifies different standard levels such as 

features affecting consumer utility.

 So DOE breaks down its scope of 

coverage into three equipment classes by the 

utility of the motor design. Equipment 

classes are important because each equipment 

class ultimately gets its own standard. DOE 

placed electric motors into three equipment 

class groupings or ECGs based on three NEMA 

design types. The equipment class groupings 

include a group that contains both NEMA Design 

A and B motors, a second separate group for 

NEMA Design C motors, as well as a third and 

final group for fire pump electric motors. 

Within each of these groups, there are 

equipment classes, which are based on all 

combinations of horsepower rating, pole 

configurations, and enclosure type. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 86

 MR. BROOKMAN: Just pause there. 

Roger, go ahead.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

The industry has quite a bit of concern about 

this equipment class and the way it is being 

defined. The reason is the DOE is also under 

another rulemaking in which an NOPR was issued 

this year concerning AEDMs.

 And in that NOPR, it was DOE's 

proposal, and realize this NOPR covered more 

than electric motors. It covered all kinds of 

other products in the application of AEDM.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you spell 

that out for us, AEDM?

 MR. DAUGHERTY: AEDM is the 

alternative efficiency determination method. 

As it applies to electric motors, it is 

generally a design program that the engineer 

uses to design the motor, calculates the 

efficiency so that he knows that when it goes 

into production that he gets the efficiency 

that he expects to get and that it will be in 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 87
	

compliance.

 That AEDM is substantiated in 

those requirements in 431.17 in 10 CFR, once 

he has substantiated that he can use it for 

the purpose of certification of product.

 So the issue is that over in the 

other rulemaking process, the DOE has proposed 

that that AEDM must be substantiated for each 

and every equipment class to which it is 

applied. Now, the way DOE is proposing and 

using the definition of equipment class in 

this rulemaking is equivalent to what in 

431.12 is the definition of rating, under 

which present certification compliance 

certificates are submitted to the Department 

of Energy.

 So you are introducing a new 

identifier to an existing term that has been 

in place since 1999 and is covered by the 

labeling and certification requirements that 

are spelled out in 431 and now we have this 

significant concern of saying that an AEDM 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 88 

that presently we can substantiate that that 

AEDM is applicable to the complete line of 

products from one to 500 horsepower, two, 

four, and six-pole open and enclosed under all 

of the subtype I types and subtype II types. 

The other rulemaking is proposing, I would 

have to substantiate the AEDM down to the 

point that I am talking about a 200 horsepower 

two-pole open motor. It totally defeats the 

whole purpose of the AEDM. And it is a 

significant benefit if you were not using 

equipment class over in this rulemaking in 

creating a problem with the other rulemaking.

 And we have submitted a great deal 

of comments to the other rulemaking and our 

concerns about this but we recommend and have 

suggested in those comments that induction 

motors are recognized as, [for lack of] a 

better word, "class." And so the AEDM can be 

substantiated against this total class of 

induction motors, whether it is a one 

horsepower polyphase induction motor two-pole 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 89 

or it is a 500 horsepower. Basically, it is 

the same technology is used in the components. 

They only differ in size and arrangement. So 

the calculation of efficiency and losses is 

not that different between the sizes.

 So it is of our interest to try to 

be certain that we don't create a problem in 

this rulemaking that introduces a lot of 

difficulty with the AEDM rulemaking going by 

a different group within DOE, as I understand 

it.

 In the small electric motor 

rulemaking, you just used the term called 

efficiency level. You didn't use the term 

equipment class. So I have noticed that there 

is a lot of dissimilarities between this 

rulemaking on what seems to be very similar to 

what went on in the small electric motor 

rulemaking.

 So we want to encourage that 

rating is presently well understood and that 

you would not now go using that rating as the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 90 

definition and confusing it with equipment 

class, that you consider whatever nomenclature 

that you wish to use, that through this 

rulemaking it is identified that induction 

motors are one, large, single class and that 

somehow we can get that point over into the 

AEDM rulemaking process.

 So we need to request that you are 

aware of what is going on in multiple 

rulemakings that are going on simultaneously 

at the present time. Thank you.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thanks 

a lot.

 So I want you to finish with the 

presentation and then we will take additional 

comments because you didn't take up on 34 yet, 

I do not believe.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay, so here we see 

the details of the three ECGs, as well as the 

number of unique equipment classes in each 

ECG. There are 514 discrete equipment 

classes, which account for every permutation 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 91 

of horsepower rating, pole configuration, 

frame enclosure, and NEMA design type. Note 

that Design C motors are only covered up to 

200 horsepower and also lack the two-pole 

configuration coverage. This is because NEMA 

MG1-2011 does not define Design C motors above 

200 horsepower or at the two-pole 

configuration.

 So here we see the 2011 market 

details of the equipment class groupings by 

units shipped per NEMA design type. DOE used 

its own research paired with NEMA-supplied 

data to generate these numbers. 

The shipment numbers include motor 

types that DOE is planning to include in the 

expanded scope of standards. DOE uses this 

information to focus its attention on the 

market segments with the highest quantity.

 The numbers show that NEMA Design 

B motors have, by far, the highest shipment 

volumes with the proceeding highest numbers 

being NEMA Design A followed by NEMA Design C 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 92 

and finally fire pump electric motors, which 

have the lowest shipment volume.

 This data is also important in the 

national impact shipments as well as the 

manufacturer impact analyses which are all 

discussed later in this presentation.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Pause there. 

Roger, you want to -- okay. Keep going.

 MR. KOHSE: So after the market 

assessment, DOE conducts a technology 

assessment which recognizes potential 

technology options which may improve 

efficiency for the electric motor types 

covered in this rulemaking. Energy efficiency 

losses are grouped into five main categories 

which are stator I2R losses, rotor I2R losses, 

core losses, friction and windage losses, as 

well as stray load losses.

 Designers have to balance the five 

basic losses in order to optimize the various 

motor performance criteria. There are 

numerous tradeoffs that have to be considered. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 93 

Efficiency is only one parameter that has to 

be met and reducing one loss may increase 

another, as well as what may be desirable on 

a four-pole motor may not be desirable on a 

two-pole motor.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes?

 MR. BISHOP: Tom Bishop, a minor 

comment.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Microphone.

 MR. BISHOP: I'm sorry. Tom 

Bishop. One minor comment but increased 

copper wire diameter should be increased 

copper wire area.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, 

Andrew?

 MR. DE LASKI: Andrew deLaski. We 

seem to be shifting to a technology 

engineering so I want to come back to the 

shipments because it seemed like a different 

topic.

 So in the shipments, could you 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 94 

describe a bit more, Will, sort of how you 

developed these estimates? You said you used 

the Department's own methodology. So I am 

curious what was entailed with your sources.

 MR. KOHSE: Right. So actually 

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab developed a lot 

of the shipment data. So I may well have to 

have Sanaee chime-in on this.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Get to a 

microphone, please.

 MS. IYAMA: Sanaee Iyama with the 

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.

 So actually we worked with the 

data that we received from the motor coalition 

and we reviewed this data against data we 

collected through a market research report 

from IMS research and we combined -- so this 

report provided shipments data across 

different categories of AC induction motors 

but didn't necessarily fit the scope, the 

expanded scope that DOE considered in the 

analysis. So we combined that IMS research 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 95 

data with breakdowns between the different 

categories of shipments that are considered in 

the scope. And our estimated shipments data 

was very close and agreed with what the 

stakeholders had submitted. So we ended up 

using the data provided by the motor 

coalition.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, 

sufficient? Yes. Rob, please. Thank you.

 MR. BOTELER: Yes, your numbers 

are pretty close to what we submitted and I 

would just ask are all of the expanded scope 

covered in your numbers? So you are including 

partial motors? You are including threequarter motors, gear motors, all of the 

various categories?

 MS. IYAMA: Sanaee Iyama. Yes.

 MR. BOTELER: You are. You are 

including them all. Because I think the IMS 

numbers, the numbers that I saw were actually 

a little more than ours. I think we came up 

with 5.2 million. Their estimate was over 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 96
	

six.

 MS. IYAMA: So again, we adjusted 

those numbers because in the IMS research, 

they include all the AC induction motors, no 

matter the frame size, no matter the NEMA 

design. So we readjusted those numbers with 

estimates of how many AC induction motors are 

NEMA Design B. Like how much of the total AC 

induction motors are NEMA Design B motors, how 

much of these are continuous duty. So we 

disaggregated the IMS research data into 

different categories and then we only 

considered the ones that DOE wanted to add in 

the expanded scope.

 MR. BROOKMAN: And so to just to 

confirm, what the Department is describing as 

potentially being covered, that is what you 

analyzed.

 MS. IYAMA: Right. So the 

shipment numbers that we see on this slide 

represent the motor shipped that correspond to 

the expanded scope that Will just described. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 97

 MR. BROOKMAN: Great, Rob.

 MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler again. 

And you did include then imbedded motors that 

are imported into the country, imbedded in 

other pieces of equipment.

 MS. IYAMA: Correct.

 MR. BOTELER: Okay.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Rob, 

keep going, yes.

 MR. BOTELER: One more. In the 

final expanded scope that we submitted, which 

is 5.2 million, we did add 56-frame polyphase 

enclosed motors with similar operating 

characteristics to the 140-frame. So that 

would maybe explain why our numbers are 

higher.

 MS. IYAMA: Correct. And I think 

those were estimated to about a million.

 MR. BOTELER: Correct. Correct.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Great, thank you. 

Okay, that was good zeroing in there.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay, so I just wanted 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 98 

to add that different companies utilize 

different approaches for minimizing motor 

losses and DOE analyzed motor tear-downs to 

determine which combination of the displayed 

methods manufacturers may have used to 

increase the efficiency of their motors and 

took this into account in the next step, which 

is the screening analysis.

 MR. BROOKMAN: So let's pause 

there. I see both Roger and Robert. Go 

ahead, Robert.

 MR. WILKINS: Thank you. I would 

like -- Robert Wilkins -- just to comment on 

this chart.

 I don't know exactly what it leads 

to but technology options is a little bit 

misleading to me because it is more about 

technology or design tradeoffs. And a couple 

of items for example, rotor I2R losses. Yes, 

you can increase the conductivity of the rotor 

bar. You can switch materials. You can 

change the air gap and enlarge or make a 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 99 

smaller air gap but these all have tradeoffs 

to other design considerations, like the 

speed-torque relationship and you might have 

the most efficient motor in the world but it 

won't start. And so I don't know exactly 

where this goes but if we are going to discuss 

it in this context, maybe we ought to have a 

third column that illustrates the tradeoff or 

the design compromises the design engineers 

estimate.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

 MR. WILKINS: Thank you.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger.

 MR. KOHSE: So -- sorry, go ahead. 

I was just going to say DOE took that into 

account and the modeling that we did we 

verified that modeling data with, I guess, 

like to pull-up torque, break-down torque, 

locked rotor current on the software-modeled 

motors.

 So we tried to take into account 

the balance that all these technology options 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 100 

have to have in order to make an operable 

motor.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Roger.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

On that list under core losses, 

you state "select lamination with less watts 

per pound." I know that you are aware of 

submittals during the small electric motor 

rulemaking and you refer to that in this PTSD 

of that type of an assumption, and that DOE 

went forward with that same assumption and 

continued it in this PTSD. Just by choosing 

some electrical steel that happens to have an 

Epstein characteristic of having less watts 

per pound at a particular flux density level 

means that you can then successfully use that 

in an electric motor to reduce core losses and 

that those core losses will change by that 

relationship given to the Epstein loss.

 Now the data that you submitted 

during the small electric motor rulemaking 

that you refer to did not support that. And 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 101 

that was test data of prototypes built using 

different types of electrical steel that 

reported to have very low loss per pound. It 

didn't work out when it was put into an 

electric motor. You didn't get what was 

expected and it actually ended up with more 

core loss than this electrical steel that was 

normally used.

 Now in this PTSD, we will be 

submitting comments and I won't go into all 

the detail here, but is a different kind of 

example of a manufacturer specifying to 

various steel lamination for material 

manufacturers to purchase electrical steel 

according to the same specification and then 

built prototypes from receiving electrical 

steel from two different manufacturers, 

manufacturing prototypes of two different 

ratings, multiple prototypes, not single 

prototypes, conducted the testing based on 

Epstein test.

 The Epstein test would have told 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 102 

you let's say if we identify them that steel 

type B was better than steel type A. But when 

it was put into an electric motor, steel type 

A turned out to be better than steel type B. 

The point is that the simplified 

analysis the DOE describes in the PTSD only 

discusses any current loss in hysteresis loss, 

which are those characteristics that are 

measured in the Epstein testing. And again, 

not to get too deep into this, but there are 

other losses in a machine that appear in the 

air gap and the flux level that is imposed on 

that electrical steel, which is not accounted 

for in Epstein testing.

 There are also characteristics of 

stray load loss when the machine is loaded 

down that has an effect and is affected by the 

type of electrical steel. So while this 

manufacturer went out whole-heartedly, was 

getting the same electrical steel from two 

different suppliers, say for building up 

inventory whatever in research, it was found 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 103 

that even that, depending on how that steel 

manufacturer manufactured his steel, then he 

got different levels of losses.

 And what was said to be good by 

Epstein test was not the preferred electrical 

steel when it was put in an electric motor.

 And that was the same information 

that was supplied in the small electric motor 

rulemaking where it actually compared 

different types of electrical steel and showed 

the same thing. You can't depend on Epstein 

test data to make a determination as to how 

that electrical steel is going to perform in 

a motor.

 So the motor industry was very 

encouraged by reading a comment in a PTSD that 

DOE fully intended to look into building 

prototypes by which it could make a 

determination that by adapting some of these 

technology options, that it could be proven 

out. And we certainly encourage that DOE go 

ahead with those prototypes. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 104

 MR. KOH SE: Thank you. I will 

just add that we considered Epstein testing 

but what we actually used for our software 

model motors was a grade of electrical steel 

that was not above the highest grade 

electrical steel that we saw from motor teardown, which I believe was M36. So we didn't 

actually end up using Epstein testing to 

develop our software model numbers.

 MR. BROOKMAN: In this slide 36, 

you see the type of motor losses identified in 

the technology options, also identified 

additional comments on what you see in this 

table. Because we are due for a break.

 And we should take a break. It is 

now almost ten minutes to eleven. We will 

take a 15-minute break, which means we will 

resume at five after eleven. Don't anybody go 

anywhere yet.

 We got a really good start on the 

day. You must wear this badge visible inside 

the Department of Energy. There are restrooms 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 105
	

on both ends of the hall. There is a coffee 

shop on the ground floor. Go quickly --

sometimes they are stacked up down there --

because we will resume at 11:05 sharp. We'll 

see you back here then.

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 10:48 a.m. and 

resumed at 11:09 a.m.)

 MR. BROOKMAN: So starting back 

up, I thought the morning conversation was 

very, very helpful and I appreciate everybody, 

the breadth and depth of the comments and now 

we are going to proceed with screening 

analysis.

 At the same time, the Department 

has prepared, as I mentioned earlier, a 

photocopy of business cards of the individuals 

that are here in the room. We are going to 

pass those around and we are going to hear 

back from William on screening analysis.

 MR. KOHSE: All right. Okay, so 

in the screening analysis DOE removed 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 106 

technology options that it will not consider 

in the engineering analysis. DOE evaluates 

technology options on four criteria. These 

criteria are technological feasibility, 

practicability to manufacture, install and 

service, adverse impacts on equipment utility 

or availability to consumers, whether or not 

there are any impacts on health or safety. 

Technology options which fail any of these 

criteria are screened out of the analysis.

 So this slide discusses some of 

the technology options that were screened out 

for the analysis. Amorphous magnetic steels 

are non-crystal alloys characterized by high 

magnetic permeability and high electrical 

resistance. Amorphous steels could 

potentially be used to replace the standard 

electrical steels currently used in motors so 

that they may help reduce core losses and 

minimize eddy current losses. However, they 

are also thin and brittle, making it difficult 

to cut and machine the material into shapes 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 107 

suitable for electric motor cores.

 While some prototypes have been 

developed using amorphous core material, DOE 

is unaware of any polyphase induction motors 

that use amorphous core technology. 

Therefore, DOE does not believe this option is 

likely to be technologically feasible at this 

time.

 The next technology is called 

plastic bonded iron power, or PBIP, which is 

based on an iron powder alloy that is 

suspended in plastic and then shaped into 

electric motor components using a centrifugal 

mold. Potential advantages of this technique 

include lower core loss, a reduced number of 

production steps, and increased efficiency. 

However, DOE is not aware of any polyphase 

induction electric motors that have been 

prototyped using this technology. Therefore, 

it does not consider this option to be 

technologically feasible and has also screened 

it out of the analysis at this time. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 108

 So we will pause here for a second 

and open the floor to any comments on PBIB or 

amorphous steel technology in electric motors, 

including any such efforts that are underway 

or prototypes that may be under development.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger Daugherty.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

We certainly agree with the exclusion of those 

two particular types of technology as not 

passing the screening criteria. However, at 

this time, it is noticeable that you omitted 

from your presentation the inclusion of cast 

copper rotors as meeting all four screening 

criteria.

 And I will try to keep this brief 

and there will be a lot of detail in the NEMA 

comments that will be submitted. In trying to 

examine this issue of cast copper as 

applicable to motors with one to 500 

horsepower, two-, four-, and six-poles in open 

and enclosed enclosures of what DOE has 

estimated would need to be available for 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 109 

approximately five million cast copper rotors 

available for production beginning in 2016 to 

be in compliance if efficiency standards were 

established on that basis. So we went back 

and tried to find how DOE could have 

successfully screened cast copper rotors as 

being a viable technology to meet that need. 

First we looked at production in 

the United States for NEMA Design B electric 

motors manufactured with cast copper rotors, 

manufactured in the United States. We 

couldn't find any. We looked and noted that 

DOE had said that cast copper rotors were 

being used in present products. The only 

products that we could find were manufactured 

outside the United States.

 We located two manufacturers 

making such products. Manufacturer A, in 

looking over those products, only made fourpole motors, only made ratings for one to 30 

horsepower. None were Design B, they were all 

Design A. None of those of course were being 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 110 

made in the United States.

 We looked at the second 

manufacturer who has a product line 

manufactured outside the United States and 

while theirs covered from one to 20 

horsepower, there were some gaps. There were 

some missing frame sizes within those ratings 

where there were no cast copper rotors. But 

again, it was limited to 20 horsepower. There 

were no eight-poles included in those 

availability products.

 And if you look, and this will get 

more toward their scaling issue, but I will 

mention it now, if you look at the change in 

efficiency level that was obtained, if you 

look at two-poles, it was not consistent. 

Half of them attained two NEMA bands, higher 

efficiency. Half of them attained three. If 

you looked at the four-poles, they only 

attained one. If you looked at the six-poles, 

again there was a dispersion of what level 

efficiency is attained. Okay and that, as I 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 111 

said, we will get to the scale in issue of how 

DOE scales things by assuming it is common 

across all pole numbers.

 So that is the only scope of 

products that we could find and couldn't see 

how someone took that very limited scope and 

made an assumption that at the end of 2015, 

that technology was going to be applicable to 

the full range of product we are talking 

about.

 Carrying feasibility a little bit 

further than the simplified statement that DOE 

says that they follow, we examined two recent 

technological feasibility studies that were 

conducted by the U.S. Army. The U.S. Army 

began a study in 2004 on ten horsepower fourpole motors to make an examination as to 

whether or not it was technically feasible 

using manufacturing processes in the United 

States.

 As a result of that study, their 

first attempt in the first ones they designed 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 112 

had very poor results. So they worked on 

refining the process to try to get better 

results. At the conclusion, they did have a 

ten horsepower four-pole motor that had a 

slightly higher level of efficiency, the NEMA 

premium. That study concluded basically with 

that result. There was no sort of any 

industry support. It was all that study. 

But that study did recommend that 

they needed to investigate higher horsepower. 

So in 2007, they began another study looking 

into a 75 horsepower two-pole motor. And the 

purpose of that motor was a replacement for an 

existing motor at Fort Bragg. So it had both 

an application assigned to it where they could 

test it out in real operation, as well as 

seeing if they could get higher efficiency. 

At the same time, they had an available 

replacement motor from the market cast 

aluminum rotor that had an efficiency level of 

95.0, I believe it was. 

So their design goal was they had 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 113
	

to beat that. So this group of electric motor 

designers, the only industry in the U.S. that 

was really familiar with trying to cast copper 

rotors and various other support groups tried 

to design a 75 horsepower two-pole motor that 

had higher efficiency than available in the 

marketplace.

 To say the results were 

disappointing is putting it very mildly. The 

efficiency that they obtained was 

substantially lower than the cast aluminum 

motor that they could purchase as a 

replacement but they did go ahead and they put 

that motor in place.

 So the only study that I know of 

that has looked into higher horsepower motors 

is that study funded by the U.S. Department of 

the Army and it was not successful in making 

a determination that this process is 

technologically feasible for motors up into 

that horsepower, let alone larger horsepower 

ratings. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 114

 Then you also have your second 

requirement is the practicality to 

manufacture, install and service. And that 

requirement states if mass production of a 

technology and commercial products and 

reliable installation and servicing of the 

technology could be achieved on a scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at the 

time of the effective date of the standard, 

then DOE will consider that technology.

 I put it to the DOE to be able to 

demonstrate that that technology will be 

available for mass production on such a scale 

in the United States to support the range of 

products that would be impacted by that 

technology.

 The third is adverse impacts on 

product utility or product availability. In 

this case, we have heard and you can read in 

the PTSD problems, and you heard them earlier 

this morning, of it is not so easy to make 

changes in motor design to achieve efficiency 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 115 

without the impact it has on a lot of the 

other performance requirements.

 So when you look at a lot of this, 

and especially into the increased scope 

products, going to cast copper rotors could 

make those products unavailable to the market. 

You have not satisfied condition three in 

terms of utility and availability.

 The fourth item is adverse impacts 

on health and safety. I'm sure DOE, since 

they referred to it and have been made aware 

of it, that one reason cast copper rotor 

technology is not in use by manufacture in the 

United States is you cannot purchase the cast 

copper casting machinery. And if you do a 

little research, you will find why that 

manufacture withdrew that equipment from the 

market. 

So you have successfully screened 

and passed cast copper rotor technology as 

completely technologically feasible over all 

this product range, practical to manufacture 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 116 

as mass manufacturing effective January first 

-- actually December 20, 2015, should 

standards be based on that, that it would have 

no adverse effect on product utility or 

product availability and it would have no 

adverse impact on health and safety trying to 

work with this very high molten metal 

temperatures.

 It is NEMA's contention and the 

industry's contention that DOE was improper in 

successfully screening this technology for 

application in electric motors and that this 

technology should be used over to the list of 

technologies that were screened out and that 

the PTSD should remove any engineering 

analysis that is based upon the use of cast 

copper technology. It cannot have 

successfully passed screening.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

 MR. KOHSE: We will take those 

comments into consideration.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Are there other --

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 117
	

yes, Michael Kido.

 MR. KIDO: Just a real quick 

clarifying question. Those two reports that 

you cited, are those reports that NEMA can at 

least provide the citations to so we can track 

those down a little more easily or are those 

things that you have in hand that can be 

submitted for the record?

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

I would expect the Department of Energy -- or 

the Department of the Army had some identifier 

assigned to them, so we can try to find what 

that identifier was to provide you a 

reference.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. It is 

Ed?

 MR. BRUSH: Ned.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ned, please say 

your name.

 MR. BRUSH: Ned Brush, 

representing the Copper Development 

Association, consultant to them. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 118

 I am a metaler, just by 

background, who was part of the team that 

developed the die casting of copper. I worked 

with Siemens, for instance, which was one of 

the companies that Roger has just mentioned. 

They completely did a redesign optimized for 

copper because as Roger indicated, there are 

many factors there and when you change the 

conductivity of the conductor and the 

induction rotor, you are on a different place 

in the torque curve, for instance. So you 

have got to do a lot of things that are 

different from the traditional die cast 

aluminum rotors.

 Siemens quite successfully has 

entered that business and commercialized it in 

February of 2006, I believe. So they have one 

through 20 horsepower available, two-, four-, 

six- and some eight-pole. They manufacture in 

Mexico with a manufacturing cell, as well as 

in Germany for IEC frame sizes and the frame 

market. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 119

 So I think it is feasible. We 

worked with them. They have resolved a whole 

range of the issues that we dealt with in the 

development process. SEW-EURODRIVE has been 

using it. There are some manufacturers of 

die-cast rotors supplying other people, 

including I think Danfoss as well as Grundfos 

and so on, FAVI in France, Breuckman in 

Germany. We have a number here in the United 

States that have also supplied at least 

moderate quantities but Siemens produces for 

itself in Mexico.

 So there is some feasibility 

there. It is not of a scale that we are 

talking about the five million units available 

yearly sold and so on, at this time. But I 

think it is technologically feasible. It has 

been demonstrated and now it is production by 

people like Siemens and SEW-EURODRIVE.

 MR. BROOKMAN: So you will submit 

those as written comments?

 MR. BRUSH: Yes, we will. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 120

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Ned.

 Okay, Roger.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

 Yes, as I stated in my comments, 

we recognize that the technology was being 

used in a very limited scope of product. But 

the screening criteria should be based up on 

all the electric motors that you are talking 

about. It does not serve the industry for DOE 

to base efficiency standards of certain 

particular ratings in this whole grouping on 

one type of technology, other ratings on 

another technology, and other ratings on 

another group of technology. Industry doesn't 

work like that.

 And so my comments were when you 

look at the full scale requirement as defined 

in the screening criteria in reference to the 

total scope or product we are talking about, 

then it is difficult to understand how you 

successfully pass the screening process.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So can you 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 121
	

go to slide 38? The next slide.

 Yes. So I just want to get 

additional and perhaps final comment on 

technology options that were screened out. 

Any additional comments here before we move 

on?

 Let's hear from this gentleman and 

then back to Roger. Please say your name.

 MR. SCHUMANN: Tim Schumann with 

SEW-EURODRIVE. 

With reference to the copper 

rotors, yes we do market those globally, even 

here in the United States. It is not on a 

full-scale basis. Our premium efficient line 

only offers three models. It is very limited 

due to the cost, the expense incurred. The 

trouble we go through to cast those copper 

rotors is very difficult and it is not 

something we market on a full-scale basis.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Roger.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 122

 I would like to direct your 

attention now away from cast copper rotors and 

give you an example of a technology that I 

know we sit here and we talk about and you 

used in your analysis. It sounds like it has 

been in use for a long time but maybe it needs 

a re-screening because of the scope to which 

you are talking about applying it. And that 

is hand winding. Over the past 30 to 40 

years, the emphasis on winding stators has 

been to move to as much automated winding as 

possible. So while certainly hand winding 

existed before automated winding and hand 

winding exists today in those which may not be 

in technically mass production, whatever mass 

production is.

 My point is, that when you really 

consider hand winding and you are looking at 

slot fills in making your engineering analysis 

that would force potentially, if the standards 

were based upon slot fills based upon hand 

winding and moving to hand winding, a 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 123 

reversing a 30-year trend to the industry 

toward automation and putting it back into 

hand winding.

 The infrastructure that would have 

to be created and put in place to have all 

those hand winders available on December 20, 

2015 and if you consider the well-known 

adverse impacts on health and safety that are 

related to repetitive operations because now 

you are talking about a very significant 

increase in manpower or womanpower, whichever 

you wish, who are working with their hands and 

installing these windings, so if you look at 

it does have an adverse impact on health and 

safety.

 So I toss it out to DOE to really 

consider maybe you should have examined hand 

winding when you are talking about applying it 

on such a scale as you are talking about in 

looking at higher efficiency standards. Thank 

you.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 124
	

before we move on? Yes, Rob.

 MR. BOTELER: Yes, Rob Boteler, 

just to pick up on the hand winding. The 

other thing that we all know will happen if 

that technology was necessary is we as global 

manufacturers would be forced into low-cost 

countries in other to meet the requirements. 

And pretty much all of us sitting at the table 

are now globally positioned to do that without 

a whole lot of difficulty.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Okay, we are going to move on.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay, so that brings 

us to the end of the screening analysis and we 

will move on to the engineering analysis.

 The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to develop a relationship between 

the efficiency of an electric motor and the 

manufacturer's selling price or MSP for that 

particular unit. Also, the engineering 

analysis evaluates the design options that 

improve efficiency and uses these options when 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 125 

modeling higher efficiency motors.

 The cost efficiency outputs of the 

engineering analysis are then used downstream 

for the lifecycle of costs and payback period 

analyses, as well as the national impact and 

manufacturer impact analyses.

 So this slide shows some of the 

key steps that DOE followed in the engineering 

analysis. First, DOE identified 

representative units for analysis within each 

equipment class grouping which were developed 

in the MTA. Then DOE purchased, tested, and 

tore down models representing increased 

efficiency levels for each representative 

unit.

 DOE verified nameplate and NEMA 

design performance criteria by testing models 

using IEEE 112-B, as well as lock rotor 

current testing.

 Next, DOE used a motor modeling 

expert to create higher efficiency motor 

designs. DOE then developed candidate 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 126 

standard levels or CSLs, based on torn down 

motor efficiency as well as software modeled 

motor efficiency. The CSLs are used to 

identify specific levels of efficiency which 

are used in the analysis.

 Next, DOE developed cost inputs 

such as material prices, markups and labor 

hours. Finally, DOE scaled the results from 

the representative units to the unanalyzed 

equipment classes. DOE uses scaling because 

there are 514 permutations of horsepower 

ratings, pole configurations, and frame types, 

and individually assessing each combination 

would not have been feasible.

 So this slide shows some of the 

NEMA design type horsepower ratings, pole 

configurations, and frame enclosure types for 

the representative units of each equipment 

class group. DOE used a five, 30, and 75 

horsepower representative unit to represent 

all motors in equipment class group one. For 

equipment class group two, DOE used a five and 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 127 

a 50 horsepower representative unit to 

represent all motors. Finally, DOE based the 

analysis of equipment class group three on the 

analysis of equipment class group one. And 

therefore, the analysis of fire pump motors is 

based on the same representative units that 

were used in equipment class group one.

 DOE chose these representative 

units by analyzing catalogue efficiency data 

to find horsepower ratings that were 

sufficiently spread out among all 

representative unit efficiencies. For 

equipment class group one, which are NEMA 

Design A and B motors, DOE chose a five 

horsepower motor to represent all motor 

permutations from one to ten horsepower. DOE 

chose a 30 horsepower motor to represent all 

motor permutations from 15 to 50 horsepower. 

And lastly, DOE chose a 75 horsepower motor to 

represent all permutations above 60 

horsepower.

 Note that all of the selected 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 128 

representative units have a TEFC enclosure as 

well as a four-pole configuration. DOE chose 

motors with these characteristics because they 

are the most popular design options for the 

motors addressed in this rulemaking.

 So this colorful graph is a visual 

representation of the motor horsepower ranges 

and their representative equipment classes. 

Now, in addition to looking at efficiencies, 

DOE also looked at the "D" dimensions of frame 

designations in an effort to pick motor types 

that were evenly dispersed throughout the 

range of "D" dimensions.

 The "D" dimension is the length 

from the center of the shaft to the mounting 

feet of the motor and determines the NEMA 

motor frame designation.

 The bold colors indicate the 

actual motor horsepower rating analyzed by DOE 

and the lighter shade regions of the same 

color are the equipment classes that were 

indirectly analyzed through these 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 129
	

representative units. Note that for NEMA 

Design C motors, DOE chose a five horsepower 

motor to represent motors from one to 20 

horsepower and a 50 horsepower motor to 

represent motors above 25 horsepower -- sorry 

-- 25 horsepower and above.

 So I will stop here for a second 

and open the floor to any comments regarding 

the selected representative units.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

 As you are fully aware in the 

comments on the framework document, NEMA 

submitted a recommended group of motors as at 

least a minimum list to look at for both 

engineering analysis and the test analysis. 

Very few of those motors made it into your 

criteria. You based everything on four-pole 

motors.

 In the PTSD, you discount the 

importance of pole configuration by failing to 

understand that based upon that pole 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 130 

configuration there is a different 

relationship between the amount of material 

and the size of the rotor relative to the 

stator, that the rotor diameter grows as the 

pole number increases. That has a significant 

impact on the distribution of losses between 

the stator windings and rotor cage and the 

stray load loss and the core losses.

 You failed to seem to understand 

the difference between in two-pole motors 

there may be a greater proportion of friction 

and windage loss related to those than there 

are in four-pole and in six-pole, and eight.

 So while the proportion of losses 

that you seem to concentrate on trying to 

minimize in the stator winding, in the core, 

in the rotor cage, you don't really address 

what happens when you go to the two-pole motor 

and now the friction and windage becomes a 

higher proportion of your total. And so all 

your minimization on the ones you have 

concentrated on may not give you the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 131 

efficiency increase that you saw in the fourpole. Similarly for the six- and eight-pole.

 You failed to differentiate the 

difference between open motors and totally 

enclosed fan-cooled. NEMA MG1 in Part 13 

establishes a table of the standard horsepower 

assignments given to particular frame size in 

open motors. There is also a corresponding 

table for totally enclosed fan-cooled. If you 

compare those two tables, for the same rating 

and pole number, you will generally find that 

there is a difference in frame size between 

the motor of that rating in open compared to 

enclosed. And in many cases, you will find 

that there is a difference in frame series; 

that what may be in a 180 frame series in one 

for that rating is in a 210 frame series for 

the other rating in the other configuration.

 So the purpose of why NEMA 

supplied the list that it supplied was to try 

to encourage that you did examine those 

characteristics and how things change between 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 132 

as a pole configuration and how they change as 

an enclosure configuration. But you failed to 

do that in making your choice that you were 

only going to concentrate on four-pole types 

of machines.

 The other is that other sides in 

your PTSD where you talk about selecting the 

ratings, you have a chart based upon total 

shipments of motors in which your chart shows 

that the five horsepower motor had the highest 

level of shipments. You based your selection 

of the five horsepower, according to the PTSD, 

on that five horsepower which had the highest 

shipment, that shipment of units. If you had 

changed your chart so it recognized that 

different units had different horsepower 

levels and different energy use, then in your 

chart the ten-horsepower motors have 

approximately an eight percent shipment.

 In your paragraph where you talk 

about choosing the five horsepower, you say it 

has a 15 percent. Well eight percent shipment 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 133 

at ten horsepower is more energy use than 15 

percent at five horsepower. So had you 

examined in terms of energy use, and the whole 

goal here is energy savings, then it questions 

whether or not you made an appropriate choice, 

based on only looking at shipments.

 You contain a statement that in 

selecting the 75 horsepower motor that you 

looked at the largest frame size. But in your 

chart where you identify the frame size, that 

frame size is two frame sizes lower than the 

largest frame series. Again, that is why NEMA 

encouraged that one of the motors that NEMA 

suggested was higher than 75 horsepower.

 You also make the observation and 

in your chart that you presented here, the 

efficiency tended to flatten out as you got 

into higher levels of horsepower. If you were 

to recognize that flattening, you may have 

recognized the difficulty of getting those 

higher horsepower ratings up to higher 

efficiencies. But if you base your 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 134 

conclusions on those motors where it may be 

easier in your analysis to arrive at the 

higher horsepower levels and then you use that 

as your scaling factor and say it applies all 

the way to 500, in reality you may have 

created a situation that is not achievable 

with the technology under which you analyze 

and said it was achievable.

 So again, NEMA had a very good 

reason and tried to explain those reasons when 

it submitted those ratings, enclosures, and 

pole numbers that it recommended that you 

include. It doesn't mean you had to only 

include those. Those were just a recommended 

starting point. And we certainly encourage 

that you go back and that you look at if you 

had looked at those ones that NEMA had 

recommended, would you have achieved the 

efficiency gains that you observed here on the 

five, 30 and 75 horsepower. So do those three 

really represent for proper application of 

your scaling criteria, do those three really 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 135 

properly represent the total scope of product 

that we are talking about?

 MR. BROOKMAN: Do we have 

additional comments on choosing representative 

units? Anything additional? Yes, please. 

Microphone and your name again.

 MR. RUFFING: Steve Ruffing 

speaking on behalf of NEMA. Is the microphone 

working properly?

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, that's good.

 MR. RUFFING: NEMA also has a 

concern with the plan to base the possible 

amended energy conservation standards for fire 

pump motors off of the analysis of the Design 

B equipment class. The reason being that 

there are additional requirements for fire 

pump motors that don't apply to standard 

Design B motors.

 In the National Electrical Code, 

it specifies that fire pump motors, the 

circuit protection for fire pump motors shall 

be able to withstand locked rotor or overload 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 136 

currents indefinitely and only short-circuit 

currents should trip it and a similar 

statement appears in the National -- NFPA 20, 

National Fire Protection Association 20.

 So the fallout of that is that a 

fire pump motor is required to withstand the 

currents, the locked rotor currents under 

stall conditions for a significantly long 

period of time, potentially.

 Motor designs that are suitable 

for that need to have lower levels of locked 

rotor amps and those lower levels of locked 

rotor amps then tend to be conducive to lower 

efficient motor designs.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Final comments on representative units? Okay.

 MR. KOHSE: Great. Okay, so the 

table we see here illustrates the four 

efficiencies represented by the four motors 

that DOE purchased, tested, and tore down for 

the representative units of equipment class 

group one. Note that DOE included in its 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 137 

analysis unregulated motor types that it is 

considering for inclusion in the expanded 

scope of coverage. Therefore, some of the 

purchased motors have efficiencies below the 

currently allowable federal standards, which 

are EPACT 1992 levels or also NEMA Table 12-11 

levels.

 For equipment class group two, 

DOE, which is not shown on this slide, DOE was 

only able to purchase representative units at 

the EPACT 1992 efficiency levels and this was 

due to the low available product selection for 

NEMA Design C motors, namely, Design C motors 

that were below EPACT 1992 levels.

 So here we see a sample bill of 

materials for a NEMA Design B five horsepower 

motor tear-down. DOE conducted tear-downs on 

the purchased motors to determine design and 

material changes that the motors exhibited as 

they increased in efficiency. DOE measured 

and recorded material weights and conducted 

metallurgical analysis on the electrical steel 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 138 

in order to determine the grade of steel used.

 DOE uses the bill of materials to 

develop a materials cost, an important input 

when calculating the MSP discussed later in 

the analysis.

 Hardware, insulation material, and 

bearing component costs were kept constant 

across incrementing CSLs and the frame 

material costs were scaled based on the stack 

length of the motor.

 So I will hold here and open the 

floor to any comments regarding the approach 

DOE used to develop the materials costs input, 

namely, whether or not hardware, material, 

frame material, or insulation have a heavy 

impact on the efficiency of a motor.

 DOE then conducted software 

modeling to represent --

MR. BROOKMAN: Hang on second. 

Dale, go ahead.

 MR. BASSO: This is Dale Basso.

 A question. As you are doing the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 139 

material analysis, I see it talks about the 

tear-down but did you do electrical tests on 

all of these motors to verify the 

characteristics before evaluating the 

materials?

 MR. KOHSE: Could you -- you mean 

like locked rotor current?

 MR. BASSO: Like making sure that 

they actually met the locked rotor, what their 

actual efficiency was because there is a 

tolerance allowed.

 MR. KOHSE: We did. We performed 

NEMA -- sorry -- IEEE 112-B tests on them and 

then we also did locked rotor current testing 

on them to make sure that they met all of the 

nameplate details that the motors had. So we 

verified that they were in fact NEMA Design B 

motors or NEMA Design C motors.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Roger 

Daugherty.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

 I guess I was interested in 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 140 

whether or not -- I know here you only talk 

about materials cost. But in trying to go 

from one CSL level to another, how did you 

account for whether or not a change in 

material had other costs associated with it? 

Because I noticed that in Figure 

5.6 and the other figures that refer to 

manufacturer's selling price which DOE 

calculated, it is not necessarily the real 

selling price, that when you went from level 

CSL 3 to 4, which was a change in basically 

electrical steel type and core length, and 

corresponding stator winding and rotor cage, 

there was a very significant increase in cost 

from around $375 to $525. But when you 

replace the aluminum with copper, the increase 

in changing to that new technology, everything 

that is encompassed in trying to cast that 

cast copper rotor motor, you only went up $50.

 So how -- do these numbers that 

you came up with, are they just purely based 

upon the fact that in one of the motors your 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 141 

aluminum went from two pounds and you ended up 

using nine pounds of copper. And you said 

that copper was 2.7 times the cost of aluminum 

at the time you did the study. Was that the 

total basis of the increase in selling price 

related to changing from aluminum cast rotor 

to a copper cast rotor?

 MR. KOHSE: So we did use a 

different overhead markup when we switched 

from aluminum rotors to copper rotors and that 

accounts for most of that price difference.

 We found out from a strictly 

materials standpoint, although copper costs 

more, you don't use as much of it as you would 

aluminum. So there is a little bit of the 

price differential is balanced out by that. 

MR. BROOKMAN: I see John has a 

comment. Oh, let's have a follow-on from 

Navigant.

 MR. NARDOTTI: This is Matt 

Nardotti. Yes, the answer is yes. We simply 

-- it is based -- the MSP that we calculated 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 142 

in the engineering analysis is just based on 

the costs of the materials.

 You know the costs that 

manufacturers would incur to change their 

production lines, those costs for capital 

conversion would be accounted for in the 

manufacturer impact analysis, which we will 

get into a bit later. But yes, the MSP is 

that we calculate in this analysis is strictly 

based on the material costs.

 MR. BROOKMAN: John, follow-on. 

MR. MALINOWSKI: I'll wait until 

we get into it later.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Great okay, back to 

Roger, then.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

But as a follow-up, though, 

somewhere you came up with the motor costs and 

the incremental costs to do the LCC analysis. 

Are you telling me that that doesn't include 

any additional costs that would be the real 

cost to the user of trying to get a motor that 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 143 

is of the change in technology?

 MR. BROOKMAN: This is Matt. Go 

ahead.

 MR. NARDOTTI: So the LCC analysis 

takes as inputs the outputs of the 

engineering. So yes, just the MSPs that we 

calculate in the engineering based on just the 

materials cost.

 Again, this additional cost would 

have to be considered in the MIA.

 MR. BROOKMAN: John.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski, 

Baldor. I expect we will cover this in more 

detail later but even CDA will admit that to 

use a copper rotor machine correctly, the 

whole lamination set has to be retooled to 

optimize the use of the efficiency of the 

copper rotor. So we are going to have 

complete costs of new lamination dies, 

progressive stamping dies, retooling of our 

winding equipment, as well as however we are 

going to cast these rotors and those are 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 144
	

significant costs.

 We stated before and we looked at 

it again that to retool the line between 140 

and 440 frame is somewhere in the 80 million 

dollar range for two-pole, six-pole, eightpole. And we have gone back and looked at 

those numbers again and those are real 

numbers. We can break those down. We will 

break that down in our written comments. And 

that doesn't include the incremental 

engineering cost to change 100,000 plus specs. 

We will get into that more when we get into 

section seven. But you know, your cost 

assumptions are grossly incorrect. When we 

were doing interviews we said these things are 

not scalable and you used scale and made some 

assumptions that are grossly wrong.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Have we covered this now? We have covered it, 

yes? Okay, we are moving on.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay. DOE then 

conducted software modeling to represent motor 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 145 

efficiencies that were not commercially 

available for purchase. DOE utilized 

different design options to increase motor 

efficiency within higher CSLs. DOE also used 

tear-down and motor testing data in order to 

correlate its software to ensure an accurate 

modeling platform.

 This slide shows some of the 

design options that DOE utilized in order to 

create higher efficiency designs.

 So I will stop here again and take 

comment on this slide concern the design 

options or modeling used to improve the 

efficiency of software model motors.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Dale first, then 

Roger.

 MR. BASSO: This is Dale Basso. I 

just had a question on when you talked about 

burying the stack length. Did you have limits 

based on motors that you had torn down of what 

you limited, the maximum overall length of the 

stack and the coil heads to be or did you 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 146 

allow them to expand beyond current envelopes?

 MR. KOHSE: So we did base it on 

some catalogue data. We looked at tear-down 

data, you know, measured the stack length. 

And then we looked at the overall length of 

the motor and came up with a ratio of stack 

length to length of the motor. And then we 

looked at catalogue data of I believe it was 

the "C" dimension of motors, the overall 

length of a motor and applied that ratio from 

the tear-downs through that catalogue "C" 

dimension and kind of came up with a 

theoretical maximum stack length that we used 

for software modeling.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay? John 

Malinowski.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: Yes, John 

Malinowski, again.

 Again, we get back into slot fill 

issues, slot fill of 82 percent is about the 

technological maximum for machine winding. 

You had some slot fills that are above 85 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 147 

percent, which our manufacturing people, 

showing them that, they are skeptical that you 

could actually do that in hand winding. 

Certainly, it would be very difficult to do 

that in volume production of five million 

motors.

 And again to Dale's point, 

everything you did was modeling. You have not 

tried any of it to know that it works. So it 

is hypothetical.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

 MR. BOTELER: Yes, just picking up 

on that, we had this discussion during the 

small motor rulemaking is the AEDM used by the 

Department, was it one that had gone through 

the same scrutiny as the manufacturer's go 

through where we have submitted our 25 samples 

to correlate our estimated computed data with 

actual test data.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Roger?

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

I also have a question on the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 148 

software, but that is in relationship at the 

present time to the test data. So you have 

purchased a variety of motors. You tested a 

variety of motors. I am assuming that you 

have modeled that variety in the software. In 

making the comparison between software and 

test, did you compare the calculated 

efficiency to the test efficiency or the 

calculated efficiency to the nominal 

efficiency?

 MR. KOHSE: So Howard Jordan did a 

lot of our software modeling and that may be 

a question I will have to ask him but we did 

correlate -- you know, we did remodel the torn 

down motors in his software. And I believe he 

looked at tested motor efficiency when 

comparing the two. But that is something I 

will have to follow up with you about.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Follow-on, Roger.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

 I guess I will ask what probably 

should have led up to that. So just bear with 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 149 

me and I will try to keep this short.

 But you make a comment that DOE 

selected that they only had to purchase one 

motor of each to test, to use that test 

results to assist them in their analysis, 

confirmation of the design and their software. 

DOE cites that the reason for that is because 

they tested in accordance with 431.16 and that 

they did not have to test in accordance with 

431.17.

 The only thing that is in 431.16 

is testing shall be done in accordance with 

Appendix B to Subpart B. And Appendix B to 

Subpart B says first that efficiencies shall 

be determined in accordance with NEMA MG1 and 

then in accordance with IEEE 112 or CSA 

standards. Okay, that is all that is there; 

how to do the test and get an efficiency 

value.

 DOE then, through -- and this is 

in Chapter 5 -- so I tried to come up with an 

example as to the impact of only testing one. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 150 

And I know that Rob has already alluded to the 

small electric motor rulemaking and every time 

I bring that one up, I get a rolling of the 

eyes, so I won't bring that one up.

 I tried to think of a good example 

that I could bring when I realized the most 

perfect example I could think of is in Chapter 

5. And in Chapter 5 for that 30 horsepower 

four-pole motor, DOE went out and based upon 

I assume catalogue data at the time, they were 

looking for a motor that had a 93.6 percent 

efficiency. They purchased that motor, it was 

marked on the nameplate at 93.6. They did the 

test. The test came in at 94.2 in some odd 

figure.

 DOE made a conclusion that that 

motor can't be 93.6, that it was improperly 

marked and that it was really 94.1 and, 

therefore, they threw out the test results and 

substituted a software model for that motor.

 It is interesting that the reason 

given for throwing it out, the most supporting 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 151 

reason given was because they went to a 

website and they found 94.1 percent on the 

website. So despite the catalogue, despite 

the actual marking on the motor, the website 

ruled and was the basis for throwing it out.

 Now if we look at the way it 

should have progressed, at least in the 

industry's opinion, if you followed all the 

rules and understood NEMA MG1 and the rules 

that are in 431, you would have gotten that 

motor. You tested the motor in accordance 

with 431.16. You were now faced with this 

problem 94.2 percent versus a nameplate of 

93.6. You go back to NEMA MG1, definition of 

NEMA nominal efficiency that is marked on the 

nameplate or you go to 431.12's definition. 

Those two differ in only one important word 

and that is the word "large" before population 

is missing in the DOE definition. However, 

that definition merely says that the NEMA 

nominal efficiency that is marked on the 

nameplate shall not be greater than the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 152 

average efficiency of the large population of 

motors.

 Okay, fine, 93.6. You tested 

94.2. There is no indication that 93.6 is not 

a proper marking. Your test data so far 

supports that the average of the population 

based upon one is above what is marked. It is 

in conformance with the MG1 standard. It is 

in conformance with 431.12.

 If you go to 431.17 is the only 

place that you have guidance to make a 

determination as to whether or not the sample 

passed screening criteria to make a 

determination if it was representative of the 

total population.

