Page 1

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

+ + + + + 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS 

FOR SMALL ELECTRIC MOTORS 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (NOPR) 

+ + + + + 

PUBLIC MEETING 

+ + + + + 

THURSDAY 

DECEMBER 17, 2009 

+ + + + + 

The Public Meeting convened in Room 8E089 in the Forrestal Building, 1000 

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

at 9:00 a.m., Douglas Brookman, Facilitator. 

PRESENT 

DOUGLAS BROOKMAN, Facilitator

JAMES RABA, Presiding Officer, Department

of Energy

EMMANUEL AGAMLOH, Advanced Energy

KIRK F. ANDERSON, Underwriters Laboratories

JOHN ANDRLE, Emerson Motor Company

TIM BALLO, Earthjustice

DALE BASSO, WEQ Electric Corporation

ROBERT B. BOTELER, Emerson Motor Technologies

KITT BUTLER, Advanced Energy

PREETI CHAUDHARI, Department of Energy

BRIAN COFFEY, Navigant Consulting

MATTHEW J. DAILIDA, Green Hill Advisors, LLC

ROGER H. DAUGHERTY, Baldor Electric Company 

PRESENT: (continued) 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 2 

ANDREW deLASKI, Appliance Standards Awareness

Project

MARK FRIEDRICHS, Department of Energy

BRADLEY M. FRUSTAGLIO, Yeadon Energy Systems

MAHIMA GUPTA, Navigant Consulting

DAIN M. HANSEN, National Electrical

Manufacturers Association 

MATTHEW HARTLEY, Navigant Consulting

EDMUND P. "SKIP" HENKE, Jr., Bison Gear and

Engineering

THOMAS E. HINK, Regal-Beloit

ASA HOPKINS, Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory

WILLIAM HOYT, National Electrical

Manufacturers Association 

WILLIAM T. JOHN, EBM-Papst

ANTHONY JOHNSON, Infinity Solutions, Inc.

MICHAEL KIDO, Department of Energy

JEFFREY KINGMAN, Navigant Consulting

FRANK LADONNE, Underwriters Laboratories

JOHN LEBO, QM Power

RON LEWIS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PAUL C. LIN, Regal-Beloit

CHARLES LLENZA, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

MICHAEL MCCABE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

BRYAN MILLER, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

MATTHEW NARDOTTI, Navigant Consulting

JAMES RABA, Department of Energy

KRISTEN RAYMOND, Department of Justice

MICHAEL RIVEST, Navigant Consulting

DOUGLAS ROSSIN, Navigant Consulting

ROBERT K. SCHIRMANN, A.O. Smith

CHARLIE STEPHENS, ADJUVANT CONSULTING

DANIEL TROMBLEY, American Council for an

Energy Efficient Economy

MOLLY TROMBLEY-McCANN, Energy Solutions

ROBERT VAN BUSKIRK, Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory

TOM WENZEL, Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 3

 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Welcome....................................4 

Opening Remarks, Introductions, and

Agenda Review, Doug Brookman.........4 

Rulemaking Overview, Jim Raba.............12 

Comments from Participants

Doug Brookman.......................18 

Scope of Coverage, Product Classes, and

Engineering Analysis

Matt Nardotti.......................22 

Energy Use Analysis, Markups for Equipment

Price Determination, Life-Cycle Cost

Analysis, Consumer Subgroup Analysis,

Asa Hopkins........................149 

Shipments Analysis and National Impact

Analysis, Asa Hopkins..............157 

Trial Standard Levels and Manufacturer Impact

Analysis, Matt Nardotti and

Doug Rossin........................205 

Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact

Analysis, Environmental Assessment,

and Regulatory Impact Analysis,

Asa Hopkins........................250 

Discussion of Other Issues 

Doug Brookman......................259 

Next Steps and Closing Remarks

Jim Raba...........................293 

Adjourn 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 4

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

(9:06 a.m.) 

MR. RABA: Good morning to all and 

welcome to the Department of Energy public 

meeting on energy efficiency standards, 

proposed standards. I appreciate you all 

being here. We have a lot to cover today and 

I think we have a lot to listen to. And we 

welcome your comments, issues, any data you'd 

like to present and we'll get on with the 

rulemaking, many topics to cover, but glad 

you're all here and thank you very much. 

I am Jim Raba, Project Manager and 

presiding officer for today's meeting and our 

facilitator, Doug Brookman, will ask for 

introductions, opening 

comments from the audience. 

remarks and other 

Doug? 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thanks, 

Jim. It's our tradition to do introductions 

around the room, so if you say your name and 

organizational affiliation, I'll start over 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 5 

here. 

MR. HANSEN: Dane Hansen with 

NEMA, the National Electrical Manufacturer's 

Association 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty 

with Baldor Electric Company. 

MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler, Emerson 

Motor Company. 

MR. BASSO: Dale Basso, Weg 

Electric. 

MR. SCHIRMANN: I'm Bob Schirmann 

representing A.O. Smith Electrical Products 

Company. 

MR. JOHN: Bill John with EBMPapst. 

MR. LIN: I'm Paul Lin with RegalBeloit Corporation. 

MR. HINK: Tom Hink with RegalBeloit. 

MR. AGAMLOH: Emmanuel Agamloh 

with Advanced Energy. 

MR. BUTLER: Kitt Butler with 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 6 

Advanced Energy. 

MR. ANDRLE: John Andrle with 

Emerson Motor Company. 

MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with 

Earthjustice. 

MR. TROMBLEY: Dan Trombley with 

the American Council for an Energy Efficient 

Economy. 

MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, 

Department of Energy, Office of the General 

Counsel. 

MR. LEWIS: Ron Lewis, Department 

of Energy. 

MR. RABA: Jim Raba, Department of 

Energy. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I don't 

think we need the microphones for this, so if 

you would just say your name. 

MR. WENZEL: Tom Wenzel, Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. 

MR. HOPKINS: Asa Hopkins, 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 7

 MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti, 

Navigant Consulting. 

MS. GUPTA: Mahima Gupta, Navigant 

Consulting. 

MR. FRUSTAGLIO: Brad Frustaglio, 

Yeadon Energy Systems. 

MR. HARTLEY: Matt Hartley, 

Navigant Consulting. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Please. 

MR. HENKE: Skip Henke, Bison Gear 

and Engineering. 

MS. TROMBLEY-McCANN: Molly 

Trombley-McCann, Pacific Gas and Electric. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, 

Adjuvant Consulting. I'm representing the 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and the 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 

MR. LEBO: John Lebo, QM Power 

Motor Company. 

MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne, 

Underwriters Laboratories. 