 In 431.17, the guideline is 

whether or not the average of the sample, in 

this case we only have one, the average must 

be it, that it has an efficiency value that is 

not less than the marked efficiency, nameplate 

efficiency, plus five percent additional 

losses. So it is a slightly lower than 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 153 

nameplate. Obviously, 94.2 passed that 

criteria. 

The other criteria is that no 

motor out of the sample have an efficiency 

that is lower than that based on 15 percent 

additional losses. Obviously, we passed that 

requirement. That is not a problem.

 If we were really looking at this 

from the enforcement viewpoint and this goes 

back to around 1994, for those of you who were 

around in 1994, Appendix A to Subpart U uses 

a 20 percent criteria, instead of 15. The 

reason it uses 20 is because of a NEMA round 

robin that was done and agreement between 

Department of Energy and NIST and NAVLAP and 

manufacturers that part of the NEMA minimum 

associated with a nominal value recognizes a 

variation in test facilities that result in 

test.

 So DOE took away five percent in 

certification, assuming the manufacturer did 

all his testing in the same facility. Added 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 154 

in the five percent when it comes to testing 

in some facility that the manufacturer didn't 

test in to allow for this variation. So we 

passed that requirement. No problem.

 If we look at the LCL requirement 

that is Appendix A to Subpart U, we have to 

have a determination of our sample as 

appropriate size. Well, you can't do that 

when you have got a sample of one. There is 

no standard deviation and you can't apply the 

rule. It won't apply.

 If you go to NEMA MG1, Table 12-10 

the DOE refers to in the PTSD, there is an 

associated minimum with each nominal. 

Associated with that value of 93.6 is a 

minimum that is two NEMA bands below that. 

Well, we are talking about a statistical 

population where nominal represents the peak 

of the distribution. Just as likely as you 

could have a motor that was down two NEMA 

bands below the nominal, you could have a 

motor that is two NEMA bands above the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 155
	

nominal. Two NEMA bands above 93.6 is 94.5. 

The motor as tested meets all guidance and all 

rules the DOE has written and is in accordance 

with the NEMA MG1 standard.

 So now the problem is that DOE is 

faced with a motor that they tested and 

purchased as a NEMA Premium motor CSL 2 that 

had an efficiency level above the one they 

purchased for CSL 3. How can that be? Well 

maybe the manufacturer had a good day. He had 

all the best materials, the best processes and 

everything and he ended up with a motor that 

met the criteria. But the point is that 

motor, as far as we know, on the sample one 

was representative of that product. So DOE 

threw that one away and substituted a software 

model.

 If we look at some of the others, 

it even becomes more interesting because DOE 

went out and purchased an 89.5 percent 

efficient motor for one of their other designs 

and it tested at 88.5. DOE had no concern 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 156 

about that, that it was a whole NEMA band 

below what the nameplate was. But they were 

concerned when they were a NEMA band above. 

So they didn't throw that one out and replace 

it.

 And the reason I asked about the 

software program and what comparison was being 

done was that in all of the charts of data 

related to CSL levels, the efficiency that is 

carried forward in those tables are the NEMA 

nominal efficiency values. They are not test 

data values. So for the motor that had the 

tested efficiency of 88.5, DOE concluded no, 

that is really 89.5. And this tear-down 

analysis that they did supports 89.5, not 

88.5. But in this other motor that tested 

better than the nameplate data, that tear-down 

analysis supported what that efficiency was 

but DOE discounted it in that case.

 There seemed to be a preference to 

only accepting motors that had efficiency 

lower than nominal, except for one case. And 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 157 

there was one that was just slightly above 

nominal and DOE accepted that one.

 But my main concern is that I have 

expected that the software analysis was 

compared against the tested value for 

confirmation of the software analysis. How 

often that software analysis, if they were to 

model the motor that tested 88.5 and confirmed 

that their software calculates 88.5, how could 

they confirm that the software then 

corresponded to a nominal of 89.5? Why would 

the software be known to be always calculating 

on the low side? And if it is always 

calculating on the low side, when you look at 

those that tested higher than NEMA nominal, 

why would then the software be calculating the 

value that is on the high side?

 So things don't jibe in the 

tables, when you look at everything together 

that DOE used. And the importance of course 

is that it affects what you attribute to your 

tear-down analysis, how you looked at 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 158 

efficiency, how you calculated energy savings, 

how you calculated the LCC. Everything is all 

related and in a way, it all ties back to the 

choice of testing one motor. It just leads to 

a lot of mis-conclusions throughout the 

analysis.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We are on 

slide 51. Additional comments on modeling 

high efficiency designs? Yes, please.

 MR. RUFFING: Steve Ruffing, NEMA.

 I just would like some 

clarification on one of the design options 

listed in Chapter 4 that was listed as a 

potential option for reducing stray-load loss 

and that is improving of motor bar insulation. 

And I would just like some explanation as to 

what DOE meant regarding the nature of that. 

Is that some sort of coating that is applied 

to the punch surface of the rotor lamination 

slots prior to die casting or is that some 

sort of heat and quench process after the die 

casting that separates the two or what is 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 159 

exactly the nature of that as it pertains to 

die cast rotors?

 MR. KOHSE: I'm going to have to 

get back to you on that. I don't know off the 

top of my head.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Dan?

 MR. DELANEY: One more comment, 

just to Roger's point on this software 

modeling that was conducted. 

Roger already alluded to some of 

the issues obviously of using a single model 

or a single motor to go through that analysis. 

One other point we wanted to make sure from 

NEMA's perspective was that calibration of 

these models are extremely important. And 

using multiple models, again back to equipment 

class groups across multiple, these models 

don't come about in a matter of one year. 

They come about as a generation of these 

product lines and it is a very key point of 

the calibration of those models. And the new 

AEDM rule, which is a note at this point, is 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 160 

putting attrition to that fact of the minimum 

number of samples that are needed to be tested 

but the calibration of those models are very 

important to the lack of interpolation of what 

they are doing here.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Roger?

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

I would just like to expand a little further 

on what Dan was just referring to. It is one 

thing to calibrate a software model against 

motors that you can test. It is another thing 

to have a calibration against motors you 

didn't test and against technology that you 

don't really have any information on.

 And that is what happened in the 

Department of Army's two studies. There were 

expectations of performance in loss 

characteristics that were not experienced when 

the prototypes were built. And so while they 

were using a program that was well calibrated 

to cast aluminum with the expectation it was 

going to perform similarly with cast copper, 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 161 

the end results were rather dismal because 

there were characteristics that occurred from 

the cast copper process that influenced losses 

that were not expected. And those are all 

detailed in the report but the point is that 

until you built a prototype, you really have 

not calibrated your program to know that what 

you are calculating is going to be right and 

it has not been shown so far in at least two 

government sponsored feasibility studies.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Yes, John?

 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski, 

Baldor. I just wanted to emphasize the amount 

of calibration that is done. We have got two 

full-time engineers, Roger and another, that 

constantly upgrade our AEDM programs, our 

motor design programs here. And we have 

people in Europe that model and input the ABB 

design programs. It is something that is a 

continuous, if you want to call it a 

continuous improvement. We want it to be as 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 162 

accurate as possible when we design things. 

And you just don't buy a program 

off the shelf, design a motor and expect it to 

be this performance because chances are, it is 

not. I mean to certify a program the DOE 

expects us to build five motors of multiple 

different designs before you will certify our 

AEDM program. And the number of motors that 

were designed and built by the DOE's program 

was zero. So you would not even certify your 

own program.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

 We are going to try and keep 

moving here. And shortly in ten or 15 

minutes, we are going to pause for lunch. 

Let's keep going, though.

 MR. KOHSE: Okay, great.

 So this chart shows some 

performance and properties of the 75 

horsepower representative unit that was 

purchased and software modeled. The data for 

purchased motors are in white and the data for 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 163 

the software modeled motor designs are in 

yellow. Note that the software model motors 

utilized copper rotor technology, which 

accounts for their heavier than typical rotor 

conductor weights.

 Here we see the steel grades, slot 

fills, stack lengths, and material weights 

change as we increase inefficiencies.

 So I am going to stop there and 

see if there is any comment on this slide 

before I have Hisham come back up and finish 

the engineering section.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments here? No? 

We've covered it sufficiently? Okay, then to 

Hisham.

 Yes, John, one comment.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski. 

It kind of comes to the question Dale brought 

up before on end turns and the winding length, 

does it fit into the mechanical restrictions 

we have in the frame? And when you go from a 

ten and a half inch long stack to one that is 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 164 

13 inches long, and you go from a 70 percent 

slot fill to an 85 or an 83 percent slot fill, 

one would expect the end turns to be 

substantially larger, as well as the stack 

going to be two and a half inches longer. It 

is probably not going to fit in the mechanical 

frame endplates, which would mean that part of 

the motor would have to be redesigned, which 

would mean that it is probably not going to 

fit into the space where the old motor fit and 

the end user is going to have problems with 

it.

 I know we are going to cover that 

later but this is a good slide right now to 

illustrate that.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Yes, Steve?

 MR. RUFFING: One additional 

question, which you may not have the answer to 

but I am just curious as to where the large 

stator copper weight increased between the CSL 

2 and CSL 3 levels came from considering that 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 165 

they have approximately the same stack lengths 

and the slot fills is reported to be the same.

 I am just wondering if there is an 

error there somewhere or maybe the number of 

stator slots increased significantly.

 MR. KOHSE: Yes, so that was 

software model. And it may be an increase in 

stator slot size. I will talk to Howard 

Jordan and follow up with that.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Okay, 

Hisham.

 MR. ARAJI: So Hisham Araji, 

Navigant Consulting.

 So now I am just going to talk 

about how we developed the CSLs for the 

engineering analysis.

 So once DOE had physical and 

modeled motors for the engineering analysis, 

it developed candidate standard levels to 

identify specific levels of efficiency for the 

analysis. These CSL spanned a range of 

efficiency levels from the baseline to the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 166 

maximum technologically feasible.

 When selecting CSLs, DOE 

considered several criteria. First, DOE 

selected levels that were either commercially 

available or achievable in software modeling. 

Second, DOE considered the NEMA standard 

nominal efficiency levels in MG1 Table 12-10 

for the increments between the baseline 

efficiency level and the max-tech efficiency. 

Table 12-10 is essentially a list of 

standardized efficiency levels that 

manufacturers use when labeling their motors.

 Throughout the presentation today, 

I will refer to the increment between two 

consecutive NEMA nominal efficiencies as a 

"NEMA band."

 And then lastly, DOE considered 

several benchmark efficiency levels, such as 

NEMA "Energy Efficient" or "NEMA Premium."

 So this slide shows the 

efficiencies of the CSLs for the equipment 

class group one rep units. Baseline 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 167 

efficiency for CSL zero is based on the lowest 

observed efficiency levels in manufacturer 

catalogues for the motor types that DOE is 

considering extending coverage to.

 CSL 1 is based on NEMA MG1, Table 

12-11, which NEMA now calls "Energy 

Efficient." And CSL 2 is based on NEMA MG1, 

Table 12-12, which is called "NEMA Premium." 

CSL 4 and 5 also represent software modeled 

motors as we have discussed before. And the 

reason DOE used software modeling for these 

CSLs is because there were basically no 

commercially available motors at these 

efficiency levels.

 Also note that CSL 4 and 5 for the 

30 horsepower rep unit have the same 

efficiency and this is because a three NEMA 

band increase over "NEMA Premium" levels was 

not achieved in the software model for that 

rep unit like it was for the other rep units.

 So at this point, we have an issue 

box seeking comment on the tentative CSLs that 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 168 

NEMA selected for its rep units.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's hear from 

Neal first, then to Roger.

 MR. ELLIOTT: Somewhat to Roger's 

point earlier, the NEMA nominal efficiency 

represents the midpoint on distribution and 

the distribution is by definition two NEMA 

bands.

 So the CSL 3 being one NEMA band 

above CSL 2 is not statistically different 

from CSL 2. So therefore, a motor that would 

be CSL 3 in likelihood would probably actually 

be nominally a CSL 2 motor. So I just want to 

make that note.

 In all the work that we have done 

over the last 20 years we always say if you 

are going to raise the efficiency level, you 

have to raise it two bands. Because if you 

are not doing it two bands, it is not 

statistically different than the band one band 

down.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Roger? 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 169

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

As noted on your slide, you 

present the CSL levels purely based upon 

incremental increase in NEMA bands. The 

problem that can lead you into and it actually 

did lead you into is that when you look at the 

three NEMA Design B motors that you examined 

across the CSL levels or look at the NEMA 

Design C, those two motors, under each CSL 

level as you got higher, you mixed up 

technologies. So that you may be making one 

of those motors of the common class using a 

different technology under that CSL level than 

you were the other motors.

 And as I mentioned earlier, 

manufacturing, and I am aware that several of 

you visited manufacturing facilities and I am 

aware of what goes on in manufacturing, 

manufacturing again does not randomly select 

what materials to pull out of inventory, send 

through lamination presses and build, whether 

it be hand winding in this case or machine 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 170 

winding in another case, but now we are just 

trying to stick with technology.

 So I encourage that DOE, in 

defining the CSL levels, go beyond the 

efficiency level but also associate with those 

levels a technology. That is what was done in 

the small electric motor rulemaking. So that 

when everyone sits down and says CSL 3, they 

know it was a common group of technologies 

that was used across that class. The same for 

CSL 4 and 5.

 And it is easy to do that because 

based upon your tables of 5.5, 5.9, 5.13, and 

5.16, besides the definition you have given to 

the CSL levels here, from those tables you can 

also realize that CSL 2 uses M47 for 

electrical steel and it's an aluminum cast 

rotor. CSL 3, the commonality would be M47 

again in aluminum rotor. Again because you 

have said CSL 3 uses present technology in 

construction.

 CSL 4 would move to the M36 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 171 

material and aluminum cage and CSL 5 would be 

both M36 electrical steel and the cast copper 

rotor technology. Again, it is NEMA's 

position that CSL should not exist if it 

depends on cast copper because that should 

have been screened out of the process. But I 

am just addressing the way you presently 

present the tables.

 Similarly in the tables for the 

NEMA Design B, A and B, you were not hesitant 

at putting empty entries into the table when 

it was not achievable. So when you look at 

what you did for NEMA Design Cs, you redefined 

what CSL 0 was. You took the EPACT levels 

that in Design Bs are CSL 1 you moved them 

down to CSL 0. That is causing confusion as 

people talk and sit, you know, sit and talk 

and say okay I am talking CSL 3. Well are you 

talking CSL 3 in Design Bs or are you talking 

CSL 3 in Design Cs? Because they have 

different meanings.

 So again it is encouraged that the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 172 

same as you can leave empty spaces, you can 

leave any entries for CSL 0 out for Design C 

and start at CSL 1 as being EPACT, so it is 

common across both equipment groups, class 

groups.

 And then from there on for Design 

C you can build up on what technology of 

electrical steel and aluminum construction 

would apply to the appropriate levels as you 

go up from there. Again, that way you are 

doing your analysis the way things really get 

manufactured and the way materials get 

utilized in the industry and not mixing things 

up and causing a lot of confusion.

 Well this one I designed, if you 

happen in this particular group of motors, you 

use M36 instead of M47 in order to achieve 

this. And again, some emphasis has to be put 

on real world manufacturing and what the 

processes are. And it is not impossible to 

structure these CSL levels with that in mind 

to keep track of it. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 173

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Robert.

 MR. WILKINS: Thank you, Doug.

 I note on this chart that a move 

from CSL 2 and I picked these moves 

arbitrarily, but a move from CSL 2 to CSL 5 

would result in a two percent efficiency 

improvement in one case and a one percent 

efficiency improvement in two other cases.

 And I do realize that this docket 

is about motor efficiency. I get the point. 

But in a larger sense, it is about improving 

the energy efficiency of American industry in 

a cost-effective manner. We need to be sure 

we are doing that in reaching the broader 

goal, as well as the micro goal.

 So far we have discussed a 

microeconomic analysis in motor efficiency. 

And that is very appropriate. We should do 

that. But I would also urge DOE to take a 

macro view of the analysis at the same -- in 

parallel.

 Now I will draw a little 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 174
	

comparison. It seems to me what we are 

debating here is a little like trying to 

improve the miles per gallon of an automobile. 

And we are talking about spending multiple 

millions of dollars to totally redo the engine 

design to get another tenth of a mile per 

gallon, when we could do it as an industry 

much more cost effectively by changing the 

tires. I think that is what a macro analysis 

is all about.

 Or said another way, how can 

American industry users of motors save energy 

in the most cost-effective way? We can spend 

a hundred million dollars, a figure I have 

heard to save one or two percent. But if we 

look at it from a macro point of view, there 

is a better way and more cost-effective. Off 

the shelf, variable frequency drives can save 

20 to 30 percent.

 Now, I know this isn't a docket 

for variable frequency drives but the question 

is it really cost effective to try to eke out 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 175 

one percent motor energy efficiency might bore 

down into the motor when if you stand back and 

look at the bigger picture, there are much 

larger opportunities.

 So I would argue that this is a 

relevant consideration in deciding the future 

motor efficiency and would urge the DOE to 

stand back and take a macro view before 

deciding that we want to bore down and try to 

eke out a half or one or even two percent.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Additional comments on this series of slides, 

developing candidate standard levels?

 MR. ARAJI: I just had a quick 

follow-up to Roger's suggested approach.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

 MR. ARAJI: If we understand that 

manufacturers often use different technology 

options to achieve the same efficiency levels, 

so manufacturer A might use a different 

combination than manufacturer B. So in your 

suggested approach if you could maybe in your 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 176 

written comments, just recommend a set of 

technology options for each CSL that you 

suggest that DOE go with, we would appreciate 

that.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger?

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Well, yes, it is certainly true 

that different manufacturers take different 

approaches, not only the choice of materials 

which is the only thing I have limited this 

to, material technology, but they also take 

different approaches to how they design their 

frames, what diameters they use for their 

laminations within those frames, how long they 

make the frames, trying to stay within the 

NEMA mounting dimensions, et cetera, and not 

have too much overhang on them.

 So there is so much that goes into 

play that yes, one manufacturer may have an 

arrangement with an electrical steel supplier 

that he uses one particular type of electrical 

steel and another manufacturer uses another 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 177 

that he has adapted to all of his processes.

 But my point was that by you 

mixing things together, you are actually 

imposing that kind of mixture on everyone. 

They are not really being free to try to 

choose what is best for them. Anytime that 

you have to take the viewpoint that in order 

to get this level of efficiency, I have got to 

deviate from all the rest of my product by 

using this particular steel because it is the 

only way I can get there, then you have got to 

look at well that manufacturer may choose I am 

not going to do it. So I can't achieve it. 

It removes that product from the market. It 

reduces availability and utility of that 

product and then you don't meet your screening 

criteria.

 So it is very important with 

respect to your screening criteria and 

production that you use a common technology 

for each of these groups and you have enough 

groups and you have already demonstrated the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 178 

importance of certain technologies at 

particular CSL levels that you can do that.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments on 

this series develop CSLs? Additional 

comments?

 Let's go to lunch.

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 12:34 p.m. and 

resumed at 1:34 p.m.) 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 179

 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N

 (1:34 p.m.)

 MR. BROOKMAN: By my count, I think 

we left off with Slide 56. We're going to 

resume and hear from Hisham.

 MR. ARAJI: All right. So, picking 

up where we left off, we just discussed how 

DOE developed CSLs. Now we're going to get 

into the process of developing the 

manufacturer selling prices for the rep units.

 All right. So, after developing 

CSLs, DOE had to develop manufacturer selling 

prices for rep units that we analyzed. Now, 

the manufacturer selling price is a key output 

of the engineering analysis, and it's used 

later on in the downstream analyses that we'll 

talk about today.

 So, as Will mentioned earlier, DOE 

had already figured out what's inside of these 

motors by doing tear downs. This gave us the 

material cost inputs. From these tear downs, 

DOE was not only able to quantify how much 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 180 

steel, copper, aluminum, and other materials 

were inside the motors, but also labor hour 

estimates and whether the motor was hand- or 

machine-wound.

 DOE determined material prices and 

labor requirements through conversations with 

manufacturers and industry experts and markups 

and labor rates were derived from Census data 

and SEC filings.

 This chart shows the manufacturing 

markups that DOE applied to its labor costs 

and raw tear down costs when developing the 

manufacturer selling price. You'll notice that 

DOE used higher non-production markups for 

motors over 30-horsepower. This is to account 

for the extra profit margin manufacturers may 

receive on larger electric motors that are 

sold in smaller volumes.

 So, at this point we are seeking 

comment on three issues here. First one, DOE's 

5-year average for copper prices, pricing 

copper. And then current year prices for all 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 181 

other materials. And we're requesting comment 

on that decision to use a 5-year average for 

copper and the current pricing for all other 

materials.

 Second issue is, we're seeking 

comment on the higher non-production markup 

for the 30- and 75-horsepower rep units.

 And the final issue on the slide, 

we're welcoming comment on the decision to use 

aggregate domestic and foreign fully burdened 

labor rate. And then balancing each of these 

rates based on an estimate of how much of the 

work we believe is done overseas and how much 

is done domestically.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Maybe you could go 

back to slide 57, so we have that slide on the 

screen. Roger.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. My 

question is actually on the one prior to that 

slide. But since you went to the trouble of 

doing the tear-down analysis and calculating 

production cost and trying to get a 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 182 

manufacturer selling price, did you compare 

that to the actual manufacturer selling price 

for each of the motors that you purchased? And 

how well did that compare?

 MR. ARAJI: I believe it varied 

based on model. You know, sometimes we bought 

the motors lower than the manufacturer's 

suggested retail price because of volume 

discounts for certain motors. Other models 

ended up actually being a little bit higher, 

so it varied. But I think the general trend 

varied.

 MR. BROOKMAN: So, then go back to 

the next slide -- or go forward to the next 

slide. Comments on -- the three issues are: 

copper's large price fluctuations, how that 

was handled; the higher non-production markup 

for its 30 to 75-horsepower representative 

units; and the balancing decision they made in 

Issue 13. Comments, please. Yes, Rob?

 MR. BOTELER: I have a question on 

the labor, where you say you did aggregate 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 183 

cost of domestic and offshore. Did you look at 

the two labor rates and just average 50-50, or 

how did you arrive at that?

 MR. ARAJI: This is actually 

weighted more towards the foreign 

manufacturing, if I recall correctly, so it 

wasn't a 50-50 balance.

 MR. BOTELER: Okay, so that $33.46 

an hour includes -- are you making assumptions 

of hand winding, moving product offshore or 

was that just looking at today's mix?

 MR. ARAJI: It was just based more 

on feedback from manufacturers and their 

estimates of how much they do abroad and how 

much they do here. We understand some 

manufacturers do everything here, some do most 

abroad, but it was just an estimate. So, I 

would welcome comment on it.

 We didn't factor in hand-winding 

or machine-winding in this rate. That was more 

accounted for in the labor hour estimates.

 MR. BOTELER: Okay. I mean, my 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 184 

personal comment, I think, is if it includes 

a lot of offshore that it seems high to me, 

but I'm not directly involved with that part 

of our business, so it just seems high.

 On Issue 12 on the markups, and 

we're all competitors so we're not going to 

talk a whole lot about that. But, again, 

looking at the markups, you acknowledge that 

there's a lesser markup on the lower 

horsepower which I think is probably true. I 

don't know if the break is really quite as low 

as 30-horsepower, but looking at the markups 

that you have, the percentage markups, again 

in both cases I would tell you that they seem 

a little bit high to us.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Dale, do you 

want to follow on?

 MR. BASSO: A couple of comments. I 

think you're doing the best you can with 

trying to aggregate everything together. And, 

unfortunately, it is a very complex analysis. 

When you talk about fully burdened hourly 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 185 

rates you're going the full range from small 

to large on that, and in many manufacturers we 

would break that up to different cells for 

different rates depending on the 

sophistication, the cost of the equipment that 

goes with it and everything. And you sort of 

made up for that, I think, by taking a 

different approach with the SG&A markups. And 

assuming markup where maybe our markups aren't 

the same but hourly rates are higher. So, in 

aggregate it's the best you can get for an 

estimate. It probably couldn't be applied 

accurately to any one rating.

 One concern I have is that, when 

you do this analysis and you based it on both 

a domestic and offshore rates it may lead to 

an accurate analysis of the present state, but 

it would certainly encourage, the analysis 

would favor more production going offshore in 

the end when you make a decision based on 

this. So, it probably goes against one of the 

rules that DOE would like to follow of 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 186
	

domestic employment.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Three 

comment boxes, 11, 12, and 13, take a peek. 

We'd like to receive your comments on those. 

Yes, Charlie Stephens.

 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. 

One question looking ahead. When you go to 

actually do the life cycle cost analysis and 

you have to pick a motor cost from that, will 

these -- is the range of costs that you're 

going to pick from in terms of a distribution 

of costs going to allow for perhaps these 

being the cost of the variation in that 

distribution? Are you going to have a -- I 

can't remember now how that ultimately gets 

applied and how wide the distribution of, for 

instance, a 30-horsepower motor cost is when 

you go to select it in the 10,000 runs that 

are typically done in a Monte Carlo run.

 MR. ARAJI: So, basically, these go 

into -- are then fed into the next analysis 

which is the markups analysis. And Sanaee 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 187 

Iyama from LBNL can speak more to that.

 MS. IYAMA: Sanaee. So, what 

happens after the engineering is that we take 

the manufacturer's selling price which 

incorporates the manufacturer markup, and then 

we apply the rest of the markups that are 

between the manufacturer and the end user. So, 

that's going to be what I'll talk about in the 

next section. But very briefly, to answer your 

question, we applied log normal distributions 

on the distributor markups, distribution 

channel markups.

 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Charlie 

Stephens. The reason I was asking this is I 

was wondering if -- I mean, ultimately you 

take a range of prices paid by end users when 

you do the life cycle cost analysis.

 MS. IYAMA: Right. And each 

iteration is going to pick a markup that's 

within that log normal.

 MR. STEPHENS: Within the band, so 

you're going to end up in that analysis with 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 188 

a range of prices that may -- you won't know 

why the price is 10 percent higher or 10 

percent lower as you select them, but many of 

these effects -- this part here seems as 

important or more important in the 

manufacturer impact analysis, then ultimately 

when you get to start picking motor prices for 

the life cycle cost analysis, you'll end up 

with a distribution without reference to cause 

of the distribution of why it's 10 percent 

lower or why it's 10 percent higher. It just 

comes from a distribution of prices with all 

effects included. Right? Because you could 

arrive at the same price with a high 

distributor markup and a low manufacturer 

markup as you do with a high manufacturer 

markup and a low distributor markup, and get 

to the exact same price.

 MS. IYAMA: Right.

 MR. STEPHENS: But you don't 

distinguish as to how you got to any 

particular price. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 189

 MS. IYAMA: Well, I mean, if you 

look at the aggregated results you won't see 

that. But if you look at the specific one 

iteration in the life-cycle cost amongst the 

10,000 iteration then you would see why.

 MR. STEPHENS: Right. Well, you 

would see the effect.

 MS. IYAMA: You would see exactly 

which markup assumption was made for each of 

the market players in the distribution 

channel.

 MR. STEPHENS: Yes, I can see what 

the assumptions, but what I'm saying is when 

you can get to the same price in your analysis 

with a low manufacturer markup and a high 

distributor markup as you can with a high 

manufacturer markup and a low distributor 

markup, then you've kind of covered the bases. 

You're not saying that --

MS. IYAMA: I think I'm going to 

check in with Hisham on this, but I don't 

believe -- we only get a single MSP from the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 190 

engineering, which includes the manufacturer 

markup so there's no statistical distributions 

over that value.

 MR. STEPHENS: Right. Yes, I guess 

what I'll look at later is the -- how wide the 

band of pricing is. And as long as the 

manufacturers are reasonably content with the 

band of pricing that you come up with in the 

marketplace, and they think that's 

representative, then I don't think coming up 

with a single MSP and then going from there 

will be a bad thing necessarily.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, John 

Malinowski.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski, 

Baldor. I guess I'm a little skeptical of the 

numbers you have there for 37 and 45 percent. 

As Rob said, you know, talking specifically 

would violate some antitrust things, but those 

seem high. 

The last year that our company 

reported in an annual report our earnings were 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 191 

like 14 percent, and that was a record in 90-

some years of the company, so I wish they were 

this high, it would have been higher than 

that. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Additional comments on these comment boxes 

listed?

 MR. ARAJI: Yes, just to be clear, 

non-production isn't strictly profit. There's 

other things, too.

 MR. BROOKMAN: What are they?

 MR. ARAJI: R&D, research and 

development, insurance, warranty risk 

premiums.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Speak up.

 MR. ARAJI: Sorry. I was just 

mentioning that non-production isn't strictly 

profit. There's other stuff in there, 

research.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: I understand. I'm 

just -- again, I can't speak to this because 

of antitrust. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 192

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: Just trying to 

give you an idea. Motors are not extremely 

profitable. 

MR. ARAJI: Okay, any other 

comments? All right, moving on. 

So, the final step in engineering 

analysis is to scale to efficiency levels, 

scale the efficiency levels of the 

representative units we selected to the 

equipment classes that were not directly 

analyzed.

 Efficiency Levels for Equipment 

Class Group 1 were derived from the Design B 

rep. units. Efficiency levels for Equipment 

Class Group 2 were derived from Design C 

units. And as for Equipment Class Group 3, 

which is fire pump motors, those efficiency 

levels are derived from the rep units for 

Equipment Class Group 1. And as we mentioned 

earlier, DOE did this because the shipment 

volumes were really low for fire pump motors 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 193 

and so were the run times.

 So, in both approaches that DOE 

considered for scaling, the efficiency levels 

for CSLs 1 and 2 were based on MG-1 Tables 12-

11 and 12-12. 

Now, the main differences between 

the two approaches were how the higher CSLs 

were developed. The first approach was to look 

at the efficiency levels in 12-11 and 12-12, 

and try to develop power law equations to 

characterize each table. Any perceived pattern 

in these equations could then be used to model 

similar tables for higher CSLs. 

The second approach simply 

incremented each subsequent CSL by one NEMA 

band. Ultimately, DOE decided to use the 

second scaling approach of one NEMA band 

improvements because it was more simple and 

more straightforward.

 So, this slide summarizes the 

second scaling approach I just discussed. I 

just want to mention that because DOE is 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 194 

considering expanding coverage to motor types 

not previously covered, the efficiency levels 

for CSL-0 in Equipment Class Group 1 are based 

on the lowest efficiency values that were 

observed in motor manufacturer catalogs for 

the scope of motors we're intending to expand 

coverage to.

 The next two CSLs, CSLs 1 and 2 

are then based on 12-11 values and 12-12 

values, and then each subsequent CSL above 

that goes up by one NEMA band.

 And as we've mentioned throughout 

the presentation today, DOE divided up 

equipment classes into smaller subsets. On 

this slide they're highlighted in blue, red, 

and green. Now, the analysis of the equipment 

classes in each highlighted portion are based 

on a representative unit within that 

highlighted portion. So, for instance, in the 

red section of this chart, if a 30-horsepower 

rep unit in Equipment Class Group 1 was only 

able to achieve a two NEMA band improvement in 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 195 

efficiency above "NEMA Premium," then all the 

equipment classes based on that rep unit would 

be assumed to have a max tech efficiency of 

only two NEMA bands above "NEMA Premium," as 

well.

 So, now we reach another one of 

DOE's issue boxes. We're basically seeking 

comment on the scaling methodology that we've 

elected to use to generate the efficiency 

levels for the other equipment classes. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Roger?

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

The initial scaling that you tried to examine 

looked at CSL-1 and CSL-2, is a comparison 

based upon, basically, the same technology, 

across those two. And you say you observed 

some change. But when you move into different 

levels of technology as you go into CSL-3, 4, 

and 5, and then you've mixed up technology in 

different motors that you examine, and 

different designs, what in your scaling method 

in the way that you've applied it would have 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 196 

predicted that at least 30 percent of the 

designs could not be achieved, the efficiency 

level you were looking for couldn't be 

achieved? So, how could you scale from those 

that it could be achieved into those to which 

it could not be achieved? Your scaling method 

seems to fall down once you move into 

additional technology, or consideration of 

higher technology for higher efficiency.

 Because you're going from one 

common relationship between CSL-1 and 2, then 

you're trying to introduce different 

technologies, but your own report says that 

you couldn't obtain certain efficiency levels 

in certain CSL classes without considering a 

different technology for that particular 

rating. And to me that says, okay, at least 30 

percent of the ratings in all the equipment 

classes can't be met by using the technology 

that you were examining for the rest. So, to 

me it says the scaling method based upon any 

particular set of technology is not scalable 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 197 

across all the equipment classes, and that's 

where you're applying it.

 And, again, that comes back to the 

point that you didn't examine any two-poles, 

six-poles, or eight-poles and what effect 

there would be there, and you didn't examine 

open machines, which are in different frame 

sizes than the totally enclosed fan-cooled 

that you actually looked at.

 MR. ARAJI: Yes, so with that in 

mind, we do have limited resources on how many 

rep units we can actually directly analyze. 

But if you guys here today have any 

recommendations on how we can scale given the 

fact that we do have limited resources, we can 

only purchase a certain number of motors, 

please submit them in written comments. This 

is the kind of stuff we're looking for. If you 

don't feel like you could scale from four-pole 

to two-pole, or we need to incorporate some 

other factors when doing that, that's the kind 

of stuff we'd like to know. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 198

 MR. BROOKMAN: Either one of you. 

Go ahead, Rob. 

MR. BOTELER: I think we would say 

that we really don't think scaling is the way 

to do this sort of an exercise. It just has 

too many issues with it, and there's too many 

variables. 

We have guys sitting at the table 

that are Ph.D. electrical engineers that have 

spent 35 years trying to do this, and they 

don't scale like this. So, it's kind of 

something that I don't think DOE is going to 

figure out a way to accurately come up with 

this sort of an exercise.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Neal, and then 

back to you, John. Neal. 

MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott. I just 

wanted to comment. I mean, there's this idea 

that there's some underlying fundamental 

physical theory associated with Table 12-11 

and 12-12. And having actually dealt with this 

now for a quarter of a century, not as long as 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 199 

certainly some of the other gentlemen like Mr. 

Daugherty over there, but it's fairly a 

heuristic exercise where those things came, 

and there's a lot of judgment and a lot of 

market legacy that went into those tables. So, 

the instant I saw the word "regression" on 12-

11 and 12-12 I immediately sort of went, mmm, 

there's not an underlying theory here. So, 

that's just a gut, for whatever it's worth. 

MR. BROOKMAN: So, one thing in 

your written comments or now to suggest how 

the Department might actually do this if 

they're not going to scale. That would be 

helpful. Rob, keep going, then to John. 

MR. BOTELER: I think we have 

recommended that. We've submitted our direct 

petition, and I think that's what we would 

want to fall back to. That's our 

recommendation.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. John, you 

have a follow on?

 MR. MALINOWSKI: I think Rob has 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 200 

answered what I was going to say.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Roger.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Just to try to answer your question about use 

of resources. One way is that it doesn't take 

that much effort necessarily to do the 

software analysis if you can get your hands on 

the basic design that you start from to check 

it out. That's part of the main concern. But 

if you just look at some of these 

technologies, as I said earlier that have been 

tried to be advanced, they certainly don't fit 

any of the scaling relationships that you're 

trying to fit things into. It just doesn't 

work out.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

We're about to move on. Are we finished with 

this one? Yes.

 MR. ARAJI: All right. Thank you. 

At this point I'd like to invite Sanaee Iyama 

from Lawrence Berkeley National Labs to 

discuss the markups and energy 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 201 

characterization analysis.

 MR. deLASKI: Doug, this is Andrew 

deLaski, if I could just interject.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Please, Andrew. I 

was going to cue you, yes. I'm sorry.

 MR. deLASKI: Okay. I wanted to 

come back to a point that was raised earlier 

when Rob and Sanaee were having the 

interaction over the shipments, and it's just 

a discrepancy between a point that I want to 

highlight, that the discrepancy the Department 

has outlined in its definition and the scope 

of coverage that we recommend in the joint 

petition. 

On page 3 of the joint petition, 

page 2-3 we outline the motors that would 

highly recommend treatment of groupings of 

motors. And one of the areas where we 

recommended that DOE cover at Table 12-12 

efficiency levels is to cover 56 frame motors 

that are outside the scope of the Small Motors 

Rule, integral horsepower. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 202

 In the DOE definition back to 

page, whatever it was of the slide, it 

referenced three digit frame sizes being the 

limit.

 MR. ELLIOTT: Slide 25.

 MR. deLASKI: So, I think Rob in 

that discussion -- there's a lot of motor 

shipments here.

 MR. BOTELER: Yes, I think agreed 

on that, that the 56 was missing in that. That 

would really bring our -- the 56, if we added 

those would bring our number up very close to 

what IMS showed, kind of in the middle. 

MR. deLASKI: So, I just wanted to 

highlight that point, and I wanted to bring it 

back to that page 25. So, I think someone else 

earlier highlighted that IEC frame size on 

that second to last bullet needed to be 

performed in there, the point that Roger made.

 And another point here would be 

another -- that a three digit NEMA frame size 

is something that needs to be either another 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 203 

bullet to address 56 frame or to somehow 

capture the 56 frame is outside the scope of 

the Small Motors Rule --

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Thanks for bringing that back up. 

MS. IYAMA: Hi, I'm Sanaee Iyama. 

I'm with the Lawrence Berkeley Lab, and I'll 

present the next sections of the preliminary 

analysis. Is that better?

 MR. BROOKMAN: I think you need to 

maybe get it a little closer to your mouth, 

like hang it on the edge of your blouse or 

something. 

MS. IYAMA: Try this. And I'll 

start with the markups analysis.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that better? 

Speak up.

 MS. IYAMA: So, the purpose of this 

analysis is to determine consumer motor prices 

for baseline efficiency motors and higher 

efficiency motors. And this information is 

used as an input to the life cycle cost 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 204
	

calculations.

 So, first we characterize how 

motors are distributed from the manufacturer 

to the end user. Then, for each party involved 

in the distribution channels we established 

markups, and then we used these markups to 

convert the manufacturer selling prices into 

consumer price data.

 DOE identified six main 

distribution channels that are represented on 

this diagram. And the different percentages 

that you see represent the estimated shares of 

units of motors sold through either of these 

channels.

 So, after doing this, we estimated 

markups for each party involved in the 

distribution channel so we had the original 

equipment manufacturers, the distributors and 

the contractors. And here we have listed the 

different sources of data that we used. We 

also applied a sales tax rate based on 2012 

Sales Tax Clearinghouse data. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 205

 So, for each of these parties 

involved in the distribution channels we 

established both a baseline and an incremental 

markup. So, before I go into details of what 

these two markups represent, I just want to 

mention that DOE has been using this approach 

for quite some time, so this is not something 

new in this analysis.

 The baseline markups relate the 

consumer price to the cost of goods sold prior 

to a change in efficiency. It covers all the 

business' expenses and profit, as well as 

direct labor costs.

 The incremental markups relate the 

change in consumer price to the incremental 

increase in cost of goods sold due to 

increased efficiency. The basis for using such 

approach is that the purchase price of a piece 

of equipment is not strictly proportional to 

its -- I mean, the selling price of a piece of 

equipment is not strictly proportional to its 

purchase price, so when the cost of goods sold 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 206 

increases due to efficiency, only a fraction 

of the business expenses increases. And some 

others like direct labor costs remain 

constant. 

So, the incremental markups only account for 

those business expenses that will vary with 

the cost of goods sold, and is only applied to 

the incremental increase in the cost of goods 

sold.

 So, applying this approach and 

using the data sources that I presented on the 

previous slides, as well as the different 

shares of motors sold by distribution 

channels, we calculated an average overall 

baseline markup of 1.63, and an overall 

incremental markup of 1.50 for all equipment 

classes.

 And here we have a comment box 

about any comments you might have on any 

alternative approaches or sources of 

information that DOE could use to develop 

product prices. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 207

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Rob.

 MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler. If you 

go back one slide, no, forward one, forward, 

forward, right there. You made the comment 

that on direct labor, you said that "the 

direct labor costs remain constant." 

MS. IYAMA: For example, so here 

we're assuming that if you're a distributor 

and you're selling a baseline motor you have 

a certain markup, and then if you're selling 

a higher efficiency motor, for example your 

rental -- what you pay for your building cost, 

this will remain constant. It's not going to 

vary with the cost of -- with the manufacturer 

selling price of the motor.

 MR. BOTELER: Okay.

 MS. IYAMA: So, basically, we 

calculate an incremental markup to translate 

that, the fact that some business expenses 

don't scale with this cost of goods sold, but 

then we only used this incremental markup on 

the incremental increase of the cost of goods 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 208
	

sold.

 MR. BOTELER: Okay, thank you. 

MR. BROOKMAN: You can see the 

comment box there. Do we have comments here? 

No? Okay.

 MS. IYAMA: So, next I will talk 

about the energy use characterization. The 

purpose of the energy use characterization is 

to develop annual energy consumption data for 

electric motors based on field operating 

conditions. And we do this for each efficiency 

level considered in the engineering analysis.

 This annual energy consumption 

data is then used in the life cycle cost 

calculation in order to develop the 

electricity costs. 

The method used in this section 

relied on using typical motor operating 

profiles associated to different applications 

in different sectors. And we considered 

variability in the field through the use of 

statistical distributions for inputs such as 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 209 

operating hours and motor load. We also 

accounted for reactive power demand as another 

necessary input to the life cycle cost.

 So, for electric motors the energy 

used by the motor itself actually refers to 

the energy losses in the motor, and the rest 

is converted to useful mechanical shaft power. 

The annual energy used which combines both the 

motor losses and mechanical power is 

calculated through this formula on the slide, 

so it relates to the motor capacity, motor 

load, annual operating hours, and efficiency 

at the considered load. And at the bottom of 

the slide we have the formula used to 

calculate motor losses.

 So, the next couple of slides I'll 

go through each of the inputs used in the 

annual energy use calculation. I'll start with 

the annual operating hours, then motor load, 

then efficiency at the considered load.

 So, before I go into the details 

of the use of --

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 210

 MR. BROOKMAN: Sanaee, hang on. 

Roger wants to comment here. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Yes, before you 

leave that slide, your last calculation --

MR. BROOKMAN: Use the microphone.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

The equation you have at the bottom for 

calculating losses, I thought we cleared this 

up quite a few years ago, that that's not the 

equation for calculating the losses in a motor 

on the basis of efficiency. It's one over the 

efficiency minus one, multiplied by the motor 

energy that gives you the losses. 

MS. IYAMA: Okay.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, 

Frank, follow-on. Microphone, please. 

MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne, 

Underwriters Laboratories. And I think we've 

said this before, but I think it bears 

repeating and maybe a suggestion on how to 

proceed. But I think the first equation 

assumes that the motor is perfectly matched to 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 211 

the load. And as soon as you depart 

significantly from that, the efficiency drops 

way off. 

I would like to see some work done 

on -- in the field, how well motors are being 

matched to load, and what is the actual 

realized efficiency of the system?

 MS. IYAMA: I might touch upon this 

in the later slides.

 MR. LADONNE: Okay.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

 MS. IYAMA: So, before I go through 

the actual details of how we develop the usage 

inputs, again the annual operating hours, the 

motor load, and the efficiency at the 

considered load, I want to add that motor 

field operating conditions depend on the field 

where the motor is -- on the sector where the 

motor is used, and on the application where 

the motor is used. So, in order to account for 

those differences we developed a model of 

motor population and established estimates of 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 212 

the share of motors used in the commercial 

sector, industrial sector, and agricultural 

sector by horsepower range. We also 

established distributions of motors by 

application for each horsepower range, and 

equipment class.

 So, here on the left -- on the 

right we have -- I mean on the left we have an 

example of the distribution by sectors for all 

equipment class group, for motors within the 

6- to 20-horsepower range, and then here we 

have another example which is an example of 

the distribution by application for Equipment 

Class Group 1 motors between 6- and 20-

horsepower.

 So, what DOE did is that we 

established user inputs specific to 

applications and sectors, and then we used 

those types of distributions to aggregate into 

an annual energy use -- average annual energy 

use data.

 So, again for each sector and 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 213 

application, DOE derived usage inputs starting 

with annual operating hours, so here we have 

an example of the usage inputs in terms of 

average operating hours in the industrial 

sector.

 MR. BOTELER: Hey, Doug, call on 

me.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob. Sorry, I was 

immersed in the table. I'm sorry. Rob, go 

ahead.

 MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler. I just 

wanted just to comment on this table, that in 

our analysis that we submitted in our petition 

for direct final rule we didn't go into this 

level of detail, and this is great. We just 

simply selected 4,000 hours across the board, 

and we did that for all of the horsepowers and 

speeds that we -- we did it with connected 

horsepower. We calculated the connected 

horsepower that would be impacted and then 

stuck with 4,000 hours at 100 percent load.

 MS. IYAMA: Right. And these values 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 214 

are higher than the 4,000 but these are for 

the industrial sector only. And in other 

sectors in the commercial sector and 

agriculture we have much lower annual 

operating hours assumptions for the different 

applications. But here I was just showing this 

as an example.

 So, we developed average values. 

We also used statistical distributions to 

account for variability in the field. So, 

again that's only an example for the 

industrial sector in the different 

applications considered. 

So, we did this for the annual 

average operating hours. We also did this for 

load. So, we determined average motor load 

values throughout the year by application. We 

also established statistical distributions but 

I'm not showing them here on the slide. I'm 

just showing the average annual motor load 

that was used as inputs to our energy use 

calculation. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 215

 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob.

 MR. BOTELER: And I understand 

where you have to get to an average load, but 

if we look at the DOE study it tells us that 

40 percent of motors, industrial motors are 

operated below 40 percent load. I think kind 

of Frank's comment a minute ago, if you do it 

at an average load like this it tells you a 

pretty kind of level story that the efficiency 

hasn't degraded a whole lot when you're in the 

65-70 percent load.

 MS. IYAMA: Right. And this table 

here again only shows the average value, but 

in the actual LCC calculation we used 

statistical distributions around those values 

so we have different bins.

 MR. BOTELER: Okay. So, you did use 

some below --

MS. IYAMA: And I believe half of 

the motors are below 50 percent operating 

load.

 MR. BOTELER: Okay. Good, thank 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 216
	

you. 

MS. IYAMA: So, in order to account 

for the fact that motors don't operate at full 

load we established part load efficiency based 

on the engineering test data, and here they're 

just translated into losses versus load values 

at the different operating load. So, basically 

we derived a polynomial equation between 

losses and load based on the engineering test 

data.

 So, using all the inputs I just 

presented we calculated average annual energy 

consumption by efficiency levels. And these 

results are for -- are an average across all 

sectors and all applications. 

So, here we have a slide 

presenting DOE's request for comments. So, 

we're interested in comments or any additional 

sources of data that could be used to 

establish the distribution of motors across 

sectors by horsepower range, trying to improve 

our estimates on this. Same for the sectorNeal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 217 

specific distribution of motors across 

applications. And we also seek any additional 

sources of information on field data for motor 

operating hours and load, specifically in the 

commercial sector and agricultural sector. In 

the industrial sector we have a pretty good 

data set of -- plant assessment data that we 

used. We didn't have that many data that we 

could use in the commercial and agricultural 

sectors.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Neal.

 MR. ELLIOTT: Not so much -- this 

is Neal Elliott. Not so much a point, but for 

the record the DOE undertook a market -- or 

undertook two market analyses to look at 

commercial and industrial motor use in the 

late 1990s. The intent was that those were to 

be updated every three years. We have not seen 

those updated in the last --

(Off microphone comment.)

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, but they never 

updated. They just did the technical 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 218 

corrections, so there is pending as part of 

the INGAA legislation a direction to the 

Department or to the Secretary to undertake 

such a study. And we have approached the 

Department, EERE about possibly undertaking 

the study with existing authorization. 

And I would just note that the 

motor community would welcome the opportunity 

to see the Department undertake such a study 

without necessarily direct Congressional 

direction.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Dan, did 

you wish to comment?

 MR. DELANEY: Yes, Dan Delaney, 

Regal-Beloit. I guess my biggest question, 

when we come back we look at the industrial, 

as you mentioned, you don't -- you have a very 

limited amount of commercial information 

that's here. Some of the information going 

back a couple to -- one more, right there. On 

these operating hours --

MS. IYAMA: So, again, these are 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 219 

for the industrial sector.

 MR. DELANEY: Industrial, correct. 

And, again, looking at the percentages that 

seem very high to me looking at these, that 

this is only 25 percent of the values as you 

look back here. Noting that commercial is 

being 75 percent, is as we roll these values 

up --

MS. IYAMA: Right. And, again, 

these -- this split by sector is just for the 

6- to 20-horsepower range. In the larger 

capacities you would see much more industrial 

motors, and much less commercial applications.