MR. ANDERSON: Kirk Anderson, 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

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. ROSSIN: Doug Rossin, Navigant 

Consulting. 

MR. HOYT: Bill Hoyt with NEMA. 

MS. RAYMOND: Kristen Raymond, 

Department of Justice. 

MS. CHAUDHARI: Preeti Chaudhari, 

DOE. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Did everybody get a chance? Who did we miss, 

anybody? No, okay. 

Many of you sitting around the 

table have already figured it out. If you're 

going to speak, you need to push the 

microphone button down and the little green 

LED will come on that signifies that it's on. 

These microphones are working well, so I 

would ask you to hold down the side bar 

conversations today. 

I'm going to do a very brief 

agenda review and then we're going to have 

some rulemaking overview from Jim. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 9

 So I think all of you received a 

copy of the packet as you walked in the door 

and registered. The Department likes to know 

who is here, so I hope that everyone did 

register as they came in the door. 

Immediately following this agenda 

review, we're going to have a brief rulemaking 

overview, as I said. Immediately following 

that, there's an opportunity for anybody that 

wishes to do so, to make opening remarks, 

summary comments about the issues that are 

important to you, not a long dissertation, but 

brief remarks, a way to queue up the issues 

that matter for you. 

Following that we'll launch 

straight into scope of coverage, product 

classes and engineering analysis. We'll take 

a break mid-morning round about 11 or so. 

Following that, we'll return to 

energy use analysis, mark ups for price 

equipment price determination, life cycle cost 

analysis, consumer subgroup analysis and that 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 10 

could easily take us perhaps until lunch. 

We'll break for lunch mid-day and 

then following lunch or whenever we get there, 

we'll do shipments analysis and national 

impact analysis and then trial standard 

levels, manufacturing impact analysis, utility 

impact analysis, employment impact analysis, 

environmental assessment of regulatory impact 

analyses, all of those and we'll break midafternoon and following the mid-afternoon 

break or whenever we get to that point in the 

agenda, there's another opportunity for 

comment. Any issues you wish to raise, any 

supplementary comment, anything you wish to 

reinforce, you think we've missed at that 

point. 

That's the general plan. We'll 

have next steps and closing remarks as we get 

there, perhaps 4 o'clock in the afternoon 

today, maybe as late as 4:30 or 4:45. That's 

when we intend to adjourn. So that's the plan 

for today. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 11

 Questions and comments on that? 

(No response.) 

I see none. I'd ask for your 

consideration if you'd speak one at a time, 

please. Please say your name for the record 

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

your company, unless you wish to. I'm going 

to be queuing people as best I can by name to 

speak so there's some sense of order here. 

I'll also want to encourage follow-on remarks, 

so we can go back and forth in the exchange 

and that will be fine. 

This will be a recorded session 

today. There will be a full transcript of 

this meeting available and it will be posted 

on the EERE website in a span of say 7 or 10 

days or so and so that will be available for 

all of you. And we'll get into the mechanics 

of doing your comments and the like as the day 

goes on and toward the end of the meeting. 

In addition, I would ask, please, 

if you would, turn off your cell phones. Turn 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 12 

them on silent mode. If you're going to have 

a sidebar conversation with anybody today, the 

person next to you, please make it brief and 

if you'd keep the focus here, keep your 

remarks as concise and directed as possible, 

that will be helpful for making this an 

efficiency meeting. 

So that is the plan. That's all I 

wanted to say here at the outset. Any other 

comments here before we launch into the 

content? 

Okay

 MR. 

, so th

RABA: 

en, a brief overview. 

Thank you, Doug. 

Efficient -- meeting efficient motors. Well, 

today, we'd like to look at the small motors, 

electric motors, and we are going to invite 

comment on the proposed standards the 

Department has developed, and talk more about 

the methodologies and how we got our results 

and characterized them for the analyses we 

did, and then the specific issues related to 

each of the analyses. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 13

 We want really to hear input from 

you, the interested parties on these 

methodologies and assumptions and the data 

sources and we'd like to hear also any 

comments and information, additional data you 

could provide to the Department to further the 

rulemaking. And finally, we'll talk about the 

next steps at this meeting, what goes on until 

the final rule. 

Now we invite you always to 

provide comments, summary statements, and Doug 

will invite that in just a bit here. 

And as we go through today, we'll 

have a presentation on each of the 

methodologies and the issues, but also to 

invite your comments at that time to be 

invitations to speak and then gather comments 

back from you. 

And one thing I would like to 

point out, the comment period closes January 

25th, 2010. So it doesn't give us much time 

and we would certainly appreciate if maybe 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 14 

comments would come in early, if that's 

doable, but as best you can, but again, 

comment period will close January 25th of next 

year, not that far away. 

Now EPCA, the Energy Policy 

Conservation Act, directs DOE to consider 

several factors with setting conservation 

standards and each of those factors we do a 

series of analyses: life-cycle cost and 

manufacture impact. National impacts, on a 

grand scale, the National Scale too, and we 

also screen different product in/product out 

to see what makes sense, technologically 

feasible, economically justified and we, in 

fact, save energy. 

And then the engineering analysis 

goes into more of the breakdown of the 

hardware and how we came up to the levels that 

we proposed from an engineering point of view. 

We've taken account of the impact 

of manufacturers. We set a national and an 

environmental impact as well and utility, that 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 15 

is, the practicality of the proposed standards 

and anything of other considerations in that 

way. 

Now recall, the test procedure 

rule was final, last July, just basically 

pretty much based upon the standards and test 

procedure that we already know and are 

familiar with, the IEEE 112 and the IEEE 114. 

And then today, up to this point, 

we've published a determination analysis. In 

fact, we've found that these small motors, 

certain ones are technologically feasible and 

justified. It would indeed save a significant 

amount of energy, if efficient at certain 

levels. And we've published a framework 

document as how we went about our rulemaking. 

Thereafter, acknowledged the public meeting 

and availability of a technical support 

document which on our website now and 

available to the public. You can go back and 

look at that which gives an in-depth analysis 

of our rulemaking and our analyses 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 16 

methodologies. 

And then here we are, published a 

proposed rule last November, This past 

November, and today, we're inviting discussing 

and comments on that proposed rule. 

Again, the final rule is scheduled 

for publication of finalized into February. 

And again, we have certain 

criteria we must meet to go forward with 

standards. And this final rule again is by 

decree, due next February. 