 MR. DELANEY: So assuming --

MS. IYAMA: So, this is just an 

example for illustration, but it's kind of --

it kind of reverses as you go further in 

increased motor capacities.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob.

 MR. BOTELER: Yes, I think that's 

part of our question. When we're only looking 

at the 6- to 20-horsepower, the hours of 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 220 

operation that you have even in the industrial 

arena seem very high to us. We sold high 

horsepower motors, you know, we start talking 

1,000-, 2,000-horsepower motors, we expect 

them to run continuously. But in a lot of 

cases when we sell smaller, the 1 to 5-

horsepower and the 6 to 20, they go into 

applications in industry that are intermittent 

operations that might run a couple of hours a 

day throughout the day. So, having an average 

of four or 5,000 hours seems high to us.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Dan, follow on. Then 

I'm coming back to Frank.

 MR. DELANEY: Yes, Dan Delaney, 

Regal-Beloit. Again, just to fall back to that 

75 percent and to drive that home, the point 

is that the percentage of those hours, the 75 

percent is considerably less than the values 

that are being presented in industrial, so I 

just wanted to make that comment. And that 

obviously drives a huge percentage when you 

look at those CSL levels in extrapolation of 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 221 

a determination and recommendation of those 

CSL level 3. I just wanted to make that point. 

It's a huge point, is the amount of hours and 

as well as I would also argue that the load 

goes the same percentage on that, the loads 

would be even lower than those percentages on 

the commercial end of the 75 percent.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Frank, 

microphone. 

MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne, 

Underwriters Laboratories. I just want to 

amplify Rob's comment. In particular, the 

numbers look a little strange to me when I 

look at fire pump motors. I mean, by 

definition that's a lot of hours for a fire 

pump motor to be running. You know, you would 

assume from these numbers there's a lot of 

buildings burning down. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

MS. IYAMA: So, again, if you think 

some of these numbers -- I mean, it's very 

useful to know what your perception of these 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 222 

values are, whether they're too high or too 

low. But if you have any data that we could 

actually use to backup your comments that 

would be even more helpful to us. 

Okay. So, next I will talk about 

the actual life cycle cost calculation and 

payback period analysis. The purpose of this 

analysis is to determine the LCC impacts and 

payback period for the consumers of electric 

motors under the considered efficiency levels. 

The results are expressed in terms of life 

cycle cost difference between a particular 

standards case and a base case.

 The base case represents a 

situation where we have no new or amended 

standards. The life cycle cost includes two 

components, the total installed cost and the 

sum of annual operating costs discounted to a 

particular base year. 

The analysis models the 

uncertainty and variability of the inputs 

using a Monte Carlo approach which 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 223 

characterizes inputs as probability 

distributions. And we implement this analysis 

under Excel, combined with Crystal Ball which 

allows using inputs in the form of probability 

distributions.

 And here we have the overall flow 

chart for the life-cycle cost and payback 

period analysis calculations. So, the top part 

of the chart represents the development of the 

total installed cost, and the bottom part 

represents the calculation for the operating 

cost. Both the total installed cost and the 

lifetime operating cost go into the life-cycle 

cost. And we calculate the payback period as 

the total installed cost divided by the first 

year of operating expenses.

 And the total installed cost 

includes the motor price and the installation 

cost, and it also includes the shipping cost, 

which is derived from the weight of the motor.

 The operating expenses include the 

electricity costs that we derived from energy 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 224 

consumption data, also includes repair costs 

and maintenance costs.

 So, in gray here we have 

represented all the inputs to the calculation, 

in green we have the intermediate results, and 

in yellow the final results. And in the next 

slides I'll go through the inputs that we 

haven't yet covered in the engineering 

analysis, the markups analysis, and the energy 

use characterization. And I'll start with the 

electricity price.

 Electricity prices are used to 

convert the energy use data into electricity 

costs. We considered regional electricity 

prices by sector, and we used current and 

projected information on energy prices from 

the Energy Information Administration, and 

more specifically from the Annual Energy 

Outlook. And we also collected data on 

reactive power prices. And on the next slide 

I have represented the average electricity 

prices that were used in the analysis, by 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 225 

region and sector. And also an example of the 

electricity price trends that were used in the 

LCC calculations.

 Another important input to the 

life cycle cost are the discount rates. DOE 

uses the discount rates to determine the 

present value of lifetime operating expenses. 

It derives those discount rates from 

information on the cost of capital for 

companies in the commercial/industrial sector 

that use motors.

 Next I'll go over the 

installation, maintenance, and repair costs 

which are also inputs to the life cycle cost 

calculation. 

DOE evaluated how installation, 

maintenance and repair costs change with 

increased efficiency. We looked at data from 

RS Means, Vaughens, other manufacturer 

literature, also inputs from stakeholders and 

experts. For installation costs, DOE assumed 

no changes in installation costs with 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 226 

increased efficiency. And that was based on 

the fact that we stay within the same motor 

frame designations.

 For repair costs we developed a 

model of repair costs based on Vaughens data. 

This model basically estimated repair costs 

based on the motor horsepower, enclosure, pole 

configuration and efficiency level. And for 

maintenance costs so far we didn't find any 

information supporting any changes in 

maintenance costs with increased efficiencies, 

so we assumed these also remain constant 

across efficiency levels.

 Another thing that's not mentioned 

here are the shipping costs. Again, these were 

calculated directly based on the weight data 

from the engineering analysis. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Tom. Turn on 

your microphone, please. Tom. 

MR. BISHOP: Tom Bishop. The 

question I have is where it says develop a 

repair cost model. Is that repair -- what's 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 227 

involved in that repair? Does that include a -

- is it a rewind and an overhaul, or is it þMS. IYAMA: It's a rewind. The 

basic bearing replacements were considered as 

part of the maintenance cost.

 MR. BISHOP: Okay. 

MS. IYAMA: Next --

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Rob, please.

 MR. BOTELER: I just have a small 

point. On the installation cost, depending 

upon the level of efficiency, if we were to go 

to, say, level 3 and we looked at what we have 

in our proposal of moving from a special 

purpose or definite purpose which has no 

regulation today, we may find that the end 

user has motors that are running at 

significantly higher speeds because we have 

the premium efficient motor, the 12-12. In 

that case, we don't really know, but the 

installation may require changes, it may be 

move from a Design B to a Design A. It may 

require some electrical changes to the system. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 228 

It more likely would require some changes to 

throttling valves or veins to accommodate for 

the higher speed in order to maintain the 

performance of whatever operation that they're 

doing. 

And it's something that I think we 

have to be aware of. I don't know how we 

quantify it because it varies dramatically 

based on what the system is set up for today. 

But I think the reality is that it could occur 

that the end user would have to make some 

pretty significant changes to his system to 

accommodate a higher speed motor.

 MR. BROOKMAN: So, I want to be 

specific. You referred to the proposal and 

that is the petition from the Motor Coalition.

 MR. BOTELER: Yes.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 

MS. IYAMA: Next, another item that 

we took into account in the life-cycle cost 

analysis is that not all repairs are performed 

following industry-recommended practice, so in 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 229 

some cases repair might affect the efficiency 

of the motor. 

So, DOE assumed that one-third of 

repairs were performed following industryrecommended practice, and in that case we 

didn't see any changes in the motor efficiency 

before and after the repair.

 We also assumed that two-thirds of 

repairs do not follow industry-recommended 

practices, and in that case we would see 

efficiency drops between 0.5 and 1 percent 

depending on the motor size.

 In terms of average repair 

frequency, we assumed motors would be repaired 

on average after 32,000 hours of operation, 

that roughly corresponds to 5, 16, and 15 

years of operation depending on the sector. 

And for fire pump electric motors we assumed 

there is no repair due to the lower operating 

hours. 

And here we have a slide that 

specifies the requests for comments. So, any 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 230 

comments on how to determine the motor repair 

cost. Also seeking comments on additional 

sources to estimate the frequency of motor 

repair. Also we seek comment on data on 

maintenance costs and installation costs.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Tom, 

please.

 MR. BISHOP: The question I have is 

where you have that one-third/two-third, what 

was the source for that breakdown?

 MS. IYAMA: We used a study by the 

Bonneville Power Administration, it's called 

Industrial Motor Repair in the United States. 

It's -- I think it was published in the '90s, 

in the late '90s, but that's the most recent -

- it was basically a survey of 60 repair 

shops, and that's the data we could find to 

try to estimate that breakdown.

 MR. BISHOP: Is that citation in 

the TSD?

 MS. IYAMA: Yes, it's part of the 

TSD references in Chapter 8. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 231

 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your 

name.

 MR. FLOLO: George Flolo with Flolo 

Corporation representing EASA. I have a couple 

of questions that I'd like to go back to your 

Vaughens's pricing. Can you give me some sort 

of a period of time that you obtained that 

pricing from Vaughens. You pronounce it 

differently, but --

MS. IYAMA: Oh, yes. We used the 

publication from 2010, I think.

 MR. FLOLO: Okay, because your 

pricing that you've shown on that chart is 

significantly lower than what the current 

Vaughens pricing is. So, that's one.

 MS. IYAMA: Okay.

 MR. FLOLO: Number two, question on 

the one-third and two-thirds, also. Is that 

units of repair, or is that service centers or 

what is that number? And then an additional 

question is, because you're using the word 

repair rather than rewind, okay, do you have 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 232 

any kind of statistics that talk about how 

many rewinds really occur versus how many what 

we would call repairs or reconditions that 

occur? And after you've answered that I'll 

explain maybe why I asked that.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Is a repair the same 

as a recondition?

 MR. FLOLO: A repair would -- we 

would have used the term repair as the same as 

recondition. If it's a rewind, we would always 

use the word rewind.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

MS. IYAMA: So, here by repair we 

meant rewind. And then the 32,000 hours of 

operation for the rewind frequency was an 

estimate we established through mostly inputs 

from Austin Bonnett.

 MR. FLOLO: Well, I wasn't as much 

referring to that as --

MS. IYAMA: Okay.

 MR. FLOLO: -- much as I was 

referring to how many units actually get 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 233 

rewound. And let me better explain why I'm 

asking. It's because if you would take our 

company along with many other EASAs especially 

in the '90s we all employed two, three, four 

winders. Right now I have a part-time winder. 

I know of other firms that have gone from four 

winders down to one winder. And, therefore, 

the amount of windings that are taking place 

or rewinds is such -- it's a much smaller 

number, and that's attributable to the 

electronics in across the line starters doing 

a much better job of protecting the windings 

as well as variable frequency drives. So, I 

just want to point that out to the group that, 

you know, the amount of motors that are 

honestly getting rewound is getting to be a 

much, much smaller number than what you would 

have had in some of your databases, especially 

since one of them takes you all the way back 

to the 1990s.

 MS. IYAMA: So, again for the 

frequency of the rewind here in the LCC we're 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 234 

looking at one motor, so that's the 

perspective we're taking. So, I don't have 

information on the number of motors that are 

being rewound each year.

 MR. FLOLO: Right, but that would 

be a significant issue in your energy 

consumption, especially since you're 

considering degrading efficiency during a 

rewind process. And if you don't know that 

number how do you justify its damage to the 

environment?

 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens.

 MR. STEPHENS: Just to follow-up as 

a question. Are you suggesting that the 

32,000-hour number is no longer as valid as it 

once was, perhaps?

 MR. FLOLO: That's exactly right. I 

think it's much higher than that between 

repairs. And that's number one. Because, let 

me give you an example. My business went from 

20 percent rewinds out of 1,000 motors a year, 

and it's less than 6 percent currently, so 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 235 

that's a significant drop. And that's all due 

to -- so, most of the problems that we get in 

are bearing issues, it's environmental issues. 

It is not winding issues.

 MS. IYAMA: Right. So, again any 

information or additional sources of 

information that you could recommend to help 

us assess or estimate the frequency of motor 

repair would be really helpful to try to 

readjust maybe that 32,000-hour number.

 MR. FLOLO: Yes, I don't -- that's 

hard for either EASA or anybody to exactly 

come up with. However, the source, if you 

start looking at -- if you guys went out to 

some of the large users, whether it be the 

Fortune 500 or Fortune 1,000 that do asset 

management to a high degree you would be able 

to obtain that kind of information. 

MR. BROOKMAN: I was not certain we 

got the lexicon squared up here. You said that 

repair means rewind from the perspective of 

DOE. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 236

 MR. FLOLO: Right.

 MR. BROOKMAN: You used some other 

words in there. Differentiate this for us.

 MR. FLOLO: Okay. First of all, 

when a motor comes in for repair, there's two 

things that can happen; it gets reconditioned 

which is --

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

 MR. FLOLO: -- new bearings, clean 

it up, do any mechanical work. If the winding 

has failed, then we call it a rewind.

 MR. BROOKMAN: And that's A plus B.

 MR. FLOLO: A plus B would be a --

a rewind is also a recondition.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Gotcha.

 MR. FLOLO: Yes. I'm sorry, that's 

a good point.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, okay. Thank 

you. I'm not -- okay, thank you. Good.

 MS. IYAMA: Thank you.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Now we can move on.

 MS. IYAMA: Okay, so we went 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 237 

through the discount rates, the electricity 

prices, the repair costs, maintenance costs, 

installation costs, so next I'll go through 

the lifetime.

 DOE assumed -- DOE developed 

mechanical lifetime in hours for each 

horsepower range considered. And this was done 

for all equipment classes grouped together. 

And then in the life cycle cost calculation we 

derived lifetimes in years using the annual 

operating hour estimates. So, these are the 

results for the estimated average lifetimes in 

years for Equipment Class Group 1. So, again, 

these are derived from the mechanical 

lifetimes I just presented combined with the 

different annual operating hour estimates in 

the industrial sector here, and commercial 

sector, and agricultural sector.

 Another item that DOE included for 

motor lifetime is that for motors below 75-

horsepower which are most often embedded in 

larger pieces of equipment we assume that the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 238 

motor is retired when it reached this lifetime 

or when the equipment of which it's part of 

reaches its lifetime, so whatever happens 

first. So, if we have a motor embedded in a 

pump and if the pump breaks down, then the 

motor is assumed to also retire.

 And on lifetime here again we have 

a comment box, and DOE is interested in any 

comments or additional sources of data on 

motor lifetime that could be used to validate 

our estimate of motor mechanical lifetime. Are 

there any inputs on the method to estimate 

motor lifetimes?

 MR. BROOKMAN: Neal?

 MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott. Not so 

much a comment but a question. Motors below 75 

horse are assumed to retire. What happens to 

motors above 75 horsepower?

 MS. IYAMA: So, for the larger 

horsepower motor, we assumed they were not 

used as a component of a larger piece of 

equipment, so they would not retire -- they 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 239 

would follow these assumptions of mechanical 

lifetime. It's just that for the smaller 

motor, since there's a possibility that they 

could be embedded in an equipment that could 

fail before those mechanical lifetimes are 

reached, then we account for those potential 

shorter lifetimes.

 MR. BROOKMAN: For the larger 

motors it would be more direct replacement?

 MS. IYAMA: They would just --

MR. BROOKMAN: Along this --

MS. IYAMA: -- be retired after 

these amounts of mechanical lifetimes.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Frank.

 MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne, 

Underwriters Labs. I really have nothing to 

base this on, and I guess I would rely on our 

colleagues from EASA but it seems to me that 

75 is a pretty big number. It seems to me that 

you're probably more talking about a 40 or 50-

horsepower motor because even with a 50 

there's significant capital costs, and most 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 240 

users would prefer to have the motor rebuilt 

or rewound.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me note for the 

record that we have several heads in the room 

nodding up and down in assent. I thought I saw 

John, or was it Rob, or Dan? Norm, please go 

ahead. George.

 (Off the record comments.)

 MR. FLOLO: I would like to point 

out that, for example, BP has a standard that 

at 60-horsepower, they don't even consider 

having the motor repaired. It's a throw-away 

item. I will say that, unless the motor is 

pretty doggoned special, when you start 

getting around 40-horsepower, it's pretty hard 

for me with my labor costs to be competitive 

against new. I would not -- that value of 75, 

I'm sure there are various users and various 

EASA repair service centers that certainly 

still could be a replacement item and not a 

considered repair.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Dan. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 241

 MR. DELANEY: Dan Delaney, RegalBeloit. Can you go back to the prior issues? 

I got confused because the numbering is 

different than our side. If you go back to the 

prior questions, the last one, Issue 20, on 

our's it's Issue 22. I wanted to make a 

comment here -- a question as well as maybe a 

comment.

 You talk about technology options 

that could drive motor mechanical 

configuration. I go back to the commercial 

world and your OEM configuration where this 

could drive maybe possible higher repair 

rewind for very specific OEM applications 

where length and some other things drive more 

efficient motors to that additional cost, 

especially at the lower end which would 

probably end more in the commercial end. Was 

that the point of this comment/question on 

this, or was it in regards to another area?

 MS. IYAMA: So, we're mostly 

interested in knowing whether an increase in 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 242 

efficiency of a motor may also result in 

higher installation costs. So, in the 

engineering right now, we try to keep the 

dimensions of the motor and the frame 

designation constant, but if there is any 

information we should consider to help us 

quantify -- if there is an increase in 

installation costs, then we would welcome such 

information.

 MR. DELANEY: I'll make a point on 

a definite and special purpose product that is 

not regulated today, motor starters and you 

had essentially most of the motor starters 

and/or switchgear that may be available for 

some of that product, really the breaker 

systems for that could have an issue if it is 

at the threshold at the definite -- at the 

standard designs what they are today. I could 

certainly see as having to -- I don't know if 

I'd say mechanical configuration but certainly 

electrical performance type of upgrades 

necessary to accommodate higher efficiency on 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 243 

a definite -- special purpose that came from 

no regulation of efficiency all the way up to 

let's say Table 12-12. So, that's a pretty 

large jump in efficiency.

 MR. BROOKMAN: I see George is 

still standing back there, so go ahead, 

George.

 MR. FLOLO: All right. One last 

point, and I just want to reemphasize the 

mechanical considerations. Even when we are 

replacing motors for our end users, it's 

amazing to me even with the different 

manufacturers that we represent the difference 

in the C dimension on these motors, so that we 

are cognizant even in today's standards of 

that C dimension when we're replacing a motor. 

I struggle with you being able to increase to 

the next level and maintain that C dimension. 

And what you're going to force the user to do 

is exactly what you're talking about. He won't 

be able to obtain a motor that fits in his 

machine anymore, and now that motor will 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 244
	

become a special motor.

 MR. BROOKMAN: John, and then to 

Charlie.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: Yes, John 

Malinowski, Baldor. And I'm going to speak a 

little bit on behalf of the ABB side of our 

company in this answer.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Excuse me. What's 

the ABB side?

 MR. MALINOWSKI: ABB is our parent 

company.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, that's 

fine.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: And they also make 

electric motors of the IEC type that are sold 

in North America worldwide.

 When we look at -- to George's 

point, when we've looked at some of these 

motors at the higher efficiency levels, we've 

added active material stack length and added 

slot fill which adds end turns, so that would 

mean that we're going to have to come up with 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 245
	

a longer frame.

 That machine isn't going to fit 

where the old machine perhaps was in some user 

applications, but by your own numbers you said 

50 percent of the business goes to OEMs, so 

this could mean that the OEMs have to redesign 

their machinery to fit these motors. Dan 

talked about that a little bit on special 

purpose and definite purpose motors, but 

whether it's a small one-horse motor or a 

large 500-horse motor, if it's bigger, it's 

probably not going to fit.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: And in the case of 

IEC motors, they're more closely tied to size 

and space than we are. They don't have the 

service factor, and a little bit more design. 

Roger will probably jump in here and get me 

down the right path, but it's tougher for an 

IEC motor to raise the efficiency without 

jumping frame sizes. And what the IEC world 

would do is go to a larger diameter rather 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 246 

than go longer. So, now you're going to have 

a machine, maybe a packing machine for the 

food industry that came in with IEC motors on 

it that we're going to replace with a new 

motor, and it's bigger in diameter, and it's 

not going to fit. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Gotcha. Charlie.

 MR. STEPHENS: Yes, I had a 

question. Charlie Stephens. Is the data that 

you're able to access for motor lifetime and 

motor repair frequency, have you got enough 

sources to see any trends in that that you 

could actually pick out?

 MS. IYAMA: I don't know, but what 

kind of trends exactly?

 MR. STEPHENS: Well, there's been 

some comment here that suggests that, because 

of the applications, repair cycles are getting 

longer potentially. And I guess that would 

cause me to reiterate Neal's point, that the 

study that we really need to get some more 

data is probably more important than ever. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 247

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. This has 

been very productive. Rob, keep going.

 MR. BOTELER: I'm on -- what page 

am I on here? Page 92 with the chart on motor 

life expectancy. Right there. You know, I 

don't think I could cite any studies 

necessarily that we've seen, but as 

manufacturers, we sell polyphase motors into 

the agricultural world, and agriculture 

doesn't do a real good job of maintenance. 

The motors that both John and I 

sell, the vast majority of them operate 

underwater in irrigation systems seasonally. 

Yes, they sit in a field for seven months and 

then they turn them on.

 MR. ELLIOTT: And we should note 

that he is not referring to submersible motors 

here.

 MR. BOTELER: No, they're not 

submersibles; they're irrigation drives. And 

I think we would also tell you that industrial 

applications, industrial customers are more 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 248 

inclined to take better care in service and 

maintenance, and agriculture and commercial 

are less likely. So, when I look at your --

MS. IYAMA: So, do you think the 

agricultural numbers are too high, or the 

industrial numbers are --

MR. BOTELER: Yes, I think the 

agricultural are too high, and I think the 

industrial are too low. And I'm probably okay 

with the commercial.

 MS. IYAMA: Okay.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

 MR. BOTELER: Okay, John says 29 

years is too high, but 29 years in a 200 to 

500 on industrial, I've been in industrial 

plants where I found motors that are 40 and 50 

years old.

 MS. IYAMA: And, again, those are 

average values, so you know, LCC --

MR. BOTELER: Well, that's a good 

question. Yes.

 MS. IYAMA: -- calculation we 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 249 

actually account for a distribution around 

these numbers.

 MR. BOTELER: Yes.

 MS. IYAMA: So, you'll see motors 

that actually operate much longer lifetimes or 

much lower lifetimes.

 MR. BOTELER: Right, right.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Neal, follow on. 

MR. ELLIOTT: I mean, I -- and 

Linda was up there nodding, so -- but my sense 

is that a 200 to 500-horsepower motor, you 

know, you're talking about hundreds of 

thousands of dollars of capital cost. And 

that's the bread and butter for a lot of the 

repair shops because those things, you never 

want to let them die because you've already 

invested. The point is that a lot of this 

stuff, at least the guys I've worked with in 

the industrial sector, a lot of these are IEEE 

841 motors so that they're not just a standard 

motor, so they're a huge amount of capital 

cost. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 250

 And I guess the last time I looked 

841s were running about twice what a standard 

motor, but something on that order, so we're 

talking about a lot of investing, a lot of 

capital investment in these things, and so 

there's a lot of motivation to keep them 

running.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So, any data, 

any actual data that you have, noting that 

this table reflects averages, that would be 

especially helpful. Alex next, and then I'm 

coming back to you, Dan. 

MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg, 

NEMA. Speaking on behalf of myself and my own 

personal experiences, I'll have to back up 

what Rob said about the agricultural side of 

things just from my personal growing up in the 

country. And then I have a friend who is a 

farmer right now about 30 miles from here.

 I've never seen anybody in my 

experience do any preventative maintenance on 

a motor. They turn it on and expect it to 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 251 

work. When it doesn't, they beat it with a 

crow bar until it does, and they use it, and 

then they turn it off and they go, boy, I've 

got to look into that. And they don't do it 

again until the fall when they need it again. 

And then they beat on it until it works, you 

know. I've grabbed a motor because a starter 

failed, and you grab the belt after pulling 

the guard out of the way so you can start 

spinning it and say okay, turn it on. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Gotcha.

 MR. BOESENBERG: Yes.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Dan. 

MR. BASSO: Dale Basso.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Dale, thank you. 

Dale.

 MR. BASSO: Just a comment. I think 

where everybody is going with this obviously 

is the agricultural years are long, and I'm 

sure the way you came up with it was the 

mechanical lifetime times then the hours of 

operation --

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 252

 MS. IYAMA: Right, so it might not 

necessarily account for the --

MR. BASSO: And that math led you 

down a path, and unfortunately we do build 

different kinds of motors. We build industrial 

motors, we build commercial motors, we build 

farm-duty motors, so when it really comes down 

to it, you're working with the big picture 

numbers. And I think you just fell into a trap 

that didn't account for a farm-duty motor that 

nobody takes care of and last three years. And 

yes, it still runs those hours that you 

calculated but the mechanical lifetime is much 

shorter for those products that don't get 

maintenanced. So it tends to skew your whole 

assumption here, and that's -- it's a hard 

number to come up with I realize, but I think 

what you'll find in talking to the farmers of 

the world is that it's just -- you're talking 

very few years with a motor in a farm before 

they just throw it away and replace it. And 

most of it is much smaller. You know, there's 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 253 

not that many of the big motors out in the 

farms.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob.

 MR. BOTELER: Yes, just picking up 

on that, just kind of to Neal's comment. The 

industrial motors, that market has moved 

almost totally to cast iron, and a lot of that 

to the cast iron 841 motor where the 

agriculture is still a lighter duty steel 

frame motor, so the mechanical construction is 

not nearly as robust as the industrial.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Interesting. Okay, 

thank you. Andrew deLaski, please.

 MR. deLASKI: So, you would expect 

longer lifetimes out of these --

(Off microphone comment.)

 MR. deLASKI: Right. And do you 

think these numbers are representative of 

that, or you said they're a little low is --

(Off microphone comment.)

 MR. deLASKI: Okay.

 MS. IYAMA: Thank you. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 254

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

 MR. deLASKI: And I wanted to -- on 

that, so now you -- on Slide 91 you say 

various literature sources. So, are -- what 

were the key sources for this, can you say? Do 

you remember?

 MS. IYAMA: So, we actually started 

by lifetimes in years in the industrial 

sector. And this was based on information we 

got through our motor expert. And then we used 

that combined with our annual operating hour 

assumptions to get to estimates of mechanical 

lifetimes. And this became sort of the 

reference for the lifetime of the motors. And 

then we derived the lifetimes in years in the 

other sectors, in the commercial sector and 

agricultural sector based on these mechanical 

lifetimes.

 So, again we chose that approach 

because there is some data on lifetime in the 

literature. We have some in -- I don't 

remember all the references but the problem 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 255 

with the data we found in the literature is 

that it wasn't clear if it was considering the 

repair cycles -- it wasn't clear on the 

definition of the lifetime, so we sort of had 

to start from scratch to be sure that we're 

talking about what we want to talk about, 

which is lifetime from when the motor is sold 

to when it's completely retired from the 

market.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Neal.

 MR. ELLIOTT: I mean, I think this 

is part of the issue. And I'm sitting here 

looking and it's not jiving with what I've 

sort of looked at. The assumption -- and, 

again, this goes back to what George and Linda 

understand. And there's repair and there is þ-

- there's repair which they -- which I mean 

basically you go in, you clean the motor, you 

redo the conductors, you replace the bearings, 

seals, things like that. That's what I mean 

when repair, and that's routine, and that 

happens I would say every three to five years 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 256 

in an industrial application, maybe five to 

seven years. George?

 Anyway, so you've got that. I 

would assume that that motor is going to go 

through quite a number of reconditioning 

cycles before it ultimately gets retired. 

MR. BROOKMAN: George, follow-on. 

George.

 MR. FLOLO: Yes, that is quite 

true. Matter of fact, there's obviously -- and 

some service centers do it, but also a lot of 

users do their own, and that is predictive and 

preventive maintenance. They have -- matter of 

fact, in some of the steel mills they have 

crews of guys they call oilers and greasers, 

and that's all they do all day long. So, the 

point behind it is, yes, if there's a proper 

predictive, preventive maintenance program, we 

won't even see that motor, to be honest. And 

what you're really starting to deal with is 

the mechanical bearing life aspect which is --

can be calculated. And I think all bearing 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 257 

manufacturers do have that kind of data that's 

readily available.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

 MR. ELLIOTT: Just as a follow-up, 

you may want to check with the ABMA, American 

Bearing Manufacturers Association. I think 

they do have some data, as George indicated, 

available on bearing life. So, they may be 

actually a very good source of information.

 MS. IYAMA: Right. So, another --

MR. BROOKMAN: That last comment 

was from Neal.

 MS. IYAMA: I'm sorry.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Keep going, Sanaee.

 MS. IYAMA: I have a question then. 

Do you think bearing replacement would change 

across efficiency levels?

 MR. BROOKMAN: Who can comment on 

that? Now, I see a bunch of manufacturers 

shaking their heads no. 

MS. IYAMA: Because that's --

MR. BROOKMAN: George, go ahead. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 258

 MR. FLOLO: Unless when we buy 

bearings we're told those are the same 

specifications that the motor manufacturers 

purchase also. So, I see no reason for that to 

have any degradation on efficiency. And then 

when you couple with that, when a motor comes 

in for reconditioning we're using micrometers, 

and we're measuring the bearing journals as 

well as the bearing housing. And when that 

motor leaves it's to the exact OEM 

specifications of the motor manufacturer. So, 

there should be absolutely zero degradation as 

a function of efficiency.

 MS. IYAMA: Right. And I guess the 

question was also more in terms of, does the 

cost of a bearing replacement for a baseline 

efficiency motor, will that significantly 

change now if we have a higher efficiency 

motor?

 MR. FLOLO: No, there is no 

relationship there at all. Efficiency, the 

fact that it's a high -- a premium efficient 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 259 

motor versus an EPACT, a bearing, is a 

bearing.

 MS. IYAMA: Okay.

 MR. FLOLO: Makes no difference.

 MR. BROOKMAN: And the substitution 

is exact.

 MR. FLOLO: Exact.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, glad we 

clarified that. Yes? John.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: I just wanted to 

get back to the comment about going to look at 

L10 bearing life. You have to remember that 

those bearing calculations are lab 

calculations. Under an ideal loading in a 

clean environment, that's what you're going to 

get. You take the motor and you put it in an 

industrial, commercial, or certainly 

agricultural application and it's going to get 

contamination in it. It's probably not going 

to have the right lubrication cycle, could be 

under-lubed, over-lubed, wrong grease, so L10 

is like a wish list of life. It's not real 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 260
	

world.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We are now --

I think we've concluded 23. We need to keep 

moving, but maybe we should take a short break 

now. It's been about an hour and a half. Just 

10 minutes, go quickly to the restrooms, and 

make it back here, which means at 10 minutes 

after 3:00 we'll resume. We're doing pretty 

well, I think. Let's keep pressing on. See you 

back here in 10 minutes.

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 3:01 p.m. and 

resumed at 3:13 p.m.)

 MR. BROOKMAN: We are going to 

press on here, folks, and back to Sanaee.

 MS. IYAMA: So, I'm going to 

continue on the life cycle cost analysis. So 

next inputs to the life cycle cost analysis 

are the base case efficiency distributions. 

So, as mentioned earlier, the results in the 

LCC are expressed in terms of life cycle cost 

difference between a standards case and a base 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 261
	

case. 

And the base case efficiency 

distribution basically accounts for the fact 

that not all motors considered in the analysis 

are covered by the current standards, so some 

may have efficiency below the NEMA 12-11 

tables. Not all consumers purchase motors 

meeting the current minimum standards, meaning 

some may purchase motors with higher 

efficiencies above premium. So, the life cycle 

cost analysis recognizes that consumers 

already purchasing motors at efficiencies 

greater than or equal to a perspective 

standard level will not be impacted by the 

standard. So, again the life cycle cost 

results are expressed in terms of life cycle 

cost difference between a standards case and 

a base case. So, if in the base case you're 

already purchasing a motor that has an 

efficiency equal or greater than the projected 

standard, then you will not be impacted by 

that standard. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 262

 In order to establish those base 

case efficiency distributions we used data 

from catalog manufacturers and we looked at 

2011 catalogs. We used this data to establish 

the distribution -- the efficiency 

distribution by equipment class groups and 

horsepower range. And here we have an example 

of the efficiency distribution for Equipment 

Class Group 1, and for motors between 1 and 5-

horsepower motors -- between 1 and 5-

horsepower.

 And here DOE seeks comments on the 

estimated base case efficiency distributions 

for all equipment class groups. And any 

additional sources of data that could be used 

to derive those efficiency distributions.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Dan. 

MR. DELANEY: If you want to go 

back. Yes, in this table on thing that's 

somewhat misleading about the definite 

purpose, special purpose is you're going to 

find that not all that type of product is 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 263 

going to be a catalog type of product. A good 

percentage of that, 5 to 5-1/2 percent is 

going to say low, as well as you're not going 

to see efficiency levels always provided for 

definite and special purpose type product 

because that is not the driving factor for 

that type of product anyway. It is for torque 

or for mechanical options, or other. So, 

that's why I think that 5-1/2 percent is low 

by a good percentage.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael, do you want 

to --

MR. DELANEY: Yes, so what would be 

an appropriate number?

 MR. BROOKMAN: Dan, do you want to 

take a stab, or you want to let Rob try? Rob.

 MR. BOTELER: If you go back to our 

petition, our estimate is again at about 49 

million connected horsepower is sold every 

year, and in today's world we cover about 18 

million connected horsepower. And that would 

be covered by either 12-12 or 12-11. So, that 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 264 

leaves 31 million connected horsepower that's 

not covered, so that's going to be special 

purpose, definite purpose, offshore, gear 

motors, partial motors. And I think that 

number which is about 60 percent of the total 

number of connected horsepower would fall 

either into Category Zero or Category 1. 

There's certainly some of that that is EPACT, 

but I think there's a very large percent of it 

that is not -- it falls into a Category Zero.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Yes, John. 

MR. MALINOWSKI: Maybe another way 

of looking at this, what you're doing is 

looking at what models are in a catalog. And 

that really doesn't tell you how many of those 

units are sold. And I think that's really what 

you're trying to drive to, because we've got 

a lot of things in the catalog you might sell 

25 of, and we've got stuff in the catalog 

that's tens of thousands.

 So, if we can go back to some 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 265 

numbers, and we could probably get accurate 

numbers out of NEMA. If we look at where we 

were prior to enactment of EISA, premium 

motors at the 12-11 -- I'm sorry, 12-12 level 

was probably in the low 20s, 20 percent of our 

three-phase, 1 to 500-horse production was at 

12-12. Since then it's probably pushing 70 

percent.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Wow.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: Well, that's --

MR. BOTELER: Because if you look 

at our expanded scope of 5.2 million units, 

that's not true.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: That's true, but 

we're also -- well, we're looking at things 

that are mandated at 12-11 today, EPACT level 

that customers are choosing to go above. So, 

maybe the 70 percent is a little high, but 

it's substantially larger than the 20s.

 MR. BROOKMAN: These are very 

helpful comments for the Department. 

MR. MALINOWSKI: And we can get an 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 266 

exact -- we'll put a more exact number in our 

written comments.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

 MS. IYAMA: Thank you.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: That's my 

estimate, that's not agreed on by my 

colleagues.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob, do you want to 

add on here, or did you say it?

 MR. BOTELER: This is Rob. We'll 

put it into our written comments. We'll 

discuss this.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Thanks a lot. Alex, I'm looking at you. Yes. 

Okay, okay. Keep going.

 MS. IYAMA: Okay. So, using all the 

inputs that I presented in the previous slide 

in the base case efficiency distributions that 

were derived from the catalog data, these are 

the results of the life cycle cost 

calculation. And here as an example, I'm 

providing the results for Representative Unit 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 267 

1, and then on the next slide for 

Representative Unit 3. 

So we have the average LCC, and 

here we see that the average LCC savings is 

positive up to C Cell 3. And then we get into 

negative savings. And we have similar results 

for the 75-horsepower motor.

 So, next I will cover the National 

Impact Analysis.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Please, Rob.

 (Off microphone comment.)

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, there's no --

that's okay. 

MR. BOTELER: Can you go back to 

that slide? Yes, right there. When you're 

doing the life cycle analysis, back to Roger's 

comment on the formula on page 73, if that 

formula changes would that then change all of 

your calculations on the life cycle? You used 

the formula for the motor losses.

 MS. IYAMA: We used the top 

formula. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 268

 MR. BOTELER: The top formula.

 MS. IYAMA: Yes. 

MR. BOTELER: Okay, you did not use 

the lower formula.

 MS. IYAMA: No.

 MR. BOTELER: Okay. So, Roger --

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Yes, I'm assuming that when they were over 

here with the LCC analysis that they 

calculated the actual energy use of each CSL 

level, and then you take the difference in 

that energy use.

 MS. IYAMA: Right.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: So, it's not 

dependent upon the other relationship.

 MR. BOTELER: Okay, that's all I'm 

-- that's my question, thank you.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Dale. 

MR. BASSO: This is Dale Basso. 

Just one last thought on this, as far as the -

- with these calculations it all starts with 

the price assumption. Correct? So, in that 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 269 

price assumption I think you stated that these 

don't include any manufacturer impact that 

might change other factors that could increase 

the price. So, as we get into the discussion 

later on manufacturers that doesn't actually 

happen until the NOPR. Right? Where you would 

look at manufacturer impact, and you would 

then go back and adjust these numbers based on 

any impact finding?

 MS. IYAMA: Not in the LCC or in 

the engineering analysis. It's a separate 

analysis, but it would be taken into account 

in any decisions.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Okay, so you're 

basing decisions on this number, but you're 

not putting all of the cost into the number? 

Is that what I'm understanding?

 MS. IYAMA: So, the life cycle cost 

is one of the many analyses that DOE performs, 

so it's considered in the decision making 

process, but the NIA is also another 

component, and the manufacturer impact 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 270 

analysis is also another component.

 MR. BROOKMAN: John.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: Yes, John 

Malinowski, Baldor. We've already talked about 

the cost assumptions you've made on these 

motors that they're wrong. If we look at the 

incremental cost differences between a level 

zero motor and an EPACT without getting in 

trouble with antitrust, in industry we've 

talked about ranges of 15 to 20 percent. Then 

we saw another 15 to 20 percent in ranges 

between an EPACT and a premium. 

One might expect some additional 

material to get to the level 3, and then more 

material, copper to get to level 4 and 5. 

We've not taken into effect any hand winding 

additional cost. You've only added for the 

copper, you've not added for any of the 

additional infrastructure, new laminations 

needed for 3, 4, or 5, new manufacturing 

equipment.

 It's going to skew these things 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 271 

and make the payback longer than you have, 

particularly by the time you get to 4 and 5. 

The hours that you had in that chart for 

industry and particularly commercial and 

agricultural maybe too many hours in some 

cases, not enough hours on maybe some of the 

small industrial.

 The whole life cycle cost of the 

study is -- needs a fair amount of review. I 

mean, everything you've got here is probably 

understated. It's probably a lot longer on 

these higher, particularly 4 and 5, maybe even 

a little bit to level 3.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob.

 MR. BOTELER: Yes, John mentioned a 

lot of the things that happened in the factory 

as far as material and equipment, but one of 

the things that you need to realize and why 

the manufacturers are -- the Coalition is 

supporting expanded scope and staying at level 

2 is because we have already developed the 

electrical packages, the wound-stator 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 272 

assemblies and we've proven those that meet 

the level 2 efficiency.

 When we expand the scope of 

product what we can do is, we have the ability 

in our engineering systems to do batch changes 

where we change that particular component in 

hundreds of builds and material relatively 

easily. We don't have to go back and do a lot 

of retesting and reconfiguring to make sure 

that end turns, I was accused yesterday of 

saying interns, end turns fit within the 

frame. If we move even just one level, it then 

requires us to go back and re-engineer the 

complete electrical package, and then 

determine will it fit in the mechanical 

package so it adds a tremendous amount of 

engineering for what we pointed out, what Neal 

pointed out is pretty much a rounding error in 

efficiency gain. And I think we need to 

recognize that.

 So, in your numbers here you show 

a very significant increase when we go to 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 273 

level 4, and our concern is that there's a 

similar increase when you go to level 3. And 

that there's some significant engineering 

costs that need to be considered.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Please say your name. Is that on? No, it's not 

on.

 MR. LIN: Paul Lin with RegalBeloit. Just a process question. Are you going 

to go back and adjust your LCC based on the 

feedback that you received today?

 MS. IYAMA: In the NOPR we have an 

entire -- the first phase of the NOPR stage. 

And in the next steps, I'll detail this, 

consists of revising all the analysis we 

presented here today with either the comments 

we've received or newer data that we can come 

across.

 MR. LIN: Okay. I guess when you do 

that why wouldn't you include some of the 

capital costs that we've talked about, because 

the concern I have, taking my Regal hat off, 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 274 

and taking the NEMA hat off is the DOE reports 

are utilized by a lot of people as reference 

material. And if they're not accurately 

reflecting the costs, it could lead others 

down the wrong road. And that's why I want to 

make sure that in the report that all the cost 

analysis is done with everything in mind 

because the people who read the report may not 

have the benefit of sitting in this room and 

understanding what's in and what's out of that 

particular life cycle cost analysis.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

 MR. LIN: That's only my comment.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

MS. IYAMA: Okay. So, I'll move on 

to the National Impact Analysis. The National 

Impact Analysis actually includes both the 

shipments analysis and the National Impact 

Analysis. And I'll start with the shipments 

analysis.

 The purpose of this section is to 

estimate shipments projections both in the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 275 

base case and in the standards case. So, we 

used the current information on shipments and 

projected those values assuming that shipments 

are driven by economic growth and fixed 

investment in equipment including motors.

 We based that assumption on a high 

degree of correlation found between historical 

shipments of motors and fixed investment in 

selected equipment. So, here on this graph we 

have the historical shipments represented by 

an index in blue, and in red the product fixed 

investment in selected equipment including 

motors.

 This correlation was derived from 

a linear regression represented by this 

equation here, and it allowed calculating 

estimates of shipments, and the predicted 

shipments based on private fixed investment 

projections which were based on data found in 

the Annual Energy Outlook. So, we projected 

the fixed investment and then we used that 

equation to project our shipments. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 276

 Here I'm just repeating the data 

we saw in the market assessment, the different 

shipments for the year 2011, so we took this 

data and applied the equation in order to 

project those shipments over the analysis 

period from 2015 to 2044. 

The shipments analysis also 

includes a breakdown of motor shipments across 

equipment class groups and equipment classes. 

So, in order to establish those breakdowns we 

used data from different market research 

reports, inputs from interested parties as 

well as U.S. Census data. We also used plant 

assessment data as proxy. And all of these 

breakdowns are detailed in Chapter 9 of the 

TSD.

 And here DOE seeks any comments on 

any additional sources of data on motor 

shipments that could be used to validate our 

shipments model and projections.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Any additional that 

haven't been mentioned already data sources? 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 277

 MS. IYAMA: Okay. So, as mentioned 

earlier the purpose of the shipments analysis 

is to establish both a base case shipment 

projection and a standards case shipment 

projection. The shipment projections are 

expressed both in terms of quantities, but 

also in terms of efficiencies. 

For the base case efficiency 

distributions, DOE assumed there would be no 

changes in motor shipments efficiency during 

the analysis period, so the base case 

efficiency remains constant and equal to the 

2011 one that I mentioned during the LCC 

analysis.

 So, here we request comments on 

this decision to use constant efficiencies 

throughout the analysis period in the base 

case scenario. And any data that could help us 

characterize trends in efficiency would be 

helpful. And again, that would be in a base 

case situation.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 278

 MR. BOTELER: Yes. I don't know if 

this one would fit here, but there certainly 

is a trend as the fellow, Robert, from Danfoss 

mentioned. There is a trend of more and more 

product that's in the categories that we're 

talking about moving to variable frequency 

drives. So, I mean, the efficiency levels are 

going to change as they become more integral 

to the system and benefit from the variable 

frequency drives. But what that would be --

you know, we all talk about the percentage of 

product we sell, and try and estimate the 

number of units that are going to be used with 

drives, but we don't have any real solid NEMA 

data on that subject, but it could have an 

effect over the period.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

 MS. IYAMA: So, we did this for the 

base case situation. We do the same for the 

standards case. For the standards case, the 

standards case shipments projections,DOE is 

aware that increased electric motor prices 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 279 

could affect the repair versus replace 

decisions and, therefore, impact shipments. 

However, in the absence of data to 

quantify and estimate the impact of increased 

motor prices on shipments, we assumed that the 

standards case shipment projection would be 

equal to the base case shipments.

 Now, in terms of efficiency we 

derived standards case efficiency 

distributions from the base case efficiency 

distribution and applied a roll-up scenario. 

And here's that a comment box. We 

would be interested if you have any 

information that could help us quantify the 

impact of increased motor prices on motor 

shipments in the different standards case.

 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional 

comments.

 MS. IYAMA: So, next we have the 

actual National Impact Analysis. The purpose 

of this analysis is to estimate national 

energy savings for motor ships -- for motors 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 280 

shipped from 2015 to 2044, as well as to 

estimate the national economic impact on 

electric motor users.

 So, DOE calculates national energy 

savings by multiplying unit lifetime energy 

savings by the projected shipments, and 

accumulating this projected value over the 30 

years. And I'll go in the details of that 

calculation.

 DOE also calculates the net 

present value for the national economic impact 

by accumulating the difference each year 

between the energy bill savings and increased 

equipment expenditures for all motors shipped 

over that 30-year period. 

So, here we have the overall flow 

chart for the calculation of the national 

energy savings. It starts off by the shipments 

analysis and we use the base case projections, 

and standards case shipments projections. So, 

in the base case we calculate the base case 

lifetime energy consumption for motors sold 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 281 

each year over the 30-year period analysis, we 

convert that base case lifetime energy 

consumption by -- into primary energy. And we 

accumulate those values over 30 years to get 

to the base case cumulative energy use. So, we 

do this in the base case situation, we do this 

in the different standards case situations, 

and the differences gives us the national 

energy savings.

 Next we have a similar diagram 

describing the calculation for the net present 

value. Again we start off with the shipments 

projections. We use the shipment projection to 

calculate the lifetime energy cost of motors 

shipped each year over the analysis period, so 

we do this in the base case and in the 

standards case projections.

 We also use the shipments to 

calculate the lifetime repair, maintenance, 

and installation costs, total installation 

costs for motors shipped each year over that 

30-year period. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 282

 We calculate the cumulative energy 

cost savings by taking the difference between 

the standards case and base case energy cost, 

and we calculate the cumulative non-energy 

cost increase by taking the difference between 

the standards case and the base case repair, 

maintenance, and total install costs.

 We use a discount rate to convert 

those time series of monetary values into a 

present value, and the difference between the 

non-energy cost increase and the energy cost 

savings gives us the net present value.

 Now, this slide summarizes all of 

the inputs that were used into the National 

Impact Analysis, so we've gone through all of 

them in the previous sections, except maybe 

for the discount rate. In the NIA we use 7 

percent and 3 percent discount rates. This is 

OMB guidance. 

Another thing I will go into 

details in the next couple of slides are the 

total installed cost. The total installed 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 283 

costs are the sum of the motor price and 

shipping cost. We didn't include the 

installation costs because they're assumed to 

stay constant across efficiency levels, and 

here we're looking at results in terms of 

difference between standards case and base 

case.

 So, the motor price is derived 

from the manufacturer selling price by 

applying markups, and the shipping cost is 

derived from the motor weight by applying an 

average shipping cost.

 The engineering analysis provided 

manufacturer selling price and weight data for 

the represented -- for the representative 

units only. So, in order to calculate total 

installed costs for all equipment classes we 

had to extrapolate on this information for the 

representatives units, and develop estimates 

of total installed costs for all equipment 

classes. And that's what I'm going to detail 

in the next slide. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 284

 We used similar methodologies to 

extrapolate --

MR. BROOKMAN: Sanaee?

 MR. BOESENBERG: Yes.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Meg?

 MS. WALTNER: Meg Waltner from 

NRDC. A quick question on this slide. Are you 

not using learning rates in this analysis, or 

is that not part of this?

 MS. IYAMA: So, we looked at 

learning rates and it turns out that for 

motors, the biggest drivers are the material 

costs. And it was -- we didn't find enough 

data to be confident to project and use a 

learning rate so we assumed a constant price 

in the default scenario. But as a sensitivity 

analysis we included different learning rates.

 So, we used a similar methodology 

to calculate and scale manufacturer selling 

price and weight data from the representative 

units to all equipment classes. So, here I'll 

just talk about the manufacturer's selling 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 285 

price but we did the same for the weight.

 We developed scaling relationship 

at each CSL. So, for example, the Equipment 

Class 1 the engineering gave us manufacturer 

selling prices for four-pole enclosed 5-

horsepower motor, 30-horsepower motor, and 75-

horsepower motor. 

We used a power law regression to 

estimate manufacturer's selling prices across 

all horsepower ranges in that motor 

configuration, four-pole enclosed. So, we did 

that at CSL 1, 2 -- CSL 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 

Then we used an index, we 

established an index to describe how the 

manufacturer selling price varied by pole and 

enclosure, and we did that through a 

statistical analysis of manufacturer catalog 

data of over 10,000 motor configurations.

 So, using that database and 

statistical analysis we derived an index for 

each horsepower rating that allowed to scale 

the manufacturer selling price that we had for 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 286 

the four-pole enclosed motor across all of the 

other pole and enclosure configurations. So, 

this allowed DOE to estimate total installed 

cost for all of the equipment classes.

 And here we have a comment box on 

this approach for extrapolating the 

manufacturer selling price and weight data 

from the representative units to all of the 

equipment classes that were considered in the 

analysis.

 MR. BROOKMAN: So, comments related 

to these comment boxes, methodology for 

scaling, manufacturer selling price data, and 

comments on scaled values for motor weights.

 MS. IYAMA: Okay, so next -- so, 

we've been through the methodology, the inputs 

used, and on the next slide I'll present the 

results of the National Impact Analysis 

starting with the national energy savings. 

Here we have the summary of the national 

energy savings in quads for the three 

equipment class groups, and for each of those 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 287 

CSL levels considered in the analysis.

 We see that due to the lower 

shipments the savings are lower for a NEMA 

Design C motor in comparison to the NEMA 

Design A and B motors. And another thing that 

I want to add is that in 2011 DOE published a 

policy -- a Notice of Policy stating its 

intention to add full fuel cycle as a metric 

in the NIA, so we actually included that in 

the preliminary analysis, so you'll find in 

the TSD chapters results that are very similar 

to this, but expressed in terms of full fuel 

cycles. It's basically a multiplier that's 

applied to those primary energy savings in 

order to convert those savings into a full 

fuel cycle metric.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob.

 MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler. I guess 

the number that just jumps out at me on this 

chart, I just really struggle with, and I know 

we've talked about this all day. If we go back 

to our original earlier charts, the 5-

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 288 

horsepower example, the level of efficiency at 

level 3 versus level 2 is 7/10ths of a 

percent. The 30-horsepower is 5/10ths of a 

percent, and the 75 is 4/10ths of a percent. 

When I get to this chart my savings with 

small, really small increment between level 2 

and level 3, I'm saving almost double the 

savings in quads? I go from 4.4 to 7.5 on 

savings on each unit of 7/10ths down to 

4/10ths. That just amazes me.

 MS. IYAMA: I think it might be due 

to -- I mean, there is a lot of things that go 

into these calculations, but one of the main 

drivers I'd say is also the efficiency 

distributions. That would explain the jump you 

see.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Matt, please, find a 

microphone. 

MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti from 

Navigant. So, in other words you're saying 

there's just a lot of motors that are already 

at CSL 2. Right? There's a lot of motors being 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 289 

shipped already at the NEMA premium level, so 

going up to CSL 3 you're now pulling all of 

those motors up, as well, so the shipment is 

being affected as a driver in the energy 

savings.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob.

 MR. BOTELER: Yes, and in our 

proposal we're taking a huge number, we're 

taking 31 million connected horsepower and 

moving it to level 2. And what you're doing is 

you're doing the same thing moving it to level 

3. And then you're also moving the 18 million 

connected horsepower that we already have and 

moving that to level 3. 

MS. IYAMA: Right.

 MR. BOTELER: Right. So, it just 

seems like a huge difference to me. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Yes, Charlie.

 MR. STEPHENS: I'll add on to what 

Rob was saying. I think there is a big 

difference between the estimates that are 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 290 

behind this proposal in terms of how much is 

already at what level when it comes to the 

categories that are not covered right now, 

which I think are substantially 

underestimated, potentially, in the current 

analysis. So, I think some of these things may 

get ironed out when some of the numbers get 

reconciled a little better, I think.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Yes?

 MS. IYAMA: Okay, so I'll continue 

on the results of the National Impact 

Analysis, and I'll go through the net present 

value results. So, here I have a slide for 

Equipment Class Group 1. So, we have the NPV 

for the two discount rates considered, and 

here we present the results for all horsepower 

ranges, as well as for individual horsepower 

ranges. And we see that past CSL 3 we get into 

the negative net present value results.

 For Equipment Class Group 2 

similar results, and here we have the negative 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 291 

values highlighted also in red starting at CSL 

2. And then Equipment Class Group 3 all of the 

net present value results were negative across 

CSLs. That's for fire pump electric motors.

 MR. BROOKMAN: So, there's no 

comment box here, but should anybody wish to 

comment on these results please do so. Alex 

Boesenberg.

 MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg, 

NEMA. Please refresh my memory on what the 

difference between a positive and negative net 

present value result is on these slides.

 MS. IYAMA: Okay. So, the net 

present value is the difference between your 

cost savings and the incremental cost of 

purchasing a new motor. It also includes the 

incremental cost of repairing a higher 

efficiency motor. So, the net present value 

here is calculated as the difference between 

the non-energy cost increase and the energy 

cost savings. 

So, for example, you buy a more 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 292 

efficient motor, you're saving on your energy 

bills but it's a higher investment to begin 

with. So the NPV is sort of the tradeoff 

between the two. And it's negative when your 

initial investment and operating lifetime 

costs are greater than the payback.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Is it lifetime or at 

the 30-year?

 MS. IYAMA: Here it's -- so, it's 

the lifetime of motors shipped over 30 years.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Thank you. Yes. 

Charlie.

 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. 

I'll add that basically it's saying that your 

costs don't outweigh your initial investment, 

but when you use the 7-percent discount rate 

you're discounting all of your future savings 

substantially. The near-term dollars matter 

much more than the year 15 to 30 dollars, so 

the numbers look a lot worse when you use the 

7-percent discount rate, than they do if you 

use a 3-percent. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 293

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So, then 

moving on.

 MS. IYAMA: Right, so moving on 

I'll let Hisham continue with the preliminary 

manufacturer impact analysis. 

MR. BROOKMAN: So, let me just take 

a quick poll in the room. How many of you have 

participated in the manufacturer impact 

interviews in the past? Just a few of you, 

okay. I think they're familiar with much of 

this material. 

MR. ARAJI: All right. So, I'm 

going to talk a little bit about the 

preliminary manufacturer impact analysis right 

now, and where it comes into the preliminary 

analysis stage. You could see here it's a 

little bit separate during this part of the 

rulemaking process.

 So, the purpose of the preliminary 

MIA is to qualitatively and quantitatively 

assess the impacts of amended efficiency 

standards on manufacturers of electric motors. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 294 

A key output of this analysis is the change in 

industry net present value resulting from 

amended standards.

 DOE normally performs the MIA in 

three phases. In the first phase, DOE creates 

an industry profile that builds on the market 

and technology assessment. This market profile 

is then updated through interviews with 

manufacturers, and this typically takes place 

during the preliminary analysis which is the 

phase of the rulemaking that we're in right 

now.

 During this time, DOE identifies 

the key issues concerning manufacturers. In 

Phase 2, it spans the NOPR and final analysis, 

I'm sorry, final rule stages. DOE builds a 

strawman industry cash flow model called the 

"Government Regulatory Impact Model," or GRIM, 

to forecast free cash flows in the industry. 

It does this for the base case and the 

standards case scenario, and calculates an 

industry net present value which is the main 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 295
	

output of the GRIM.

 Also in Phase 2, DOE develops an 

interview guide that it will use to guide its 

subsequent discussions with manufacturers 

during the MIA interviews, which will take 

place in Phase 3. 

Now, during these interviews DOE 

speaks with a variety of different 

manufacturers to receive feedback on the items 

listed in the interview guide. We'll be 

scheduling these interviews soon after this 

meeting, and we'll start conducting the 

interviews some time after the close of the 

comment period.

 I would also like to mention at 

this point that these interviews are nearly 

always conducted with a non-disclosure 

agreement in place so that no proprietary 

information could be shared publicly, but 

rather aggregated across all the responses.

 Following the interviews, DOE will 

refine the GRIM and evaluate other qualitative 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 296 

issues such as manufacturer capacity, direct 

employment impacts, and impacts on 

competition.

 So, taking a step back to what was 

done for the preliminary analysis stage, 

during our preliminary MIA, DOE identified 

three key issues affecting manufacturers. Now, 

a lot of these issues were brought up 

throughout the meeting today, but we'll repeat 

them again here because they are important 

when we are considering impacts to 

manufacturers.

 First, manufacturers indicated 

that higher efficiency standards may drive 

consumers to rewind older, less efficient 

motors rather than buying new more efficient 

motors that are more expensive. Now, as Sanaee 

mentioned, DOE does acknowledge that this 

increase in electric motor prices could affect 

the "repair versus replace" decision for 

consumers, so DOE is welcoming and seeking 

comments on data sources that it could use to 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 297 

better estimate the impacts of this scenario 

on shipments.

 For the second key issue, DOE 

identified several concerns related to 

switching to more efficient copper rotor 

motors. Manufacturers indicated that because 

copper has a higher melting point than 

aluminum it's more dangerous to fabricate. 

Also, the higher molten temperature of copper 

increases energy costs of manufacturers and 

leads to quicker degradation of tooling that's 

used in fabrication.

 Now, manufacturers also indicated 

that electric motors with copper rotors have 

reduced starting performance compared to those 

with aluminum rotors. This means higher inrush 

current and lower locked rotor torque. So, to 

compensate for these reduced performance 

characteristics manufacturers often have to 

adjust other design characteristics, such as 

slot design to maintain NEMA performance 

requirements just so basically they stay 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 298 

within the bounds that NEMA prescribes for 

Design A, Design B, and Design C. Now, these 

adjustments to these other characteristics 

could potentially negate the improvements in 

efficiency gained from switching to copper 

rotors.

 Additionally, manufacturers 

indicated that not only is copper a more 

expensive raw material compared to aluminum, 

but there are significant costs associated 

with retooling their entire production lines 

for this design option. And a lot of people 

have brought that up today.

 Third key issue, domestic 

manufacturers have indicated that they may be 

disproportionately affected by new efficiency 

standards if DOE does not broadly enforce 

efficiency requirements for all covered 

motors, including those imported from foreign 

countries.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 299 

While under the copper rotor motors and 

throughout most of today you've tended to 

concentrate on only the parts of the MG1 

standard that differentiate between design 

types, Design A, B, and C. There are many 

parts of the standard that apply commonly to 

all the design types, and those performance 

criteria must also be met in the design.

 One of the things that's difficult 

in the cast copper rotor is that in order to 

achieve sufficient starting torque with a more 

conductive material, and you allude to this in 

various discussions, is having to shape the 

rotor slot so that you minimize the amount of 

material that's active at the time of 

starting, so you get a very high power density 

loss in that material.

 The MG1 standard has requirements 

for at least being able to start twice from a 

cold start condition, or once from a hot start 

condition with a certain amount of inertia and 

a certain assumed load torque. But one of the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 300 

more difficult criteria is, is there's also a 

specified stall time, and that's related to 

the fact that many of these motors are 

protected by a standard class type of 

protective device that will keep that motor on 

line in a stalled condition if it's unable to 

start for a significant period of time. The 

MG1 standard is 20 seconds, so it's also 

important, and I didn't see that discussed in 

the PTSD.

 So, it's really necessary that 

when you're making a decision of any 

technology, so I'm not just restricting this 

to cast copper rotors, that the entire 

standard be considered and not just the parts 

that differentiate between design types. But, 

again, I just reiterate you won't need to do 

this evaluation if you screen out cast copper 

rotors in the first place. Thank you.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. John, and 

then to Steve.

 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski, 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 301 

Baldor. On the last bullet point you have on 

enforcement, I just wanted to clarify that one 

of our concerns is when we talk about domestic 

manufacturers being affected by energy 

standards, that's beyond just motor 

manufacturers, it's OEM manufacturers. And 

they're affected by non-complaint motors 

coming into the country embedded in machinery. 

We're having that problem today. It would be 

worse in the future if domestic manufacturers 

try complying with whatever new laws. The 

delta between compliant and non-compliant 

motor would be even greater than today, and 

that would be job losses for machinery 

builders here that would be going overseas.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Steve, 

yes.

 MR. RUFFING: Steve Ruffing. We had 

-- the conversation had again kind of gone 

back to design changes that are necessary to 

compensate for negative performance aspects 

related to, let's say, copper rotors. And we 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 302 

got -- Roger then mentioned there was emphasis 

placed on complying with the NEMA 

specifications related to the design letter 

specifically B. And there's one thing I wanted 

to point out when I saw in Chapter 5 where the 

various CSL levels, the 4 and 5 were reported 

to be in compliance with NEMA Design B. So, 

one of the things I noticed was some of the 

margins that the calculated values met them by 

were -- I guess I'd characterize those as 

razor thin. For example, the 30-horsepower 

four-pole Design B CSL 4 level design is 

required to meet a level of 200 percent 

breakdown torque to comply with NEMA Design B. 

And the level that was reported per the design 

calculation program was 202 percent. Now, keep 

in mind that 200 percent is a minimum value 

that has to be met, not a nominal value. So, 

what that's essentially saying is that -- is 

this what I presume to be a nominal level of 

202 percent for the program accounts for not 

only inaccuracies that might exist in the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 303 

program, but then also manufacturing variation 

from one motor to the next. And all that is 

taken up with a 2 percent margin.

 Similarly, on one of the 75-

horsepower designs, I'll just look up the 

numbers, the NEMA Design B limit for locked 

rotor amps is 542.5, and the CSL 5 design has 

locked rotor amps of 541.3. So, again, 

inaccuracies in the program plus manufacturing 

variations would only account for one amp of 

tolerance there, which seems a little overly 

optimistic in my opinion.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Ned.

 MR. BRUSH: Ned Brush. I wanted to 

comment on the copper rotor question. Roger 

raises a number of very important points about 

using copper rotor as opposed to the aluminum 

die-cast rotor. I would point out that Siemens 

did this, but it was a basic redesign for 

North America for 60-hertz motors, and it was 

a slot design that at approximately 3-

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 304 

horsepower you change to the double bar 

design, and so on to be able to control that 

inrush, as well as achieve very respectable 

torques, and so on. 

It is possible, but it does 

require redesign. You're just in a different 

place in the torque curve because you've 

changed the conductivity of the conductor in 

the rotor. 

I would also point out that, for 

instance, our friends in China on copper diecasting last year did about 80,000 rotors, a 

little more, up from 20,000 the year before. 

And a number of their motor companies, for 

example, are shipping around the world, many 

of them to IEC standards, some to IEEE. We 

also people working in South Korea, and in 

Taiwan, as well as in Germany, and in France 

and so on, so there are quite a number of 

people that are producing motors, some to 60-

hertz for use in North America like Siemens, 

and others for IEC. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 305

 I might add that the Chinese, one 

operation does only the die cast copper using 

our manufacturing cell technology and so on, 

and that 80,000 that they produced last year 

for commercial is up from 20,000 the year 

before. And they only started the year before 

that, so there is growth. And many of their 

customers are reported to be sort of looking 

at this as a product line at a time in terms 

of making the transition. And I believe some 

of them, anyway, have said that it was at a 

time when their stamping dies were wearing 

out, so they had to buy new -- they had to 

build new stamping dies, and make that 

investment, anyway. So, they changed the 

design, but they did make major design changes 

to be able to stay within inrush, to be able 

to achieve torques and so on, but it is 

possible.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

Yes, John. 

MR. MALINOWSKI: Yes, I'd like to 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 306 

just comment that the motors that I think Ned 

is talking about are, as he said, IEC motors, 

and the general purpose IEC motor would be a 

Design N motor. And in a Design N, that 

includes both what we would call NEMA Design 

B, as well as NEMA Design A. So, we're talking 

Design B motors, and the copper motors that 

we've identified coming into the U.S. are 

Design As. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Alex.

 MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg, 

NEMA. I won't -- I'll try not to repeat 

anything that's already been said, but I want 

to build on the topic of the feasibility of 

increasing hand winding, and also the comments 

on jobs or cost of retooling, and then how 

that factors into enforcement.

 Using the Battery Charger and 

External Power Supplies rulemaking as an 

example of what can happen to a particular 

sector, and what they do about it. As has 

already been noted, cast copper rotors, hand 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 307 

winding, and some of the other distinct have 

to make a lot of changes solutions will force 

businesses to make decisions about where to 

add that capacity. And several manufacturers 

have already commented they probably can't do 

it in the U.S. because of the cost. 

So, what happens then is it goes 

overseas, and politicians get interested 

because of the U.S. job loss. And I know the 

GRIM model has some factors in for that, but 

beyond the strict economic factor, the 

feasibility of carrying out a rule starts to 

come into question. And that's why I mentioned 

the Battery Chargers rule. 

I know of a bill in progress to 

exempt an entire product class because it 

happens to be a single U.S. manufacturer that 

has to close down. And there was another 

manufacturer, I was sitting right here, and he 

was sitting over there during that rule and he 

said, "We're the only U.S. manufacturer this 

size, 12-volt charger. If you make me meet 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 308 

your NOPR, I'm going to shut down my plant and 

just contract it out to China, and all those 

U.S. jobs gone."

 And while that -- I know there's 

tradeoffs on jobs, et cetera, in the GRIM, 

it's inescapable of the political climate, as 

well, and I hope the DOE will bear that in 

mind.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Do we 

have other final comments as suggested here, 

key issues related to preliminary manufacturer 

impact analysis, because we need to keep 

going. We're going to keep going. 

MR. ARAJI: Thank you. And now I'll 

hand it over to Sanaee who will talk about the 

NOPR analysis. 

MS. IYAMA: All right. So, we 

finished the preliminary analysis. So, in the 

NOPR we'll start off by revising the 

preliminary analysis, and then we'll cover 

some new analyses that are not included in the 

preliminary analysis. And these are the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 309 

customer subgroup analysis, the employment 

impact analysis, the utility impact analysis, 

the emissions analysis, the monetization of 

emission reduction benefits, and the 

regulatory impact analysis.

 So, first on the revision of the 

preliminary analysis, what we'll do is that 

we'll consider the comments and the inputs 

from the stakeholders while making our 

revisions. We'll also consider any new 

information that we'll come across, and we'll 

do this for the main analysis of the 

preliminary stage.

 Next, I'll go over the customer 

subgroup analysis. The purpose of this 

analysis is to analyze the economic impacts of 

standards on specific groups of consumers that 

may be significantly more impacted by a 

standard compared to the general user 

population. So, we'll use the same LCC 

spreadsheet analysis, but we'll modify the 

inputs to the specific subgroup of users that 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 310 

we want to look at. And here, DOE welcomes any 

comment on any specific subgroup that would be 

appropriate to look at in this rule.

 Next, I'll go through the 

employment impact analysis. The purpose of 

this analysis is to assess the overall impact 

of standards on national employment. And here 

we'll be looking at indirect employment 

impact. Hisham just covered the direct 

employment impact. And the way to do this is 

by using the impact of sector energy 

technologies, the ImSET model that will help 

us evaluate the indirect employment impacts. 

And here, DOE welcomes feedback on its 

proposed approach to analyze indirect 

employment impact with ImSET.

 Next, the utility impact analysis. 

So, the purpose of this section is to estimate 

the overall impacts of standards on domestic 

electricity suppliers, and that would be done 

through the use of a modified version of the 

national energy modeling system model which is 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 311 

called NEMS-BT. The NEMS model is the model 

used by the EIA to produce the projections you 

see in the Annual Energy Outlooks. And here 

again we have a comment box on the proposed 

approach to use NEMS-BT to conduct the utility 

impact analysis.

 Next, I'll go through the 

emissions analysis. So, in that section DOE 

will report emission impacts resulting from 

amended or new energy conservation standards. 

It will also include emissions on the based 

full fuel cycle emissions.

 We'll report carbon dioxide 

emission reduction, mercury and nitrogen oxide 

for the 22 states where these emissions are 

not capped. For the states where these 

emissions are capped, and for sulfur dioxide 

where we have an existing legislation capping 

sulfur dioxide, DOE assumes that the impacts 

of standards are minimal. And here we also 

seek inputs on the intent to use NEMS-BT to 

conduct the emissions analysis. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 312

 So, after quantifying the emission 

reduction another step is to use monetary 

measures or conversion factors to translate 

those emission reductions into monetized 

values. So, here DOE intends to use the most 

current social cost of carbon values given by 

OMB to convert the CO2 emission reduction into 

dollar values. And on this slide we have the 

rates that we will be using. And we also do 

this for NOx emission reductions. And here 

another comment box on this approach.

 And then I'll move on to the last 

section of the NOPR, which is the regulatory 

impact analysis. So, in this section the 

purpose is to investigate the national impacts 

of non-regulatory alternatives compared to the 

impacts of mandatory energy conservation 

standards.

 Some of the non-regulatory 

alternatives that may be considered in this 

section include consumer rebates, tax credits, 

manufacturer tax credits, voluntary efficiency 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 313 

levels, early replacement programs, and bulk 

government procurement programs. So, the way 

we would evaluate the impact of those nonregulatory options would be to use a similar 

National Impact Analysis model, and estimate 

the same outputs, the national energy saving, 

the net present value associated to those nonregulatory alternatives. And here we have the 

last comment box inviting comments on any nonregulatory alternatives that should be 

analyzed in that section.

 And with that, we're done. 

MR. BROOKMAN: We've taken it to 

the slide on how to submit comments, and I'm 

going to -- and before I turn it over to Jim 

Raba for closing remarks, another opportunity 

for anybody that wishes to do so to comment, 

issues that haven't been covered fully, other 

things you wish to say here as we move towards 

closure. Roger.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

This has to deal with how to submit the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 314 

comments. I notice that in the presentation 

today the issues were numbered differently 

than they are in the handout. I also note that 

in the Executive Summary, there was a list of 

issues to which DOE wished comments.

 In Chapter 2, we identified at 

least 49 places where DOE requested comments 

or information. Obviously, some of those were 

not presented today. There are various places 

throughout the PTSD that warrant comment, and 

DOE's discussion in different chapters is 

different on the same subject. So, it's a 

matter of trying to organize comments in a 

very short period of time, and exactly how to 

organize those. If DOE has a recommendation 

how to go about this, it would be very 

appreciated. 

MR. KOHSE: I think just following 

the numbers in the presentation would probably 

be the most simple approach. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: The handout?

 MR. KOHSE: Yes, the handout. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 315

 MR. BROOKMAN: So, that was not on 

the record. The recommendation for the record 

is to follow the -- to make your comments 

based on the numbers that are in the handout, 

today's handout.

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

But then to go beyond those, because like I 

said, in Chapter 2 there's 49 different 

places, and you only hit 34 or 35 here. And in 

the Executive Summary, so we attach those as 

another set of separate and isolated comments?

 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael?

 MR. KIDO: I was just going to 

suggest maybe to the extent that you've got 

specific comments related to those chapters 

that are in the TSD, maybe you could have some 

sort of appendix or something that says 

comments related to Chapter 2, comments 

related to Chapter 3, et cetera. That way it's 

easy for you guys to organize and it's easy 

for us to sort of figure out what the comments 

relate to. Would that be workable? 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 316

 MR. BROOKMAN: Alex.

 MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg, 

NEMA. Right now my draft is keyed to page 

number and clause, like page 14, 4.3.2. Will 

that work for you guys? Good, because then I 

don't have to renumber 53 pages. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, thank you for 

that. Okay, Andrew. 

MR. DELASKI: So just to kind of 

close where we began, which is to reiterate 

the support of the Motor Coalition for the 

joint petition, which we think represents a 

way to move forward expeditiously towards 

issuing a final rule with really broad support 

of the stakeholders, many of the stakeholders 

represented here today. 

And I think a lot of the concerns 

that you've heard today, I would say virtually 

all the concerns you've heard today have to do 

with levels beyond the levels that are 

recommended by the Motor Coalition. So, I 

think a lot of the -- whether it be copper 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 317 

rotors, or whatever the issue might be that's 

raising the need for additional and deeper 

analysis, that occurs by going beyond the 

levels recommended by the Coalition. So, part 

of the reason for the recommendation is it 

gives us a path forward that can be 

accomplished within a really -- within the 

statutory limits, which is by December 17th. 

Otherwise, we can't meet. And I know the 

Department meets obligations otherwise to show 

that the criteria under the statute have been 

met, but I think what you're hearing from this 

community today is that the Coalition's 

recommendations meet those criteria, and we 

spelled that out in the petition. 

So, I would just close by urging 

the Department to move forward to adopt the 

recommendations in the joint petition filed 

last Wednesday. They deliver enormous savings, 

LCC benefits that are solidly within the life 

cycle of the products, and address the 

concerns that have been raised today about 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 318 

some of the other aspects of the analysis.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Andrew. 

Yes, Alex.

 MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg, 

NEMA. I'll second Mr. deLaski's statement.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Speaking on behalf 

of NEMA?

 MR. BOESENBERG: Speaking on behalf 

of NEMA, yes, not my farmer friends or 

anybody.

 (Laughter.)

 MR. BOESENBERG: To build on my 

last statement about enforcement, and jobs, 

and everything, perhaps it's obvious but I 

want to restate that a rule that everyone can 

agree on is one that logically most, if not 

all, stakeholders will immediately then begin 

to adhere to, versus in the case of the 

example I mentioned, the product class that is 

seeking total exemption from the rule that is 

about to be published for battery chargers 

means that all energy savings are lost in that 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 319 

product class because the exemption they're 

pursuing is to say that DOE may not dedicate 

funds to enforce this product class, which 

means the whole thing is gone.

 They didn't like CSL 3, but if 

they would have agreed to a painful CSL 2 then 

you would have saved the jump from 1 to 2. And 

that's certainly the sort of things we want to 

avoid in this rule.

 MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments? No 

additional comments. So, for my part I thank 

you. This was a very constructive day. We 

covered a heck of a lot of ground very 

efficiently. And, particularly, for all of you 

that gave a lot of really good and very useful 

information, very, very helpful to the 

Department. Thank you. Congratulations on 

that. And back to Jim Raba for closing 

remarks.

 MR. RABA: We conclude today's 

public meeting with expressed appreciation 

from the Department of Energy for your 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 320 

participation. As Doug pointed out, it's been 

a very informative meeting, very productive. 

And thank you, thank you all. And, also, to 

thank our presenters Will Kohse, Hisham Araji 

from Navigant Consulting, Sanaee Iyama from 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, our 

technical crew back stage who made possible 

the webinar portion, Jack Graul. And, of 

course, our excellent facilitator, Doug 

Brookman. Thank you, and safe travels. 

We look forward to your written 

comments. The written comments and safe 

travels. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 4:21 p.m.) 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 321
	

A accurate 145:6 additional 14:15 adopt 317:17 247:9 248:5,8

ABB 7:5,13 161:19 162:1 185:17 24:12 37:22 48:9 adopted 44:2 250:16 251:19

244:6,9,10 265:1 75:22 76:9,17 advance 19:20 20:5 254:17 259:18

ability 272:4 accurately 185:13 78:3 81:18 82:3 advanced 1:15,22 271:5

able 45:20 62:10 198:13 274:3 83:11,19 84:8,10 8:3 9:8 200:12 agriculture 214:4

67:9,14 84:7 accused 272:10 84:13 90:15 advantages 107:14 247:9 248:2 253:9

114:11 135:22 ACEEE 8:6 104:13 121:3,5 adverse 106:6 ahead 35:3 71:19

137:10 179:22 achievable 18:11 135:4,5,16 142:21 114:17 115:9 74:10,20 86:2

194:22 235:17 134:6,8 166:5 143:9 152:21 116:4,6 123:8,14 98:11 99:14

243:17,21 246:10 171:12 153:6 158:8 advocacy 45:8 103:22 113:13

299:19 304:2 achieve 22:11 164:18 175:12 advocated 44:18 138:20 143:3

305:17,17 114:22 172:17 178:4 191:6 196:8 advocates 16:21,22 186:7 198:2

ABMA 257:5 175:19 177:13 216:18 217:2 AEDM 63:22 86:12 213:10 230:6

abound 23:13 194:22 299:11 230:2 231:20 86:14,15 87:2,8 240:7 243:6

above-entitled 304:3 305:18 235:6 238:9 87:22 88:2,7,10 257:22

105:6 178:7 achieved 114:7 241:16 262:15 88:19 89:9 90:7 air 58:1 59:22 60:2

260:11 320:14 134:18 167:19 270:13,17,19 147:14 159:22 62:9,11,11,15,21

abroad 183:14,17 196:2,4,5,6 276:18,21 279:17 161:17 162:8 64:13 70:6 71:4

absence 279:3 acknowledge 184:8 317:2 319:11 AEDMs 86:8 72:1,7 73:15

absolutely 258:12 296:18 Additionally 298:7 affect 229:1 279:1 98:22 99:1 102:12

AC 94:19 96:4,7,8 Act 15:1 17:5,21 additions 84:13 296:19 airtime 13:18

accepted 82:18 25:9,11,17 address 5:14 15:7 affiliation 6:4,9 air-over 57:18,22

83:15 157:2 active 244:20 16:6 32:9 34:2 13:3 59:1 62:9 63:5

accepting 156:21 299:15 37:17 40:1 67:19 afforded 24:4 65:11 67:4 68:18

access 246:10 actual 24:6 64:11 81:17 130:17 afternoon 12:4 69:1,15 70:21

accommodate 40:6 67:15 128:19 203:1 317:21 Agamloh 1:15 8:2 72:4,12,13,15

228:2,13 242:22 139:10 147:19 addressed 45:11 8:2 68:15,15,17 75:2

accomplish 75:18 151:4 182:2 211:6 128:5 agency 31:2,7 33:3 Al 2:10 9:17

accomplished 211:13 215:14 addressing 171:7 38:8,21 Alex 1:19 7:2

317:7 222:6 250:9 adds 68:9 244:21 agenda 4:2 11:3,4 250:11,13 266:14

account 31:3 90:22 268:10 279:20 272:16 12:20 291:7,9 306:10,11

98:7 99:16,21 adapted 177:1 adequately 12:11 aggregate 181:10 316:1,2 318:3,4

140:4 180:15 adapting 103:19 adhere 318:18 182:22 184:20 Alliance 2:9,15

206:5 211:20 add 56:12 73:4,19 Adin 1:14 9:1,1 185:11 212:19 6:15 8:7

214:10 216:2 96:13 97:12 98:1 adjourn 4:20 12:15 aggregated 189:2 allocated 19:17

228:20 239:6 104:2 211:16 adjust 269:8 295:20 allow 82:5,7,21

249:1 252:2,10 266:9 287:6,8 273:10 297:20 ago 17:7 19:5 22:1 83:1 146:1 154:3

269:12 303:10 289:20 292:14 adjustable 22:16 30:6 210:9 215:7 186:12

accounted 102:13 305:1 307:4 adjusted 96:2 agree 74:22 78:10 allowable 137:5

142:6 183:21 added 35:12 54:16 adjustments 31:5 108:8 318:16 allowed 67:15

209:2 153:22 202:11 298:3 agreed 95:4 202:9 139:11 275:16

accounts 141:11 244:20,20 270:17 administrability 266:6 319:6 285:21 286:3

163:4 261:3 270:18 68:10 agreement 153:14 allowing 83:5

302:21 adding 34:9 55:16 administrable 18:1 295:18 allows 223:4

accumulate 281:4 56:1 57:3 73:3 Administration agrees 60:15 alloy 107:11

accumulating addition 54:7,12,15 224:17 230:12 agricultural 212:2 alloys 106:14

280:7,12 128:9 admit 143:14 217:5,9 237:18 allude 299:12

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 322
	

alluded 76:8 150:1 analyses 15:13,14 268:9 269:11,12 254:11 275:20 247:22

159:10 15:16 16:8 26:18 270:1 273:15 311:3 application-relat...

alter 33:1 26:20 29:4,15 274:7,11,16,17,18 answer 57:20 75:13

alternative 86:16 42:16 92:5 125:5 274:19,20 276:5,7 141:21 164:19 applied 63:7 73:14

206:20 125:6 179:16 277:2,11,14,17 187:9 200:4 244:7 87:10 146:10

Alternatively 83:4 217:15 269:19 279:20,21 280:19 answered 200:1 158:18 180:11

alternatives 312:16 308:21 281:1,15 282:15 232:4 185:12 186:16

312:20 313:8,10 analysis 1:3,9 4:9 283:13 284:8,17 anticipate 38:18 187:10 195:22

aluminum 112:20 4:10,13,14,17 5:8 285:17,20 286:10 39:7 204:21 206:7

113:11 118:14 5:19 11:18,18,21 286:18 287:1,10 antitrust 190:19 276:4 279:11

140:16 141:1,3,6 12:2,3,8 16:10 290:6,13 293:5,14 191:22 270:9 287:14

141:10,15 160:21 20:12,14 26:22 293:16 294:1,10 anybody 11:11 applies 86:17 134:4

170:17,19 171:1 27:4,9 28:22 29:5 294:15 296:5 16:8 104:18 apply 46:17 51:9

172:8 180:1 297:8 29:16,21 40:19 308:12,16,18,20 235:12 250:20 51:15 65:4 66:19

297:16 298:9 41:15,17,19 42:9 308:22 309:1,2,2 291:6 313:17 67:4 135:17

303:18 42:10,13,18,21 309:3,5,7,12,15 318:10 154:10,11 172:9

amazes 288:10 43:1 63:14 94:22 309:16,21 310:5,6 anymore 243:22 187:6 299:6

amazing 243:12 98:8 102:6 105:14 310:17 311:6,8,22 Anytime 177:6 applying 23:10,14

ambiguity 60:19 105:20,22 106:2 312:14 313:5 anyway 256:3 63:7 122:8 123:18

73:4,22 106:10,13 107:22 317:3 318:1 263:7 305:11,15 197:2 206:10

amend 26:4,9 28:7 116:16 122:5,19 analytical 5:14 apologize 59:7 283:10,11

amended 15:1 26:4 124:14,15,17,21 15:7 27:12 29:3 Apparatus 1:18 appreciate 20:19

29:18 44:5 135:13 125:3,9,10 126:5 analyze 134:7 2:12 6:12 9:12 24:8 37:10 105:11

222:15 293:21 127:3,4,5 129:16 197:12 309:16 apparently 49:6,7 176:3

294:3 311:10 129:16 134:2 310:15 appear 102:11 appreciated 314:17

amending 33:18,20 135:14 137:1,22 analyzed 20:10 appears 51:2 136:3 appreciation

amendments 15:5 138:5 139:1 142:1 96:18 98:3 128:19 appendix 34:11,17 319:21

amends 84:21 142:7,9,19 143:4 128:22 179:13 56:19 84:6,12 approach 17:17

America 244:16 149:5 156:15,18 192:12 313:11 149:13,13 153:11 18:1,22 44:11,22

303:21 304:21 157:4,6,7,22 analyzing 127:9 154:6 315:17 138:12 175:15,22

American 2:2 158:6 159:12 ANDERSEN 2:20 Appliance 1:25 8:5 185:8 193:8,14,17

60:16 173:12 165:16,18,21 Anderson 1:15 applicable 88:2 193:21 205:6,18

174:12 257:5 172:11 173:17,20 9:15,15 108:19 111:8 206:10 222:22

amorphous 106:13 174:9 179:15 Andrew 1:25 8:4 application 18:6 254:19 286:6

106:16 107:3,5 181:21 184:21 31:12 33:8 78:8 38:12 62:17 63:15 310:15 311:5

108:3 185:15,17,18 79:15 93:16,17 64:11 65:13,18,22 312:11 314:20

amount 60:1 64:4 186:8,21,22 201:2,4 253:13 66:8 86:12 112:15 approached 218:4

130:2 161:14 187:17,22 188:6,8 316:8 318:2 116:12 134:21 approaches 98:2

218:18 221:3 189:14 192:8 and/or 242:14 211:19 212:5,13 176:9,12 193:2,7

233:8,15 249:21 194:16 200:7 announcing 30:5 213:1 214:17 206:20

271:9 272:16 201:1 203:9,15,19 annual 190:22 256:1 259:18 appropriate 20:1

299:14,21 205:8 208:12 208:9,13 209:8,12 applications 20:17 133:5 154:8

amounts 239:13 213:13 222:7,8,20 209:18,19 211:14 208:19 212:18 172:9 173:18

amp 303:10 223:2,8 224:9,9 212:20,20 213:2 214:6,13 216:15 263:14 310:3

amplify 221:12 224:22 226:17 214:4,14,20 217:2 219:13 appropriately 12:5

amps 136:12,13 228:21 260:17,18 216:12 222:18 220:8 241:14 approximately

303:7,8 261:4,11 267:9,16 224:18 237:10,16 245:4 246:18 109:1 132:19

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 323
	

165:1 303:22 294:7 82:6 avoiding 73:3 207:3 218:16,20

Araji 1:16 4:8,10 asset 235:16 attained 110:17,18 aware 40:16 90:9 219:6 220:13,15

4:17 8:14,14 assigned 112:15 110:20,22 100:7 107:17 231:5 233:19

24:20,21 28:13,19 117:12 attempt 111:22 115:11 129:12 241:2,4,11 243:6

31:11 33:9 39:20 assignments 131:7 attempts 68:21 169:16,18 228:7 250:12,15 255:15

165:12,12 175:14 assist 149:5 attending 2:19 5:4 278:22 259:11 260:7,10

175:17 179:6 associate 170:5 attention 21:20 Awareness 1:25 8:5 260:15 262:19

182:5 183:4,12 associated 140:5 91:17 122:2 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-... 263:17 264:22

186:20 191:8,12 153:17 154:14,15 attributable 233:10 179:1 267:14,16 269:8

191:16 192:5 198:20 208:19 attribute 157:21 a.m 1:10 5:2 105:7 272:8,13 273:10

197:10 200:19 298:10 313:7 attributes 52:12 105:8 287:21 296:4

293:12 308:14 association 1:18,19 attrition 160:1 301:20 319:18

320:4 1:21,23 2:4,5,12 AUGUST 1:6 B 320:7

arbitrarily 173:5 2:14 3:17 6:12 Austin 2:21 10:16 B 34:11 35:11 background 25:6

area 93:13 241:20 7:3 9:10,12 51:17 232:17 47:21 48:2 51:12 33:10 43:13 47:9

areas 201:18 117:22 136:4 authorization 51:13,18 56:21 118:2

arena 220:2 257:6 218:6 64:16,18,22 65:1 backup 222:3

argue 175:5 221:4 associations 38:11 automated 122:11 75:17 78:4,5 84:6 bad 57:8 190:12

Army 111:15,15 assume 150:10 122:13 85:16 91:20 96:8 badge 104:21

113:18 117:11 221:17 237:22 automation 123:2 96:9 102:2,4 balance 92:19

Army's 160:16 256:4 automobile 174:3 109:9,21 127:14 99:22 183:7

arrangement 62:16 assumed 195:3 availability 106:7 135:15,18 137:16 balanced 141:16

89:3 176:20 225:21 226:12 110:11 114:18 139:17 149:13,13 balancing 181:11

arrangements 84:7 229:3,8,14,18 115:8 116:5 149:13,14 169:7 182:19

arrive 134:2 183:3 237:5 238:6,17,20 177:15 171:10,10 175:21 Baldor 2:9 3:11 7:5

188:14 277:9 279:5 283:3 available 13:16 192:14 227:21 7:13 55:9 65:10

articulate 38:8 284:15 299:22 108:22 109:2 236:12,13 287:5 74:5 77:1 143:13

asked 39:15 156:6 assumes 63:18 112:18 113:6 298:2 299:5 302:4 161:14 190:16

232:5 210:22 311:19 114:13 118:18 302:7,12,14 303:6 244:5 270:4 301:1

asking 50:6 187:14 assuming 59:21 119:15 123:6 306:6,7 ball 83:1 223:3

233:2 111:2 148:4 137:12 145:2 back 13:13 14:16 Ballo 1:17 10:6,6

aspect 38:6 64:1 153:21 185:9 166:5 167:13 21:19 25:8 28:4 band 156:1,3

79:4,7 256:21 207:8 219:14 242:14 257:2,8 30:17 36:1 48:11 166:16 167:18

aspects 301:21 268:8 275:3 Avenue 1:10 52:16 57:3 61:6 168:9,20,20

318:1 assumption 32:15 average 22:2 152:1 64:8 68:18 71:11 187:21 190:6,8

assemblies 272:1 100:10,11 111:7 152:6,17,18 78:12 84:18 93:19 193:16,17 194:11

assent 240:5 189:9 252:16 180:21 181:2 105:5,9,20 109:4 194:22

asserting 29:13 255:14 268:22 183:2 206:14 121:8 123:2 bands 110:17

30:9 269:1 275:6 212:20 213:4 134:16 142:14 154:16,21,22

assess 235:8 293:21 assumptions 63:6 214:8,15,16,20 144:6 146:19 155:1 168:8,18,19

310:6 68:20 69:1,9,10 215:3,8,13 216:12 151:14 153:10 169:4 195:4

assessing 126:13 70:6 144:14,17 216:14 220:10 158:3 159:4,16 bar 98:21 158:15

assessment 4:8 183:9 189:13 224:21 229:13,15 163:11 175:2,8 251:2 304:1

11:15 21:22 41:8 214:5 239:1 237:12 248:19 181:16 182:13 base 120:10 133:22

41:11,16 42:1 254:12 270:5 267:3,4 283:12 197:3 198:16 135:12 146:2

84:18 92:10,11 attach 315:10 averages 250:10 199:18 201:7 222:13,14,19

217:7 276:2,14 attached 58:16 avoid 319:9 202:1,16 203:5 239:17 260:19,22

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 324
	

261:2,18,18 262:1 230:16 255:18 46:10 81:20 227:6 230:8,19 209:13 210:7

262:13 266:18 261:3 287:13 Beloit 241:2 273:9 bit 32:7 33:11 41:5 223:10

275:1 277:3,8,11 292:14 297:22 belonging 79:16 43:13 47:9 50:2 bought 182:6

277:17,20 278:19 basing 269:15 belt 251:8 72:16 80:18 86:4 bounds 298:1

279:7,10 280:19 basis 109:4 121:14 bench 82:6 94:1 98:16 111:11 box 167:22 206:18

280:21,21 281:2,5 121:19 141:5 benchmark 166:18 141:15 142:8 208:4 238:8

281:6,16 282:3,6 151:5 205:17 beneficial 19:14 182:10 184:15 279:12 286:5

283:6 294:20 210:11 benefit 73:20 88:11 244:6 245:8,17 291:6 311:4

based 13:20 26:11 Basso 1:17 7:19,19 274:9 278:9 271:13 293:13,17 312:11 313:9

32:15 40:8 47:19 59:9,10,19 60:4 benefits 309:4 blouse 203:12 boxes 186:3 191:6

52:13 69:2,6 85:2 67:3 138:21,21 317:20 blue 194:15 275:11 195:7 286:12

85:13,20 101:20 139:8 145:17,17 Berkeley 2:6,23 BLUM 2:23 boy 251:3

107:11 116:3,16 184:18 251:14,14 3:13 8:17 15:22 board 213:16 BOYD 2:22

120:7 122:21,21 251:17 252:3 94:6,12 200:21 Bob 147:11 BP 240:10

126:1 127:2,6 268:19,19 203:7 320:6 Boesenberg 1:19 Bragg 112:14

129:18,22 132:8 Basso's 68:3 best 13:10 38:7,13 6:14 7:2,2 250:13 brake 58:3,5,16,16

132:11 133:6 batch 272:5 50:7 68:12 155:11 250:13 251:12 66:20,21,21 67:3

138:9 140:21 battery 306:18 155:11 177:6 284:4 291:8,9,9 67:11,13,17 68:19

141:22 142:1,10 307:14 318:21 184:19 185:11 306:11,11 316:2,2 76:10,18

143:7 145:20 bear 148:22 308:7 better 32:16 60:18 318:4,4,8,12 bread 249:14

150:9 152:7 153:5 bearing 83:1,7 79:13 88:19 102:2 bold 128:18 breadth 105:12

167:1,5,7 169:3 138:7 227:4 235:3 102:4 112:2 bonded 107:10 break 11:15,17

170:13 181:12 256:21,22 257:6,8 156:17 174:17 Bonnett 2:21 10:17 12:3,6 47:22

182:6 183:12 257:16 258:8,9,16 203:9,16 233:1,12 232:17 104:14,15,17

185:15,20 193:4 259:1,2,12,13 248:1 290:8 297:1 Bonneville 230:12 144:8,9 184:11

194:3,9,17 195:2 bearings 53:22 beyond 30:18 bore 175:1,9 185:3 260:4

195:15 196:21 236:9 255:19 146:1 170:4 301:5 Boteler 1:20 7:16 breakdown 230:10

204:21 208:10 258:2 307:11 315:7 7:16 57:16,16 230:18 276:8

216:4,9 226:1,5,7 bears 210:19 316:20 317:3 61:7 95:10,18 302:14

226:16 228:9 beat 113:1 251:1,6 big 62:20 68:7 97:2,2,7,10,19 breakdowns 95:1

254:9,17 269:8 began 111:16 74:14 239:19 124:2,2 147:12 276:10,15

273:10 275:6,18 112:11 316:10 252:8 253:1 182:21 183:8,22 breaker 242:15

275:19 311:11 beginning 109:2 289:21 198:3 199:15 breaks 85:7 238:5

315:4 begun 20:3 83:22 bigger 175:3 202:9 207:2,2,16 break-down 99:18

baseline 165:22 behalf 16:19 17:8 245:11 246:5 208:2 213:6,11,11 Breuckman 119:8

166:8,22 203:20 28:4 35:18 55:10 biggest 67:7 218:15 215:2,17,22 brevity 23:10 43:6

205:3,9 206:15 76:6 77:1 135:8 284:12 219:20 227:9 BRIAN 2:22

207:9 258:16 244:6 250:14 Bijit 2:25 10:17 228:17 247:3,19 brief 11:6,9 16:9

bases 189:18 318:6,8 bill 10:3 137:15 248:7,13,20 249:3 31:13 108:15

basic 45:19 92:20 believe 39:17 49:1 138:2 280:13 249:7 253:4 briefly 17:14 187:9

200:8 227:4 49:12 90:17 104:7 307:15 263:17 265:11 bring 48:16 150:3,4

303:20 107:6 112:21 billion 22:12,15 266:10 267:14 150:6 202:11,12

basically 89:1 118:17 146:8 bills 292:2 268:1,3,6,16 202:15

112:6 140:11 148:15 181:13 bins 215:16 271:15 278:1 bringing 39:21

167:12 186:20 182:5 189:22 Bishop 1:18 6:10 287:18,18 289:7 62:18 203:5

195:7,15 207:17 215:19 305:10 6:11,11 93:7,7,10 289:16 brings 25:21

216:7 226:6 believes 45:18 93:11 226:20,20 bottom 45:17 46:19 124:13

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 325
	

brittle 106:21 165:10 168:2,22 305:20 306:10 291:22 305:13 223:8 225:3

broad 34:20 35:4 173:1 175:11,16 308:9 313:13 buying 296:16 259:13,14 267:19

44:2 316:14 176:5 178:3 179:3 315:1,12 316:1,7 bypass 22:9 268:21 288:13

broader 173:14

broadly 298:17

181:15 182:13

184:16 186:2

318:2,6 319:10

320:10 C

calibrate 160:10

calibrated 160:20

Brookman 1:10,13 190:13 191:5,11 brought 40:6 C 55:15 65:2 78:4,5 161:7

4:3 6:1,13,18,22 191:15 192:1 163:18 296:8 85:17 91:3,6,22 calibration 159:14

7:8 8:12,18 10:8 195:11 198:1,15 298:13 129:2 137:13,13 159:21 160:3,12

10:19,21 16:14 199:10,20 200:2 Bruce 2:9 8:7 139:18 146:9,11 161:15

20:21 24:10 28:1 200:16 201:4 Brush 1:21 9:9,9 169:9 172:2,7 call 21:19 161:21

28:15 30:15 31:1 203:4,10,16 207:1 117:17,20,20 192:16 243:14,16 213:6 232:3

31:10,12 33:7 208:3 210:1,5,15 119:22 303:15,15 243:18 267:5 236:11 256:15

35:16 37:11,16 211:11 213:8 Bs 171:15,19 287:4 298:2 299:5 306:5

38:3,17 39:9,18 215:1 217:11 BUDZYNSKI 2:25 cage 130:7,17 called 25:10,18

46:14 48:11,21 218:12 219:19 build 67:12 162:6 140:13 171:1 29:9 46:12 89:13

49:5,10,19 50:1 220:12 221:8,19 169:21 172:7 calculate 63:9,16 107:9 167:8

50:10 55:5 57:15 226:18 227:8 252:4,5,6,6 63:21 64:9 142:9 230:12 294:17

58:20 59:5 60:10 228:14,18 230:6 305:14 306:14 143:7 207:18 311:1

61:5 62:2 63:1 231:1 232:6,12 318:12 209:15 223:14 calls 167:6

65:6 66:1 67:1 234:12 235:19 builders 301:15 280:21 281:14,19 Canada 2:23

68:1,13,16 69:11 236:2,8,12,15,18 building 19:18 282:1,4 283:16 candidate 125:22

70:9 71:16 72:21 236:21 238:14 102:21 103:17 284:19 165:19 175:13

74:2,9,15,19 239:8,11,14 240:3 207:12 calculated 140:9 capabilities 23:16

75:19,21 76:12,21 240:22 243:5 buildings 221:18 141:22 148:7,9 24:7

77:5,9,19 78:8,19 244:2,8,12 245:13 builds 272:7 294:6 158:1,2 206:14 capable 45:12 57:6