Just as an overview of the levels, 

we'll come up with later on, we'll talk about 

later on, just to give you an idea, we will 

discuss these in more length and depth later 

on in the presentation, but I want to show you 

how we arrived at these levels, the reasoning 

and invite your comments and information and 

data, if there's any improvement or other 

factors, we should consider in our final 

rulemaking, both with the polyphase and the 

single-phase motors. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 17

 And again, I would say that we did 

look at these levels. The Department of 

Energy looked at these levels very carefully 

to weigh what the proposed efficiency levels 

would look like against the benefits and the 

burdens from both maximally technologically 

feasible to the levels that are out there 

today in the marketplace. So we've tried to 

strike a balance on that. Again, we invite 

your comments, information and data, if you 

see anything that we should consider further 

in this rulemaking. 

In just a moment, we'll invite 

your comments from interested parties on this 

particular rulemaking and, of course, anything 

else applicable to. We have many issues to 

look at throughout today's public meeting. 

But if there's something else that's 

applicable or does come up that is related, 

we'd like to hear from you about that too. 

But primarily, we're looking here 

for the input on the standards levels for 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 18 

polyphase and single-phase small motors. 

An overview of the issues, we'll 

discuss each one in turn throughout today's 

public meeting, but again we're looking about 

16 or 17 issues here, classes of product 

insulation, the markups, designs, scaling of 

the efficiency levels from one to the next, 

definitions of nominal, things like that, and 

also market scenarios throughout. And these 

are all listed in your agenda. 

Interested in comments about 

space-constrained applications and the impact 

of standards, certainly, upon that in the 

marketplace in the manufacturing sector. 

Comments, information data, are always 

welcome. 

(Pause.) 

I think at this time we turn it 

over to Doug Brookman, who will continue on 

with the next step of our agenda here. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Now is an opportunity for anybody that wishes 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 19 

to do so, to comment, to raise issues, 

highlight an issue or here at the outset. 

I'll start with Dain. 

MR. HANSEN: Just really quick. 

This is Dain Hansen with NEMA, the National 

Electrical Manufacturers Association. And we 

represent the motor section, mini motors being 

considered under today's rulemaking and we're 

very pleased to be here on behalf of the U.S. 

motor industry. 

The members included here today 

are A.O, Smith, Baldor, Emerson, Regal-Beloit, 

and Weg. 

The motor and generator section of 

NEMA has been a strong supporter of motor 

efficiency regulations going back to the 

original EPACT '92 regulations. The motor 

section, working with ACEEE initiated the move 

to NEMA premium and expanded products in '07. 

The final section members 

represented today continue to support motor 

efficiency and its regulations as a means to 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 20 

reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas. 

However, the section members have 

reviewed the proposed rule and found that 

there are several issues that will have 

trouble supporting for various technical and 

economic reasons. 

Throughout today, we will address 

these issues and make comments and 

recommendations to the Department. It is our 

hope that the sections concerned will be 

addressed by the Department and that a 

meaningful compromise can be achieved that 

provides energy savings without causing a loss 

of these products or jobs to us in the U.s. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Tim Ballo. 

MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, 

Earthjustice. I just wanted to highlight an 

issue that I don't think was on the agenda, 

but it's a very important one. 

The Department says that it plans 

on proposing separate enforcement and 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 21 

compliance provisions for small motors at a 

later time. I get nervous when I read the 

NOPR and I don't see a date for that. I think 

it's a very important step that I actually 

don't understand how the Department can 

believe it has fulfilled the statutory mandate 

to issue an energy conservation standard for 

small electric motors without any provisions 

in place to ensure compliance and to enforce 

those provisions. 

I understand the Department is 

very committed to enforcement and compliance 

and I have no doubt they have the best of 

intentions to complete those requirements 

expeditiously, but I would like to at least in 

the final rule see a date by which the 

Department plans to complete that. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Other comments on the outset? No additional 

comments. Okay. Thanks to Jim. You can see 

there in you slides, 9, 10, and 11, the 

Department has listed the specific areas for 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 22 

which they would really like to get your 

comments. So we hope during the span of this 

meeting today, that you can give them your 

best thinking on those issues. 

Okay? So let's then go then 

straight into the program and we're going to 

hear from Matt Nardotti. 

MR. NARDOTTI: Good morning. My 

name is Matt Nardotti and I'm going to begin 

today's meeting by talking about the scope of 

coverage of this rule and some of the product 

classes. 

So what is a small electric motor? 

Well, EPCA defines a small electric motor as 

a NEMA general purpose, alternating current, 

single-speed induction motor built in a twodigit frame number series in accordance with 

NEMA's standard publication MG1-1987. 

Now EPCA specifically cites MG 1-

1987 in its statutory definition and therefore 

DOE has decided that this is the only version 

of MG1 that is applicable to the definition. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 23

 Why is this important? Well, 

subsequent versions of MG1 expanded definition 

of a general purpose alternating current motor 

to include enclosed motors in addition to open 

motors. However, since DOE is bound to the 

statutory definition that cites MG1-1987, DOE 

believes that only open motors are covered by 

this rulemaking. 

DOE also received two additional 

comments regarding scope of coverage. In 

particular, the inclusion of IEC or metric 

motors 

systems. 

and 

DO

applicable 

E has decided t

insulation-class 

hat IEC metric 

motors are covered and they establish 

efficiency standards for those motors by 

setting kilowatt equivalencies to the covered 

horse powered ratings. 

In terms of insulation class 

systems covered, MG1 defines a general purpose 

alternating current motor to -- defines the 

general purpose alternating current motor as 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 24 

being applicable to insulated class systems 

rated A for small motors, and insulated class 

rated 

B for medium motors. 

When DOE examined the definition 

of these insulation class systems, it found 

that NEMA MG1 defines insulation class systems 

B, F, H and A and of these insulation class 

systems, B, F, and H, all meet the 

requirements set forth for A. 

And when DOE examined the market 

of small electric motors, it found that the 

vast majority of motors that are being 

produced, are produced with insulation class 

systems rated B or F. 

And DOE has decided that 

insulation class rated A or higher are 

applicable to the definition and therefore all 

insulation class systems defined in MG1 are a 

covered product. 

And DOE would like to see comment 

on this proposal to include insulation class 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 25 

systems other than A. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

From the definition of NEMA general purpose 

motor that's in MG-1.1.05 a Class A insulation 

system with a temperature rise as specified in 

MG1-12,42 for small motors. 

The insulation systems used in 

motors today are generally of a higher class 

than A, as specified in MG1-1.05 which is in 

agreement with this finding. However, while 

it is prudent to recognize the use of those 

higher classes, it should be recognized that 

the temperature rise limit as specified in 

MG1-1.05 for small motors has not been 

changed. 

Since all NEMA general purpose 

small motors have a service factor of 1.25 or 

higher, the temperature rise limit in MG1-

12.42 that applies for the motors is 70 

degrees Centigrade when the motor is operated 

a service factor load at rated voltage and 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 26 

frequency. 