79:5 80:1,11,15 246:7 247:1 294:16 209:10 213:19 capacities 219:12

81:9 83:22 84:9 248:12 249:8 built 101:1,16 216:12 226:16 219:18

86:1,13 90:12 250:8 251:11,13 160:19 161:6 252:13 256:22 capacity 85:3

92:7 93:6,9,15 251:15 253:3,12 162:9 268:10 291:19 209:11 296:1

94:9 95:8 96:15 254:1 255:10 bulk 313:1 302:9 307:4

97:1,8,20 98:9 256:7 257:3,11,14 bullet 78:16 202:18 calculates 86:19 capital 142:5 225:9

99:11,13 100:3 257:18,22 259:5,8 203:1 301:1 157:9 280:4,10 239:22 249:13,21

104:10 105:9 260:2,14 262:17 bunch 257:19 294:21 250:5 273:21

108:6 116:19,22 263:11,15 264:11 burden 18:12 calculating 138:4 capped 311:16,17

117:15,18 119:20 265:9,20 266:3,8 burdened 181:10 157:12,14,16 capping 311:18

120:1,22 121:20 266:13 267:10,12 184:22 161:8 181:21 capture 203:2

123:22 124:11 268:18 270:2 burning 221:18 210:8,10 275:16 captured 20:13

129:10 135:3,10 271:14 273:5 burying 145:19 calculation 89:4 captures 72:18

136:15 138:19 274:12,14 276:21 business 13:6 208:15 209:18 carbon 311:13

139:19 141:17 277:22 278:17 105:17 118:16 210:4 214:22 312:6

142:11,14 143:2 279:17 284:3,5 184:4 205:12 215:14 222:6 cards 13:6 105:17

143:11 144:18 286:11 287:17 206:2,6 207:19 223:11 224:4 care 248:1 252:11

145:15 146:15 288:17 289:6,18 234:20 245:5 225:15 237:9 careful 61:9

147:11,20 148:19 290:9 291:5 292:7 businesses 307:3 248:22 266:21 Carlo 186:19

158:7 159:6 160:6 292:11 293:1,6 Butler 1:22 9:7,7 280:9,17 281:11 222:22

161:11 162:12 298:21 300:20 butter 249:14 302:16 carried 156:10

163:13 164:16 301:16 303:13 buy 162:2 258:1 calculations 204:1 carries 75:8

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 326
	

carrying 111:11 catalogue 127:9 certification 66:13 chapters 53:14 308:2

307:12 146:3,8,11 150:10 87:5,14,20 153:21 287:11 314:11 Chinese 305:1

case 23:12 56:6 151:3 certify 69:21 162:5 315:15 choice 132:3 133:5

59:20,22 69:10 catalogues 167:3 162:7,10 characteristic 158:4 176:9

114:19 152:18 categories 35:15 cetera 176:16 100:14 choose 71:18 177:6

156:19,22 169:22 43:15 44:9 45:2 308:5 315:19 characteristics 177:12

170:1 173:7 92:15 94:19 95:2 CFR 34:11,18 35:4 45:13,17,19 46:7 choosing 100:12

222:13,13,14 95:16 96:12 278:5 87:3 46:9,17 65:3 78:2 132:21 135:4

227:19 229:5,10 290:3 Chairman 7:6,14 97:14 102:8,15 265:17

245:14 260:19,22 Category 264:7,7 7:17,20 128:3 131:22 chose 127:8,14,17

261:1,2,17,18,18 264:10 chance 10:9 139:4 160:18 127:19 128:2

262:2,13 266:18 cause 188:9 246:20 chances 162:4 161:2 297:19,20 129:2 254:19

275:1,1 277:3,4,8 causing 171:16 change 32:3,14 298:3 CHUN 3:13,13

277:11,18,21 172:14 98:22 100:18 characterization circuit 135:21

278:19,20,20,21 caution 51:22 110:14 118:8 4:12 11:19 201:1 circulated 17:12

279:6,7,9,10,16 CDA 143:14 131:22 132:1 208:7,8 224:10 citation 230:19

280:19,20,21,21 cell 14:3 23:2 140:4,11 142:4 characterize citations 117:5

281:2,5,6,7,16,17 118:20 267:5 143:1 144:11 193:11 204:2 cite 22:16 40:20

282:3,3,6,6 283:6 305:3 163:8 195:17 277:19 302:10 247:6

283:7 294:20,21 cells 185:3 205:11,15 225:17 characterized cited 117:4

318:18 Census 180:8 257:16 258:18 106:14 cites 149:7

cases 56:10 65:16 276:13 267:18 269:3 characterizes 42:1 clarification 35:19

66:6 131:14 173:8 center 128:15 272:6 278:8 294:1 223:1 37:7 71:22 75:12

184:14 220:6 centers 231:19 304:1 charger 306:18 158:12

229:1 271:6 240:19 256:11 changed 132:15 307:22 clarifications 34:21

cash 294:17,19 centrifugal 107:13 304:8 305:15 chargers 307:14 55:1,6 74:19

cast 108:12,18 century 198:22 changes 33:13 40:7 318:21 clarified 35:14 77:6

109:1,6,10,13 certain 15:2 16:2 61:13,20 114:22 Charlie 2:15 6:14 259:9

110:8 112:19 17:22 25:15 33:5 137:19 225:22 186:5,6 187:13 clarifies 81:3

113:3,11 115:5,12 34:9 37:17 89:7 226:10 227:20,22 234:12 244:3 clarify 53:6 54:3

115:14,20 116:16 120:10 178:1 228:1,12 229:6 246:7,9 289:19 58:22 301:2

118:13 121:17 182:9 196:14,15 267:18 272:5 292:12,13 clarifying 34:7

122:2 140:18,19 197:16 207:10 277:10 301:20 chart 57:18 98:14 37:21 38:15 81:2

141:6,7 143:22 235:19 299:21,22 305:16 307:2 132:8,9,15,18 117:3

159:2 160:21,22 certainly 35:18 changing 18:22 133:10,16 162:18 clarity 60:18

161:3 170:17 36:20 37:10 38:1 61:17 140:17 173:3 180:10 Clark 2:14 9:4

171:2,5 253:7,8 53:7 63:12 65:1 141:6 174:8 194:20 223:7,9 class 85:11,13,14

299:10 300:14,18 65:20 74:22 channel 187:12 231:13 247:4 86:5 87:9,11

305:2 306:22 103:21 108:8 189:11 204:17 271:3 280:17 88:12,19,20 89:15

casting 115:15 122:12 134:15 channels 204:5,10 287:20 288:5 90:2,5 91:10

118:3 158:20,22 147:4 176:7 204:14 205:2 charts 156:8 125:11 126:19,21

304:12 185:18 199:1 206:14 287:22 126:22 127:3,4,7

catalog 262:3 263:1 200:12 240:19 Chapter 55:19 check 189:21 200:8 127:13 135:15

264:15,19,20 242:19,20 259:17 149:21 150:7,8 257:5 136:21 137:8

266:19 285:17 264:8 278:2 319:8 158:13 230:22 chillers 73:16 159:17 166:22

catalogs 194:5 certificates 56:15 276:15 302:5 chime-in 94:8 169:12 170:10

262:4 87:15 314:6 315:8,18,19 China 304:11 172:4 192:14,16

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 327
	

192:17,20 194:3 Coalition's 317:13 28:14 30:14 31:14 120:4,16 121:5 170:9 172:4

194:21 212:6,10 coating 158:18 31:22 32:5,19 123:22 129:8,13 177:20 196:11

212:14 237:13 COCKBURN 2:23 39:1 48:6 50:15 135:4 136:16 commonality

262:6,9,14 276:9 Code 135:19 50:18 61:8 65:7 138:12 144:9 170:18

285:4 286:22 coffee 105:1 68:3 74:22 75:22 158:8 163:13 commonly 299:6

290:15,21 291:2 cognizant 243:15 76:14,15,17 93:8 175:12 176:1 community 20:1

300:4 307:16 coil 145:22 93:11 98:13 178:3,5 182:15,20 218:8 317:13

318:19 319:1,3 cold 299:20 103:16 121:3 184:18 186:4 companies 56:3

classes 42:8,22 43:4 colleague 41:10 141:18 145:12 191:6 192:6 98:1 118:5 225:10

84:20 85:1,2,8,10 60:16 77:21 149:2 159:7 197:17 199:11 304:14

85:20 90:20,22 colleagues 69:16 163:10,16 167:22 206:19 208:4 company 2:9 3:11

126:10 128:8,21 239:18 266:7 180:20 181:1,6,9 216:17,18 222:3 56:9,10,13 190:21

192:11 194:14,17 collected 94:16 183:18 184:1 229:22 230:1,2 191:2 233:3 244:7

195:2,10 196:15 224:19 186:3 191:6 195:8 238:9 240:8 244:11

196:19 197:1 color 128:21 198:18 206:18 262:12 265:21 compare 131:10

206:17 237:8 colorful 128:6 207:4 208:4 210:2 266:2,11 273:16 148:7 182:1,4

276:9 283:17,21 colors 128:18 213:12 215:7 276:17 277:15 compared 23:6

284:21 286:4,9 column 99:8 217:20 218:13 279:18 286:11,14 103:9 131:13

classify 54:1 combination 53:18 220:20 221:12 296:22 306:15 157:5 297:15

clause 316:4 54:6 98:4 126:13 230:4 238:8,16 308:10 309:8 298:9 309:19

clean 236:9 255:18 175:21 241:7,8 246:17 313:9,14 314:1,5 312:16

259:15 combinations 251:17 253:5,16 314:7,13 315:3,11 comparing 23:19

clear 39:9 77:10 85:21 253:20 257:11,18 315:15,18,18,21 148:17

78:1 191:8 255:2 combined 94:17,22 259:11 267:11,17 319:10,11 320:12 comparison 148:6

255:3 223:3 237:15 274:13 279:12 320:12 156:7 174:1

cleared 38:2 210:8 254:11 286:5,12 291:6,7 comment/question 195:14 287:4

Clearinghouse combines 209:8 295:14 303:16 241:19 compensate 297:18

204:22 come 30:22 38:22 306:1 310:2 311:4 commercial 15:3 301:21

clearly 31:4 66:10 46:22 67:5 68:18 312:11 313:9,17 25:16 114:5 212:1 competition 296:3

78:16 93:19 149:21 314:10 214:3 217:5,9,16 competitive 240:16

client 66:7 159:18,19 163:11 commentary 13:20 218:18 219:6,13 competitors 184:6

climate 308:6 190:8 198:13 commented 307:5 221:7 237:17 complete 13:15

close 6:7 12:8 67:6 201:7 218:16 commenters 13:12 241:11,18 248:2 53:21 54:1,16

95:4,11 202:12 235:13 244:22 44:21 248:10 252:6 56:10 88:2 143:19

295:13 307:18 252:17 273:17 comments 5:21 254:16 259:17 272:14

316:10 317:16 307:13 309:11 11:13 15:18 16:3 271:4 305:5 completely 115:21

closely 245:15 comes 25:7 67:7,13 16:9 23:7 24:12 commercialized 118:6 255:8

closer 203:11 154:1 163:18 27:8,9 36:3 37:12 118:16 complex 61:4

closing 4:18 12:14 188:12 197:3 39:11 40:9 44:17 commercially 184:21

313:16 319:18 236:5 252:7 258:6 48:13 49:20 50:5 145:1 166:4 complexity 68:9

closure 313:20 290:2 293:15 52:3 53:8 57:18 167:13 compliance 26:6

coalition 17:9 19:3 coming 190:10 60:9 70:10 71:16 commercial/indu... 30:12,22 31:4

19:20 20:11 58:8 220:13 250:12 77:11 83:19 84:10 225:10 56:15 65:20 87:1

61:12 66:4 94:14 301:8 306:8 88:15,17 90:16 Committee 7:7,18 87:14 109:3 302:7

95:7 228:16 commending 21:8 101:10 104:13 common 46:17 compliant 301:12

271:19 316:11,21 comment 12:10 105:12 108:2,17 52:5 65:3 78:2 complicated 69:3

317:4 13:11 14:10 27:22 116:21 119:21 111:2 169:12 69:10

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 328
	

comply 302:14 63:5 67:16 115:7 172:14 273:4 286:9 287:1 259:19

complying 301:11 299:20,21 300:6 Congratulations 290:16 300:15 content 190:7

302:2 conditioning 73:15 319:17 312:20 contention 116:9

component 22:7 conditions 62:20 Congress 25:10,17 considering 15:4 116:10

53:14,16 54:2,4 63:8 136:8 208:11 Congressional 40:3,22 44:8 context 99:7

54:14 70:22 74:6 211:17 218:10 47:16 48:8 83:5 continue 43:2 61:2

74:8,13,17 83:7 conducive 136:13 connected 58:11 83:12 137:2 84:17 260:17

138:7 238:21 conduct 311:5,22 62:13 213:18,19 164:22 167:4 290:11 293:4

269:22 270:1 conducted 101:20 263:19,21 264:1,6 194:1 196:15 continued 100:12

272:6 111:15 137:17,21 289:9,13 234:8 255:2 continuous 46:20

components 41:18 138:17 144:22 consecutive 166:15 296:11 71:13 96:10

73:18 89:2 107:13 159:9 295:17 consensus 17:13 consist 53:17 161:21,22

222:17 conducting 295:12 conservation 1:4 consistent 38:14 continuously 24:5

comprehensive conductive 299:12 2:1 5:8 10:2 44:5 83:14 110:16 220:5

72:17 conductivity 98:20 14:20 15:1,2,13 consists 273:15 contract 308:2

compressor 73:9 118:9 304:8 16:11 25:11,12 constant 138:7 contractors 204:19

73:10 conductor 118:9 28:8 42:4 43:8,11 206:4 207:6,13 contribution 22:16

compressors 73:5,7 163:5 304:8 44:11 46:10 84:22 226:12 242:5 control 22:8 62:15

compromises 99:9 conductors 255:19 135:13 311:10 277:12,16 283:4 304:2

computed 147:18 conducts 92:10 312:17 284:15 controlled 63:19

computer 49:3 confident 284:14 consider 24:1 38:9 constantly 161:17 convened 1:9

concentrate 130:15 configuration 48:3 42:12 48:10 55:16 construction conversation

132:4 299:3 61:14,20 81:19 70:19 73:2 90:2 170:21 172:8 105:10 301:19

concentrated 82:4,19 83:12,18 106:1 107:20 253:10 conversations

130:22 83:21 91:1,5,8 114:10 122:18 constructive 61:11 180:6

concept 17:9,20 128:2 129:21 123:7,17 240:11 319:12 conversion 56:14

concern 59:10 67:7 130:1 131:18 242:6 309:8,10 consultant 1:21 142:6 312:3

86:4 87:22 135:12 132:1,2 226:8 considerably 44:22 3:10 9:9 117:22 convert 204:7

145:12 155:22 241:11,12 242:20 220:18 Consulting 1:16,22 224:13 281:2

157:3 185:14 285:11 consideration 2:7,10,21 8:15,20 282:8 287:15

200:9 273:1,22 configurations 12:22 26:12 8:22 15:21 24:22 312:7

concerned 19:3 71:7 85:22 126:12 116:21 175:6 41:13 165:13 converted 209:7

20:13 69:2 156:3 126:17 285:18 196:8 320:5 converts 35:6

concerning 82:12 286:2 considerations consumer 85:6 COOK 1:22

86:8 294:14 confirm 96:16 99:2 243:10 203:19 204:8 cooling 71:4

concerns 20:12 157:10 considered 26:17 205:10,15 312:21 copper 1:21 3:16

88:16 297:4 301:3 confirmation 149:6 26:21 42:17,20 consumers 18:16 9:10 93:12,13

316:17,19 317:22 157:6 58:5 67:17 70:15 106:7 222:9 261:7 108:13,18 109:1,6

concise 13:17,22 confirmed 18:18 84:4 92:22 94:21 261:11 296:15,21 109:10,13 110:8

conclude 319:20 157:8 95:2 96:13 104:2 309:17 113:3 115:5,12,15

concluded 58:8 conflict 51:2 143:10 166:3,6,17 consumption 208:9 115:20 116:17

112:6 156:13 conformance 152:8 193:3 208:12,20 208:13 216:13 117:21 118:3,7

260:3 152:9 209:13,20 211:16 224:1 234:7 121:11,17 122:2

conclusion 58:12 confused 241:3 214:13 222:10 280:22 281:3 140:16,19 141:2,3

112:3 150:16 confusing 90:1 224:14 227:4 contain 133:7 141:7,10,13

conclusions 134:1 confusion 36:15 237:7 240:21 contains 85:15 143:15,18 160:22

condition 51:14 38:6 171:16 261:4 269:20 contamination 161:3 163:3

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 329
	

164:21 171:2,5 144:11,13 174:8 292:6,15 297:10 84:19 85:1 86:10 171:18,19,20

180:1,21,22 181:3 174:22 179:21 298:10 86:11 87:19 91:3 172:2,3,21 173:4

270:15,18 297:5,7 181:22 183:1 cost-effective 92:14 95:13 96:17 173:5,5 176:2

297:9,14 298:5,8 185:5 186:8,9,13 173:13 174:13,17 110:5 144:19,19 178:2 193:15

299:1,10 300:14 186:17 187:17 Council 2:1,2,16 163:14 189:18 194:10 196:15

300:18 301:22 188:8 189:4 6:21 10:2 60:17 194:2 224:8 261:5 220:22 221:2

303:16,18 304:11 203:22 205:10,16 Counsel 2:18 8:10 263:22 264:2 268:10 285:3,12

305:2 306:7,22 205:22 206:7,8 9:3 290:3 298:18 285:12 287:1

316:22 207:12,14,20,22 count 179:3 310:9 313:18 288:22 289:2

copper's 182:16 208:14 209:3 counteract 77:21 319:13 290:19 291:1

copy 21:1 49:2,6 222:6,12,16,17 countries 23:6 covers 205:11 302:6,12 303:7

core 92:17 100:5,17 223:7,10,12,12,13 124:7 298:20 CO2 312:7 319:5,6

100:18 101:7 223:14,15,17,19 country 97:4 create 54:8 89:7 CSLs 21:10,11

106:19 107:3,5,15 223:19 225:5,9,14 250:18 301:8 125:21 145:10 126:1,3 138:8

130:8,16 140:12 226:22 227:5,10 couple 14:13 54:18 created 123:5 145:4 165:15

cores 107:1 228:20 230:2 54:22 57:17 63:3 134:6 166:2,21 167:12

Corp 7:20 237:9 241:16 98:18 184:18 creates 294:5 167:22 178:4

Corporation 1:17 249:13,22 258:16 209:16 218:20 creating 88:13 179:8,12 193:4,7

1:20 2:3,13 7:17 260:17,18,21 220:9 231:4 258:6 credits 312:21,22 193:13 194:8,8

9:6,14 57:17 261:11,15,17 282:21 crew 320:7 291:4

231:4 266:20 269:16,18 coupled 70:3 crews 256:15 CSL-0 194:3

correct 28:20 32:10 270:5,7,17 271:8 course 31:15 37:12 crises 25:9 CSL-1 195:14

37:13 39:14 77:7 274:6,11 281:14 109:22 157:20 criteria 71:11 196:11

77:8 97:6,17,19 282:2,3,5,11,11 320:9 92:21 106:3,4,10 CSL-2 195:14

97:19 219:2 282:22 283:2,10 cover 17:18 36:6 108:10,14 120:7 CSL-3 195:18

268:22 283:12 286:4 50:13 70:17 84:1 120:18 125:17 cue 201:5

corrections 218:1 291:15,15,17,20 143:13 164:13 129:18 134:22 cumulative 281:5

correctly 62:22 291:21 306:16 201:19,20 263:20 152:13 153:2,3,12 282:1,4

64:7 143:15 183:6 307:6 312:6 267:8 308:20 155:13 166:3 curious 94:4

correlate 145:6 costs 125:4 138:7,9 coverage 17:15,18 177:17,19 299:8 164:20

147:18 148:14 138:13 140:5 18:12 19:9 31:21 300:1 317:11,14 current 28:5 31:6

correlation 46:19 141:13 142:2,3,5 34:7 35:14,19 crow 251:2 45:1,12 82:17

275:7,14 142:10,18,19,21 40:4,7 41:1 43:5,7 Crystal 223:3 99:19 102:7

correspond 96:21 143:19 144:1 44:19 45:7 46:2,6 crystallizing 81:7 106:20 125:19

corresponded 180:11,12 186:10 46:18 47:17 59:4 Cs 171:13,20 139:7,14 146:1

157:11 186:12 205:13 70:11,16 85:8 CSA 61:18 70:21 180:22 181:3

corresponding 206:3 207:6 91:5 137:3 167:4 82:1 149:16 224:15 231:14

26:19 131:8 208:16 222:18 194:1,7 201:13 CSL 20:12 21:13 261:5,8 275:2

140:13 223:22 224:1,2,14 covered 12:11 140:3,11 155:7,9 290:5 297:17

corresponds 225:13,17,21,22 17:22 18:4 19:1 156:9 164:21,22 312:6

229:16 226:4,5,6,9,11,15 21:17 23:21 25:20 165:21 167:1,5,7 currently 39:22

cost 4:12 11:20 230:5,5 237:2,2,3 37:2,22 51:5,6,8 167:9,15 168:9,10 43:16 45:3,11

12:2 18:15 20:14 239:22 240:16 51:20 53:12 56:2 168:11,12,13 47:10,14 83:15

21:13 121:16 242:2,8 273:4,21 56:11 57:1 60:22 169:3,8,9,13 106:18 137:5

125:2 126:6 138:3 274:4 281:20,21 67:9 73:15,17,18 170:4,8,11,15,16 234:22

140:2,14 141:3 282:7 283:1,3,17 74:6 77:7,17 78:7 170:18,20,22 currents 136:1,2,7

142:22 143:8,9 283:20 284:13 79:11,12 80:4,5 171:1,4,14,15,16 136:7

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 330
	

curve 118:11 304:7 21:6 24:1 119:7 77:20,20 84:2,2 deep 82:22 102:10 219:14 220:14,14

custom 82:22 278:3 86:3,3,15 100:4,4 deeper 317:2 241:1,1 242:10

customer 63:15 dangerous 297:8 108:6,7,7 117:9,9 default 284:16 262:18 263:13

64:2 65:18 309:1 DANIEL 1:24 120:3,3 121:22,22 defeats 88:9 deLASKI 1:25 8:4

309:14 data 5:20 15:18 129:11,11 139:20 Defense 2:16 6:21 31:12 78:8 93:17

customers 247:22 91:13 92:3 94:7 139:21,21 142:16 deferred 33:19 201:2,3,6 202:6

265:17 305:8 94:14,15,15,18 142:16 147:21,21 34:3 202:14 253:13,14

customer's 65:14 95:1,3,6 96:11 148:20,20 160:7,7 define 51:11 78:1 253:17,21 254:2

cut 106:22 99:17 100:20 169:1,1 176:6,6 78:17 91:6 316:9

cycle 186:8 187:17 101:1 103:12 181:18,18 195:12 defined 36:17 deLaski's 318:5

188:8 203:22 127:9 145:5 146:3 195:12 199:2 43:21 51:7,13 deliver 317:19

208:14 209:3 146:4,8 147:18,19 200:3,3 210:3,6,6 54:5,12 72:7 79:1 delta 301:12

222:6,12,16 225:5 148:2 150:10 268:7,7,14 269:14 86:6 120:17 demand 23:15 24:7

225:14 237:9 152:5 156:8,12,17 298:22,22 313:21 defining 35:5 42:3 209:2

259:20 260:17,18 162:21,22 180:8 313:21 314:21 78:4 170:4 demonstrate

260:21 261:10,15 204:8,20,22 315:6,6 definite 43:20 44:4 114:12

261:16 266:20 206:11 208:9,14 day 12:8,13,17 44:14,20 227:14 demonstrated

267:16,19 269:18 212:21 216:5,10 36:20 37:1 104:21 242:11,17 243:1 119:18 177:22

271:8 274:11 216:19 217:3,7,7 155:10 220:10,10 245:9 262:20 density 64:14 75:5

287:8,16 311:12 217:8 222:2 224:1 256:16 287:21 263:5 264:3 75:14 100:15

317:21 224:13,19 225:18 319:12 definition 35:1,4 299:16

cycles 246:18 255:3 226:5,16 230:4,17 DE 8:4 31:13 78:9 36:5,7,11,12 37:8 depart 211:1

256:6 287:13 238:9 246:9,22 78:15,20 79:14,19 43:18,22 44:2,7 department 1:1,9

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 250:8,9 254:20 80:6,13 93:17 46:20 50:21 51:15 1:14 2:6,11 5:6,16

4:1 255:1 257:1,7 deal 52:3 64:7 52:2,10,13,15,17 5:18 9:3 13:5,14

C390 70:21 82:2 262:2,4,15 266:19 88:14 256:20 52:18,20 53:16 15:4,9 19:11 32:1

273:17 275:19 313:22 54:9,10 55:2 60:1 32:12 37:17 62:4

D 276:1,4,11,13,14 deals 50:16 53:12 60:6 78:12 80:10 87:15 96:16

D 77:2,14 78:7,16 276:18,22 277:18 dealt 119:3 198:21 87:11,13 90:1 104:22 105:15

79:10 128:10,13 278:15 279:3 debating 174:2 151:14,16,19,20 113:17 117:10,11

128:14 283:14 284:14,20 December 22:1 168:7 170:14 147:15 153:15

Dale 1:17 7:19 59:7 285:18 286:7,13 26:6 30:13 33:15 201:12 202:1 160:16 199:12

59:7,7,10 67:1 296:22 116:2 123:6 317:8 221:15 255:4 201:11 218:3,5,9

68:3 138:20,21 database 285:19 decide 47:12,17 definitions 34:9 265:21 317:10,17

145:15,17 163:18 databases 233:18 decided 193:16 35:10,13,20 36:18 319:17,22

184:16 251:14,15 date 22:22 26:6 decides 32:1,12 48:17,19 49:14,21 Department's 94:3

251:16 268:18,19 30:13 31:4 33:21 33:3 50:18 51:4,11 depend 33:5

Dale's 147:7 33:22 72:11 114:9 deciding 175:6,9 54:21 61:1 81:17 103:11 211:17

damage 234:10 Daugherty 1:23 7:4 decision 72:13 degradation 258:5 dependent 268:15

Dan 7:9 71:17,19 7:4 28:2,3,3 30:15 181:2,9 182:19 258:12 297:11 depending 32:11

71:20 159:6 160:9 30:16,16 35:16,17 185:20 269:20 degraded 215:10 103:1 185:4

218:12,14 220:12 35:17 37:14,14,19 277:16 296:20 degrading 234:8 227:10 229:12,17

220:14 240:6,22 37:19 46:14,15,15 300:12 degree 235:17 depends 33:3 171:5

241:1 245:7 47:3 48:13,14,14 decisions 33:5 275:7 deploy 19:18

250:12 251:13 49:15,15 50:8,12 269:13,15 279:2 Delaney 1:24 7:9,9 depth 105:12

262:17 263:15 50:13 62:6,6 307:3 71:20,21 159:7 DEREK 3:14

Danfoss 2:17 6:17 63:11,11 74:21,21 dedicate 319:2 218:14,14 219:2 derive 262:16

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 331
	

derived 15:14 298:2,2,2,12 determined 149:15 72:6 130:10 131:4 71:7 82:12,14

180:8 192:14,16 299:4,5,7,8 180:5 214:16 131:12,15 141:11 difficulty 75:1 89:9

192:19 213:1 300:16 301:20 determines 128:16 222:12 243:13 124:10 133:20

216:8 223:20,22 302:3,7,12,12,14 determining 26:3 259:4 260:22 digit 202:3,21

237:10,14 254:15 302:15 303:6,7,22 26:15 261:17 268:11 diligence 50:2

266:19 275:14 304:2 305:16,16 develop 104:9 280:12 282:2,5,10 dimension 128:14

279:9 283:8,11 306:4,4,5,6,7,9 124:17 138:3,13 283:6 289:17,22 146:9,12 243:14

285:20 designation 72:4 178:4 179:12 291:11,14,19 243:16,18

derives 225:8 128:17 242:5 193:10 206:21 differences 70:6 dimensions 128:10

describe 45:18 94:1 designations 208:9,15 211:13 193:6 211:21 128:13 176:16

285:14 128:11 226:3 226:21 283:19 270:7 281:8 242:4

described 32:8 designed 66:6 73:9 developed 94:2,6 different 26:17 diminishes 68:9

96:22 111:22 162:9 107:3 118:3 29:4 32:7 36:20 diminishing 21:18

describes 53:21 172:15 125:11,22 126:6 53:13 64:15 85:5 dioxide 311:13,17

102:6 designers 92:19 165:15,19 179:8 89:5,10 93:20 311:19

describing 96:16 113:2 193:8 211:21 94:19 95:1 96:12 dip 64:21

281:11 designs 19:21 20:5 214:8 226:4 237:5 98:1,2 101:2,11 direct 32:2,13,21

design 35:11 42:19 125:22 136:10,14 271:21 285:2 101:17,18 102:21 122:1 199:16

47:20,21 48:2 145:10 155:21 developing 81:14 103:3,10 118:10 205:13 206:3

51:12,13,18 55:13 158:9 162:7 163:1 175:13 179:9,11 118:13 130:1 207:5,6 213:14

55:14,15 56:21 195:21 196:2 180:12 132:16,16,17 218:10 239:9

63:13 64:8,16,18 242:18 303:5 development 1:21 141:9 145:3 162:7 296:1 310:9

64:22,22 65:1,2 desirable 93:3,4 3:16 9:10 108:5 168:10,20 169:13 directed 25:14 26:8

75:17 77:2,14 despite 151:3,3 117:21 119:4 171:21 175:18,20 direction 218:2,11

78:4,7 79:10 85:9 detail 20:17 27:1 191:13 223:9 176:8,8,12 185:3 directly 42:22

85:14,15,17 86:18 29:6 50:3,5 54:20 develops 295:2 185:4,8 195:17,20 184:3 192:11

86:19 91:2,3,6,11 84:3 101:11 deviate 177:9 195:21 196:12,16 197:12 226:16

91:19,22,22 96:6 108:16 143:14 deviation 154:10 197:7 204:11,20 disaggregated

96:8,9 98:18 99:2 213:15 273:14 device 300:5 206:12 208:19,20 96:11

99:9,9 109:9,21 283:21 devices 23:8 73:13 214:5,12 215:16 disappointing

109:22 112:22 detailed 161:5 DFR 32:6 216:7 237:16 113:9

113:5 114:22 276:15 diagram 42:14 241:4 243:12 discount 129:20

124:21 125:17 details 90:19 91:10 204:11 281:10 252:5 276:2,11 225:5,6,8 237:1

126:16 127:14 139:16 205:4 diameter 93:12 279:16 281:7 282:8,17,18

128:4 129:2 209:21 211:13 130:4 245:22 284:17 295:8 290:16 292:16,21

135:14,18 137:13 280:8 282:21 246:5 304:6 314:11,12 discounted 156:19

137:13,16,18 determination diameters 176:13 315:8 222:18

139:17,18 145:3,9 29:13 30:9,21 die 118:3,13 158:20 differential 141:16 discounting 292:17

145:12 149:6 86:16 103:12,19 158:21 159:2 differentiate 131:3 discounts 182:9

158:12 161:18,20 113:19 152:12,14 249:16 304:11 236:3 299:4 discrepancy 201:10

162:1,3 169:7,9 154:7 221:1 305:2 300:16 201:11

171:10,13,15,19 determine 26:9 dies 143:19,20 differently 231:9 discrete 90:21

171:20 172:2,6 28:7 64:9 65:21 305:12,14 314:2 discuss 5:19 15:16

174:6 176:12 75:9 98:4 137:18 die-cast 119:6 difficult 106:21 41:11 81:12 99:6

192:14,16 200:8 138:1 203:19 303:19 120:20 121:18 200:22 266:12

227:21,21 245:17 222:8 225:6 230:1 differ 89:3 151:17 147:4 299:9 300:1 discussed 45:6 66:4

287:4,5 297:20,21 272:15 difference 23:22 difficulties 70:19 92:6 138:4 167:10

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 332
	

173:16 179:7 188:15,17 189:16 126:6,8,10,19,22 doggoned 240:14 278:14

193:21 300:9 189:17 207:8 127:2,8,14,16,19 doing 6:6 50:2 56:1 driving 263:6

discusses 83:11 distributors 204:18 128:2,10,19 129:2 56:13 62:12 74:18 drop 72:20 235:1

102:7 106:11 dive 25:5 136:20,22 137:9,9 138:22 144:15 drops 211:2 229:11

discussing 17:3 divided 84:19 137:17,20 138:2 160:5 168:19 due 104:14 121:16

20:16 26:22 194:13 223:15 138:13,17 140:8 172:11 173:14 137:12 205:16

discussion 16:2 divides 84:22 144:21 145:2,4,9 179:20 181:21 206:1 229:19

19:5 24:17 41:6 docket 173:9 149:2,7,20 150:9 184:19 197:21 235:1 287:2

41:19 43:3 53:12 174:20 150:16 151:19 204:15 228:5 288:11

54:11 58:7 80:16 document 27:15,18 153:20 154:13 233:11 260:8 duplicated 36:12

84:16,18,19 28:21 36:2 38:9 155:3,5,15,19,22 264:14 267:16 duty 46:20,21

147:13 202:7 44:16,17 49:13 156:13,19 157:2 289:10,11 56:22 57:6 71:12

269:4 314:11 61:8 72:3 129:13 157:20 158:17 dollar 144:5 312:8 71:13 96:10 253:9

discussions 45:9 documents 27:11 162:5 165:17 dollars 174:5,14 dynamometer

82:10,15 295:4 DOE 8:9,11 9:1 166:2,3,6,17 249:13 292:18,19 61:21 62:19 82:7

299:13 13:16 24:1 25:2 167:3,11 170:3 domestic 181:10 D.C 1:10 27:18

dismal 161:1 25:14,22 26:5,8 173:19 175:7 183:1 185:16

dispersed 128:12 26:16 27:7 28:7 176:3 179:8,12,18 186:1 298:14 E

dispersion 110:21 29:2,7,12,17,21 179:22 180:5,11 301:3,10 310:19 earlier 25:2 40:2

display 49:16 30:7 33:15,19,22 180:14 185:22 domestically 71:8 105:16

displayed 98:4 34:12,17 35:22 192:21 193:2,16 181:14 114:20 168:5

disproportionately 36:3 40:3,16 193:22 194:13 double 288:7 304:1 169:15 179:18

298:16 42:12 44:1,7,13 198:12 201:19 Doug 1:10,13 2:17 192:21 200:11

dissimilarities 44:17 45:4,16,21 202:1 204:9 205:6 3:12 4:3 9:2 201:7 202:17

89:16 46:4,5,9 47:11,15 206:21 212:16 14:18 16:13 173:2 260:20 277:2

distinct 307:1 287:22

early 27:20 313:1

47:17 48:7,9 213:1 215:4 201:2 213:6 320:1

distinguish 188:21 51:11 52:11 53:16 217:14 225:5,16 320:9

distributed 204:3 earnings 190:22

Earthjustice 1:17

54:1,3 55:2 56:12 225:21 229:3 downs 179:20,21

distribution 130:6 56:14,20 59:16 235:22 237:5,5,19 downstream 42:9

10:7

EASA 9:14 231:4

154:19 168:6,7 61:12 70:15,18 238:8 262:12 125:3 179:16

186:11,14,16 71:5 72:16 73:2 269:19 274:1 draft 38:22 39:3

187:11 188:9,10 73:15 80:2 81:14 276:17 277:9 316:3 235:12 239:18

188:12 189:10 81:22 82:10,17,20 280:4,10 286:3 dramatic 23:22
 240:19

204:5,10,17 205:2
 EASAs 233:3

easier 134:2

83:4,12,15 84:19 287:6 294:4,5,13 dramatically 23:1

206:13 212:9,13 84:21 85:7,11 294:16 295:2,7,21 23:4 228:8

easily 117:6 272:8

easy 114:21 170:12

216:20 217:1 86:6 87:7,10 296:6,18,21 297:3 draw 173:22

249:1 261:3 262:5 89:10 91:11,15,16 298:17 308:7 drive 220:16
 

262:6,8 279:11
 315:20,20

ECG 90:21

92:10 94:21 96:13 310:1,14 311:8,19 241:10,13,15

distributions 98:3 99:15 100:10 312:5 314:5,7,15 264:18 296:14

ECGs 85:13 90:19

Eckman 2:1 10:1,1

187:10 190:2 102:6 103:17,21 319:2 driven 275:4

208:22 212:4,19 105:22 106:2 DOE's 27:12 34:19 driver 289:4
 

214:9,18 215:15
 107:3,6,17 108:21 44:6 52:4 86:9 drivers 284:12 economic 26:13

223:2,5 260:19 109:5,13 111:2,12 162:9 180:20 288:14
 275:4 280:2,11

262:2,13,16
 307:11 309:16

economically 26:16

114:10,11 115:10 195:7 216:17 drives 22:17,18

266:18 277:9 116:10 120:9 314:11 24:4 174:18,21

Economy 2:2 60:17

Ed 117:16

279:10 288:15 123:16 125:8,9,12 DOE-provided 220:21 233:13

distributor 187:11 125:16,20,22 46:12 247:20 278:7,10

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 333
	

eddy 106:20 151:15,21 152:1 200:6 293:22 296:19 172:18 302:1

edge 203:12 152:19,20,21 efforts 46:3 108:4 297:14 emphasize 161:14

EDWIN 1:21 153:4 155:8 156:9 EIA 311:2 electrical 1:18,19 emphasizing 57:4

EERE 21:20 218:5 156:11,13,18,21 eight 26:18 130:13 1:23 2:4,5,12,14 employed 233:4

effect 102:17 116:4 158:1,9 165:20,22 132:19,22 144:5 6:11 7:3 9:12 employment 186:1

189:7 197:5 166:7,9,9,11,18 eight-pole 118:19 35:6 100:13 101:2 296:2 309:1 310:5

270:16 278:16 167:1,2,14,17 131:2 101:7,14,16 310:7,8,10,13,16

effective 114:9 168:5,17 170:5 eight-poles 110:10 102:13,18,20 empty 171:11

116:1 174:22 173:6,8,10,12,17 197:5 103:5,10,13 104:4 172:1

effectively 174:8 175:1,7,19 177:8 EISA 25:18 26:3 104:6 106:15,18 enable 39:17

effects 188:4,13 192:8,9,13,15,18 35:1,8,10 43:17 135:19 137:22 enactment 265:3

efficiencies 22:19 193:3,9 194:2,4 43:21 265:3 139:2 140:12 encapsulated 52:9

69:18 70:1 75:15 195:1,3,9 196:2,9 either 30:8 50:4 170:17 171:2 52:11,16,21 53:1

127:12 128:9 196:14 201:20 70:20 82:1,6 172:8 176:20,21 53:3,5

133:22 136:19 203:20,21 205:11 166:4 198:1 198:9 227:22 enclosed 62:9,14

137:4 145:1 205:17 206:1 202:22 204:13 242:21 271:22 65:12 72:1,3,7,14

149:14 166:15,21 207:11 208:11 235:12 263:22 272:14 72:19 88:4 97:13

226:11 261:10,12 209:12,20 210:11 264:7 273:16 electricity 208:16 108:21 131:5,9,14

277:7,16 210:12 211:2,7,15 eke 174:22 175:10 223:22 224:11,12 197:8 285:5,11

efficiency 2:15 5:17 215:9 216:4,13 elaborate 41:5 224:13,14,21 286:1

6:15 15:9 16:20 222:10 225:18 elected 34:17 195:9 225:2 237:1 enclosure 48:4

18:10 19:17,21 226:1,8,13 227:11 electric 1:4,17 2:9 310:20 62:14 85:22 91:2

21:12,16,18 22:4 229:1,6,11 234:8 3:11 5:9 7:5,13,20 electronic 23:3 126:17 128:1

22:6,11,13,21 242:1,22 243:2,4 14:20 15:3 16:12 electronics 233:11 132:2 226:7

23:20,22 25:15,18 244:19 245:20 19:19 23:18 25:3 eleven 104:16,18 285:16 286:2

25:19 34:8 35:9 257:17 258:5,13 26:1,10 33:13,17 eliminate 57:12 enclosures 108:21

36:19 37:3 42:7 258:17,18,21 33:19,21 34:4 73:22 134:11

42:11 45:2,15,20 260:19 261:2,6,20 35:2,5 42:2,3 eliminated 55:14 encompassed

47:11 63:9,21 262:2,5,8,13,16 43:18,22 44:3,7 Elliott 2:2 8:6,6 140:18

64:10 65:22 67:15 263:4 266:18 44:14 50:22 51:5 16:18,18 66:2,2 encompasses 44:3

67:22 75:9 86:16 272:2,19 277:8,10 51:7,12,16 52:1,9 68:1,2,2 168:4 encounter 69:20

86:20,21 89:4,14 277:12,19 278:7 52:11 53:1,21 198:17,17 202:5 encourage 13:11

92:13,14 93:1 279:8,9,10 283:4 55:9,22 56:6 59:1 217:12,13,21 15:15 89:20

98:6 107:16 109:3 288:1,14 291:18 71:3,5 72:15 238:15,15 247:16 103:21 131:21

110:15,18,22 293:21 296:14 85:12,18 86:11,17 249:9 255:11 134:15 170:3

112:5,17,20 113:6 298:5,16,18 89:12,18 92:1,13 257:4 185:18

113:10 114:22 312:22 100:8,17,21 101:5 embedded 237:21 encouraged 103:16

120:10 123:20 efficient 2:2 60:17 102:3 103:6,8 238:4 239:4 301:8 133:13 171:22

124:18,22 125:1,2 67:13 99:4 121:14 107:1,13,18 108:3 emission 309:4 encourages 5:18

125:14,21 126:2,3 136:14 155:21 109:9 113:1 311:9,14 312:1,4 27:20

126:4 127:9 131:1 166:19 167:7 116:12 120:8 312:7,10 ended 95:5 101:6

133:17 134:19 227:18 241:16 124:18 150:2 emissions 309:3 141:1 155:12

137:11,20 138:16 258:22 292:1 170:7 180:17 311:8,11,12,15,17 182:10

139:10 143:17 296:15,16 297:5 208:10 209:4 311:22 endplate 82:22

145:4,10,14 148:8 efficiently 12:17 222:9 229:18 Emmanuel 1:15 83:7

148:8,9,10,16 319:14 244:15 278:22 8:2 68:15,16 endplates 164:7

149:18 150:12 effort 67:21 128:11 280:3 291:4 emphasis 122:10 ends 105:1

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 334
	

endshields 53:19 19:7,11 46:3 68:6 265:16 270:8,12 37:4 55:15 87:12 315:19

54:7,13 79:13 153:9 301:2 epartment 2:17 era 25:9 EURODRIVE 9:20

energy 1:1,4,10,14 306:17 318:13 EPCA 25:11 28:6 ERIC 2:20 Europe 79:8

1:15,22 2:2,6,9,11 engine 174:5 EPCA's 43:21 error 165:4 272:18 161:19

2:15,17,25 5:8,16 engineer 86:18 Epstein 100:14,19 especially 52:6 evaluate 5:16 15:9

6:15 7:17 8:3,8 engineering 4:9 101:21,22 102:9 68:21 76:17 115:4 295:22 310:13

9:3,8 14:20,22 11:18 42:12,16,20 102:14 103:5,11 233:3,18 234:7 313:3

15:2,4,13 16:11 43:1 93:19 106:2 104:2,8 241:17 250:11 evaluated 225:16

16:20 17:4,21 116:15 122:19 equal 261:13,20 essentially 46:5 evaluates 106:2

18:14,19 21:12,16 124:15,16,20 277:12 279:7 166:10 242:13 124:21

22:3 23:9,12 24:3 125:3,8 129:16 equation 210:7,10 302:19 evaluating 139:4

25:9,10,12 26:14 142:1 143:6,7 210:21 216:8 establish 25:15 evaluation 300:18

26:21 28:8 42:4 144:11 163:12 275:16,22 276:4 26:5 216:20 262:1 evenly 128:12

43:8,10 44:10,22 165:16,18 179:15 equations 193:10 262:4 276:10 event 32:1

45:8 56:4 60:17 187:3 190:1 192:7 193:12 277:3 events 13:21

64:20 68:8 84:21 208:12 216:5,9 equipment 5:17 established 25:19 Eventually 29:7

85:2 87:16 92:14 224:8 226:17 15:10 42:8,21 35:8 43:17 109:4 everybody 49:1

104:22 117:10 242:3 269:11 43:3 51:5,6,8 204:5 205:3 105:11 251:18

132:17 133:1,3,4 272:5,17 273:3 84:20 85:1,3,8,9 211:22 212:4,17 exact 188:18

135:13 153:15 283:13 285:4 85:10,12,14,20 214:18 216:4 258:10 259:6,7

158:1 166:19 engineers 99:9 86:5 87:9,11 232:16 285:14 266:1,1

167:6 173:12 161:16 198:9 88:12 89:15 90:1 establishes 42:7 exactly 38:20 54:3

174:12 175:1 enhance 19:10 90:20,21 91:10 131:6 98:15 99:5 159:1

200:22 208:7,8,9 enhances 19:2 97:5 106:6 115:17 establishing 25:12 189:8 234:17

208:13 209:4,6,8 23:15 125:11 126:10,18 33:16 235:12 243:20

209:18 210:13 enhancing 24:6 126:21,22 127:3,4 estimate 95:22 246:15 314:14

212:20,20 214:21 enlarge 98:22 127:7,13 128:8,21 99:10 181:12 examination

216:12 223:22 enormous 317:19 135:15 136:21 183:17 185:12 111:17

224:9,13,16,17,18 ensure 38:14 145:6 137:8 143:21 230:3,18 232:16 examine 108:18

234:6 268:10,12 entailed 94:4 159:16 166:21 235:8 238:11,12 131:21 195:13,20

275:20 279:22 entered 13:4 172:4 185:5 263:18 266:6 197:4,6

280:4,5,13,18,22 118:16 192:11,13,15,17 274:22 278:12 examined 111:13

281:2,3,5,9,14 entire 273:13 192:20 194:3,14 279:4,21 280:2 123:17 133:3

282:1,3,11 286:19 298:11 300:14 194:16,21 195:2 285:9 286:3 297:1 169:7

286:21 287:14 307:16 195:10 196:18 310:18 313:5 examining 196:20

289:4 291:20 entitled 21:20 197:1 204:18 estimated 95:3 example 26:20

292:1 297:10 entries 171:11 205:19,21 206:16 97:18 108:22 47:21 50:20,21

301:4 310:11,22 172:2 212:6,10,13 237:8 147:18 204:12,15 52:8 63:7 71:2,12

311:3,10 312:17 envelopes 146:1 237:13,22 238:2 226:6 237:12 73:16 81:2 82:20

313:6 318:22 environment 238:22 239:4 262:13 98:19 101:12

319:22 234:11 259:15 262:6,8,14 270:21 estimates 94:2 96:7 122:3 149:22

Energy's 5:7 environmental 271:17 275:5,9,12 180:3 183:14,21 150:5,7 207:7,11

energy-use 4:12 235:3 276:9,9 280:14 211:22 216:22 212:9,12,12 213:3

11:19 EPACT 25:14 283:17,20 284:21 237:11,16 254:12 214:7,11 219:16

enforce 298:17 43:18 137:6,11,14 285:3 286:4,9,22 275:17 283:19 225:1 234:20

319:3 171:14 172:3 290:15,21 291:2 289:22 240:10 262:7

enforcement 19:2,4 259:1 264:8 equivalent 36:7,8 et 176:16 308:5 266:21 285:3

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 335
	

288:1 291:22 40:3,22 45:6 expressed 222:11 fail 46:8 106:9 features 85:6

302:11 304:15 194:1 260:21 261:16 239:5 February 118:17

306:20 318:19 expansion 18:12 277:6 287:12 failed 130:9 131:3 fed 186:21

examples 50:9 41:21 43:4,14 319:21 132:2 236:11 federal 27:5,10

54:19 44:18 47:12 60:15 extended 13:20 251:8 29:8 137:5

exceed 21:11 84:16 extending 167:4 failing 129:21 feed 42:22

Excel 223:3 expect 117:10 extensive 19:5 fair 271:9 feedback 14:6

excellent 320:9 143:13 162:3 extent 31:7 38:4 fairly 6:7 66:10 29:11,22 34:12

exclude 18:4 66:17 164:3 220:4 80:7 315:14 199:2 183:13 273:11

78:18 250:22 253:14 external 66:21 71:4 fall 78:11 196:7 295:9 310:14

excluded 19:2 270:13 306:19 199:18 220:15 feel 18:5 59:16 67:5

50:17 57:7 60:21 expectancy 247:5 extra 180:16 251:5 264:6 197:19

76:11 78:11 expectation 160:21 extrapolate 283:18 fallout 136:5 feeling 19:20

excluding 19:8 expectations 284:2 falls 65:2 67:20 feels 45:21 71:5

51:1 160:17 extrapolating 264:10 feet 128:16

exclusion 66:11,20 expected 64:5 286:6 familiar 113:3 fell 51:19 252:9

67:20 68:11 77:22 101:6 157:4 161:4 extrapolation 293:10 fellow 278:3

108:8 expects 63:21 220:22 fan 62:13 63:16 field 208:10,21

Excuse 244:8 86:22 162:6 extremely 159:15 64:19,19,20 65:15 211:5,17,17

Executive 314:4 expedite 80:10 192:3 65:15 214:10 217:3

315:10 expeditiously eyes 150:4 fan-cooled 60:5 247:14

exempt 307:16 316:13 131:5,9 197:8 figure 67:19 140:6

F exempted 76:15 expenditures far 10:19 15:11 150:15 174:14

exemption 318:20 280:14 fabricate 297:8 55:12 60:18 69:1 198:13 315:21

319:1 expense 121:16 fabrication 297:12 91:20 152:5 figured 179:19

exercise 198:5,14 expenses 205:12 face 6:8 155:14 161:9 figures 140:7

199:3 206:2,6 207:19 faced 151:12 155:6 173:16 226:9 filed 32:18,22

exhibit 45:14 46:8 223:16,21 225:7 facilitator 320:9 268:20 271:17 317:18

exhibited 137:19 expensive 296:17 facilities 153:18 farm 252:20 filings 180:9

exhibiting 46:7 298:9 169:17 farmer 250:19 fill 146:19,20 164:2

exist 171:4 302:22 experience 250:21 facility 153:22 318:9 164:2 244:21

existed 122:13 experienced 160:18 154:2 farmers 252:18 fills 122:19,21

existing 34:8 61:22 experiences 250:15 fact 18:22 139:17 farms 253:2 146:22 163:7