In an assumed 25 degree C ambient, 

this corresponds to a limit of 95 degrees C 

for the total temperature. The total 

temperature when tested at rated load in a 25 

degree C ambient must be significantly less 

than 95 degrees C for the motor to not exceed 

95 degrees C when tested at the applicable 

service factor of 1.25, 1.35, or 1.4. 

It is interesting that DOE omitted 

any analysis of temperature rise in the 

studies. In Section 5.3.1 of Chapter 5 of the 

TSD, and I quote "one performance 

characteristic that DOE did not set a 

limitation on as thermal liability." 

In written comments of March 2, 

2009, submitted in response to the previous 

NOPR on this subject, NEMA pointed out the 

importance of considering thermal analysis 

because the temperatures of the designs in the 

previous version of the TSD obviously exceeded 

the NEMA standard values. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 27

 It can be observed in this new 

version of the TSD that designs for two of the 

product classes also exceed the NEMA limits 

for temperature rise. For example, in 

appendix 5A, it is obvious that the full load 

winding operating temperature of 103 degrees 

C. used for the analysis of the one horse 

power four pole polyphase motors, both 

baseline and EL5 designs exceeds 95 degrees C. 

But as stated earlier, this is not 

the operating condition at which thermal 

performance must be evaluated. 

In Table 6.2.1 of Chapter 6 of the 

TSD, the total losses for the base design at 

no load are given as 123.7 watts and at full 

load are 221.5 watts. 

By interpolating between the other 

data that's available in that table, the total 

loss at 1.15 service factor that was used for 

the study is approximately 257 watts. That's 

an increase in total loss of 16 percent of the 

total loss at full load. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 28

 The temperature rise of 78 degrees 

C. at full load would be expected to increase 

to approximately to 90 to 95 degrees C. 

compared to the NEMA maximum limit of 70 

degrees C. 

The EL5 design, the total losses 

at 1.15 service factor of 156 watts are 20 

percent greater than the total losses of 129.5 

watts at full load. The temperature rise at 

service factor load may be higher than 95 

degrees C. 

Similarly, consider the 

specifications for the one half horsepower for 

pole CSIR motor. The specified full load wind 

operating temperature is 111 degrees C for the 

baseline design and 95 degrees C for the 

selected EL7 design. 

It is interesting that unlike for 

the polyphase and CSCR motor studies the 

temperatures are different for the two designs 

suggesting that in fact, thermal analysis was 

performed for this class of motors. In this 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 29 

case, the service factor that applies is 1.25. 

For the baseline design the total 

losses at 1.25 service factor of 312.6 watts 

are 14 percent greater than the total losses 

of 273.4 watts for full load. In this case, 

the temperature rise of the motor at service 

factor load may be approximately 105 to 110 

degrees C. 

For the EL7 design, the total 

losses at 1.25 service factor of 144.1 watts 

for 30 percent greater than the total losses 

of 110.8 watts for full load. 

In this case, the temperature rise 

in the motor at service factor load may exceed 

90 degree C. Again, the temperature rise for 

both designs exceed the NEMA's temperature 

limit of 70 degrees C by a substantial amount. 

With the winding temperature of 67 

degrees C for the CSCR motor, it can be 

observed that the temperature rise at a 

service factor of 1.25 should not exceed 70 

degrees C. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 30

 The failure of the polyphase motor 

and the CSIR motor to meet the temperature 

rise limits in NEMA MG1, as required by the 

definition of NEMA general purpose alternating 

current motor as stated by the DOE is required 

by EPACT rules -- as required by EPACT, rules 

out the use of those two motors as baseline 

motors for the purpose of establishing 

standards for small electric motors. 

Again, it must be stated that the 

importance of thermal viability pointed out by 

NEMA in its previous written comments cannot 

be neglected. Thank you. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

So this is why we have a transcript. 

(Laughter.) 

However, it seems as though those 

were prepared remarks. So I just wanted to 

affirm you will submit those with your written 

comments. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

They will certainly be submitted with the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 31 

written comments. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay, 

thank you for that. Other comments here on 

you see issue 2 listed there on slide 13, 

comment on the proposal to include other 

insulation class systems besides A, and in 

particular B and F? 

No additional comments on this. 

So we're going to proceed. 

MR. NARDOTTI: Okay, so I'd like 

to go into how DOE set its product classes for 

this rulemaking. 

In general, DOE divides product 

classes or divides product into classes based 

on the type of energy used, the capacity of 

the equipment and any other performance 

features that are related to efficiency and 

utility. 

For small electric motors, DOE 

uses three motor characteristics to define its 

product classes: motor category, horse power 

rating and pole configuration. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 32

 A change in motor category, going 

from polyphase to a capacitor-start motor is 

also a change in type of energy used which is 

why we have different motor categories. 

CSIR to CSCR dictates a change in 

utility. A capacitor-start capacitor-run 

motor generally has a second external 

capacitor mounted onto the housing which can 

be prohibitive in terms of space constraint 

applications. 

Horse power rating is directly 

related to the capacity of the equipment and 

pull configuration dictates the speed of the 

motor and therefore a change in pull 

configuration is a change in utility. 

So at this time, I'd like to ask 

for any comments on how DOE has defined its 

product classes based on these three 

categories. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Robert? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Please bear with 

me on this. When DOE began the work in 1993 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 33 

to determine if efficiency standards for small 

electric motors as defined in EPACT in 1992 

were technically feasible, economically 

justified and would result in significant 

energy savings, NEMA formed a small electric 

motor efficiency working group to work with 

DOE's consultant Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory. Surveys were conducted by both 

NEMA and LBNL covering the efficiency levels 

of then available small motors. The number of 

motors used in various types of applications, 

the number of hours of use for motors in 

applications and so forth. 

As this information was sorted and 

resorted, it became evident that many of the 

motors were designed for specific 

applications. Early in the process, it became 

obvious that a primary importance was the 

establishment of a clear definition of just 

what a NEMA general purpose small electric 

motor is. 

In 1994, a clarification was 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 34 

proposed and in August of 1996, LBL published 

for the DOE a draft report on energy 

conservation potential for small electric 

motors for which the types of motors which are 

considered to be NEMA general purpose motors 

were polyphase motors, capacitor-start 

induction run, single-phase motors and 

capacitor-start capacitor-run, single-base 

motors. 

Motor types such as shaded pole, 

permanent split capacitor and split phase were 

not included because such motors could not 

meet the torque levels required of NEMA 

general purpose motors. 

The performance standards in the 

NEMA MG1 standards for motors and generators 

then became a fundamental importance in the 

identification of small electric motors as 

defined in EPACT. NEMA fully supported this 

interpretation of the NEMA MG1 standard. 

Bringing this work near closure, 

on July 10, 2006, DOE published in the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 35 

Federal Register, a document entitled "Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain Industrial 

Equipment, Determination Concerning the 

Potential for Energy Conservation Standards 

for Small Electric Motors." 

That document states and I quote 

"Among single-phased motors with a two-digit 

frame size, the Department found that only 

capacitor-start motors including both 

capacitor start and induction run and 

capacitor-start, capacitor-run motors can meet 

the torque requirements for NEMA general 

purpose motors. 

Among three-phase motors, the Department found 

that only non-servo motors can meet the NEMA 

performance requirements for general purpose 

motors." 

Again, the DOE placed emphasis on 

the ability of certain motor types to meet the 

performance requirements in the NEMA MG1 

standard. A document titled "The Scope of 

Coverage of the Small Electric Motors Energy 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 36 

Conservation Standards Rulemaking" from the 

DOE is dated September 13, 2007. 

Copies of this document were 

provided at the January 2009 public meetings 

on the NOPRs concerning small electric motors. 

The document is also available on a DOE 

website. 

In that document, the DOE copied 

pertinent parts of NEMA MG1 standard 

pertaining to the definition of a general 

purpose alternating current motor, including 

standard ratings for small motors. 

Definitions of various types of motors and the 

performance standards need to determine 

whether or not a particular design type and 

rating is NEMA general purpose motor. 

Several of these performance 

standards are included in a technical support 

document for the NOPR. That is the purpose of 

this public meeting. 

Considering its importance, it is 

very interesting that the table of standard 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 37 

ratings that were included in the scope 

document is not included in the TSD. 

With respect to NEMA MG1 standard 

for service factor, that are included in table 

3.2.1, in chapter 3 of the TSD is the 

statement and I quote, "Therefore, in this 

rulemaking, DOE proposes to cover only those 

small electric motors that meet the service 

factor requirements." 

Those service factor requirements 

are clearly listed in the table. DOE used in 

the NEMA MG1 standards for locked rotary 

torque requirements included in Table 3.2.2 

and references in the text to NEMA MG1 

standard for breakdown torque to determine 

that only a subset of small motors can meet 

the torque requirements to conclude with the 

statement and again I quote: "DOE's analysis 

only covers capacitor-start categories of 

single phase motors and three-phase small 

electric motors." 

In section Roman Numeral 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 38 

IV.1.a.1.a the November 24, 2009 NOPR, the DOE 

again pointed out that "split phase, shaded 

pole and PSC motors all failed to meet MG1. 

1987 torque and current requirements for 

general purpose motors and hence are not 

designed in standard ratings with standard 

operating condition." 

Obviously, the existence of 

standards to refer to was necessary in the 

past and is necessary now to make this 

determination. Please note the reference to 

not being designed in standard ratings which I 

referred to as being listed in the scope 

statement. 

In Section IV.A.1.C of the NOPR, 

DOE has concluded that motors that fail to 

meet service factor requirements in MG1-12.47 

are not small electric motors as EPCA uses 

that term. 

Again, the DOE is relying on the 

existence of standards for making such a 

determination. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 39

 In Section IV.1.A.G of the NOPR, 

when discussing horsepower ratings, the DOE 

states and I quote, "The definition of small 

electric motor does not explicitly limit the 

scope of coverage to certain horsepower 

ratings." 

And with respect to higher 

horsepower values, "DOE has tentatively 

concluded that such motors are still covered 

by and subject to standards adopted under 

EPCA.: 

These statements neglect the 

importance that DOE has placed on adhering to 

the NEMA MG1 standard in determining what 

constitutes a small electric motor. The 

statements further neglect the fact that 

standard horsepower and speed ratings for 

small induction motors, as referred to by DOE 

in incorporating the NEMA definition of 

general purpose alternating current motor, are 

defined in Table 10-1 of NEMA MG1 which DOE 

included in the scope document that was 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 40 

mentioned earlier. 

In essence, that means that the 

horsepower rating of small electric motors is 

limited to standard ratings in accordance with 

NEMA MG1 1987. 

From 1994 to today, in 2009, the 

DOE has recognized the importance of NEMA 

standards in deciding what motors meet the 

definition of small electric motors in EPACT 

of 1992. NEMA has supported this 

determination from the first time it was 

proposed. If you examine Table 3.2.1 on 

service factors, Table 3.2.2 on lock rotor 

torques for single-phase motors and in the 

scope document mentioned earlier, Table 10-1 

from NEMA MG1 on horsepower and speed ratings 

for small induction motors, Section 12.33.1 

from NEMA MG1 on locked rotor currents for 

single-phase motors and Table 10-5 on NEMA MG1 

for breakdown torque requirements for 

induction motors, except shaded pole and 

permanent split-capacitor motors, you will see 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 41 

that standard ratings and performance 

standards for small motors exist only up to a 

rating of one horsepower for two pole motors, 

three quarter horse power for four pole motors 

and one half horse power for six pole motors. 

In accordance with the NEMA MG1 

standard that the DOE has emphasized for 15 

years, as the standard to use for defining a 

small electric motor, there is no NEMA small 

motor, let alone a NEMA general purpose small 

motor with a rating such as 1.5 horsepower, 2 

horsepower or 3 horsepower and greater for 2 

pole motor, such as 1, 1.5, 2, or 3 horsepower 

and greater for 4 pole motors or such as a 

3/4, 1, 1.5, 2 or 3 horsepower and greater for 

4 horsepower motors. 

While it is possible to find in 

the open market today, motors constructed in 

two-digit frame sizes, which have such 

ratings, those motors in the absence of any 

applicable standards cannot be classified as 

NEMA general purpose motors. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 42

 Lacking any standards in NEMA MG1 

to classify statutory motors as NEMA general 

purpose motors, the proposed small electric 

motor product classes in Tables 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 

and 3.2.5 of Chapter 3 of the TSD and all 

other tables which include similar ratings 

must be revised to stop at one horsepower for 

two-pole motors, three quarter horsepower for 

four-pole motors and one half horsepower for 

six-pole motors, leaving a total of 36 product 

classes. Otherwise, the DOE is faced with 

publishing useless efficiency standards for 

small electric motor as DOE has defined such 

which do not and have never existed. 

As DOE stated in the NOPR, the 

proposed tables were only tentative and 

therefore can be changed at this time to agree 

with the DOE's definition of small electric 

motor and DOE's references to the NEMA MG1 

standard. 

Also, on page 61423 of the NOPR, 

DOE noted that and I quote "Emerson and Baldor 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 43 

commented that frame size should be considered 

as an additional motor characteristic when 

establishing product classes." 