87:18 112:14 expert 125:21 140:22 160:1 farm-duty 252:7 165:2

218:6 311:18 254:10 197:15 207:19 252:10 filters 42:10

exists 59:13 122:14 experts 15:21 45:7 216:3 226:2 fault 72:10 final 26:3 27:5

expand 46:5 61:2 82:12 180:7 256:10,14 258:22 FAVI 119:8 29:20 30:11 32:2

146:1 160:8 194:6 225:21 261:3 300:3 favor 185:19 32:13,19,21 33:12

272:3 explain 97:15 factor 134:4 183:19 feasibility 26:13 34:14,22 35:3,12

expanded 36:7 134:10 232:5 245:17 263:6 106:4 111:11,14 40:12,18 44:1

46:1,18 47:16,18 233:1 288:15 307:11 119:13 161:10 70:10 77:11 85:18

48:8 59:4 61:16 explanation 23:8 factoring 63:8 306:14 307:12 97:11 121:3

70:16 91:16 94:21 158:16 factors 26:12,17,19 feasible 107:7,21 136:16 178:3

95:12 96:14,22 explicit 74:1 118:8 197:21 111:18 113:20 181:8 192:7

97:11 137:2 explicitly 18:4 19:2 269:3 306:17 115:21 119:1,17 213:14 224:6

265:12 271:20 19:8 307:10 312:3 126:14 166:1 294:15,16 308:10

expanding 17:18 explore 20:4 factory 271:16 feature 85:4 316:14 319:10

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 336
	

finalized 34:15 127:14 129:2 follow-on 13:11 fraction 206:1 full 20:14 111:9

finally 20:7 92:1 132:10,12,13,21 65:7 74:3 141:18 frame 36:8,8,9,10 120:17 185:1

126:8 127:2 133:2 134:20 142:11 148:19 36:16 39:13 46:22 216:3 287:8,12,15

find 54:22 55:3 137:16 147:5 210:16 256:7 48:4 53:18 91:2 311:12

84:5 109:5,12,15 152:21 153:20 follow-up 63:4 96:5 110:7 118:21 fully 103:17 129:12

111:5 115:16 154:1 162:6 142:17 175:15 118:21 126:12,17 181:10 184:22

117:12 127:10 255:22 256:1 234:13 257:4 128:10,17 131:7 313:18
 

131:11,14 226:9
 fixed 275:4,8,11,18 food 246:3 131:12,15,16,17 full-scale 121:14,19

227:15 230:17 275:21 force 122:20 133:9,10,11,11,12 full-time 161:16

252:18 262:22 flatten 133:17 243:19 307:2 138:8,15 144:4 function 258:13

284:13 287:10 flattening 133:19 forced 124:6 163:21 164:7 fundamental

288:17 Flolo 2:3,3 9:13,13 forecast 294:19 197:7 201:20 198:19

finding 269:9 9:14 231:3,3,3,12 foreign 181:10 202:3,17,21 203:1 funded 113:17

fine 152:3 244:13 231:17 232:8,18 183:5 298:19 203:2 226:3 242:4 funds 319:3

finish 90:14 163:11 232:21 234:5,17 form 29:4 223:4 245:1,21 253:10 further 15:4,17

finished 200:17 235:11 236:1,4,9 formally 17:11 272:12 45:6 111:12 160:8

308:18 236:13,16 240:9 formula 209:10,14 frames 37:9 72:14 219:17

fire 35:11 43:16 243:8 256:9 258:1 267:17,18,20,22 72:15 176:13,14 furthermore 23:14

85:18 92:1 127:5 258:20 259:4,7 268:1,4 176:15 73:13
 

135:13,16,20,21
 floor 48:6 105:2 Fort 112:14 framework 5:14,15 future 19:21 36:22

136:4,6 192:18,22 108:2 129:8 forth 13:13 15:8 27:3,15,18 175:6 292:17
 

221:14,15 229:18
 138:12 forthcoming 39:6 28:21 31:20 36:2 301:10

291:4 flow 24:16 62:11,15 Fortune 235:16,16 44:16 45:5 129:13

firms 233:6 62:21 64:4,14 forward 19:14 20:2 France 119:8 G

first 11:3 16:16 223:6 280:16 32:6 47:12 100:11 304:18 gain 67:21 272:19

gained 298:5

gains 134:19

24:18 25:5 27:14 294:17 156:10 182:14 Frank 2:8 7:22

39:3,4 43:14 flows 294:19 207:3,3,4 316:13 59:5 60:11,12

gallon 174:3,7

gap 98:22 99:1

50:15 65:4 109:8 fluctuations 182:16 317:6,17 320:11 69:11,12 210:16

111:22,22 116:1 flux 100:15 102:12 found 102:22 210:17 220:13

102:12

gaps 110:6

125:9 145:15 focus 14:2 91:17 141:12 151:2 221:8,10 239:14

149:14 166:3 focusing 18:22 248:16 255:1 239:15

gathered 15:11

GC 28:13

168:3 180:20 folks 19:11 260:15 275:7,19 Frank's 215:7

193:8 204:2 follow 62:7 64:7 four 12:16 27:2 free 177:5 294:19

gear 95:15 264:3

general 2:17 8:10

210:21 223:15 66:18 78:9 79:14 34:5 35:9,14 88:4 frequency 22:17

236:4 238:4 80:17 111:13 106:3 108:13,20 24:4 174:18,21

273:13 294:5 148:18 165:9 109:19 111:16 229:14 230:3 9:3 43:15,19 48:1

296:13 300:19 184:17 185:22 118:18 131:1 232:15 233:13,22 50:18 75:16 82:8

309:6 199:21 220:12 136:18,19 220:11 235:8 246:11 83:2,9 182:11

fit 44:9 94:20 229:9 239:1 249:8 233:4,6 278:6,10 306:3 309:19

163:20 164:6,10 315:3 fourth 115:9 frequently 39:15 generally 75:4

164:10 200:12,14 followed 24:17 four-pole 93:4 friction 92:17
 86:18 131:11

245:2,7,12 246:6
 32:22 91:22 125:8 112:4 128:2 130:11,19 generate 91:13

272:11,15 278:2 151:8 129:18 130:13 friend 250:18 195:9

fits 12:4 243:21 following 11:4,9,13 132:4 150:9 friends 304:11 generation 19:19

five 18:19 92:15,19 12:6 51:19 68:3 197:19 285:5,11 318:9 159:19

Generator 7:7,11

7:15,21

104:18 109:1 228:22 229:4 286:1 302:12 fuel 287:8,12,16

119:15 126:19,22 295:21 314:18 four-poles 110:19 311:12

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 337
	

gentleman 121:7 159:12 163:21 105:19 111:8 gotten 151:10 237:8

gentlemen 199:1 164:1 170:4 115:5 124:12 government 161:10 grouping 120:11

George 2:3 9:13 172:10 176:3 132:4 143:18,22 294:18 313:2 125:11

231:3 240:7 243:5 178:6 181:15 159:3 160:22 grab 251:8 groupings 85:13,14

243:7 255:15 182:13,14 186:7 161:8 162:13,15 grabbed 251:7 91:10 201:17
 

256:2,7,8 257:7
 186:18,20 195:18 162:16 163:9 grade 104:4,5 groups 45:8 85:19

257:22 198:2 205:4 207:3 164:5,6,9,11,13 138:1 113:4 159:17

George's 244:17 209:17,21 211:12 165:14 168:17 grades 163:6 172:4,5 177:21,22

Germany 118:21 213:9,14 219:17 177:13 179:4,8 graph 128:6 275:9 262:6,14 276:9

119:9 304:18 220:7 223:13 184:6 185:1,19 Graul 10:16,20 286:22 309:17

getting 62:22 224:7 225:12 186:11,12,14 320:8 growing 250:17

102:20 133:20 227:11 230:6 187:8,19,22 gray 224:3 grows 130:4
 

233:16,16 240:15
 231:5 237:3 240:6 189:20 190:11 grease 259:21 growth 275:4 305:7

246:18 270:8 241:2,4,11 243:6 196:10 198:12 greasers 256:15 Grundfos 3:18

Gettman 2:4 9:21 245:22 246:1 199:13,14 200:1 great 50:11 70:13 119:7

9:21 251:3 255:18 201:5 207:13 75:20 81:11 84:15 guard 251:9

give 25:5 39:5 256:4 257:22 218:19 243:19 88:14 97:1,20 guess 58:13 66:3

49:19 50:9 122:3 260:6 262:18 244:5,22 245:2,12 136:17 142:14 72:9 80:19 99:17

130:22 192:3 263:17 264:22 246:1,4,6 247:2 162:17 213:15 139:22 148:21

231:6 234:20 265:17 267:14 251:18 256:4 greater 20:17 24:3 190:4,16 218:15

given 28:9 31:6 269:8 272:8,13,22 257:14 259:11,15 27:1 29:6 130:11 239:17 246:19

100:19 131:7 273:2,10 280:8 259:18,19 260:14 151:22 261:13,20 250:1 258:14

150:22 151:1 282:20 287:21 260:16 262:21 292:6 301:13 273:19 287:18

170:14 197:14 288:8,12 290:13 263:1,3,3 264:2 green 194:16 224:5 302:10

312:6 309:14 310:4 266:15 270:22 Greg 3:18 10:17 guidance 34:10,19

gives 34:20 210:13 311:7 314:16 273:9 278:8,13 grid 23:18 38:9,15 39:1,3

281:8 282:12 315:7 283:21 289:2 GRIM 294:18 40:1 46:13 79:16

317:6 goal 112:22 133:4 293:13 301:15 295:1,22 307:10 79:19,21 80:3,12

glad 10:11 259:8 173:15,15 308:1,13,13,13 308:5 80:14 81:18 82:3

global 124:5 goes 22:16 32:6 313:15 315:13 groove 83:1 82:21 152:11

globally 121:12 37:21 62:15 64:19 317:3 grossly 144:14,17 155:2 282:19

124:9 65:13 86:20 99:6 good 5:3,22 24:20 ground 105:2 guide 295:3,3,10

go 12:16 28:22 29:5 153:9 169:18 41:12 50:3,21 319:13 guideline 152:16

43:12 48:11,16 176:18 185:6,21 55:11 64:7 74:5 group 7:5 19:9 guidelines 45:22

49:17,17 52:8 194:11 221:5 80:15 81:9 97:21 85:15,16,18 89:10 gut 199:9

54:19 58:14 64:8 245:5 255:15 103:4 104:20 113:1 120:14 guys 197:13 198:8

71:19,20 74:9,20 307:7 134:9 135:10 126:19,21,22 235:14 249:18

80:9 81:10 84:3 going 11:3,6 13:9 150:5 155:10 127:3,4,7,13 256:15 315:20

86:2 89:22 98:10 14:16 24:18 25:8 164:14 215:22 129:14 136:22 316:5

99:14 101:10 43:6 46:17 49:16 217:6 236:17,19 137:8 166:22

103:21 104:18 61:17 62:7 63:17 247:10 248:20 170:9 172:16 H

H 55:14

half 49:12 69:20

105:2 113:13 63:19 64:10 65:7 257:9 263:1,10 192:14,16,17,20

121:1,17 130:18 65:10 69:15,22 316:5 319:15 194:3,21 212:10

134:16 138:20 70:5 77:12 79:9 goods 205:10,16,22 212:14 233:14 110:17,18 163:22

140:2 143:2 89:9 90:9,10 92:8 206:7,8 207:20,22 237:13 262:9 164:5 175:10

215:19 260:5

hall 105:1

147:16 151:14,16 97:9 99:6,15 Gotcha 236:15 290:15,21 291:2

152:10 154:12 103:13 105:13,18 246:7 251:11 grouped 92:15

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 338
	

hand 14:7 117:7 heat 158:21 196:9,9 203:20 127:19,21 128:7 hypothetical

122:9,12,13,18,21 heavier 163:4 207:11 214:1 128:19 129:2,4,4 147:10

122:22 123:3,6,17 heavy 138:15 227:17 228:3,13 129:5,6 131:6 hysteresis 102:7

124:3 147:3 heck 319:13 234:18 241:13 132:10,12,13,16 I 169:22 180:3 HELCLO 2:23 242:2,22 244:19 132:21 133:1,2,8

idea 192:3 198:18

ideal 259:14

183:10 270:16 held 27:17 258:18 261:9 133:14,18,21

306:15,22 308:15 help 38:1 45:21 271:12 291:17 134:3,20 137:16

handled 182:17 identical 37:9

identified 72:2 90:4

46:3 54:3 106:19 292:2 296:14 150:8 162:20

handout 48:20,22 235:7 242:6 297:7,9,16 167:16 184:10

83:10 314:3,21,22 277:18 279:14 highest 91:18,20,21 201:22 212:3,5,15 104:11,12 125:9

315:4,5 310:12 104:5 132:10,13 213:19,20 216:21 204:9 296:6 297:4

hands 123:12 200:7 306:8 314:6

identifier 87:18

helpful 14:1 39:19 highlight 201:11 220:3,7 226:7

hand-winding 55:6 62:3 74:20 202:15 237:7,21 238:18

117:11,13

identifies 42:6

183:19 105:11 199:14 highlighted 194:15 238:20 239:21

hang 6:18 138:19 222:4 235:9 194:17,19 202:17 262:7,10,11

294:13

identify 102:1

203:12 210:1 250:11 265:21 291:1 263:19,21 264:1,6

happen 124:4 277:20 319:16 highly 201:17 285:6,7,10,21

172:16 236:6 helps 62:14 high-power 75:5 288:1 289:9,13 126:4 133:10

269:6 306:20 hermetic 73:4,5 Hisham 1:16 4:8,10 290:17,18 303:5 165:20

happened 160:15 74:18 4:17 8:14 24:19 304:1 IEC 36:6,8,13,14

271:16 hertz 304:21 24:21 163:11,15 horsepowers 36:15 37:1 46:21

happens 40:4 hesitant 171:10 165:11,12 179:5 213:17 47:4 55:13,14

100:13 130:18 heuristic 199:3 189:21 293:4 hot 299:20 118:21 202:17

187:3 238:3,17 Hey 213:6 310:9 320:4 hour 180:2 183:9 244:15 245:15,20

255:22 307:7,17 Hi 203:6 historical 275:7,10 183:21 237:11,16 245:21 246:3

hard 235:12 240:15 304:16,22 306:2,3

IEEE 61:17 70:20

high 64:13 70:1 history 16:7 254:11 260:5

252:16 106:14,15 116:7 hit 315:9 hourly 184:22

hardware 138:6,14 157:17 158:9 hold 29:10 138:11 185:10 82:1 125:18

harmony 55:3 184:2,4,15 188:14 holding 49:6 hours 22:12,13,15 139:13 149:16

hat 273:22 274:1 249:19 304:16

II 35:20 36:11,17

188:16 189:15,16 home 13:8 220:16 126:8 209:1,12,19

HAYDEN 1:22 190:20 191:3 Homeland 19:12 211:14 213:2,4,16

head 159:5 37:8 51:20 88:5

II's 37:2

219:4 220:2,2,11 honest 256:19 213:21 214:5,15

heading 59:11 222:1 235:17 honestly 233:16 217:4 218:21
 

72:11,18
 illustrate 164:15

illustrates 99:8

248:5,8,14 258:22 hope 39:12 308:7 219:22 220:9,11

heads 145:22 240:4 265:18 275:6 horse 58:11,11 220:17 221:3,15

136:18

illustration 219:16

257:20 299:16 238:17 229:15,20 232:14

health 106:8 higher 19:17 97:16 horsepower 17:20 237:6 251:21

imagine 33:4

imbedded 97:3,4

115:10 116:6 110:17 112:5,10 18:3 48:3 69:21 252:12 271:3,5,6

123:8,14 112:17 113:6,16 85:21 88:3,8,22 housing 258:9

hear 5:21 14:11 immediate 6:3

immediately 11:4

123:20 125:1,21 89:1 91:1,4,7 Howard 3:10 10:17

15:19 24:18 130:20 133:14,18 108:20 109:21 148:11 165:8

105:19 121:7 133:21,21 134:3 110:6,9 111:16 Hoyt 2:5 10:3,3 11:13 199:7

168:2 179:5 145:4,10 157:15 112:4,10,12 113:5 huge 220:21 221:3 318:17

heard 39:10 71:18 immersed 213:9

immersible 60:4

169:10 180:14 113:16,21,21 249:21 289:8,17

75:7 114:19,20 181:6 182:10,17 118:18 126:11,16 hundred 174:14

impact 4:14,16

12:3,7 45:14 92:4

174:15 316:18,19 185:10 188:2,11 126:20 127:1,10 hundreds 249:12

hearing 317:12 191:3 193:7,13 127:15,16,17,18 272:7

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 339
	

92:5 115:1 116:6 improve 42:7 92:12 224:1 274:17 61:15 142:19 249:19 252:5

123:14 125:5,6 124:22 145:13 276:8 291:16 144:10 169:4 253:6,11 254:8

130:6 138:16 174:3 216:21 306:5 205:3,14,15 206:5 256:1 259:17

142:7 149:22 improved 22:6,20 including 19:9 20:5 206:8,16 207:18 271:7

188:6 267:9 269:2 22:22 23:4 44:13 48:10 70:16 207:21,22 270:7 industry 20:14

269:7,9,22 274:16 improvement 74:17 95:13,14,19 291:15,17 34:6 40:13,15

274:17,18 279:2,4 161:22 173:7,8 108:4 119:7 275:5 incremented 42:2 45:7 82:11

279:15,20 280:2 194:22 275:12 298:19 193:15 86:4 103:15 112:8

280:11 282:15 improvements inclusion 108:12 incrementing 113:2 120:9,14

286:18 290:12 21:15 22:14 137:2 138:8 123:1 172:13

293:5,8,14 294:18 193:18 298:4 incomplete 56:8 increments 166:8 173:12 174:7,12

308:12 309:2,2,5 improving 22:6 inconsistency incur 142:4 180:7 220:8 229:4

310:5,6,9,10,11 23:21 42:11 80:18 incurred 121:16 246:3 270:9 271:4

310:16,17 311:6 158:15 173:11 incorporate 197:20 indefinitely 136:1 294:2,6,17,19,22

312:14 313:3,5 IMS 94:17,22 incorporated 7:14 Independence 1:10 industry's 116:10

impacted 114:15 95:19 96:3,11 35:3 17:4 151:8

213:20 261:14,21 202:13 incorporates 29:22 index 275:11 industry-recom...

309:18 ImSET 310:12,16 187:5 285:13,14,20 228:22 229:9

impacts 26:22 inaccuracies incorrect 144:14 indicate 28:17 inefficiencies 163:8

106:6,8 114:17 302:22 303:9 increase 93:2 98:6 46:19 128:18 inertia 299:21

115:9 123:8 222:8 inappropriate 18:5 98:20 123:11 indicated 28:5 inescapable 308:6

293:21 296:2,2,11 inch 163:22 131:1 140:14,16 82:16 118:7 257:7 influenced 161:3

297:1 309:16 inches 164:1,5 141:5 145:3 163:8 296:13 297:6,13 information 5:20

310:13,19 311:9 inclined 248:1 165:7 167:18 298:8,15 11:2 15:11,18

311:19 312:15,17 include 29:15 169:4 205:16 indicating 18:18 27:6 91:17 103:7

implement 223:2 40:15 41:2 44:12 206:8 207:22 indication 152:4 160:14 203:21

implemented 18:8 44:19 46:1,6 241:22 242:7 indirect 310:8,13 206:21 217:3

implementing 47:16,17 48:8 243:17 269:3 310:15 218:18,19 224:16

58:17 59:3 85:15 91:14 272:22 273:2 indirectly 128:22 224:17 225:9

imply 51:8 53:2 91:15 96:4 97:3 282:5,11 291:20 individual 290:18 226:10 234:3

importance 129:21 107:15 134:13,14 296:19 individually 126:13 235:6,7,18 242:6

157:20 178:1 142:20 144:10 increased 93:11,12 individuals 13:10 242:9 254:9 257:9

important 17:16 223:21 227:1 107:16 115:4 105:17 275:2 279:14

53:11 85:10 92:3 269:2 273:20 125:13 137:20 induction 17:19 283:18 295:19

138:3 151:17 283:2 311:11 164:21 165:5 18:3 88:17,21,22 309:11 314:8

159:15 160:4 312:21 205:17 219:18 90:4 94:19 96:4,7 319:16

177:18 188:5,5 included 35:21 225:18 226:1,11 96:9 107:4,18 informative 320:2

225:4 246:22 37:2 43:19 47:5 278:22 279:4,15 118:10 infrastructure

296:10 300:9 49:9 51:4 58:3 280:13 industrial 15:3 123:4 270:19

303:17 76:10,16,20 increases 130:5 21:21 22:3 25:16 INGAA 218:2

imported 97:4 110:10 136:22 206:1,2 297:10 212:2 213:4 214:2 inherently 73:9

298:19 188:13 237:19 increasing 45:1 214:12 215:5 initial 29:3 39:4

imposed 102:12 284:17 287:9 306:15 217:6,16 218:16 195:13 292:5,15

imposing 177:4 308:21 increasingly 61:4 219:1,2,12 220:1 initially 34:17

impossible 172:20 includes 27:5 42:3 increment 166:14 220:19 230:13 initiate 19:6

improper 116:10 183:9 184:1 190:1 288:6 237:17 247:21,22 initiated 82:10

improperly 150:17 222:16 223:18,19 incremental 60:14 248:6,9,15,15 input 39:2 65:21

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 340
	

138:3,13 161:19 intended 60:21 investing 250:4 189:4,5 77:5 313:15

203:22 209:3 103:17 investment 250:5 Iyama 2:6 4:13,15 319:18

225:4 intending 194:6 275:5,8,12,18,21 8:16,16 94:11,11 jiving 255:13

inputs 126:6 143:5 intends 312:5 292:2,5,15 305:15 95:17,17 96:2,19 job 55:11 233:12

179:21 208:22 intent 54:1 60:18 invite 39:10 41:10 97:6,17 187:1,2 247:10 301:14

209:17 211:14 61:3 217:17 200:20 187:18 188:19 307:9

212:17 213:1,3 311:21 invites 27:8 189:1,8,20 200:20 jobs 306:16 308:3,5

214:21 216:11 intention 287:8 inviting 313:9 203:6,6,14,18 318:13

222:21 223:1,4 interaction 201:9 involved 45:10 207:7,17 208:6 John 2:9,23 7:12

224:4,7 225:14,20 interest 36:13 184:3 204:4,16 210:14 211:8,12 55:7,8 57:15 65:6

232:16 238:12 68:12 89:6 205:2 227:1 213:22 215:12,19 65:9 74:2,3,4

260:18 266:17 interested 5:19 in-depth 26:12 216:2 218:22 76:21,22 77:13

276:12 282:14 15:16 27:21 34:13 iron 107:10,11 219:9,15 221:20 78:19 79:5,6

286:16 309:8,22 39:2 82:15 139:22 253:7,8 227:3,7 228:19 141:17 142:11

311:21 216:18 238:8 ironed 290:7 230:11,21 231:10 143:11,12 146:15

inrush 297:16 241:22 276:12 irrigation 247:13 231:16 232:13,20 146:17 161:12,13

304:3 305:17 279:13 307:8 247:20 233:21 235:5 163:16,17 190:13

inside 104:21 interesting 150:21 isolated 315:11 236:20,22 238:19 190:15 198:16

179:19 180:2 155:19 253:12 issue 36:21 37:1,21 239:10,12 241:21 199:14,20 240:6

insidious 28:18 interject 201:3 38:5 39:21,21 246:14 248:4,11 244:2,4 247:11

install 106:5 114:3 intermediate 224:5 41:21 45:5 46:22 248:18,22 249:4 248:13 259:9

282:7 intermittent 71:12 47:9 52:22 68:6 252:1 253:22 264:12 270:2,3

installation 114:6 220:8 70:8 82:3,20 87:6 254:7 257:10,13 271:15 300:20,22

223:18 225:13,16 interns 272:11 108:18 110:13 257:15,21 258:14 305:21
 

225:21,22 227:10
 interpolation 160:4 111:1 167:21 259:3 260:16 joining 10:13,14,22

227:20 230:5 interpret 36:9 181:5,8 182:20 266:4,16 267:21 joint 21:1 76:7

237:3 242:2,8 interpretation 52:4 184:5 195:7 234:6 268:2,5,13 269:10 201:13,15 316:12

281:20,20 283:3 61:3 241:5,6 242:16 269:18 273:12 317:18

installed 222:17 interview 295:3,10 255:12 297:3 274:15 277:1 Jordan 3:10 10:18

223:10,12,15,17 interviews 144:15 298:14 317:1 278:18 279:19 148:11 165:9
 

282:22,22 283:17
 293:9 294:8 295:5 issued 32:20 86:7 284:10 286:15 journals 258:8

283:20 286:3 295:7,11,13,16,21 issues 12:10 16:2 288:11 289:15 judgment 199:4

installing 123:13 introduce 10:9 19:4 34:2,15 40:9 290:11 291:13 July 30:7

instance 118:4,11 196:12 70:10 119:3 292:9 293:3 jump 243:4 245:18

186:17 194:19 introduces 89:8 146:20 159:11 308:17 320:5 288:15 319:7

304:11 introducing 87:17 180:20 182:15 I's 37:5 jumping 245:21

instances 64:12 introductions 4:2 198:6 235:3,3,4 I2R 92:16,16 98:19 jumps 287:19

instant 199:6 6:2 241:2 294:14 justification 26:14

J insulation 138:6,15 inventory 102:22 296:1,7,8 308:11 justified 26:16

158:15 169:20 313:18 314:2,5 Jack 320:8 46:11

insurance 191:13 inverter 56:22 57:1 issuing 316:14 JAMES 2:11 justifies 85:5

insurmountable 57:6,6 item 53:3 115:9 January 33:22 justify 234:10

70:19 71:6 inverter-capable 228:19 237:19 116:1

jibe 157:18 K

Jim 4:6,19 5:10

integral 47:22 58:3 56:20 240:13,20

58:5,15 66:21 invested 249:17 items 50:19 98:19 keep 14:2,5 92:8

69:4 73:7 76:9,18 investigate 112:10 295:9 8:11 11:8 12:15 97:9 108:15 149:1

201:22 278:8 312:15 iteration 187:19 14:17 24:15 25:1 162:13,16 172:22

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 341
	

199:14 242:3 159:4 161:7 259:13 largest 133:9,12 163:19 241:15

247:2 250:6 164:13 170:9 labeled 50:19 LASKI 8:4 31:13 244:20

257:14 260:3,9 171:17 174:20 labeling 87:20 78:9,15,20 79:14 lengths 163:7 165:1

266:15 300:5 182:6 184:11 166:12 79:19 80:6,13 lengthy 21:14

302:16 308:12,13 188:1 190:18 labor 126:7 180:2,6 93:17 lesser 184:9

keeping 68:5 197:22 220:3 180:8,11 181:11 lastly 127:19 letter 302:3

Ken 2:4 9:21 221:16,22 227:19 182:22 183:2,21 166:17 let's 24:13 30:2

Kentucky 3:12 228:7 233:6,15 205:13 206:3 late 217:17 230:15 43:4 47:9 48:5,11

kept 138:7 234:9 242:19 207:5,6 240:16 Laughter 49:22 65:14 81:10 84:15

key 125:8 159:20 246:14 247:5 Laboratories 1:15 318:11 98:9 102:1 121:7

179:14 254:5 248:19 249:12 2:10 8:1 9:16,18 law 25:11 68:10 141:18 162:16

294:1,14 296:7 251:7 252:22 60:13 69:13 193:10 285:8 168:2 178:6 243:3

297:3 298:14 278:1,11 287:20 210:18 221:11 Lawrence 2:6,23 260:9 301:22

308:11 307:9,15 308:4 laboratory 2:6,8,21 8:17 15:22 94:6 level 18:10,10,13

keyed 316:3 317:9 2:22,24 3:13 8:17 94:12 200:21 20:12 26:10 50:5

Kido 2:6 8:9,9 knowing 64:19 15:22 67:16 320:6 203:7 320:6 75:15 89:14

28:15,16 31:1,2 241:22 labs 45:9 82:11 laws 301:11 100:15 102:12

32:10 38:3,4,20 known 22:17 200:21 239:16 LBNL 187:1 110:15,21 112:5

39:14 63:2,3 157:12 lack 32:16 88:18 LCC 142:19 143:4 112:20 132:11

66:18 117:1,2 knows 86:20 91:4 160:4 158:2 215:14 140:3,10 155:8

315:13 KOH 104:1 lacking 53:22 222:8 225:3 166:9 168:17

kilowatt 22:12,13 Kohse 2:7 4:8,10 Ladonne 2:8 7:22 233:22 248:19 169:10,13 170:5

22:15 8:19,19 41:10,12 7:22 60:12,12 260:21 267:3,4 177:8 196:3

kind 53:7 83:17 41:13 47:2,6 69:12,12 210:17 268:9 269:10 208:12 213:15

101:11 146:12 48:18 49:1,8 210:17 211:10 273:10 277:13 215:9 221:2 226:8

163:18 177:4 55:17,20 57:10,13 221:10,10 239:15 309:20 317:20 227:11,12 243:18

189:18 197:18,21 58:21 59:15 60:3 239:15 LCL 154:5 261:14 265:4,16

198:11 202:13 70:13 72:9 74:7 lamination 100:6 lead 169:5,6 185:16 268:11 270:7,14

215:6,9 219:16,17 75:20 76:13 77:4 101:13 143:16,19 274:4 270:15 271:13,20

232:1 235:18 77:8,13,18 78:14 158:19 169:21 leads 98:15 158:4 272:2,12 273:1,2

246:15 253:5 79:2 80:2,21 81:5 laminations 176:14 297:11 288:1,2,2,6,7

257:1 301:19 81:8,11 84:15 270:19 learning 284:8,11 289:1,10,11,14

316:9 90:18 92:9 93:14 language 81:18,19 284:15,17 290:2 302:12,13

kinds 70:5 86:11 94:5 97:22 99:14 82:4,4 leave 172:1,2 210:4 302:15,20

252:5 105:21 116:20 large 90:5 151:18 leaves 30:20 258:10 levels 37:3 45:2

Kirk 1:15 9:15 124:13 136:17 152:1 164:20 264:1 85:5 103:3 125:14

Kitt 1:22 9:7 139:6,12 141:8 182:16 185:2 led 17:2 148:22 126:1,4 132:17

know 13:19 31:19 144:21 146:2 235:15 243:4 252:3 133:18 134:3

50:15 57:4 58:1 148:11 159:3 245:11 264:9 left 6:3 179:4,7 136:11,12 137:6,7

68:6 70:3,4 76:18 162:17 165:6 largely 22:22 23:5 212:7,8 137:11,14 156:9

79:8 80:7 83:17 314:18,22 320:4 larger 22:14 legacy 199:5 164:22 165:19,20

98:15 99:5 100:7 Korea 304:17 113:21 164:4 legislation 79:10 165:22 166:4,7,11

113:15 122:4 Kundu 2:25 10:17 173:11 175:4 218:2 311:18 166:18 167:2,14

124:4 140:1 142:3 180:17 219:11 length 128:14 167:18 169:3,8

144:13 146:4 L 237:22 238:19,21 138:10 140:12 170:4,6,15 171:14

147:9 148:14 lab 67:10 82:21 239:8 245:22 145:19,21 146:4,5 172:9,21 175:13

150:1 155:14 94:6,12 203:7 265:19 146:7,7,10,13 175:19 178:2

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 342
	

192:8,9,13,15,19 145:21 176:10 244:6 245:8,17 174:16 175:3 89:4 92:15,16,16

193:3,9 194:2 197:11,15 218:18 253:19 265:18 177:12 183:1 92:17,17,18,20

195:10,18 196:14 limits 145:19 317:8 271:13 290:8 189:2,3 190:5 98:3,19 100:5,17

201:20 216:13 Lin 2:8 10:4,4 293:13,17 303:11 193:8 200:10 100:18 102:11

220:22 222:10 273:8,8,19 274:13 304:13 215:4 217:15 103:3 104:11

226:13 244:19 Linda 2:12 9:11 load 22:7 23:16 218:16 219:6 106:19,20 130:6,8

257:17 263:4 249:10 255:15 24:6 63:17 70:3 220:22 221:13,14 130:14 152:22

278:7 283:4 287:1 line 46:21 47:1 92:18 102:16 244:17 248:3 153:6 161:3 209:6

302:6 313:1 56:16 88:2 110:3 130:8 209:1,12,13 251:4 259:11 209:9,15 210:8,10

316:20,20 317:4 121:14 144:3 209:19,20 211:1,6 265:2,11 269:7 210:13 216:6,9

lexicon 235:20 233:11 300:6 211:15,16 213:21 270:6 292:20 267:20 301:14

life 186:8 187:17 305:9 214:16,16,20 303:5 310:1,3 lost 318:22

188:8 203:22 linear 275:15 215:3,6,8,11,21 320:11 lot 13:18 49:20

208:14 209:3 lines 31:19 142:5 216:4,4,6,7,9 looked 45:4 83:17 54:20 55:12 58:6

222:6,11,16 225:5 159:20 298:11 217:4 221:4 109:8,12 110:2,19 66:6,12 74:7 75:7

225:14 237:9 liquid-cooled 71:2 299:22 110:20 113:16 75:8 76:15 89:8

247:5 256:21 75:1,3 loaded 102:16 128:10 133:9 89:16 90:13 94:6

257:8 259:12,22 list 45:16,21 46:8 loading 259:14 134:17 144:2,6 108:16 115:1,3

260:17,18,21 46:16 48:7,10,13 loads 221:5 146:3,5,8 148:16 118:12 124:10

261:10,15,16 48:15 49:16 53:20 located 109:17 157:22 195:14 148:12 158:5

266:20 267:16,19 53:21 55:16 70:22 location 65:14 197:9 225:18 172:14 184:2,7

269:18 271:8 71:9 72:20 73:6 lock 125:18 227:12 244:18 199:4,4 202:7

274:11 317:20 74:1 76:10,20 locked 64:21 99:19 250:1 255:14 215:10 220:5

lifecycle 125:4 77:6,15,22 80:19 135:22 136:7,11 262:3 284:10 221:15,17 249:14

lifetime 223:13 80:22 81:4 100:5 136:12 139:7,9,14 looking 54:3 61:19 249:17,19 250:4,4

225:7 237:4,6,20 116:13 129:15 297:17 303:6,8 67:7 79:9,10 250:6 253:7

238:1,3,7,10,11 131:20 166:10 log 187:10,20 109:19 112:11 256:11 264:19

239:2 246:10 259:22 314:4 logically 318:16 122:18 123:20 266:14 271:11,16

251:21 252:13 listed 70:11 71:11 long 122:6 136:8 128:9 133:6 272:8 274:2

254:14,20 255:4,7 78:2 158:13,13 163:22 164:1 150:11 153:8 288:12,21,22

280:5,22 281:2,14 191:7 204:19 176:14 190:6 183:11 184:8,12 292:20 296:8

281:19 292:5,7,10 295:10 198:22 251:19 186:7 196:3 298:12 307:2

lifetimes 237:10,12 listening 35:22 256:16 197:18 219:3,4,21 316:17,22 319:13

237:15 238:13 listing 55:12 longer 70:17 164:5 234:1 235:14 319:15

239:5,7,13 249:5 lists 43:14 47:13 234:15 245:1 255:13 264:14,15 lots 34:12

249:6 253:15 70:15 80:3 246:1,19 249:5 265:15 266:14 Louder 8:18

254:8,13,15,18 literature 225:20 253:15 271:1,11 283:5 305:8 310:8 low 58:10 101:3

life-cycle 4:12 254:4,21 255:1 long-term 19:14 looks 49:4,7 137:12 157:13,14

11:20 12:1 189:4 little 32:7 33:11 look 30:2 32:7 47:9 loophole 57:8 184:11 188:15,17

223:7,13 228:20 41:5 72:16 73:19 49:11 61:15 72:13 loopholes 57:12 189:15,17 192:22

lighter 128:20 95:21 98:16 103:17 110:12,14 loss 69:6 93:2 222:2 248:9

253:9 111:11 115:16 110:16 115:3 100:19 101:3,7 253:19 263:3,9

liked 56:18 117:6 141:15 120:17 123:13 102:7,7,16 107:15 265:5

likelihood 168:12 160:8 173:22 129:15 134:16 130:8,12 158:14 lower 37:3 107:15

limit 202:4 303:6 174:2 182:10 151:6 154:5 160:17 299:17 113:11 133:11

limited 110:9 111:6 184:15 190:16 155:18 157:14,19 307:9 136:11,12,13

120:6 121:15 203:11 221:13 169:6,8 171:12 losses 58:15 67:17 152:22 153:5

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 343
	

156:22 182:7 247:10 248:2 manufactured 297:10,13,19 207:18,21

184:9 188:3,11 250:21 256:13,18 103:2 109:10,11 298:7,15 301:4,6 markups 4:12

214:4 221:6 281:19 282:7 109:15 110:4 301:6,10 307:4 11:19 126:7 180:7

229:19 231:14 maintenanced 172:12 manufacturer's 180:11,14 184:5,8

241:17 249:6 252:15 manufacturer 4:16 124:19 140:8 184:12,13 185:8,9

268:4 287:2,3 major 305:16 12:7 63:13,20 147:16 182:7 186:22 187:6,11

297:17 majority 18:8 83:6 92:5 101:12 187:4 284:22 187:12 200:22

lowest 92:2 167:1 247:12 102:19 103:2 285:9 203:15 204:6,6,16

194:4 making 31:18 109:18 110:3 manufacturing 205:5,9,14 206:5

low-cost 124:6 60:19 70:6 73:22 125:6 142:7 22:2 36:13 101:18 224:9 283:10

lubrication 259:20 106:21 109:18 153:21 154:2 111:19 116:1 mass 114:4,13

Lucas 1:14 9:1 113:18 122:19 155:10 167:2 118:20 147:1 116:1 122:15,15

lunch 11:22 12:1 132:3 139:8 148:6 175:20,21 176:19 169:16,17,18,19 match 22:7 24:5

162:15 178:6 169:11 183:9 176:22 177:12 172:19 180:10 matched 70:2

Lung 2:9 8:7,7 269:20 300:12 179:10,12,14 183:6 270:20 210:22 211:6

L10 259:12,21 305:10 309:9 180:13 182:1,2 303:1,9 305:3 material 24:16

Malinowski 2:9 187:5,7 188:6,15 March 44:16 101:13 106:22

M 7:12,12 55:8,8,18 188:16 189:15,17 margin 180:16 107:3 126:7 130:2

machine 35:5 55:21 57:11,14 190:1 194:5 204:3 303:3 137:19,21 138:6,9

52:13,15,18,20 65:9,10 74:4,4 204:7 207:14 margins 302:9 138:14,15 139:1

82:22 102:11,16 76:22,22 77:16 225:19 258:11 marked 150:13,18 140:5 142:10

106:22 143:15 79:3,6,6,18,22 269:2,7,22 283:9 151:15,21 152:7 163:7 171:1

146:21 169:22 142:12 143:12,12 283:14 284:19 152:20 176:11 179:21

243:22 245:2,3 146:16,17,18 285:4,15,17,22 market 4:7 11:14 180:5 244:20

246:2,2 161:13,13 163:17 286:7,13 293:5,8 21:21 41:7,11,16 270:14,15 271:17

machinery 115:15 163:17 190:14,15 293:14 296:1 41:22 42:2 84:17 272:7 274:3

245:7 301:8,14 190:15 191:20 307:17,19,21 91:9,18 92:9 284:12 293:11

machines 62:9 192:2 199:22 308:11 312:22 94:16 112:19 298:9 299:12,15

132:5 197:7 244:4,5,10,14 manufacturers 114:8 115:6,18 299:17

machine-winding 245:14 259:10 1:19,23 2:4,5,14 118:22 121:12,19 materials 17:12

183:20 264:13 265:10,14 7:3 16:20,22 177:14 189:10 98:21 137:16

machine-wound 265:22 266:5 18:11 19:16 38:10 199:5 217:14,15 138:2,3,13 139:5

180:4 270:3,4 300:22,22 38:15 39:22 40:9 253:6 255:9 276:2 140:2 141:13

macro 173:20 305:22 56:7 67:5 98:5 276:11 294:6,7 142:2 143:8

174:9,16 175:8 manageable 83:14 101:14,17 109:17 marketplace 18:16 155:11 169:20

magnetic 106:13 management 119:5 124:6 142:4 19:22 56:17 57:5 172:12 176:9

106:15 235:17 153:16 166:12 113:7 190:9 180:1 181:1,4

main 27:2 92:15 manager 5:11 175:18 176:8 marking 151:4 math 252:3

157:3 193:6 200:9 mandated 265:16 180:7,16 183:13 152:5 Matt 2:10 8:21

204:9 288:13 mandatory 312:17 183:16 185:2 markup 141:9 141:20 143:2

294:22 309:12 manner 173:13 190:7 204:18 181:6 182:17 288:17,19

maintain 228:3 manners 83:15 243:13 247:8 184:9 185:9 187:5 matter 96:5,5

243:18 297:21 Mano 68:14 257:1,6,19 258:3 187:19 188:15,16 105:7 159:18

maintenance 224:2 manpower 123:11 262:3 269:5 188:17,17 189:9 178:8 256:10,13

225:13,17 226:9 manufacture 106:5 271:19 293:22 189:15,16,17,18 260:12 292:18

226:11 227:5 114:3 115:13,17 294:9,14 295:4,9 190:2 205:4 314:13 320:15

230:5 237:2 115:22 118:19 296:7,12,13 297:6 206:15,16 207:10 mature 22:4

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 344
	

max 195:3 45:20 64:17 71:11 metaler 118:1 microphones 6:5 56:17 73:4

maximum 145:21 109:7 124:7 metallurgical mid 12:3 70:1 mis-conclusions

146:13,21 166:1 177:16 272:1 137:22 middle 202:13 158:5

max-tech 166:9 302:13 307:22 method 86:16 midpoint 168:6 mix 183:11

McELVEEN 3:11 317:9,14 195:21 196:6,21 mid-morning mixed 169:10

mean 16:2 43:7 meeting 1:3,9 4:4 208:17 238:12 11:15 195:19

59:11 134:13 5:5,7,13 11:7 methodologies 82:2 mildly 113:9 mixing 172:13

139:6 162:5 164:7 13:16 14:19 15:6 284:1 mile 174:6 177:3

164:9 183:22 19:17 27:17 29:10 methodology 94:3 miles 174:3 250:19 mixture 177:4

187:15 189:1 30:6 40:3 45:6 195:8 284:18 milestone 30:7 mmm 199:7

198:18 205:20 108:13 261:8 286:12,16 milestones 30:4 mode 14:3

212:8 221:14,21 295:12 296:9 methods 61:18 million 95:22 97:12 model 104:4,9

244:22 245:6 319:21 320:2 82:18 98:5 97:18 109:1 145:14 150:20

249:9 255:11,17 meetings 14:13 metric 36:16 287:8 119:15 144:4 155:17 157:8

255:20 271:10 meets 155:2 317:10 287:16 147:5 174:14 159:11 160:10

278:7 288:12 Meg 2:16 6:20 Mexico 118:20 263:19,21 264:1 161:19 163:2

meaning 52:5 80:16 284:5,6 119:12 265:12 289:9,12 165:7 167:19

59:13 261:8 melting 297:7 MG-1 193:4 millions 174:5 182:6 193:12

meaningless 73:12 member 7:5,10 MG1 18:9 20:5 mills 256:14 211:21 226:5,6,22

meanings 171:21 10:5 40:16 41:4 46:20 mind 50:6 68:5 276:20 294:17,18

means 71:4 100:16 members 20:15 52:6,12,16,20 172:21 197:11 307:10 310:12,22

104:17 225:19 58:7 131:5 149:15 274:7 302:17 311:1,1 313:5

235:21 260:7 memory 291:10 151:9,14 152:8 308:8 modeled 126:2

297:16 318:22 mention 28:9 47:4 154:12 155:4 minimal 311:20 148:5 162:21

319:4 55:13 81:22 166:7 167:5,7 minimization 163:1 165:18

meant 158:17 110:14 193:22 299:3,18 300:8 130:21 167:9

232:14 205:6 295:15 MG1-2009 40:15 minimize 106:20 modeling 99:16,17

measure 65:18 mentioned 25:1 MG1-2011 40:20 130:16 299:14 125:1,20 138:18

measured 102:9 40:2,12,22 46:2 91:6 minimizing 98:2 144:22 145:7,13

137:20 146:4 71:1 105:16 118:5 MIA 143:10 293:20 minimum 44:10 146:14 147:8

measures 312:3 169:15 179:18 294:4 295:5 296:6 45:20 47:15 148:12 158:8

measuring 73:11 192:20 194:12 Michael 2:6 8:9 129:15 153:16 159:9 166:5

258:8 218:17 226:14 28:15 31:1 32:4 154:14,16 160:1 167:11 310:22

mechanical 35:7 260:20 271:15 33:8 38:3,17 63:2 261:8 302:17 models 5:15 15:8

61:19 163:20 276:22 277:1,13 65:11 66:3 117:1 minor 61:19 82:18 121:15 125:13,17

164:6 209:7,9 278:4 296:18 263:11 315:12 93:7,11 159:15,16,17,21

236:10 237:6,14 302:1 307:13 micro 173:15 minus 210:12 160:3 182:9

238:11 239:1,5,13 318:19 microeconomic minute 48:5 66:8 222:20 264:15

241:10 242:20 mentioning 28:11 173:17 215:7 moderate 119:11

243:10 251:21 191:17 micrometers 258:7 minutes 104:16 moderator 1:11,14

252:13 253:10 mercury 311:14 microphone 6:7 162:15 260:6,7,10 14:8

254:12,17 256:21 merely 151:20 75:22 76:2,3 93:9 misleading 98:17 modification 55:2

263:8 272:15 met 19:5 93:2 94:10 135:6,8 262:20 modifications

mechanisms 22:9 139:9,15 155:13 210:5,16 217:20 misnamed 59:8 84:11

medium 33:18,20 196:19 299:8 221:9 226:19 missing 110:7 modified 310:21

34:4 302:9,18 317:12 253:16,20 267:11 151:19 202:10 modify 82:1 309:21

meet 37:4 44:10 metal 116:7 288:18 misunderstanding modifying 56:4

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 345
	

moisture-resistant 65:15,16 66:17,20 194:1,5 202:7 19:10 21:10,17 174:12 179:20

52:19 66:21 67:13,16 203:19 207:9,11 25:16 26:2,10 180:2,15,17 182:3

mold 107:14 69:21,22 70:15 207:15 208:18 33:13,17,19,21 182:7,9 192:3,18

molten 116:7 297:9 71:9 72:16,17 209:1,5,6,9,11,11 34:4 35:10,11,12 192:22 194:6

momentary 23:17 73:12 74:8 75:3 209:15,19 210:10 36:6,14 37:1,3 195:20 197:16

monetary 282:9 76:15,16,19 80:4 210:12,22 211:15 40:6 43:19,20 201:16,18,20,21

312:2 81:3,21 82:6,7,8 211:16,18,19,20 44:4,14,20 45:2 203:3,20,21 204:3

monetization 309:3 82:11,13,16 83:2 211:22 214:16,20 51:5,12 52:9,11 204:13 206:13

monetized 312:4 83:3,6,8,9,13 217:3,16 218:8 53:15 56:2,5,8,20 208:10 209:4

monitoring 65:20 84:20 85:9 86:19 219:18 221:16 59:1 60:4,20 66:9 211:5 212:1,4,10

Monte 186:19 88:9,22 89:12,18 223:18,20 226:2,7 66:22 67:3,4,11 212:14 215:5,5,20

222:22 91:14 92:13,21 227:18 228:13,16 68:18,19,22,22 216:3,20 217:1

month 30:6 93:4,5 94:14 95:6 229:2,6,12 230:1 69:1,4,15 70:7,21 219:13 220:3,4

months 28:10,12 96:21 98:2,3 99:4 230:3,13 234:1 71:1,1,3,5,13,14 221:14 222:10

28:20 30:18,20 100:2,8,17,21 235:8 236:5 72:12,13 73:5,5,7 225:11 227:16

247:14 101:5 102:3 103:6 237:20 238:1,4,6 74:18 75:17 76:10 229:14,18 233:15

MOORE 3:12 103:8,14,15 104:6 238:10,11,13,20 76:11,19 77:2,14 234:3,21 237:20

morning 5:3,22 104:11 107:1,13 239:3,21 240:1,12 85:12,16,17,18 238:16,18 239:9

13:20 24:20 41:12 112:4,12,13,14,19 240:13 241:10 86:11,17 88:18,21 241:16 243:11,14

105:10 114:21 113:1,5,12,14 242:1,4,12,13 90:5 91:3,6,20 244:15,19 245:7,9

motivation 250:6 114:22 124:18 243:16,21,22 92:1 94:19 95:14 245:15 246:3

motor 1:20 2:13 125:20,21 126:2,3 244:1 245:10,11 95:15,15 96:4,7,9 247:8,11,17

7:7,11,15,17,21 127:15,15,17,18 245:20 246:5,10 96:9 97:3,13 98:6 248:16 249:4,20

9:6 16:19 17:2,5 127:19 128:7,11 246:11 247:4 99:20 104:4 252:5,6,6,7 253:1

18:16 19:15,19,20 128:16,17,19 249:11,21 250:3 106:18 107:4,18 253:6 254:14

19:22 20:1,5 129:3,4 130:18 250:22 251:7 108:3,19 109:10 261:4,7,9,12

21:18,21 22:3,10 131:13 132:10 252:10,20 253:8 109:20 111:17 262:9,10 264:4,4

22:19 23:10,15,21 133:8 136:6,10,14 253:10 254:10 113:16,20 116:12 265:4 270:6 275:5

24:1,2,5 25:4,20 137:1,17 138:10 255:7,18 256:4,19 120:8 125:1 275:8,13 279:22

35:2,5 36:16 41:1 138:16 140:19 258:3,6,10,11,17 126:21 127:2,5,14 280:14,22 281:14

41:3 42:2,3 43:8 142:18,22 144:22 258:19 259:1,16 128:3,5 129:2,3,5 281:21 284:12

43:16,19,22 44:3 145:3,5 146:6,7 261:19 267:7,20 129:14,17,19 287:5 288:21,22

44:7,8,12 45:8,10 146:10 147:14 270:8 276:8,18 130:10 131:4,8 289:3 291:4

45:14,16,19,22 148:16 149:4 277:10 278:22 132:9,18 133:13 292:10 293:22

46:6,8,9 47:10,14 150:2,9,11,12,17 279:5,15,15,22 134:1 135:14,17 296:16,17 297:6

47:18,22 48:2,7,9 150:20 151:4,11 280:3 283:1,8,11 135:18,20,21 297:14 298:19

48:18 50:22 51:1 151:11 153:4 285:6,6,7,10,18 136:19 137:4,13 299:1 300:3 301:7

51:7,13,16,18 154:20,22 155:2,6 286:1,14 287:4 137:13,18,19 303:21 304:20

52:1 53:1,2,21 155:7,12,14,21 291:16,18 292:1 139:3,16,18,18 306:1,2,7,7

54:2,6,8,11,16,17 156:12,16 157:8 296:19 300:5 140:22 145:14,20 mounted 61:21

55:12,22 56:6,7 158:4,15 159:12 301:5,13 303:2 146:9 147:6 148:3 65:15

56:11,14,21,22 161:18 162:3 304:14 306:3,4 148:4,15 152:2 mounting 128:15

57:17,19 58:3,5 163:1 164:8,10 316:11,21 156:21 160:11,12 176:16

58:16 59:17 60:6 167:3 168:11,13 motors 1:4 2:25 5:9 162:6,8,22 163:2 mouth 203:11

62:13,16,18 63:6 170:7 173:10,17 5:11 14:21 15:3 165:18 166:12 move 20:1 29:18

63:10,17,18 64:12 175:1,2,7 180:3 15:12 16:12 17:19 167:10,13 169:7,9 47:12 70:12 77:12

64:15 65:12,13,13 186:9,17 188:7 18:2,5,8,13 19:1,9 169:12,14 172:16 84:16 121:5

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 346
	

122:11 124:1,12 152:20 153:1 near-term 292:18 77:1,2,14 85:13 249:15 250:20

124:15 170:22 156:2,17 necessarily 94:20 85:15,17 91:2,5 new 25:19 26:11

173:3,5 195:17 names 10:14 140:9 190:12 91:11,19,22,22 30:8 40:6 41:2

196:7 200:17 Nardotti 2:10 8:21 200:6 218:10 96:5,8,9 108:16 53:11 57:12 81:12

227:21 236:21 8:21 141:20,21 247:7 252:2 109:9 110:17 81:16,17 87:17

272:12 274:15 143:4 288:19,19 necessary 57:20,21 112:5 117:4 140:17 143:19

312:12 313:19 national 1:19,23 59:14,17 60:7 125:16 126:16 159:21 205:8

316:13 317:17 2:4,5,14,20,22,23 81:20 83:7 114:8 127:13 128:16 222:15 236:9

moved 171:15 3:13 4:14 7:3 124:5 209:3 129:1,13 131:5,19 240:17 246:4

253:6 12:2 15:22 26:21 242:22 300:11 133:12,13 134:9 270:19,20 291:16

moves 173:4 92:4 94:6,12 301:20 134:17 135:8,11 296:16 298:16

moving 70:12 125:5 135:19 Ned 9:9 117:17,18 137:6,13,16 301:11 305:13,14

81:12 122:22 136:3,4 200:21 117:20 120:1 139:13,17,18 308:21 309:10

144:20 162:14 267:8 274:16,16 303:14,15 306:1 149:15 151:9,14 311:10

183:10 192:6 274:18 279:20,21 need 6:7 12:4 13:2 151:15,20 153:13 newer 273:17

227:13 260:4 280:2,4,11,17 54:19 69:17 73:17 153:16 154:12,16 newly 31:17

278:6 289:10,11 281:8 282:14 78:17 90:8 108:22 154:20,22 155:1,4 NFPA 136:3

289:12,14 293:2,3 286:18,19,20 109:7 136:11 155:7 156:1,3,10 NI 3:13

MSP 124:19 138:4 290:12 310:7,22 173:13 197:20 157:15 158:10 NIA 269:21 282:17

141:22 142:8 312:15 313:5,6 203:10 246:21 166:6,15,16,19,19 287:9

189:22 190:11 320:6 251:5 260:3 167:5,6,7,8,17,18 Nidec 1:20 2:13

MSPs 143:6 Natural 2:16,23 271:18 272:19 168:1,5,7,9 169:4 7:16 9:5 57:17

MTA 42:1,15,16,21 6:21 273:4 300:17 169:7,8 171:10,13 nine 141:2

125:12 nature 158:17 308:12 317:2 176:16 193:15,17 NIST 153:15

multiple 27:7 90:9 159:1 needed 30:11 194:11,22 195:1,4 nitrogen 311:14

101:19 159:16,17 Navigant 1:16,22 112:10 160:2 195:4 202:21 nodding 240:5

162:6 174:4 2:7,10,21 8:15,20 202:18 270:20 250:14 261:6 249:10

multiplied 210:12 8:22 15:21 24:21 needs 78:11 122:6 265:2 274:1 nomenclature 90:2

multiplier 287:13 41:13 141:19 202:22 271:9 278:14 287:3,4 nominal 148:9

multiplying 280:5 165:13 288:20 negate 298:4 289:1 291:10 151:15,21 153:17

multi-speed 81:4 320:5 negative 267:6 297:21 298:1 154:14,18,21

mute 14:5 navigation 61:3 290:20,22 291:3 302:2,7,14 303:6 155:1 156:11,22

M36 104:7 170:22 NAVLAP 153:15 291:11 292:4 306:5,6,12 316:3 157:2,11,15 166:7

171:2 172:17 Neal 2:2 8:6 16:16 301:21 318:5,7,9 166:15 168:5

M47 170:16,18 16:17,18 20:21 negotiating 80:9 NEMA's 7:7 36:1 302:18,20

172:17 49:6 59:6 65:6,8 neighbor 49:11 116:9 159:14 nominally 168:13

66:1,2 68:1,2 76:7 NEMA 7:10,14,17 171:3 non 313:3,7,9 N 168:3 198:15,16 7:21 9:4,6,20,22 NEMA-supplied non-complaint

N 55:13 306:4,4 198:17 217:11,13 10:3,5 16:19 18:9 91:12 301:7

name 5:10 6:4,8,10 238:14,15 249:8 18:9,13 20:3,16 NEMS 311:1 non-compliant

8:13 13:1,10,12 255:10 257:12 28:4 35:11,18 NEMS-BT 311:1,5 301:12

16:17 24:21 68:14 272:17 36:2,8 37:3 39:10 311:21 non-crystal 106:14

117:19 121:8 Neal's 246:20 40:15,16,20 45:7 net 280:10 281:11 non-disclosure

135:6 231:2 273:6 253:5 47:20,21 48:1 282:12 290:13,20 295:17

nameplate 125:16 near 21:11 51:12,13,18 52:6 291:3,11,13,18 non-energy 282:4

139:16 150:13 nearly 253:11 52:9,13 55:10,15 294:2,22 313:7 282:11 291:20

151:13,16,22 295:16 64:16,18 76:6 never 61:17 217:21 non-production

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 347
	

180:14 181:6 119:9 130:5 153:1,6 159:11 158:7 160:6 one-third 229:3

182:17 191:9,17 131:11 160:2 220:21 251:18 161:11 162:12,17 231:18

non-regulatory 162:8 165:4 256:10 314:8 163:14 164:16 one-third/two-thi...

312:16,19 197:16 202:12 occasion 12:12 165:10,10 168:22 230:9

NOPR 29:9,15,17 231:17,20 233:10 occur 228:10 232:2 171:18 173:1 open 48:6 65:13

29:22 33:16 34:3 233:17 234:3,10 232:4 175:11 183:8,22 72:14 88:4,9

81:13 86:7,9,10 234:15,19 235:10 occurred 161:2 184:16 187:13 108:2,20 129:8

269:6 273:12,13 239:19 252:17 occurs 317:3 190:13 191:15 131:4,8,13 138:11

294:15 308:1,16 256:5 263:14 October 30:12 192:1,5 196:17 197:7

308:19 312:13 264:5,6 266:1 odd 150:14 198:15 200:2,16 opening 4:5 11:6,8

Norm 240:6 269:15,16 278:13 OEM 241:12,14 201:6 203:4 11:10,12 16:9,15

normal 75:16 287:19 289:8 258:10 301:6 207:16 208:2,5 24:11 69:17 76:8

187:10,20 303:17 304:14,19 OEMs 245:5,6 210:14 211:10,11 operable 54:8

normally 101:8 316:4 offer 37:6 50:21 215:17,22 221:19 100:1

294:4 numbered 314:2 offers 121:15 222:5 227:6 operate 71:14 82:7

North 244:16 numbering 241:3 Office 8:10 228:18 231:12,16 83:2 216:3 247:12

303:21 304:21 numbers 91:13,14 officer 5:12 231:22 232:12,20 249:5

Northwest 2:1,15 91:19,21 95:10,13 offshore 183:1,10 236:4,18,19,22 operated 215:6

2:20,22 6:15 10:1 95:20,20 96:3,6 184:2 185:16,19 240:22 245:13 operating 62:20

note 14:8 18:21 96:20 97:15 104:9 264:3 248:9,11,13 250:8 64:6 97:13 208:10

20:3,7 28:6 36:5 111:3 134:12 off-the-shelf 66:14 251:10 253:12,21 208:18 209:1,12

43:5 47:4,7 57:19 140:20 144:7,8 Oh 47:2 141:18 254:1 257:3 259:3 209:19 211:14,17

58:4 84:3 91:2 190:17 221:13,17 231:10 259:8 260:2 213:2,4 214:5,15

127:22 129:1 221:21 245:4 oilers 256:15 264:11 266:13,15 215:20 216:7

136:22 159:22 248:5,6 249:2 okay 10:8,21 24:13 266:15,16 267:13 217:4 218:21

163:2 167:15 252:9 253:18 33:7 37:11 38:4 268:3,6,16 269:14 222:18 223:11,13

168:14 173:3 265:1,2 269:8 39:18 41:14 47:6 273:5,19 274:12 223:16,21 225:7

218:7 240:3 272:21 290:7 47:7 49:13 50:10 274:15 277:1 229:19 237:11,16

247:16 314:3 292:20 303:6 55:17,20 57:10 278:17 286:15 254:11 292:5

noted 21:9 44:10 314:19 315:4 58:20 60:10 61:5 289:18 290:9,11 operation 112:16

109:12 169:2 numerous 44:17 63:1 68:16 70:9 291:13 293:1,10 220:1 228:4

306:22 92:22 70:12,13 75:19,20 303:13 305:20 229:15,17 232:15

notes 56:12 76:12,13,20 77:4 316:8 251:22 305:2

notice 27:4,6,10 O 77:11,18 78:14 old 164:10 245:3 operations 123:9

29:8,9 30:5,8 obligations 317:10 79:2 80:1,15,21 248:17 220:9

32:17 34:1 180:13 observation 133:15 81:5,8,9,11 84:9 older 296:15 opinion 151:8

287:7 314:1 observed 134:19 84:14,15 90:18 OMB 282:19 312:7 303:12

noticeable 108:11 167:2 194:5 92:8 93:14 95:8 omitted 77:3 opportunities

noticed 61:8 89:15 195:16 97:7,21,22 99:11 108:11 22:21 175:4

140:6 302:8 obtain 196:14 105:21 110:22 once 10:11 29:21 opportunity 11:5

noting 219:6 250:9 235:18 243:21 116:19 120:2,22 87:3 165:17 196:7 11:10 12:9 16:15

NOx 312:10 obtained 110:15 121:20 124:11,12 234:16 299:20 17:8 19:15 20:19

NPV 290:15 292:3 113:10 231:7 124:13 136:15,16 ones 80:5 96:13 21:22 24:8 35:22

NRDC 284:7 obviates 73:17 136:17 142:14 111:22 130:21 218:8 313:16

number 58:9,12 obvious 78:6 79:12 144:18,20,21 134:17 opposed 303:18

66:8 67:6 68:8 318:14 146:15 147:20 one-horse 245:10 optimistic 303:12

72:1 90:20 107:15 obviously 72:2 149:17 152:3 one-offs 66:6 optimize 92:20

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 348
	

optimized 73:10 overall 63:9 145:21 227:5 230:21 pause 48:5 86:1 percentages 204:11

118:6 146:5,9 206:14,15 238:2 255:12 92:7 98:9 108:1 219:3 221:6

option 29:12 42:20 223:6 280:16 284:9 293:17 162:15 perception 221:22

107:6,20 158:14 310:6,19 317:4 319:11 pay 207:12 perfect 150:7

298:12 overhang 176:17 partial 53:15 54:11 payback 4:12 perfectly 210:22

options 42:6,11,17 overhaul 227:2 54:16 55:22 56:6 11:20 12:2 21:14 perform 103:13

42:18 43:3 92:12 overhead 141:9 83:2,8 95:14 125:4 222:7,9 160:22

98:16 99:22 overload 135:22 264:4 223:7,14 271:1 performance 63:16

103:20 104:12 overly 303:11 Participants 4:5 292:6 64:18 73:11,12

106:1,3,9,12 overseas 181:13 participated 293:8 PBIB 108:2 92:21 115:2

121:4 124:21,22 301:15 307:8 participation 27:20 PBIP 107:10 125:17 160:17

128:4 145:3,9,13 overview 4:5 11:8,9 320:1 PCs 23:2 162:4,19 228:4

158:12 175:19 14:17 27:19 34:21 particular 17:4 peak 23:16 154:18 242:21 297:15,18

176:2 241:9 263:8 41:14 32:14 38:6 45:14 peek 186:3 297:21 299:7

313:4 over-lubed 259:21 53:8 62:14 63:15 pending 218:1 301:21

oral 27:8 oxide 311:14 64:19 66:7,7 people 57:5 119:6 performance-rel...

order 92:20 100:1 o'clock 12:16 100:15 108:9 119:19 147:1 85:4

138:1 145:5,9 120:11 124:20 161:19 171:17 performed 139:12

P 172:17 177:7 131:7 172:16 274:2,8 298:12 202:19 228:21

208:15 211:20 Pacific 2:20,22 176:21 177:10 304:17,20 229:4

216:2 228:3 250:3 package 49:9 178:2 188:22 perceived 193:11 performs 269:19

262:1 276:4,10 272:14,16 196:16,22 221:12 percent 21:12,15 294:4

283:16 287:15 packages 271:22 222:12,19 272:6 22:4 23:11,12,20 period 4:12 11:20

299:10 packet 11:1 17:11 274:11 306:20 23:20 70:1,4 12:2 18:20 21:14

organizational 6:4 21:2 24:14 particularly 271:2 132:19,22,22 32:19 39:1 125:4

6:8 13:3 packing 246:2 271:4,12 319:14 133:2 146:20 136:9 222:7,9

organize 314:13,15 Padilla 2:10 9:17 parties 5:19 15:16 147:1 150:11 223:8,14 231:7

315:20 9:17 27:21 34:13 39:2 151:2,13 152:21 276:6 277:11,17

original 17:21 49:9 page 201:15,16 82:16 205:1 153:5,12,20 154:1 278:16 280:15

83:6 204:17 202:2,16 247:3,4 276:12 155:20 164:1,2 281:1,15,22

287:22 267:17 316:3,4 partnership 17:1 173:6,7 174:15,19 295:14 300:7

ought 99:7 pages 316:6 parts 53:17 54:6,15 175:1,10 188:2,3 314:14

our's 241:6 paid 187:16 73:7 299:3,6 188:10,11 190:17 permeability

outline 201:16 painful 319:6 300:15 191:1 196:1,18 106:15

outlined 201:12 paired 91:12 party 204:4,16 213:21 215:5,6,11 permutation 90:22

Outlook 224:19 paragraph 132:20 part-time 233:5 215:20 219:5,7 permutations

275:20 parallel 81:14 pass 14:8 23:9 220:16,18 221:7 126:11 127:16,18

Outlooks 311:3 173:21 105:19 120:21 229:11 234:21,22 127:20

output 24:5 179:14 parameter 93:1 passed 115:20 245:5 263:2,9 person 5:5

294:1 295:1 parent 244:10 116:18 152:13 264:5,9 265:5,8 personal 184:1

outputs 125:2 part 16:4 21:2 38:9 153:1,6 154:4 265:18 270:10,11 250:15,17

143:5 313:6 43:14 52:1 55:21 passing 108:10 282:18,18 288:3,4 perspective 66:16

outset 12:19 24:12 72:12 118:2 131:5 path 19:13 245:19 288:4 302:13,16 72:6 159:14 234:2

outside 80:8 109:16 153:16 164:7 252:4 317:6 302:17,21 303:3 235:21 261:13

110:4 201:21 184:3 188:4 200:9 patient 14:10 percentage 184:13 pertains 159:1

203:2 216:4 218:1 pattern 193:11 220:17,21 221:5 petition 13:21

outweigh 292:15 219:21 223:8,10 Paul 2:8 10:4 273:8 263:2,10 278:11 17:12,15,18 21:1

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 349
	

31:15 32:2,2,13 plans 46:1,5 297:7 301:1 302:5 15:13 16:11 22:11 293:15,19 294:10

32:13 33:4 55:1,4 plant 217:7 276:13 303:19 304:10 24:3 26:14 92:11 296:5,6 308:11,18

58:4,18 66:17 308:1 pointed 272:17,18 107:14 158:14 308:20,22 309:7

76:7 84:5,6 plants 248:16 320:1 239:6 309:13

199:17 201:14,15 plastic 107:10,12 points 22:20 27:7 potentially 22:14 premium 18:9

213:13 228:16 platform 145:7 78:16 303:17 96:17 106:17 67:13 112:6

263:18 316:12 Platts 3:14 pole 48:3 85:21 122:20 136:9 121:14 155:7

317:15,18 play 176:19 91:1 109:20 111:3 246:19 290:5 166:19 167:8,18

phase 17:19 27:14 players 189:10 111:17 126:12,16 298:4 195:1,4 227:18

29:1,19,21 30:1 please 6:3,8,19 129:21,22 130:5 pound 100:7,15 258:22 261:10

68:22 71:14 8:18 12:22 13:1 131:2,11 132:1 101:3 265:3 270:12

273:13 294:5,11 13:12,17 14:2,10 134:12 144:6 pounds 141:1,2 289:1

294:15 295:2,6 16:16 66:1 67:2 226:7 285:15 powder 107:11 premiums 191:14

phases 27:2 294:5 75:22 76:21 84:1 286:2 power 2:1 10:2 preparatory 82:5

phone 14:11 94:10 95:9 117:18 policy 14:22 17:21 35:6,7 58:11,11 prepared 105:16

phones 14:3,5 23:2 121:8 135:5 158:9 25:10 287:7,7 64:14 65:21 71:15 prescribes 15:1

photocopy 13:6 182:20 197:17 political 308:6 75:14 107:10 298:1

105:17 201:4 210:16 politicians 307:8 193:10 209:2,7,9 present 1:12 13:7

phrase 43:7 226:19 227:8 poll 293:7 224:20 230:12 15:10 17:9 36:20

physical 165:17 230:7 231:1 240:6 polynomial 216:8 285:8 299:16 36:22 37:20 51:11

198:20 253:13 267:10 polyphase 18:3 306:19 70:18 71:6 87:14

Ph.D 198:9 273:6 288:17 71:14 88:22 97:12 PowerPoint 24:15 90:11 109:14

pick 124:3 128:11 291:7,10 107:4,17 247:8 practicability 148:2 169:3

186:9,11 187:19 pleased 18:17 20:8 poor 112:1 106:5 170:20 171:8

246:13 plus 144:11 152:21 popular 128:4 practical 75:17 185:17 203:8

picked 173:4 236:12,13 303:9 population 151:18 115:22 225:7 280:11

picking 84:18 point 21:17 37:18 152:1,6,15 154:18 practicality 114:2 281:11 282:10,12

147:12 179:6 40:7 41:9 52:10 211:22 309:20 practice 228:22 286:17 290:13,17

188:7 253:4 74:5 75:11 78:21 portion 45:17 229:5 290:20 291:3,12

picture 175:3 252:8 80:18 88:8 90:6 194:17,19 320:8 practices 229:10 291:14,18 294:2

piece 205:18,20 102:5 122:17 position 171:4 precedence 51:10 294:22 313:7

238:21 134:15 147:7 positioned 124:9 predicted 196:1 presentation 16:4

pieces 97:5 237:22 155:13 159:8,13 positive 267:5 275:17 24:16 90:15 92:6

place 17:6 27:6 159:20,22 161:5 291:11 predictive 256:12 108:12 166:13

59:22 65:5 87:19 167:21 168:5 possibility 32:11 256:18 194:13 314:1,19

113:14 118:10 173:10 174:16 83:5 239:3 predominantly presentations

123:5 152:11 177:2 180:19 possible 13:22 58:10 15:17,20

233:8 294:9 295:6 197:4 200:20 23:19 30:21 prefer 240:1 presented 40:20

295:18 300:19 201:7,10 202:15 122:12 135:12 preference 156:20 133:16 206:11

304:7 202:19,20 217:13 162:1 241:13 preferred 103:5 216:12 220:19

placed 85:12 302:2 220:16 221:2,3 304:5 305:19 preliminary 1:3,9 237:15 266:17

places 314:7,9 227:10 233:14 320:7 4:16 5:7 12:7 273:16 314:9

315:9 236:17 240:9 possibly 51:14 15:12 16:10 25:3 presenters 320:4

plan 12:15 59:3 241:19 242:10 218:5 27:3 28:22 29:4 presenting 25:2

135:12 243:9 244:18 post 34:19 29:16 40:19 41:15 216:17

planning 70:17 246:20 249:17 posted 27:12 41:18 203:8 presently 88:1

80:3 82:1,3 91:15 256:17 295:16 potential 13:19 287:10 293:4,14 89:21 171:7

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 350
	

presents 29:2 181:3 190:6,8 proceeds 12:18 products 18:4 proportion 130:11

presiding 1:11 5:12 231:6,8,13,15 process 16:8 20:4 37:22 53:12 66:5 130:14,20

press 260:15 primarily 69:4 27:7,19 28:6 68:12 73:14 84:8 proportional

presses 169:21 primary 281:3 29:20 31:14 32:3 86:12 88:3 109:14 205:19,21

pressing 260:9 287:14 32:6,6,18,21 109:15,18,19 proposal 18:20

presume 302:20 prior 72:3 158:20 38:10 58:17 69:8 110:11 111:5 20:9 29:11 32:18

pretty 78:1 95:11 181:19 205:10 80:10 87:7 90:7 114:5,15 115:5,6 36:1,22 86:10

124:8 215:9 217:6 241:2,5 265:3 112:2 113:19 252:14 317:21 227:13 228:15

228:12 239:19 private 275:18 119:4 120:21 profile 294:6,7 289:8 290:1

240:14,15 243:3 probability 223:1,4 158:21 161:3 profiles 208:19 propose 54:10 55:1

260:8 272:18 probably 59:20 171:6 179:9 234:9 profit 180:16 191:9 proposed 27:4 29:9

preventative 60:8 72:20 148:21 269:21 273:9 191:18 205:12 32:17 33:16 34:1

250:21 164:6,9 168:12 293:18 profitable 192:4 34:5,15,17 53:16

preventive 256:13 184:10 185:12,21 processes 111:19 program 86:18 55:2 87:7 310:15

256:18 239:20 241:18 155:11 172:20 156:7 160:20 311:4

previous 30:17 245:12,18 246:22 177:1 161:7 162:2,5,8,9 proposes 52:11

34:3 46:16 48:12 248:9 259:19 procurement 313:2 162:11 256:18 proposing 29:8,18

75:7 206:12 265:1,5,7 271:10 produce 69:22 302:16,21 303:1,9 30:8,19 87:10

266:17 282:16 271:11 307:5 311:2 programs 63:14 88:6

previously 25:1,20 314:19 produced 305:4 161:17,18,20 proprietary 295:18

35:1,13 40:11 problem 62:12,21 produces 119:11 313:1,2 protected 300:4

46:2 71:1 194:2 75:13,14 88:13 producing 304:20 progress 307:15 protecting 233:12

price 124:19 140:8 89:7 151:13 153:7 product 17:22 56:2 progressed 151:7 protection 135:21

140:10 141:5,11 154:4 155:5 169:5 56:11 57:2 61:16 progressive 143:20 136:4

141:16 179:14 254:22 301:9 61:16,21 66:14,15 project 1:25 5:11 protective 300:5

180:13 182:1,2,8 problems 114:20 73:16 78:3 87:5 8:5 275:22 276:5 prototype 64:2

182:16 187:4 164:11 235:2 110:3 111:9 284:14 161:6

188:2,14,18,22 procedural 5:15 114:18,18 115:22 projected 26:20 prototyped 107:19

189:14 204:8 15:7 116:4,5 120:6,19 224:16 261:20 prototypes 101:1

205:10,15,18,20 procedure 4:7 135:1 137:12 275:3,20 280:6,7 101:16,18,19,20

205:22 207:15 11:14 33:12,20 155:15 159:20 projection 277:4,5 103:18,22 107:2

223:18 224:11 34:22 40:5,8,17 177:9,14,16 279:6 281:13 108:5 160:19

225:2 268:22 41:2 44:1 57:19 183:10 206:22 projections 274:22 proven 22:4 103:20

269:1,4 283:1,8,9 57:22 59:2,11,13 242:11,15 262:22 275:19 276:20 272:1

283:14 284:15,20 59:16,21 60:2 263:1,5,7 272:4 277:5 280:19,20 provide 13:5 35:10

285:1,15,22 286:7 61:10 81:13,13,16 275:11 278:5,12 281:13,17 311:2 39:2 80:3 82:22

286:13 81:18,19 83:20 305:9 307:16 projections,DOE 117:5,13

prices 126:7 179:10 84:11 318:19 319:1,3 278:21 provided 21:10

179:13 180:5,21 procedures 33:17 production 86:21 promised 16:15 38:15 80:11,13

180:22 187:16 33:18 45:13 61:13 107:16 109:2,8 prompt 16:2 94:18 95:6 263:4

188:1,7,12 203:19 61:18,22 83:16 114:4,13 119:18 promulgated 44:6 283:13

204:7 206:22 proceed 14:16 122:15,16 142:5 pronounce 231:8 provides 27:19

224:12,15,16,20 24:13 105:13 147:5 177:20 proper 134:21 providing 266:22

224:22 237:2 210:21 181:22 185:19 152:5 256:17 proxy 276:14

278:22 279:5,15 proceeding 91:21 265:6 298:11 properly 70:2 PTSD 18:18 20:11

285:5,9 296:19 proceedings 19:6 productive 247:2 135:1,9 21:9 53:13 75:8

pricing 180:21 20:18 320:2 properties 162:19 100:9,12 101:9

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 351
	

102:6 103:16 purpose 4:4 11:7 quantities 119:11 11:9 12:15 14:17 196:18

114:20 116:15 43:15,19,20 44:4 277:6 14:18 77:5 313:16 ratio 146:6,10

129:20 132:7,12 44:14,20 48:1 quantity 91:18 319:18,20 rationale 66:19

154:13 300:10 50:22 75:16 82:8 quarter 95:15 radial 83:1 raw 180:12 298:9

314:10 83:2,9 87:5 88:10 198:22 raise 12:12 14:7 Rawald 2:17 9:2,2

public 1:3,13 4:4 112:13 124:16 quench 158:21 40:9 168:17,18 Raynes 2:12 9:11

5:5,7,13 11:7 131:19 203:18 question 30:17 245:20 9:11

12:10 14:19 15:6 208:8 222:7 38:19 39:4 59:14 raised 201:7 razor 302:11

27:6,17 29:10 227:14,14 242:11 71:22 117:3 317:22 reach 75:10 195:6

38:16 319:21 243:1 245:9,9 138:22 145:18 raises 303:17 reached 238:1

publication 40:17 262:21,21 263:5 147:22 148:13 raising 18:13 317:2 239:6

231:11 264:3,3 274:21 163:18 164:19 randomly 169:19 reaches 238:3

publicly 35:22 277:2 279:20 174:21 181:19 range 63:20 65:3 reaching 21:17

295:19 293:19 306:3 182:21 186:7 111:9 114:14 173:14

publish 26:3 29:7 309:15 310:5,18 187:10 200:4 115:22 119:3 reactive 209:2

29:17 30:8 312:15 218:15 219:21 128:13 144:5 224:20

published 27:16 purposes 69:7 226:21 230:8 165:21 185:1 read 10:15 75:7

30:6,12 33:16 pursue 24:2 231:17,21 234:14 186:10 187:16 114:19 274:8

34:1,14 40:5 pursuing 319:2 238:16 241:7 188:1 212:3,5,11 readily 257:2

230:14 287:6 pushing 265:7 246:9 248:21 216:21 219:11 reading 103:16

318:21 put 37:12 57:6,7 257:15 258:15 237:7 262:7 readjust 235:10

publishing 29:13 62:19 74:12 77:14 268:17 273:9 ranges 128:7 readjusted 96:6

pull 169:20 77:21 101:4 102:3 284:7 303:16 270:10,11 285:10 real 62:20 64:1

pulling 251:8 289:2 103:6 113:13 307:13 290:18,19 112:16 117:2

pull-up 99:18 114:11 123:5 questions 12:19 ranked 20:9 140:9 142:21

pump 35:12 43:16 172:18 259:16 14:15 38:11 39:11 rate 181:11 183:20 144:7 172:19

85:18 92:1 127:5 266:1,11 39:16 63:4 133:4 204:21 282:8,17 247:10 259:22

135:14,17,20,21 putting 113:9 231:5 241:5 284:15 292:16,21 278:14

136:6 192:18,22 123:2 160:1 queue 14:9 rated 71:13 realistically 23:11

221:14,16 229:18 171:11 269:16 queuing 13:9 rates 180:8 181:12 reality 134:5

238:5,5 291:4 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-... quick 43:5 58:22 183:2 185:1,4,10 228:10

punch 158:19 5:1 63:4 66:18 117:2 185:16 225:5,6,8 realize 86:10

purchase 101:14 p.m 178:8,9 179:2 175:14 284:7 237:1 282:18 170:16 173:9

113:12 115:14 260:12,13 320:15 293:7 284:8,11,17 252:17 271:18

137:10 145:2 quicker 297:11 290:16 312:9 realized 60:19

149:3 197:16 Q quickly 12:17 rating 48:3 85:21 150:6 211:7

205:18,22 258:4 quads 18:19 286:21 105:2 260:6 87:13 89:21,22 really 60:5 61:12

261:7,9 288:8 quite 50:2 58:6 91:1 128:19 61:19 66:5 67:7

purchased 125:12 qualitative 295:22 67:21 86:4 118:15 131:10,13,17,18 67:11,18,20 68:7

136:20 137:4,18 qualitatively 184:11 205:7 185:13 196:17 69:19 104:20

148:3 150:12 293:20 210:9 256:5,9 285:21 113:3 122:17

155:7,9,20 162:21 quantify 179:22 304:19 ratings 101:19 123:16 130:17

162:22 182:3 228:8 242:7 279:4 109:20 110:7 134:21,22 150:18

purchasing 261:12 279:14 R 113:22 120:11,12 153:8 156:14

261:19 291:16 quantifying 312:1 R 2:2 120:13 126:12,16 160:14 161:6

purely 140:21 quantitatively Raba 2:11 4:6,19 127:10 132:8 172:11 174:22

169:3 293:20 5:3,10 8:11,11 133:21 134:11 177:5 184:11

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 352
	

192:22 198:4 recommendations refer 11:3 43:10 242:12 254:6,22 259:12

202:11 227:19 197:14 317:14,18 52:6 55:18 100:9 regulation 57:4 remodel 148:14

232:2 235:9 recommended 100:22 140:7 62:1 79:20 227:15 remove 34:18

239:16 242:15 66:16 84:6 129:14 166:14 243:2 58:19 116:15

246:21 252:7 134:12,14,18 reference 20:22 regulations 38:12 removed 105:22

256:20 264:16,17 199:16 201:19 117:14 120:18 57:12 removes 177:14

287:20 288:6 229:5 316:21 121:11 188:9 regulatory 16:6 renamed 42:19

300:11 316:14 317:4 254:14 274:2 69:7 294:18 309:5 rental 207:12

317:7 319:15 reconciled 290:8 referenced 24:15 312:13 313:4,8,10 renumber 316:6

realm 69:16 recondition 232:7 34:6 40:14 84:12 reiterate 246:20 rep 166:22 167:16

reason 28:10,17 232:10 236:14 202:3 300:17 316:10 167:20,20 168:1

54:9 73:6 75:3 reconditioned references 40:13 relate 205:9,14 179:10,13 181:7

86:6 115:12 236:6 41:3 230:22 315:22 192:15,19 194:21

134:10 135:15 reconditioning 254:22 related 36:18 84:10 195:2 197:12

149:7 150:21 256:5 258:7 referred 115:11 123:9 130:12 repair 224:1

151:1 153:13 reconditions 232:3 228:15 141:6 156:9 158:3 225:13,17 226:4,5

156:6 167:11 reconfiguring referring 160:9 286:11 297:4 226:6,22,22 227:1

187:14 258:4 272:9 232:19,22 247:17 300:2 301:22 229:1,7,13,19

317:5 record 10:15 13:2,7 refers 154:13 209:5 302:3 308:11 230:1,4,13,16

reasonably 190:7 13:14 32:5 50:4 refine 295:22 315:15,18,19 231:19,22 232:6,8

reasons 46:11 105:7 117:8 178:8 refining 112:2 relates 209:11 232:9,13 235:9,21

134:10 191:1 217:14 reflect 24:16 relation 75:14 236:5 237:2

rebates 312:21 240:4,8 260:12 reflecting 274:4 relationship 42:15 240:19,21 241:13

rebuilt 240:1 315:2,2 320:15 reflects 21:16 99:3 100:19 246:11,18 249:15

recall 183:6 recorded 137:21 250:10 124:17 130:2 255:3,16,17,21

receive 29:11 red 194:15,20 refresh 291:10 148:1 196:11 279:1 281:19

180:17 186:4 275:11 291:1 Regal 241:1 273:8 258:21 268:15 282:6 296:20

295:9 redefined 171:13 273:22 285:2 repaired 229:14

received 11:1 21:1 redesign 118:6 Regal-Beloit 1:24 relationships 240:12

24:14 29:22 31:16 245:6 303:20 2:8 7:10 10:4 200:13 repairing 291:17

31:17 34:12 44:17 304:6 71:21 218:15 relative 130:3 repairs 228:21

94:14 273:11,17 redesigned 164:8 220:15 relatively 39:13 229:4,9 232:3

receiving 101:16 redo 174:5 255:19 regarding 22:20 272:7 234:19

recognize 120:5 reduce 22:3 100:17 38:5,11 48:6 relevant 114:8 repeat 296:9

133:19 272:20 106:19 56:19 129:8 175:6 306:12

recognized 88:18 reduced 107:15 138:12 158:17 reliable 114:6 repeatable 69:8

132:15 133:20 297:15,18 regards 62:8 72:11 relied 208:18 83:14

recognizes 92:11 reduces 177:15 76:18 241:20 rely 239:17 repeating 210:20

153:17 261:11 reducing 73:3 93:2 region 225:1 remain 22:21 71:10 276:1

recommend 18:7 158:14 regional 224:14 206:3 207:6,13 repetitive 123:9

58:18 88:16 112:9 reduction 23:16 regions 128:20 226:12 replace 106:17

176:1 201:13,17 309:4 311:14 register 27:6,10 remains 23:5 140:16 156:4

235:7 312:2,7 29:8 56:14 277:12 246:4 252:21

recommendation reductions 312:4 registered 13:4 remarks 4:18 11:6 255:19 279:1

31:18 76:9 199:19 312:10 regression 199:6 12:14 313:16 296:20

221:1 314:15 redundancy 80:20 275:15 285:8 319:19 replaced 52:17

315:2 317:5 reemphasize 243:9 regulated 44:13 remember 186:15 replacement

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 353
	

112:13,19 113:13 representing 7:13 24:7 27:9 38:19 returns 21:18 245:19 247:5

239:9 240:20 9:6,14 117:21 39:6,12 44:15 reverses 219:17 249:7,7 250:19

257:16 258:16 125:13 231:4 responses 295:20 reversing 123:1 252:1 253:17

313:1 represents 154:18 rest 38:16 177:9 review 4:2 11:5 257:10 258:14

replacements 168:6 222:14 187:6 196:20 13:14 271:9 259:20 267:15

227:4 223:9,11 316:12 209:6 reviewed 72:4 268:13 269:6

replacing 243:11 request 90:8 restate 318:15 94:15 288:22 289:15,16

243:16 216:17 277:15 restricted 75:6 revise 34:16 290:3 293:3,12,14

report 22:10 23:2 requested 314:7 restricting 300:13 revised 21:22 294:11 307:19

55:19 94:16,18 requesting 181:1 restrictions 163:20 revises 29:21 308:17 316:3

161:5 190:22 requests 229:22 restrooms 104:22 revising 34:9,10 rise 21:13 65:19

196:13 274:6,8 require 54:6,14 260:6 273:15 308:19 69:3

311:9,13 227:20,22 228:1 result 18:14,15 revision 57:19 59:2 risk 191:13

reported 101:3 304:6 45:4 111:21 112:7 59:13,17 309:6 road 274:5

165:2 190:22 required 25:22 153:18 173:6 revisions 29:16 Rob 1:20 7:16

302:6,15 305:8 37:4 64:22 136:6 242:1 291:12 309:10 57:16 58:22 59:22

reports 117:3,4 302:13 resulting 294:2 revisit 26:1 61:6 95:9 97:1,2,8

274:1 276:12 requirement 51:3 311:9 rewind 227:2,3 124:1,2 150:1

represent 19:21 75:4 114:2,4 results 15:11,12 231:22 232:10,11 182:20 190:18

66:8 96:21 126:20 120:17 153:7 25:3 29:3 40:20 232:14,15 233:22 198:2 199:14,22

127:2,15,17,20 154:4,5 112:1,3 113:8 234:9 235:21 201:8 202:6 207:1

129:3,5 134:21 requirements 22:8 126:8 149:5 236:11,14 241:14 207:2 213:8,9,11

135:1 138:18 64:18 87:3,20 150:19 161:1 296:15 215:1 219:19

144:22 167:9 115:2 124:7 189:2 216:14 rewinds 232:2 227:8 240:6 247:2

204:12 205:5 135:16 180:6 222:11 224:5,6 233:9 234:21 250:16 253:3

243:13 297:22 298:18 237:12 260:20 rewound 233:1,16 263:16,16 266:8

representation 299:18 261:16 266:20,22 234:4 240:2 266:10 267:10

128:7 requires 28:6 51:6 267:6 283:5 re-engineer 272:13 271:14 277:22

representative 54:12 71:3 75:5 286:18 287:11 re-screening 122:7 287:17,18 289:6

125:10,14 126:9 272:13 290:12,14,17,20 RFI 31:20 44:17 289:21

126:18,20 127:1,6 requiring 44:8 290:22 291:3,7 45:5 ROBBIE 3:11

127:8,12 128:1,8 research 91:12 resume 104:18 RICK 2:25 Robert 2:9,17 6:16

129:1,9 135:4 94:16,17,22 96:3 105:4 179:5 260:8 right 29:1 33:9 6:18,22 21:4,6

136:16,21 137:10 96:11 102:22 resumed 105:8 40:11 57:13 58:22 24:10 71:17 72:21

152:14 155:15 115:16 191:12,19 178:9 260:13 59:9 60:3 64:4 72:22 74:9,11,17

162:20 182:18 276:11 retail 182:8 72:9 76:3 79:22 98:10,11,13 173:1

190:10 192:10 resistance 106:16 retesting 272:9 80:2 94:5 96:19 278:3

194:18 253:18 resolved 119:2 retire 238:6,17,22 105:21 161:8 robin 153:14

266:22 267:2 resource 66:15 retired 238:1 164:14 179:6,11 robust 253:11

283:15 284:20 resources 2:16,23 239:12 255:8 187:18 188:13,19 Rob's 221:12

286:8 6:21 19:16 197:11 256:6 189:6 190:4 192:6 Roger 1:23 7:4

representatives 197:15 200:5 retool 144:3 200:19 207:4 28:1,3 30:15,16

283:19 respect 17:13 19:6 retooled 143:16 212:8 213:22 35:16,17 37:14,19

represented 136:19 31:4 37:9 63:4 retooling 143:20 215:12 218:20 46:14,15 48:13,14

204:10 224:4,21 177:19 298:11 306:16 219:9 233:5 234:5 49:14,15,20 50:13

275:10,15 283:15 respectable 304:3 return 11:17 234:17 235:5 55:5 58:21 61:6

316:16 response 23:15 Returning 12:1 236:1 242:3 243:8 62:5,6 63:11

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 354
	

74:21 77:19,20 109:1,6,10,13 rulemakings 75:7 287:14,15 288:5,8 43:5,7,7,13 44:18

78:10 84:1,2 86:2 110:8 113:4 115:5 90:10 288:9 289:5 45:7 46:1,6,18

86:3 92:8 98:10 118:14 119:6 rules 57:2 151:9,9 291:15,21 292:17 47:12,16,18 48:8

99:13 100:3,4 121:12,18 122:2 155:3 185:22 317:19 318:22 53:11 59:4 60:15

108:6,7 117:9 141:10,10 143:22 run 57:1 65:18 saw 59:5 74:12 61:1,16 70:11,16

118:5,7 120:2,3 159:2 297:14,16 186:19 193:1 95:20 104:6 131:1 78:3,12 80:8 84:8

121:8,21,22 298:6 300:14,19 220:5,9 199:6 240:5 84:16 85:7 91:16

129:10,11 139:19 301:22 304:12 running 221:16 270:11 276:2 94:20,21 95:3,12

139:21 142:15,16 306:22 317:1 227:16 250:2,7 302:5 96:14,22 97:11

145:16 147:20,21 roughly 229:16 runs 186:18 252:12 saying 60:6 72:15 111:4,6 115:4

148:19,20 159:10 round 17:10 29:15 R&D 191:12 87:22 189:13,19 120:6,19 122:7

160:6,7 161:16 153:13 272:11 288:20 135:1 137:3 194:6

S 168:3,22 169:1 rounding 272:18 289:21 292:14 201:12,21 203:2

176:5,6 181:17,18 routine 255:21 safe 320:10,12 302:19 265:12 271:20

195:11,12 200:2,3 RS 225:19 safety 106:8 115:10 says 60:7 111:13 272:3

202:19 210:2,6 Ruffing 2:13 9:5,5 116:6 123:8,15 149:14 151:20 scratch 255:5

245:18 268:6,7 76:5,5 135:7,7,11 sake 43:6 73:3 170:8 196:13,17 screen 181:17

298:21,22 302:1 158:10,10 164:18 sales 204:21,22 196:21 226:21 300:18

303:16 313:20,21 301:18,18 sample 137:15 248:13 315:17 screened 42:19

315:6 rule 26:3 27:5 28:7 152:12,17 153:4 scalable 144:16 106:10,12 107:21

Roger's 159:8 29:20 30:11 32:3 154:7,9 155:14 196:22 109:6 115:19

168:4 175:15 32:13,19,21 33:12 samples 147:17 scale 111:1 114:7 116:14 121:4

267:16 34:14,22 35:3,12 160:2 114:13 119:14 171:6

roll 219:7 40:12,18 44:1 Sanaee 2:6 4:13,15 120:17 123:19 screening 4:9 11:18

rolling 150:3 154:11 159:22 8:16 94:8,11 144:16 192:8,9 41:17 42:10,15,18

roll-up 279:11 201:22 203:3 95:17 186:22 196:4 197:14,19 98:8 105:13,20,22

room 1:9 11:2 14:6 213:14 294:16 187:2 200:20 198:11 199:13 108:10,13 116:11

14:12 17:7 105:18 307:12,14,20 201:8 203:6 210:1 207:20 284:19 116:18 120:7,18

240:4 274:9 293:7 310:3 316:14 257:14 260:15 285:21 120:21 124:14

rotational 35:6 318:15,20 319:9 284:3 296:17 scaled 126:8 138:9 152:13 177:16,19

rotator 53:19 ruled 151:5 308:15 320:5 286:14 scrutiny 147:16

rotor 56:9 64:21 rulemaking 4:5 SANDS 3:14 scales 111:2 SE 104:1

73:8 92:16 98:19 11:12 16:7 25:4,7 satisfied 115:7 scaling 110:13 sealed 52:14

98:20 99:19 25:21 27:3,4,15 save 2:9 8:8 23:8 126:10 134:4,22 seals 255:20

112:20 115:12,20 27:19 28:5 29:9 23:11 44:22 193:3,17,21 195:8 seasonally 247:13

118:10 125:18 29:19 32:17 33:11 174:12,15,18 195:13,21 196:6 SEC 180:9

130:3,4,7,17 34:2 42:5 43:9 saved 18:19 319:7 196:21 198:4 second 59:14 85:16

135:22 136:7,12 81:13,15,16 86:7 saving 288:7 292:1 200:13 285:2 108:1 110:2 114:1