The discussion in the transcript 

of the January 30, 2009 public meeting that 

was referenced dealt with the differences and 

efficiency for motor rating built in two 

different NEMA frame sizes such as 42 and 48. 

DOE, however, appears to have 

misinterpreted the comments by referring to a 

56 frame motor that could have a stator 

outside diammeter ranging from 5.5 to 6.15 

inches. 

It is up to the manufacturer to 

determine what outside diameter to use for any 

frame size, not for DOE to dictate the size. 

The concern the manufacturers were 

expressing is that what ever size of stator 

core is used, the NEMA standards for the 42 

frame size restrict the amount of material 

that can be provided and it is not as high as 

that which can be provided in the larger 48 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 44 

frame size and that is it not as high as can 

be provided in a 56 frame size. 

So frame size is an important 

criteria in the design of small electric motor 

that impacts the level of efficiency. A 

smaller frame size cannot necessarily have an 

efficiency as high as that in a larger frame 

size and still meet all of the other 

performance requirements that DOE has 

determined apply to the general purpose small 

motors. And does not mention relative to its 

discussion a frame size. 

Later on, on page 61423 of the 

NOPR is the statement and I quote, "If DOE 

were to add frame size to the class setting 

criteria, the number of product classes would 

increase from 72 to 216" and "such a large 

number of product classes would result in a 

large number of basic numbers which would be 

too burdensome on manufacturers when seeking 

certification of compliance." 

This statement fails to recognize 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 45 

that DOE's Section 431.445 of 10 CFR Part 431 

has already -- quoting from page 61417 

"codified the ability of manufacturers to use 

an alternative efficiency determination method 

to reduce testing burden." 

Just a little bit -- based on the 

previously-mentioned striking of nonstandard 

ratings from the product classes, the number 

of product classes when considering the 

possibility of three different frame sizes for 

each rating would be a maximum of 108. 

The number would be reduced 

further by recognizing that a three-quarter 

horsepower motor may be built in only two 

frame sizes and so it would be unnecessary for 

DOE to establish and equipment class based on 

the third frame size. 

This has the potential to reduce 

the total number equivalent classes back to 

72, a number that DOE did not consider to be a 

burden. Except for a little paperwork, the 

burden on the manufacturers to certify 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 46 

compliance to 108 product classes is the same 

as that for 36 product classes. 

DOE should expand the equipment 

classes to the appropriate value possibly, 

somewhere between 72 and 108. These changes 

in product classes and corresponding 

efficiency standards has an obvious impact on 

all of the studies of economic payback, cost 

benefits and economic impact which DOE will 

need to correct. 

Also this discussion and those 

which will follow illustrate the emphasis that 

DOE has placed on adherence to the NEMA 

definition of general purpose alternating 

current motor as defined in the 1987 version 

of MG1. Despite numerous noting times in 

various documents that the definition differs 

from that -- in the present version of MG1, 

DOE has not included the definition that DOE 

considers germane to the topic of small 

electric motors in Section 431.442 of the 10 

CFR Part 431. This oversight should be 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 47 

corrected. 

In conjunction with the above, 

while supportive text in the NOPR clearly 

states that the table of efficiency values 

proposed for Section 435.446 apply only to 

open motors, this is not clearly mentioned 

anywhere in the proposed revision to 10 CFR 

Part 431. 

In Section 431.25 of subpart B on 

electric motors, the table of efficiency 

values for open motors is clearly identified 

by the text, open motors, at the top of the 

listing of efficiencies. 

In addition to adding the NEMA 

definition of general purpose alternating 

current motor, which includes the descriptor 

open to 431.442, the same descriptor open 

should be added to the table of efficiency 

values, if such a table of values is 

determined in future analysis yet to be 

completed to be necessary. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger, are 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 48 

you almost finished? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: One sentence. 

Such clear identification will be a 

significant benefit to all those involved in 

the manufacture, specification, purchase, and 

use of small electric motors. Thank you. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Are you 

speaking on behalf of Baldor or NEMA? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: I'm speaking on 

behalf on interpretation of the NEMA standard 

in determining product classes. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So are you 

speaking on behalf of NEMA or on behalf of 

Baldor? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: I don't have the 

authority to speak for NEMA. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So you're 

speaking on behalf of your company, Baldor? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Yes. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: 

I just thought I'd clarify that. 

So those were really 

Thank you. 

extensive 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 49 

comments. If it's possible going forward 

today, we'd like as much summary as possible 

noting that you'll provide that level of 

documentation in your full written comments. 

MR. BOTELER: This is Robert 

Boteler. We've just like to note that Roger 

chairs the technical subcommittee and as far 

as we're concerned he does speak for NEMA. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay, 

thank you. 

MR. BASSO: I agree. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Say your 

name again. 

MR. BASSO: Dale Basso. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Okay. I just want to see where we are with 

other manufacturers, if they wish to comment 

at this point. 

Okay, Tim. 

MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, 

Earthjustice. 

We filed comments earlier in this rulemaking 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 50 

process indicating we felt the Department was 

unnecessarily constraining itself to adhering 

to NEMA MG 1-1987. 

To the extent that the Department 

has now gone through a significant amount of 

analysis for motors that industry appears to 

be arguing are not contained within the 

definition of small electric motor under EPCA. 

I'd just like to point out for the 

Department that 42 U.S. Code Section 6311, 

paragraph 1, the term "covered equipment" 

means one of the following types of industrial 

equipment. If you skip down to subparagraph 

L. "Any other type of industrial equipment 

which the Secretary classifies as covered 

equipment under Section 6312(b) of this 

title," Section 6312(b) in turn provides the 

Secretary may, by rule, include a type of 

industrial equipment as covered equipment if 

he determines that to do so is necessary to 

carry out the purposes of this part. 

I think we have seen in the NOPR 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 51 

that there are significant energy savings from 

a large population of small electric motors, 

however that term is defined, and if the 

Department were to somehow limit this 

rulemaking to what it determines are small 

electric motors pursuant to the NEMA 

definition, it seems to me that would be 

completely ignoring the Department's duty to, 

in fact, carry out the purposes of this part, 

which is to save energy from electric motors. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Okay, so other comments on this subject? 

We've heard both sides at this point. 

Other additional comments before 

we move on? 

MR. NARDOTTI: I'd actually like 

to ask, Roger --

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Please say 

your name again. 

MR. NARDOTTI: This is Matthew 

Nardotti from Navigant Consulting. The table 

you referred to that limits the horsepower 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 52 

range, I believe you said it was 10-5, which 

has breakdown requirements, does that table 

have any breakdown requirements at all for the 

horsepower ratings you asked about or you --

so for -- you said the upper limit was one 

horsepower for two pole motors and three 

quarter horsepower for four pole motors. 