136:13 139:7,9,14 87:7,12 88:6,12 313:6 286:13 129:7 138:19

140:13,19 141:6,7 88:13,15 89:8,9 savings 18:14,15 scenario 277:18 166:6 181:5

143:15,18 158:19 89:13,17,19 90:4 22:12 23:21 24:3 279:11 284:16 193:14,17,21

163:3,4 170:18,19 90:7 92:14 100:9 26:14,21 66:12 294:21 297:1 202:18 297:3

171:3 297:5,17 100:21 103:9 68:8 133:4 158:1 scheduling 295:11 318:5

299:1,10,14 303:7 128:5 147:14 267:4,6 279:22 Schumann 2:13 seconds 300:8

303:8,16,18,19 150:2 170:7 280:5,6,13,18 9:19,19 121:9,9 Secretary 218:3

304:9 293:18 294:11 281:9 282:2,12 scope 34:7 37:22 section 7:7,11,15

rotors 108:13 306:19 286:19,21 287:3 40:3 41:1,21 42:3 7:21 20:16 39:16

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 355
	

41:7,20 144:13 seek 217:2 230:4 September 27:16 132:14,14,19,22 215:13

163:12 187:9 311:21 44:15 192:21 277:3,4,5 shut 308:1

194:20 208:17 seeking 17:13 series 131:15,16,17 279:6 281:13 side 157:13,14,17

274:21 310:18 167:22 180:19 133:12 175:12 289:3 241:4 244:6,9

311:8 312:13,14 181:5 195:7 230:2 178:4 282:9 shipments 92:4 250:16

312:21 313:11 296:21 318:20 serve 114:8 120:9 93:20,22 94:18 sides 132:6

sections 203:8 seeks 262:12 service 1:18 2:12 95:2,3 132:9,11 Siemens 118:4,15

282:16 276:17 3:12 6:12 9:12 133:6 201:9 202:8 119:11,19 303:19

sector 22:2 74:14 seen 217:18 247:7 106:6 114:3 274:18,19,22 304:21

211:18 212:2,2,3 250:20 231:19 240:19 275:2,3,8,10,17 signed 25:11

212:22 213:5 segments 91:18 245:17 248:1 275:18,22 276:3,5 significant 18:14

214:2,3,12 216:22 segregation 69:6 256:11 276:7,8,19,20 62:11 87:22 88:11

217:5,5,6 219:1 select 100:6 169:19 servicing 114:6 277:2,10 278:21 123:10 130:5

219:10 224:15 186:18 188:3 set 26:2,11 31:9 279:2,5,7,16 140:14 144:1

225:1,10 229:17 selected 127:22 53:17 54:2,4,14 280:6,18,20 228:12 234:6

237:17,18,18 129:9 149:3 166:4 56:9 74:8 143:16 281:12,18 287:3 235:1 239:22

249:19 254:9,16 168:1 192:10 176:1 196:22 297:2 272:22 273:3

254:17 306:21 213:16 275:9,12 217:7 228:9 shipped 91:11 298:10 300:7

310:11 selecting 132:7 315:11 96:21 280:1,14 significantly 64:15

sectors 208:20 133:8 166:2 sets 31:3 53:15 281:15,21 289:1 136:8 165:5 211:2

212:9,18 214:3 selection 132:11 70:22 74:6,13,17 292:10 227:17 231:14

216:15,21 217:10 137:12 setting 44:12 shipping 223:19 258:17 309:18

254:16 sell 56:7 220:6 setup 82:5 226:15 283:2,10 Silcox 2:14 9:4,4

Security 17:5 19:12 247:8,12 264:19 seven 26:17 144:13 283:12 304:15 silent 14:3

see 12:20 16:1 278:12 247:14 256:2 ships 279:22 similar 29:10 69:19

18:17 20:8 26:19 selling 124:19 SEW 9:19 shop 105:2 71:4 75:2 89:17

29:3 30:4 41:14 140:8,10 141:5 SEW-EURODRI... shops 230:17 97:13 136:2

41:15 42:14 57:5 179:10,12,14 2:13 119:4,19 249:15 193:13 267:6

67:1 70:5,21 180:13 182:1,2 121:10 short 39:13 149:1 273:2 281:10

90:18 91:9 96:20 187:4 204:7 SG&A 185:8 260:4 314:14 284:1,18 287:11

98:10 104:11,13 205:20 207:9,10 shade 128:20 shorter 239:7 290:22 313:4

105:5 111:5 207:15 283:9,14 shaft 53:19 128:15 252:14 similarly 20:10

136:18 137:15 284:19,22 285:5,9 209:7 shortly 40:16 131:2 160:22

139:1 141:17 285:15,22 286:7 shaking 257:20 162:14 171:9 303:4

163:6,10 189:2,5 286:13 shape 299:13 short-circuit 136:1 simple 193:18

189:7,8,12 204:12 send 37:13 169:20 shaped 107:12 show 91:19 272:21 314:20

208:3 211:4 218:9 sense 49:19 66:15 shapes 106:22 317:10 simplified 102:5

219:12 229:6,10 74:13 173:11 share 13:18 212:1 showed 103:10 111:12

242:19 243:5 249:10 shared 295:19 202:13 simplify 45:22

246:12 249:4 sensitivity 284:16 shares 204:12 showing 147:2 simply 66:11 73:11

256:19 257:19 sentence 59:12,15 206:13 214:6,19,20 141:21 193:14

258:4 260:9 263:4 sentences 59:12 sharp 105:4 shown 45:17 137:9 213:16

267:4 287:2 separate 71:3 sharply 21:13 161:9 231:13 simulate 62:19

288:16 290:19 85:16 269:11 shelf 162:3 174:18 shows 48:12 125:7 simultaneously

293:16 300:9 293:17 315:11 shifting 93:18 126:15 132:9 90:10

311:3 separately 43:21 shipment 91:14,20 145:8 162:18 single 68:22 71:14

seeing 36:3 112:17 separates 158:22 92:2 94:7 96:20 166:20 180:10 81:3 90:5 101:19

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 356
	

159:11,12 189:22 145:8,12 158:8 146:14 148:1,5,6 sounds 74:7 122:5 specificity 50:3

190:11 307:17 163:10 164:14 148:12,15 149:6 source 230:10 specifics 62:3

sit 122:4 171:17,17 166:20 169:2 150:20 155:16 235:13 257:9 specified 300:2

247:14 179:4 181:8,16,16 156:7 157:4,6,7,9 sources 94:4 specifies 135:20

sits 170:8 181:20 182:14,15 157:10,12,16 204:20 206:11,20 229:22

sitting 124:8 198:8 193:20 194:15 159:8 160:10 216:19 217:3 specify 17:21 62:10

255:12 274:9 202:2,5 207:3 162:21 163:1,2 230:3 235:6 238:9 specifying 18:2

307:19,20 209:10,14 210:4 165:7 166:5 167:9 246:12 254:4,5 101:12

situation 31:6 64:3 214:19 216:16 167:11,19 200:7 262:15 276:18,22 specs 144:11

67:10 69:20 75:2 224:20 229:21 software-modeled 296:22 speed 22:8,17 81:3

134:6 222:15 254:3 266:17 99:19 South 304:17 228:3,13

277:21 278:19 267:1,15 282:13 sold 58:10 66:9 space 164:10 speeds 213:18

281:6 283:22 284:7 119:16 180:18 245:16 227:17

situations 23:17 286:17 290:14 204:13 205:10,16 spaces 172:1 speed-torque 99:3

281:7 312:8 313:14 205:22 206:7,9,13 spanned 165:21 spell 86:13

six 96:1 118:19 slides 16:1,3 24:15 207:20 208:1 spans 294:15 spelled 87:21

131:2 204:9 175:12 206:12 220:2 244:15 speak 12:22 13:2 317:15

six-pole 88:4 209:16 211:9 255:7 263:19 14:7 17:8,14 spend 174:13

130:13 144:5 224:7 282:21 264:17 280:22 20:20 21:3 24:9 spending 174:4

six-poles 108:20 291:12 solid 278:14 187:1 191:15,21 spent 198:10

110:20 197:5 slightly 112:5 solidly 317:20 203:17 244:5 spinning 251:10

size 22:7 36:8 46:22 152:22 157:1 solution 38:7 speaking 16:19 spirit 23:9

70:2 75:6,8 89:3 slot 122:19,21 solutions 1:13 2:25 28:4 55:9 76:6 split 219:10

96:5 130:3 131:7 146:19,20,22 307:2 135:8 250:14 sponsored 161:10

131:12 133:9,10 163:6 164:2,2 somebody 79:8 318:6,8 spread 127:11

133:11 154:8 165:2,8 244:21 somewhat 32:4 speaks 295:8 spreadsheet 309:21

165:8 202:17,21 297:21 299:14 33:1 168:4 262:20 special 43:20 44:3 spreadsheets 27:12

229:12 245:15 303:22 soon 211:1 295:11 44:14,19 227:13 squared 235:20

307:22 slots 158:20 165:5 sooner 26:6 30:13 240:14 242:11 stab 263:16

sizes 36:9,10 89:5 slow 58:17 sophistication 243:1 244:1 245:8 stack 138:9 145:19

110:7 118:21 small 19:9 33:17 185:5 262:21 263:5 145:22 146:4,6,13

133:11 197:8 58:9,12 68:22 sorry 47:2 58:22 264:2 163:7,22 164:4

202:3 245:21 89:12,18 100:8,21 59:6 93:10 99:14 specialty 66:5 165:1 244:20

skeptical 147:2 103:8 147:14 129:5 139:13 specific 26:18 39:5 stacked 105:3

190:16 150:2 170:7 185:1 191:16 201:5 126:4 165:20 stage 27:5 28:22

skew 252:15 201:21 203:3 213:8,9 236:16 189:3 212:17 31:20,20 41:15

270:22 227:9 245:10 257:13 265:4 217:1 228:15 64:9 273:13

skipped 28:11 271:7 288:6,6 294:16 241:14 309:17,22 293:16 296:5

slide 28:5 34:20 smaller 99:1 sort 33:2 38:19 310:2 315:15 309:13 320:7

43:14 45:18 46:16 180:18 194:14 39:4 58:14 66:5 specifically 46:12 stages 294:16

47:1,13 48:12 220:6 233:9,17 68:5 94:1 112:7 60:21 83:20 stakeholders 95:5

50:16 71:12 76:14 239:2 252:22 158:18,21 185:6 190:18 217:4 225:20 309:9

78:13,13 80:19 SNOPR 34:2,5,16 198:5,14 199:7 224:18 302:4 316:15,15 318:17

81:1,1,2,4 96:20 social 312:6 231:6 254:13 specification stall 136:8 300:2

104:10 106:11 software 104:3,9 255:4,14 292:3 101:15 stalled 300:6

121:1,1 125:7 126:2 138:17 305:8 315:17,21 specifications stamping 143:20

126:15 137:9 144:22 145:6,14 319:8 258:3,11 302:3 305:12,14

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 357
	

stand 8:13 76:1 293:22 294:3,21 53:17 109:9,11,16 234:12,13 246:8,9 230:11 246:21

175:2,8 296:14 298:17 110:1,4 111:20 246:16 289:20 271:9

standard 18:6 20:9 301:5 304:16 114:4,14 115:14 292:13,13 stuff 191:18 197:18

26:16 28:8 29:8 309:17 310:7,19 119:10 121:13 steps 12:9 16:7 197:22 249:18

36:10 45:1 52:7 311:10,20 312:18 230:13 311:15,16 17:3 30:3 82:5,19 264:20

70:20 85:5,11 standards-setting stating 287:7 83:12,18,20,21 subclass 51:19

106:17 114:9 20:4 statistical 154:17 107:16 125:8 subgroup 309:1,15

126:1 131:6 standing 243:6 190:2 208:22 273:14 309:22 310:2

135:17 152:8 standpoint 63:13 214:9,18 215:15 Steve 2:13 9:5 76:5 subject 42:4 43:8

154:10 155:4 68:8 141:13 285:17,20 135:7 158:10 43:17 45:3 46:10

165:19 166:6 start 6:2,2 21:7 statistically 168:10 164:17 300:21 46:13 47:11,14,19

175:13 240:10 41:19 59:8 64:20 168:20 301:16,18 47:22 59:18 71:10

242:18 249:20 69:14,17 99:5 statistics 232:1 stick 170:2 278:15 314:12

250:2 261:14,15 104:20 172:3 stator 53:18,18 stop 129:7 145:11 submersible 50:22

261:21,22 299:4,6 188:7 200:8 56:8 73:8 92:16 163:9 70:22 247:17

299:18 300:4,8,15 203:15 209:18 130:4,7,16 140:13 story 215:9 submersibles

309:19 220:3 224:10 164:21 165:5,8 straightforward 247:20

standardized 235:14 240:14 stators 122:10 193:19 submit 5:20 15:17

166:11 251:9 255:5 statute 25:22 26:8 strange 221:13 38:11 39:11

standards 1:4,25 274:19 281:12 31:9 44:6 85:1 strawman 294:17 119:20 197:17

5:8,17 8:5 14:20 295:12 299:19,20 317:11 stray 92:18 102:16 313:14,22

15:2,5,10,14 16:7 299:20 300:7 statutory 25:6 130:8 submittal 84:4

16:11 17:2,5,10 308:19 317:8 stray-load 158:14 submittals 100:8

17:14 20:6 25:4 started 254:7 305:6 stay 31:8 176:15 stream 64:14 submitted 17:11

25:13,15,18,19 starter 251:7 226:2 283:4 stress 44:21 31:15 87:15 88:14

26:1,2,4,5,9,11 starters 233:11 297:22 305:17 strict 307:11 95:5,11 97:11

27:3 29:14,18 242:12,13 staying 64:5 271:20 strictly 141:12 100:20 108:17

30:9 33:10 34:6,8 starting 105:9 steel 100:13 101:2 142:9 191:9,17 117:8 129:14

35:9 36:14,19 134:15 213:1 101:7,13,14,17 205:19,21 134:11 147:17

40:13,15 42:5 256:20 286:19 102:1,2,3,4,13,18 strikes 50:1 79:16 199:16 213:13

43:9,10,11,17 291:1 297:15 102:20 103:1,2,6 STRONG 3:16 submitting 101:10

44:11,12 45:3,11 299:11,16 103:10,13 104:4,6 struck 35:1 43:21 Subpart 34:11

45:20 46:11,13 starts 268:21 108:3 137:22 structure 36:1 149:13,14 153:11

47:11,15,19 48:1 280:18 307:12 138:1 140:12 78:21,22 172:21 154:6

51:9,21 56:4 state 28:19 100:6 163:6 170:17 structured 37:7 subsequent 193:15

59:18 71:10 81:15 185:17 171:2 172:8 struggle 243:17 194:10 295:4

84:22 91:16 109:3 stated 22:10 120:4 176:20,22 177:10 287:20 subsets 194:14

116:3 120:10 144:2 269:1 180:1 253:9 struggled 67:11 subsidiary 73:18

122:20 123:20 statement 11:12 256:14 stuck 213:21 substantial 18:15

135:13 137:5 16:9 56:19,21 steels 106:13,16,18 studies 23:13 substantially

149:17 222:13,16 60:16,20 76:8 stems 72:12 111:14 160:16 113:11 164:4

243:15 260:22 111:12 133:7 step 21:19 98:7 161:10 247:6 265:19 290:4

261:5,8,17 275:1 136:3 318:5,13 192:7 296:4 312:2 study 18:20 21:20 292:18

277:4 278:20,20 statements 4:5 11:8 Stephens 2:15 6:14 22:1 111:16,21 substantiate 88:1,7

278:21 279:6,9,16 11:10 16:16 24:11 186:5,6,6 187:13 112:6,8,9,11 substantiated 87:2

280:20 281:7,17 62:8 69:17 187:14,21 188:20 113:15,17 141:4 87:4,8 88:20

282:3,6 283:6 states 21:21 22:2 189:6,12 190:4 215:4 218:4,6,9 substituted 150:20

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 358
	

155:16 113:4 114:14 262:19 154:17 171:18,19 103:20 104:12

substitution 259:5 316:11,14 tables 131:10 171:19 174:4 106:1,3,9,12

subtype 35:20,20 supported 156:18 156:10 157:19 190:18 220:3 107:5,9,19 108:3

36:6,11,16,17 supporting 150:22 170:13,15 171:8,9 239:20 243:20 108:9 109:7 111:8

37:2,5,8,8 88:5,5 226:10 271:20 193:4,13 199:5 249:12 250:4 114:5,7,10,12,16

subtypes 51:20 supports 60:14,15 261:7 252:18,19 255:6 115:13,20 116:11

successful 113:18 152:6 156:15 Taiwan 304:18 278:6 306:2,6 116:13,17 120:5

successfully 100:16 sure 8:14 60:8 take 11:15,22 12:3 talks 139:1 120:12,13,14

109:6 115:19 65:19 76:1,2 77:9 13:8 19:16 30:2 Tap 76:4 121:4 122:3 124:5

116:11,18 118:15 115:10 139:8,15 31:3 35:21 47:6 target 19:18 134:7 140:17

120:21 159:13 173:13 53:20 69:20 90:15 tax 204:21,22 143:1 160:13

sufficient 95:9 240:18 251:20 90:16 99:21 312:21,22 163:3 169:13

299:11 255:5 272:9 274:6 104:15,17 116:20 team 118:2 170:2,6,20 171:3

sufficiently 127:11 surface 158:19 145:11 173:19 tear 104:6 179:20 172:7 175:18

163:14 surrounding 11:12 175:8 176:8,11 179:21 180:12 176:2,11 177:20

suggest 54:5 176:3 survey 230:16 177:7 186:3 187:3 tear-down 137:17 195:15,18,19

199:11 315:14 suspended 107:12 187:16 200:5 139:2 145:5 146:3 196:8,9,16,19,22

suggested 88:17 SW 1:10 233:2 248:1 156:14,17 157:22 241:9 294:7

133:14 175:15,22 switch 98:21 259:16 260:4 181:21 300:13 305:3

182:8 308:10 switched 141:9 263:16 268:11 tear-downs 98:3 TEFC 128:1

suggesting 77:14 switchgear 242:14 293:6 295:5 137:17 146:11 tell 10:13 184:14

234:14 switching 297:5 taken 17:17 76:14 tech 41:11 195:3 247:21 264:16

suggestion 210:20 298:5 269:12 270:16 technical 7:6 27:11 telling 142:20

suggests 246:17 system 21:21 22:5 303:3 313:13 36:4 45:9 217:22 tells 215:4,8

suitable 66:11 22:13,21 24:2,6 takes 64:20 70:14 320:7 temperature 63:18

107:1 136:10 69:18 70:7 211:7 143:5 233:19 technically 111:18 63:20 65:19 69:3

sulfur 311:17,19 227:22 228:9,12 252:11 294:9 122:15 297:9

sum 222:18 283:1 278:9 310:22 talk 33:11 43:4 technique 107:14 temperatures 64:5

summarizes 193:20 systems 23:11,15 50:16 122:4 132:7 technological 26:13 116:8

282:13 242:16 247:13 132:20 140:1 106:4 111:14 temperature-mo...

summary 286:20 272:5 165:8,14 171:17 146:21 65:17

314:4 315:10 S-E-S-S-I-O-N 171:17 179:17 technologically ten 22:1 23:1

Supplemental 34:1 179:1 184:7,22 187:8 107:7,21 113:20 104:16 111:16

supplementary S1 46:21 208:6 222:5 232:1 115:21 119:17 112:4 127:16

48:19,22 49:13 241:9 255:6 166:1 133:1 162:14

83:10 T 278:11 284:22 technologies 22:5 163:22

supplied 103:8 T 36:8 293:13 301:3 23:3 116:14 tend 136:13

119:10 131:20,20 table 47:13 49:4 308:15 169:11 170:9 tended 133:17

supplier 176:20 70:14,14 72:10 talked 30:4 145:18 178:1 196:13 299:2

suppliers 102:21 104:14 124:8 245:8 270:4,10 200:11 310:12 tends 53:2 252:15

310:20 131:6,9 136:18 273:21 287:21 technology 4:7 tens 264:21

Supplies 306:19 137:6 154:12 talking 41:21 53:4 11:14 23:4 41:7 tentative 167:22

supply 58:1 65:11 166:7,10 167:5,8 61:13 64:12 69:14 41:16,22 42:6,11 tenth 174:6

65:16 83:6 171:11 193:11 77:1 88:8 111:9 42:17,18 43:3 ten-horsepower

supplying 119:6 198:8,20 201:19 119:15 120:8,19 84:17 89:2 92:10 132:18

support 27:11 213:9,12 215:12 122:8 123:10,18 92:12 93:18 98:16 term 35:2,4 36:4

100:22 112:8 243:3 250:10 123:19 135:2 98:18 99:22 43:10 44:2,7 52:1

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 359
	

61:10 87:18 89:13 104:2,8 125:17,19 203:5 266:14 150:7 174:9 179:3 threshold 242:17

89:14 232:9 139:14 145:5 theirs 110:5 182:11 184:1,10 threw 150:19

terms 17:15 34:10 149:12,22 153:22 theoretical 146:13 184:19 185:7 155:16

35:14 61:9 69:18 154:1 158:4 theory 198:20 189:20 190:9,10 throttling 22:9

115:8 133:3 tests 139:2,13 199:8 198:3,4,12 199:15 228:2

186:11 213:3 thank 6:13,22 7:1,8 thermocouples 199:17,22 202:6,9 throw 156:4 252:21

222:11 229:13 14:18 20:20,21 65:17 202:16 203:10 throwing 150:22

258:15 260:21 21:5 24:9,10 thin 106:21 302:11 210:18,19,21 151:5

261:16 277:6,7 31:10 33:7,8 thing 38:19 57:8 215:6 219:20 throw-away 240:12

279:8 283:5 35:22 39:19,20 75:18 79:20 221:20 228:6,10 tick 74:12

287:12 290:1 47:7 49:5 55:5 103:11 124:4 230:14 231:11 tied 245:15

305:9 57:14 58:20 59:9 149:11 160:10,11 234:18 247:6,21 ties 158:3

test 4:7 11:14 33:12 60:10 61:6 62:4 176:10 190:12 248:4,7,8 251:17 Tim 2:13 9:19 10:6

33:17,18,20 34:22 63:1 70:9 72:22 199:10 226:14 252:9,17 253:18 121:9

40:4,8,17 41:2 75:19 76:3,12 262:19 282:20 255:11 256:22 time 6:19 13:1,2

44:1 45:12 57:19 84:9 90:11,12 287:5 289:11 257:6,16 260:3,9 24:13 30:19,21

57:21 59:2,10,12 93:15 95:9 97:8 302:4 319:4 263:9 264:4,9,17 39:13 48:17 59:6

59:16,21 60:2 97:20 98:12 99:12 things 34:5 36:4 269:1 272:19 90:11 105:15

61:10,13,14,18,18 100:3 104:1 48:15 52:5 53:7,9 288:11 289:21 107:8,22 108:11

61:22 62:12 67:14 116:19 117:15 55:12 56:1 68:4 290:4,6,8 293:10 112:18 114:9

69:2,21 81:12,13 120:1 121:20 78:11 111:2 117:7 306:1 314:18 119:16 122:6

81:16,18,19,20 123:20 124:11 118:12 131:22 316:12,17,22 136:9 141:4 148:2

82:2,6,18 83:11 136:15 139:19 144:15 157:18 317:12 150:2,10 205:7

83:15,18,20 84:7 144:18 161:11 162:1 172:11,13 thinking 69:18 231:7 250:1 271:2

84:11 101:1,21,22 162:12 164:16 177:3 190:19 third 85:17 99:8 282:9 294:13

103:5,12 112:16 173:2 175:11 191:10 199:3 114:17 298:14 295:13 299:15

129:16 147:19 186:2 191:5 200:14 236:6 third-party 67:10 300:2,7 305:9,12

148:2,7,8 149:4,4 199:20 200:16,19 241:15 249:15 Thomas 1:18 6:11 314:14

149:9,18 150:14 203:4 208:2 250:5,17 255:20 thought 66:10 timeline 30:3 33:2

150:14,19 152:5 210:15 215:22 264:19 265:15 105:10 210:8 39:5

153:18,19 154:3 218:12 221:8,19 270:22 271:16,18 240:5 268:20 timelines 31:5

156:11 160:11,13 228:18 236:18,19 288:12 290:6 thousands 249:13 32:14,15 33:1

216:5,9 236:20 244:12 299:9 302:8 264:21 times 62:12 141:3

tested 45:12,15 247:1 251:15 313:19 319:8 three 17:19 26:12 193:1 251:21

61:22 82:9,17 253:13,22 264:11 think 10:10 17:16 43:15 44:9 85:8 timetables 31:8

83:3,8,13 125:12 266:4,13 268:17 17:22 18:10 19:8 85:12,13 90:19 timing 33:5 38:18

136:20 148:3,16 268:18 273:5 19:13 20:22 28:13 95:14 110:18 TIMOTHY 1:17

149:8 151:11 274:14 278:17 28:16 31:2,14 115:7 121:15 tinker 36:4

152:3 155:2,6,22 289:18 290:9 53:10,13,22 54:19 127:3 134:20,22 tires 174:9

156:13,16 157:5,8 292:11 300:19,20 55:9 56:16 57:20 167:17 169:7 title 53:1

157:15 160:2 301:16 303:13 58:4 59:19 65:6 180:20 182:15 titles 50:19

testing 45:9 64:3 305:20 306:10 66:9 67:3,12 68:4 186:2 202:3,21 today 11:2 12:8,15

66:13 67:8 68:6 308:9,14 316:7 68:19 69:4,9,14 217:18 233:4 13:4 17:3,12

69:5 70:19,20 318:2 319:11,17 70:4,7 73:21 252:11 255:22 20:18 21:2 24:9

71:6,7 75:1,12 320:3,3,4,10 78:10,10 80:6 286:21 294:5 25:2 27:1 29:6

82:11,12,18,21 Thanks 10:21 95:19,21 97:17 296:7 40:10,20 52:19

101:20 102:9,14 57:15 74:9 90:12 119:1,7,17 150:5 three-phase 265:6 122:14 166:13

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 360
	

179:17 194:13 totally 62:8 65:12 117:12 131:20 133:11 137:8 88:5 91:15 92:13

197:13 227:15 72:1,3,7,14,19 149:1 162:13 141:1 148:17 101:2 103:10

228:9 242:12,18 88:9 131:4,9 174:22 175:9 151:17 154:16,20 108:9 126:12,17

265:16 273:11,16 174:5 197:8 253:7 177:5 193:10 154:22 155:1 128:11 132:4

296:9 298:13 touch 211:8 200:4 203:14 158:22 160:16 137:1 167:3 194:1

299:2 301:9,13 tougher 245:19 230:18 235:9 161:9,15 164:5 212:19 299:5,7

314:2,9 316:16,18 Towsley 3:18 10:17 242:3 263:16 166:14 168:7,18 300:16

316:19 317:13,22 track 117:5 172:22 278:12 301:11 168:19 169:9 typical 163:4

today's 5:4,13 15:6 tradeoff 99:8 292:3 306:12 173:6,8 174:15 208:18

15:20 25:21 30:5 tradeoffs 92:22 trying 36:6,9 53:6 175:10 183:2 typically 13:5

183:11 243:15 98:18 99:1 308:5 56:3 62:19 66:12 193:7 194:8,22 21:12 38:21 56:8

263:20 315:5 tradition 6:1 66:13 72:16 75:9 195:4,16 205:5 186:19 294:9

319:20 traditional 32:17 75:14 108:17 217:15 222:16

told 101:22 258:2 118:13 113:3 116:6 231:17 233:4 U

tolerance 139:11 transcript 13:15 130:15 140:2,18 236:5 290:16 U 153:11 154:6

UL 60:14,15

ultimately 73:14

303:11 transient 23:17 142:22 170:2 292:4

tolerances 67:15 transition 20:15 174:2 176:15 two-pole 88:9,22

Tom 2:1 6:10 10:1 305:10 181:22 184:20 91:4,7 93:5 85:11 186:15

93:7,10 226:18,19 translate 207:18 192:2 196:12 112:12 113:5 187:15 188:6

193:16 256:6

unable 300:6

226:20 230:6 312:3 198:10 200:14 130:10,18 144:5

tooling 297:11 translated 216:6 216:21 264:18 197:20

tools 5:15 15:8 unanalyzed 126:9

unavailable 115:6

trap 252:9 314:13 two-poles 110:16

top 159:5 223:8 travels 320:10,13 TSD 230:20,22 197:4

unaware 107:4

uncertainty 222:21

267:21 268:1 treat 32:1 33:3 276:16 287:11 two-thirds 229:8

topic 43:13 93:21 treatment 201:17 315:16 231:18

undefined 35:13

underestimated

306:14 treats 32:12 TUESDAY 1:6 type 46:21,22 47:20

tore 125:13 136:20 tremendous 272:16 tunnel 65:15 51:1,16 53:8 63:5

torn 126:1 145:20 290:5

underlying 198:19

trend 123:1 182:11 turn 14:2,16 63:5 66:14 67:13

148:14 278:3,4 226:18 247:15 85:2,22 91:2,11

torque 64:21 99:18 199:8

understand 31:17

trends 225:2 250:22 251:3,10 100:10 102:2,2,3

99:18 118:11 246:12,15 277:19 313:15 102:4,18 104:11

263:7 297:17 tried 56:1 67:19 turned 76:2,4 120:12 126:16 72:5 79:3,7 89:10

299:11,22 302:14 99:21 109:5 113:4 102:4 140:12 176:21 120:20 129:22

304:7 134:10 147:9 turning 6:5 242:21 244:15 130:9 175:17

torques 304:4 149:21 150:5 turns 163:19 164:3 262:22 263:1,5,7 183:15 191:20

305:18 195:13 200:12 244:21 272:10,11 300:4 215:2 255:16

toss 123:16 trip 136:2 284:11 types 21:9 25:20 understanding

total 26:20 88:20 269:17 274:10

understated 271:11

trouble 58:13 80:9 twice 250:2 299:19 35:9 41:1,3 42:4

96:8 120:19 121:17 181:20 two 17:7 19:5 21:15 43:8,16 44:8,12

130:20 132:8 270:9 23:20 30:20 35:11 45:10,22 46:6,8,9 understood 89:21

135:1 141:5 true 62:10 176:7 41:17 53:13 54:7 47:10,14,18 48:7 151:9

undertake 218:3,9

undertaking 218:5

152:15 222:17 184:10 256:10 54:13 59:12 88:3 48:9,19 55:13

223:10,12,15,17 265:13,14 101:17,18 102:20 63:8 70:15 71:9

264:5 281:20 truncated 33:2 108:9,20 109:17 72:17 76:15,16,19 undertook 217:14

282:7,22,22 try 31:9 40:1 50:12 110:17 111:13 80:4 81:21 82:13
 217:15

283:16,20 286:3
 underutilized 23:5

underwater 247:13

54:3 58:14 64:9 117:3 118:18 82:17 83:13 84:7

318:20 89:6 108:15 112:2 126:22 131:10 84:20 85:14 88:5

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 361
	

underway 108:4 294:8 212:17 227:16 216:6 219:5,7 296:20 318:18

Underwriters 1:15 updating 34:5 228:11 243:19 220:18 222:1 VFD 23:10
 

2:8,10 8:1 9:16,18
 upgrade 161:17 245:3 309:19 248:19 275:3 VFDs 22:18,22

60:13 69:13 upgrades 22:11 users 174:12 281:4 282:9 23:14

210:18 221:11 242:21 187:16 235:15 286:14 291:1 viable 109:7

239:16 upstream 41:18 240:1,18 243:11 302:9 312:5,6,8 Vice 7:20

under-lubed up-to 72:10 256:12 280:3 valves 228:2 view 27:7 173:20

259:21 urge 56:12 73:2 309:22 variability 208:21 174:16 175:8

undue 18:11 173:19 175:7 uses 86:19 91:16 214:10 222:21 viewpoint 153:9

unfortunately urges 24:1 124:22 126:10 variable 22:17 24:4 177:7

184:21 252:4 urging 317:16 138:2 153:11,13 174:18,21 233:13 violate 190:19

unique 90:20 usage 211:13 213:1 170:16,20 176:21 278:6,9 virtually 316:18

unit 124:20 125:15 213:3 176:22 225:6 variables 198:7 visible 104:21

126:20 127:1,12 use 5:16 15:9 22:3 utility 85:6,9 106:6 variants 66:21 visited 169:17

162:20 167:16,20 22:8 43:6,10 52:1 114:18 115:8 variation 153:18 visual 128:6
 

194:18,21 195:2
 75:22 76:1,2 87:4 116:4 177:15 154:3 186:13 volume 92:2 147:5

266:22 267:2 89:14 90:3 100:16 309:2 310:17 303:1 182:8

280:5 288:9 107:5 115:13 311:5 variations 303:10 volumes 91:21

unitary 73:15 116:16 122:6 utilize 98:1 varied 182:5,11,12 180:18 192:22

United 21:20 109:9 132:17 133:1,3 utilized 145:2,9 285:15 voluntary 312:22

109:11,16 110:1,4 134:3 141:8,14 163:3 172:13 varies 228:8

111:19 114:14 143:15,17 149:4 274:2 variety 148:3,4,5 W

115:14 119:9 166:12 172:17 U.S 1:1,9,14 2:6,11 295:8 wait 142:12

121:13 230:13 175:18,20 176:13 2:17 5:6 23:5 various 38:12 Waltner 2:16 6:20

units 58:9,9 91:11 177:20 181:2,9 111:15,15 113:2 82:11 84:7 92:20 6:20 80:17,22

81:6 284:6,6

want 5:21 15:19

119:15 125:10 193:16 195:9 113:17 276:13 95:16 101:13

126:9,18 127:6,9 200:4 206:21 306:8 307:6,9,17 113:4 240:18,18

128:1 129:1,9 208:7,8,21 209:18 307:21 308:3 254:4 299:13 20:7 32:4,8 50:4

132:14,16 135:5 209:22 210:5 302:6 314:9 57:11 89:20 90:14

V 92:8 93:19 121:2

valid 22:22 234:15

136:16,21 137:10 212:20,21 214:21 vary 206:6 207:14

166:22 167:20 215:17 217:9,16 vast 18:7 247:12 161:21,22 168:13

168:1 179:10,13 222:3 224:10,13 validate 238:10 Vaughens 225:19 175:9 184:17

181:7 182:19 225:11 232:11 276:19 226:5 231:8,15
 193:22 199:18

192:10,15,17,19
 251:2 268:3,10,12 value 149:19 Vaughens's 231:6 201:10 205:5

197:12 204:13 277:16 280:19 152:19 153:17 vehicle 38:13 211:16 221:11

231:19 232:22 281:5,13,18 282:8 154:15 157:5,17 veins 228:2 228:14 233:14

264:17 265:12 282:17 284:14 190:3 215:13 verification 67:8 243:9 249:16

225:7 240:17 255:6 257:5

280:7,11 281:12

278:13 283:16,19 292:16,20,22 verified 99:17

284:21 286:8 295:3 296:22 125:16 139:17 262:18 263:11,15

unnecessary 73:19 304:21 309:20 282:10,12 290:14 verifies 64:3 263:16 266:8

unregulated 47:10 310:21 311:5,21 290:20 291:3,12 verify 67:10 139:3 274:5 287:6

137:1 312:2,5 313:4 291:14,18 294:2 version 40:21 41:4 306:13 310:1

un-mute 14:11 useful 13:13 73:21 294:22 302:17,18 310:21 318:15 319:8

update 41:3 313:7 wanted 17:14 30:10

values 156:11,12

80:16 209:7 versions 34:7 40:14

updated 25:18 221:22 319:15 versus 151:13 31:22 68:17 71:21

194:4,9,10 213:22 72:5 96:13 97:22

214:8,17 215:15

34:19 40:12,16 user 142:22 164:11 216:6 232:2 259:1

217:18,19,22 187:7 204:4 279:1 288:2 159:13 161:14

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 362
	

198:18 201:6 283:11,14 284:20 199:16 210:18 wishes 11:11 38:8
 

202:14,15 213:12
 285:1 286:7 244:18,19 247:7 313:17 written 5:20 15:18

220:20 221:2 weighted 183:5 260:3 264:18,20 withdrew 115:17 23:7 27:8 36:2

241:6 254:2 weights 137:21 270:4,9,16 272:1 withstand 135:22 50:5 53:8 119:21

259:10 301:2 163:5,7 286:14 273:17,21 282:15 136:6 144:9 155:3 176:1

302:4 303:15 welcome 4:2 5:4,22 286:16 287:21 womanpower 197:17 199:11

wanting 48:16,16 10:11,12 14:19 306:8 313:13 123:11 266:2,11 320:11

75:16 16:4 35:18 183:18 whichever 123:11 wondering 165:3 320:12

wants 210:2 218:8 242:8 white 162:22 187:15 wrong 59:20

warrant 314:10 welcomes 310:1,14 whole-heartedly word 32:16 88:19 144:17 259:21

warranted 29:14 welcoming 181:9 102:19 151:17,18 199:6 270:6 274:5

warranty 191:13 296:21 wide 186:16 190:5 231:21 232:11

Washington 1:10 well-known 123:7 Wilkins 2:17 6:16 words 72:20 236:3 Y

27:18 went 17:5 22:5 35:3 6:16 21:5,6 72:22 288:20 year 22:13,15

wasn't 49:8 183:7 89:18 100:11 73:1 74:11,16 work 21:8 73:19 34:14 86:8 159:18

232:18 255:2,3 102:19 105:7 98:12,13 99:12 101:4 116:7 180:22 190:21

watts 100:6,14 109:4 140:10,19 173:2 120:15 168:15 214:17 222:19

way 14:12 25:8 141:1 150:9 151:1 William 2:5,7 4:8 181:13 200:15 223:16 234:4,21

49:7 50:7 67:4,5 155:20 178:8 4:10 8:19 41:10 211:4 236:10 263:20 276:3

74:18 86:5 87:10 181:20 199:5,7 41:12 55:11 251:1 316:5 280:12 281:1,15

134:5 151:6 158:3 234:20 235:14 105:20 workable 54:9 281:21 292:19

171:7 172:10,11 236:22 260:12 windage 92:17 315:22 304:12,13 305:4,5

172:12 174:11,13 320:15 130:12,19 worked 14:13 305:6

yearly 119:16

years 17:7 19:4,5

174:17 177:11 we'll 105:4 179:16 winder 233:5,7 94:13 112:1 118:3

195:22 198:4,13 260:8 266:1,10,11 winders 123:6 119:2 249:18

200:5 211:3 295:10,12 296:9 233:5,7 working 17:1 22:1 23:1 30:20

233:19 243:2 308:19,20 309:7,8 winding 122:9,10 123:12 135:9
 39:7 52:18 122:10

251:9,20 264:13
 309:10,11,11,20 122:11,12,13,14 252:8 304:17 168:16 191:2

310:10 313:2 309:21 310:8 122:18,22,22 works 63:14 147:9 198:10 210:9

217:18 229:17

237:10,13 248:14

315:19 316:13 311:13 123:3,18 124:3 251:6

wear 104:21 we're 179:4,8 181:1 130:16 140:13 world 99:4 172:19

wearing 305:12 248:14,17 251:19

252:11,20 254:8

181:5,9 184:6,6 143:21 146:21 241:12 245:21

web 10:13,15 194:6 195:7 147:3 163:19 247:9 252:19

webinar 2:19 5:5 197:18 200:17 169:22 170:1 260:1 263:20 254:15 255:22

6:6 14:4 320:8 207:8 216:18 183:10 235:4 304:15 256:2 280:8 281:4

webmaster 14:8 292:10

yellow 163:2 224:6

219:21 233:22 236:10 270:16 worldwide 244:16

webpage 39:16 234:2 241:21 306:15 307:1 worse 292:20

website 13:16 yesterday 272:10

yielding 21:14

243:16 244:22 windings 52:14,16 301:10

27:13 34:19 151:2 246:4 250:3 255:5 52:19,21 53:4 worth 58:14 67:21
 

151:3,4
 yields 42:16,21

Wednesday 31:16

258:2,7,8 260:8 123:13 130:7 68:5 199:9

265:15,15 278:5 233:8,12 wouldn't 65:4 Z 317:19 283:5 289:8,8 wire 93:12,13 273:20

zero 162:10 167:1 week 17:10 294:11 301:9 wish 14:7 16:8 90:3 wound 53:18

258:12 264:7,10 weeks 27:17 306:6 307:21 123:12 191:2 wound-stator

Weg 270:8 1:17 7:19 308:13 313:12 218:13 259:22 271:22

zeroing 97:21 weight 75:9 164:21 we've 163:14 291:6 313:19 Wow 265:9

ZOLAIKHA 3:16 223:20 226:16 194:12 195:8 wished 314:5 writing 37:13,15

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 363
	

Þ 112-B 125:18 1999 87:19 44:16 91:9 262:4 3:01 260:12

139:13 276:3 277:13 3:13 260:13 þ 227:2 255:16 2 12 30:19 184:5 287:6 30 23:11 70:4

$ 186:3 193:4 199:6 2 34:7 55:19 155:7 2012 1:6 30:7 35:2 109:20 122:9

$33.46 183:8 12-volt 307:22 164:22 167:7 35:12 44:1 204:21 126:19 127:17

$375 140:15 12-10 154:12 166:7 168:10,11,13 2013 30:12,18 134:20 150:8

$50 140:19 166:10 170:16 173:4,5 2015 26:7 30:13 167:16 174:19

$525 140:15 12-11 137:6 167:6 192:16 193:4 111:7 116:2 123:7 181:7 182:18

193:9 194:9 194:8 196:11 276:6 280:1 196:1,17 250:19

0 198:20 261:6 271:21 272:2 2016 109:2 280:7 281:4

0 171:14,16 172:2 263:22 265:4,16 285:12,12 288:2,6 202 302:16,21 292:10,19

285:12 12-12 18:9,13 167:8 288:22 289:10 203 4:15 30-horsepower

0.5 229:11 193:5,9 194:9 290:21 291:2 2044 276:6 280:1 180:15 184:12

198:21 199:7 294:15 295:2 21 1:6 186:17 194:20

1 201:19 227:18 303:3 314:6 315:8 210 131:17 285:6 288:3

1 34:5 167:5 171:15 243:3 263:22 315:18 319:6,7 22 241:6 311:15 302:11

172:3 192:14,20 265:4,7 2,000-horsepower 23 260:3 30-year 123:1

193:4 194:3,8,21 12:30 12:1 220:4 23rd 30:7 280:15 281:1,22 212:14 220:6 12:34 178:8 2-3 201:16 24 4:8 28:9,11,19 292:8

229:11 237:13 13 131:5 164:1 2.7 141:3 30:18 31 264:1 289:9

262:9,9,10 264:7 182:20 186:3 20 23:11 70:3 110:5 25 71:12 78:13 319 4:19

265:6 267:1 285:4 14 4:6 191:1 316:4 110:9 116:2 80:19 81:1,2 32,000 229:15

285:12,12 290:15 14-year 17:1 118:18 123:6 129:5,6 147:17 232:14

319:7 140 144:3 129:3 136:3,4 202:5,16 219:5 32,000-hour 1,000 220:4 234:21 140-frame 97:14 153:12,13 168:16 264:20 234:15 235:10

235:16 15 127:18 132:22 174:19 212:14 28 81:1,4 320 4:20

1.27.2 52:12 133:1 153:5,12 220:7 234:21 28th 27:16 34 90:16 315:9

1.50 206:16 162:14 229:16 241:5 265:5 29 248:13,14 35 198:10 315:9

1.63 206:15 270:10,11 292:19 270:10,11 300:8 293 4:17 36 104:10

1:34 178:9 179:2 15-minute 104:17 20s 265:5,19 37 22:14 190:17

10 34:11 87:3 188:2 20,000 304:13 3 16 229:16 38 121:1

188:2,10,11 260:6 17th 317:8 305:5 3 20:12 34:8 140:11

260:7,10 20-horsepower 155:9 164:22 4 18 22:4 263:20

10,000 186:18 289:12 212:11 219:11,22 168:9,12 170:8,18 4 21:13 34:10 44:1

189:5 285:18 180 36:16 131:16 200 88:8 91:4,7 170:20 171:18,19 140:11 158:13

10:45 11:16 187 4:13 248:14 249:11 171:20 192:17 167:9,15 170:11

10:48 105:7 19 26:6 302:13,17 201:15 221:2 170:22 195:18

100 213:21 19.8 22:12 2002 22:1,20 227:12 267:2,5 270:15,20 271:2

100,000 144:11 1967 52:16 2004 111:16 270:14,20 271:13 271:12 273:1

1000 1:10 1970s 25:9 2006 118:17 273:2 282:18 285:12 302:6,12

104 4:10 1975 25:12 2007 17:5 25:17 285:12 288:2,7 4th 34:13

11 22:3 186:3 193:5 1990s 217:17 35:1,8 43:18,21 289:2,12,14 4,000 213:16,21

199:7 233:20 112:11 290:19 291:2 214:1

11:05 105:4 1992 25:14 137:6 2008 33:15 295:6 303:22 4.3.2 316:4

11:09 105:8 137:11,14 2010 27:16 44:15 315:19 319:5 4.4 288:8

112 149:16 1992's 43:18 231:11 3-percent 292:22 4/10ths 288:4,10

112B 70:20 1994 153:10,11 2011 33:22 34:16 3:00 260:8 4:21 320:15

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
Page 364
	

40 122:9 215:5,6 89:1 108:19 134:5

8

239:20 248:16 235:16 248:15

8 230:22

40-horsepower 500-horse 245:11 8E-089 1:9

240:15 265:6 80 144:4

431 34:11 87:21 500-horsepower 80,000 304:12

151:10 249:11 305:4

431.12 51:4,7 87:13 51 158:8 82 146:20

152:9 514 90:21 126:11 83 164:2

431.12's 151:16 53 316:6 841 249:20 253:8

431.16 149:8,11 541.3 303:8 841s 250:2

151:12 542.5 303:7 85 146:22 164:2

431.17 87:3 149:10 56 179:4 201:20 88.5 155:22 156:13

152:10,16 202:10,11 203:1,2 156:16 157:8,9 431.2 51:3,6,14 56-frame 97:12 89.5 155:20 156:14

440 144:4 57 181:16 156:15 157:11

45 190:17

6 49 263:18 314:7

9

315:8

6 212:11,14 219:11

9 276:15

219:22 220:7 9:00 1:10

5 234:22 9:04 5:2

5 4:3 21:13 149:21 60 127:20 230:16 90 21:11 70:1 191:1

150:8,8 167:9,15 264:5 304:20 90s 230:14,15 170:11 171:1 60-hertz 303:21 233:4

173:5 195:19 60-horsepower 91 254:3

220:6 229:16 240:11 92 247:4
 262:9,10 263:2
 65-70 215:11 93.6 150:11,13,17 270:15,20 271:2 151:14 152:3,4 7 271:12 285:5,12 154:15 155:1

287:22 302:5,6

7 282:17 94.1 150:18 151:2

303:7 7-percent 292:16 94.2 150:14 151:13

5,000 220:11 292:21 152:4 153:1

5-year 180:21 7.5 288:8 94.5 155:1

181:2 7/10ths 288:2,9 95.0 112:21

5-1/2 263:2,9 70 164:1 265:7,18

73 267:17

75 112:12 113:5

5.13 170:13

5.16 170:14

126:19 127:19

133:8,14 134:20

5.2 95:22 97:12

265:12

162:19 219:7

220:16,17 221:7

5.5 170:13

5.6 140:7

5.9 170:13 237:20 238:16,18

5/10ths 288:3 239:19 240:17

50 127:1,18 129:4 285:6 288:4 303:4

215:20 239:20,21 75-horsepower

245:5 248:16 181:7 182:18

50-50 183:2,7 267:7

500 17:20 18:2 88:3 79 22:15

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433
 

365

C E R T I F I C A T E
 

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript 


In the matter of: Energy Conservation Standards

for Electric Motors

Before: US DOE

Date: 08-21-12

Place: Washington, DC

was duly recorded and accurately transcribed under 


my direction; further, that said transcript is a 


true and accurate record of the proceedings. 


-----------------------

Court Reporter 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com