Are there any breakdown 

requirements in that table for a one 

horsepower four pole motor? Or motors in 

ratings higher than that? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

The document I referred to is a scope document 

and it was published by the Department of 

Energy and as I said it's available on the 

website. And if you go through all the tables 

and not just the table in breakdown torque, 

you will find that down in the small motors, 

in those tables, some of those tables apply to 

small motors and medium motors and you will 

find that there is a distinction and a 

dividing line in those tables as to those 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 53 

ratings which are small motors and those 

ratings which are medium motors. 

And all of those tables derive 

their basis on the back of the one table that 

is not in the TSD that is in the scope 

document. And that is the table standard 

ratings for small motors. 

And when you go to the standard 

ratings for small motors that stops at one 

horsepower for two pole, then you'll see the 

corresponding breakpoint in all the other 

tables, whether they're locked rotor torque 

tables, locked rotor current tables, breakdown 

torque tables, that becomes the defining. 

So one of the most important 

tables is the establishment of standard 

ratings. And once standard ratings are 

established, then performance requirements are 

derived to provide for those ratings. 

Does that answer your question? 

MR. NARDOTTI: So does MG1 -- it 

separates small motors and medium motors 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 54 

strictly on horsepower ratings, is that what 

the standard ratings table you're referring 

to? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Yes. The table 10-1 which is on page 6 of the 

scope document in S.1 titled "Horsepower 

Ratings" clearly defines the horsepower and 

speed ratings of small induction motors and it 

provides those values only up to one 

horsepower. Then if you go to a different 

table in MG1 which is a table ratings for 

medium motors, then those tables start at the 

next rating above the value at which the small 

table ends. 

There is no overlap of ratings in 

the MG1 standard that overlap between small 

motors and medium motors and as we'll get to 

later, that assumption that there is such an 

overlap leads to many of the errors that are 

in the design analysis that's in appendix 5A 

and stated in appendix 5 and the values of 

efficiency that are derived for those high 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 55 

ratings that don't exist in small motors as 

general purpose motors. 

MR. NARDOTTI: Thank you. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Robert Van 

Buskirk, Lawrence Berkeley Lab. Sir, a 

clarifying question. The comment seems to be 

dividing the medium and small loaders boundary 

based on horsepower rather than frame size and 

yet through the proceedings I think the 

Department has been proceeding in its analysis 

with the assumption that the definition of the 

boundary is on frame size and has observed the 

existence of products of particular 

horsepowers labeled by the manufacturers as 

general purpose motors in multiple frame sizes 

given a particular horsepower rating. 

So why the sort of -- How do you 

recommend the Department sort of resolve this 

observation? Or are you assuming that there 

exists a set of motors that sort of sit in 

between? So when a manufacturer puts out a 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 56 

general purpose motor that's one and a half 

horsepower and a two digit frame size, are you 

recommending that the Department regulate it 

as a small motor, a medium motor or something 

in between? 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

To understand the delineation of motors, you 

really have to go back to very first 

definition in Part 1 of MG-1 which is the 

basic definition of small motor and medium 

motors. That small motor definition you've 

had presented to you today. It's the whole 

purpose of this rulemaking and it's copied on 

the first page of the scope statement that a 

small electric motor means a NEMA general 

purpose, alternating current, single speed 

induction motor built in a two-digit frame 

size series in accordance with the NEMA 

standard. Then if you look at the definition 

of medium is where you get to three-digit 

frame size or those T-frame ratings which were 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 57 

covered by a separate section of EPACT of 1992 

and for which a rulemaking has already been 

issued. 

Once you have the delineation on 

frame size the next is the delineation on 

ratings. So at the time those ratings were 

established of general purpose motors then the 

ratings that were established as appropriate 

into the two-digit frame sizes went up to the 

values that I indicated such as 1 horsepower 

in 2-pole and those ratings appropriate to 

medium size started at the 1.5 2-pole and went 

up to as high as 500 horsepower. 

So everything builds and so you 

define physical size, frame size. You define 

standard ratings and now for the standard 

ratings you need performance requirements. So 

you establish performance requirements that 

are in line with the standard ratings. So 

there are no performance requirements for a 

rating in a small motor that does not have a 

standard rating as far as the NEMA standard 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 58 

goes which is the standard we're talking 

about. 

Now DOE has emphasized applies to 

these product classes that we're talking 

about. So while, as I pointed out, you may 

find in the marketplace motors that have a 

higher rating than NEMA than the standard 

ratings, those motors do not necessarily have 

the performance requirements necessary to meet 

all of the performance requirements in MG-1 to 

identify those motors as a NEMA general 

purpose motor which is again part of the DOE 

definition here of small electric motor. 

So you have to take everything 

together, the entire standard. You can't go 

isolating a piece of the standard and say that 

this is where I'm going to determine what a 

small electric motor is. 

MR. VAN BUSKIRK: So, to clarify, 

is NEMA recommending that motors which are 

listed by manufacturers as general purpose 

motors that have a medium motor horsepower 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 59 

rating and a two-digit frame size be 

unregulated as far as efficiency is concerned? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

The only thing that I am stating is that for 

the purpose of regulation the DOE has 

established the definition that is to be used 

and that the regulation be based on proper 

interpretation of that definition. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

I guess this is why we have attorneys. Okay. 

This was quite a bit of detail 

here. Anybody that wishes to make a 

supplemental comment because we do need to 

move on? 

(No verbal response.) 

Okay. No additional comments. 

Then let's proceed. 

MR. NARDOTTI: So I'd like to get 

into how DOE revised its engineering analysis 

for the NOPR. The engineering analysis has 

two purposes, one to evaluate design options 

that can improve efficiency for small electric 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 60 

motors and the second purpose is to 

characterize the cost efficiency relationship 

for higher efficiency motors. 

DOE does this in five steps for 

small motors. One, DOE selected 

representative product classes to analyze. 

Two, it developed its baseline models. Three, 

it models higher efficiency designs using a 

technical expert's proprietary software. 

Four, a bill of materials and markups are then 

used to generate corresponding manufacturer 

selling prices for each of those designs. 

And, fifth, DOE scales from the representative 

product classes to the unanalyzed product 

classes. 

When selecting its representative 

product classes, DOE considered what it had 

done for the determination analysis, the 

preliminary analysis. It also considered what 

models were of high shipment and which models 

would facilitate scaling the best. 

Therefore, DOE selected one motor 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 61 

from each of the covered motor categories, 

only four-pole motors because of the most 

common for all of these categories, and it 

also selected essential range of horsepower 

ratings that are covered. 

When choosing a representative 

unit within these representative product 

classes, DOE spoke to manufacturers and looked 

at catalog data to find the least efficient 

motor for that product class. Once it 

selected the representative unit, DOE 

purchased the motor, tested it according to 

the IEEE test procedures, tore it down and 

then modeled the motor in its technical 

expert's software program. 

The efficiencies that you see 

listed in this table are those efficiencies 

that were found once testing the motor 

according to the IEEE test procedures. So 

this time I would like to ask for comment 

regarding the appropriateness of these 

baseline models and the efficiencies used. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 62

 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Again, the one horsepower, 4-pole polyphase 

motor is not a NEMA general purpose motor as 

required by DOE. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger, I'm 

hoping you can summarize this. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: This is much 

shorter. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. I 

see it's still a full page of text. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Well, this is our 

only opportunity to try to get points 

presented that will give DOE sufficient time 

to analyze before their date of requested 

written comments. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: These 

written comments couldn't be provided quickly 

to DOE. There is some kind of clearance they 

need to go through at NEMA or some other 

place. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Yes. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 63

 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I see. 

Okay. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Continuing, the 

maximum rating that should have been selected 

for four poles is three-quarter horsepower. 

For one horsepower rating the number of poles 

should be two. The data presented in Figure 

5.2.3 is skewed because of ratings of 1.0, 

1.5, 2.0 and 3.0 horsepower which are not NEMA 

general purpose small ratings were included in 

the chart. Had only NEMA general purpose 

small motor ratings been included then the 

proper choice appears to be half a horsepower. 

Lacking from the grouping is any 

association with frame size since many of the 

motor ratings are available in more than one 

frame size. Had this been included and had a 

half horsepower been selected, then the frame 

size may have been 48 as in the case of the 

half horsepower CSIR motor rather than 56. 

In Appendix 5A, the locked rotor 

torque of the baseline polyphase motor is 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 64 

given a 76.11 pound inches. As stated before, 

there are no NEMA standards for one horsepower 

4-pole motor, 4-pole polyphase small motor. 

Lacking that, the only reference that's 

available for a minimum limited on locked 

rotor torque for a one horsepower 4-pole motor 

is one in a medium motor size and the minimum 

requirement is 101 pound inches. 

For a single phase medium motor 

the minimum is 108 pound inches. This is 

another performance criteria that would rule 

out that use of the selected motor as a 

baseline motor if such a rating even existed 

for a small electric motor. 

For a one-half horsepower 4-pole 

CSIR single phase small electric motor the DOE 

and NEMA minimum requirement for locked rotor 

torque is 64 pound inches. The value for the 

motor selected for the baseline design is 50 

pound inches. 

The DOE and NEMA maximum limit on 

locked rotor current at 230 volts is 25 amps. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 65

 The value for the motor selected for the 

baseline design exceeds that at 38 amps. This 

motor also does not meet the DOE definition of 

small electric motor and should have never 

been used as a baseline small electric motor. 

For a three-quarter horsepower 4-

pole CSIR single phase small electric motor 

the DOE and NEMA minimum requirement for 

locked rotor torque is 89 power inches. The 

value for the motor selected for the baseline 

design is 76 pound inches. 

The DOE and NEMA maximum limit on 

locked rotor current at 230 volts is 35 amps. 

The value for the motor selected for the 

baseline design is 53 amps. This motor also 

does not meet the DOE definition of small 

electric motor and should never have been used 

as a baseline small electric motor. 

When evaluating motors for a given 

application, it is common to prepare a table 

of comparisons to check that the performance 

of the motor design meets the applicable 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 66 

performance requirements before continuing any 

further. I could not find any such table of 

comparisons in the TSD nor in the NOPR. I 

encourage the DOE to always prepare such a 

comparison and it will help stop the 

proliferation of work and development of 

higher efficiency designs based on improperly 

selected motors as baseline basic models. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Additional comments in this vein? Yes? 

MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Mimi, stand 

up please. 

MS. GUPTA: Roger, these baseline 

motors were selected from the market and torn 

down and the performance characteristics that 

you see were tested. So I guess so NEMA would 

not consider those motors on the market to be 

NEMA general purpose motors. Is that correct? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty 

again. I do not speak on behalf of NEMA and 

as I pointed out a one horsepower 4-pole motor 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 67 

is not a small electric motor. So that one 

first is isolated because there are no 

standards that define that motor. 

And then as for the other two I 

can only say that DOE knew its definition. It 

knew its requirements. It showed those 

requirements in the scope document that it was 

going to be defined in against and it did not 

follow those requirements in the selection of 

the motors. 

And if you also look at the EL 

designs that were done, those designs were not 

designed to meet those requirements either. 

So there's nothing. There's not a single 

design in the TSD in Chapter 5 and Appendix 5A 

that are in agreement with the DOE definition 

of a small electric motor. 

MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta again. So 

in your experience what portion of the small 

electric motors on the market would meet the 

NEMA performance criteria? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 68 

I have no information to answer that kind of 

question. 

MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Hi, Robert Van 

Buskirk, Lawrence Berkeley Lab. In selecting 

the one horsepower polyphase as a 

representative motor for that category the 

Department relied on shipments data that was 

provided by NEMA and an earlier stage of the 

rulemaking that gave the distribution of 

shipments of polyphase small electric motors 

as a function of horsepower rating. 

In that data that was provided by 

NEMA that NEMA listed one horsepower motors, 

one and a half horsepower motors, motors of 

other horsepower ratings which your recent 

comment indicates NEMA now no longer considers 

small electric motors. How is the Department 

to interpret the difference between the 

shipments data provided by NEMA earlier and 

your current comments? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty 

again. I can't comment necessarily on how 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 69 

NEMA conducted data. However, back in the 

early stages of trying to do surveys and if 

someone goes through catalogs and things 

they're going to find two-digit frame size 

motors that have those upper ratings as I said 

earlier and I agree that those are out there. 

But my point is that the emphasis 

for 15 years has been to adhere to the NEMA 

MG-1 definition that's in 1987 as the basis 

for justification of selection of motors and 

establishment of efficiency levels. And when 

you go to that and I think I've clearly shown 

that if you look at the data, the test data, 

and I'm assuming what's in Appendix 5A is the 

test data on that one horsepower motor that 

that test data supports the position that that 

motor that you went out and selected is not a 

NEMA general purpose motor. It can't meet any 

of the performance requirements. 

So a manufacturer may be providing 

that motor to customers who use it in some 

types of general purpose applications. But it 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 70 

doesn't make it a NEMA general purpose motor. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Mimi. 

MS. GUPTA: So given the 

performance discrepancies that you cited in 

terms of current in your experience could you 

give the Department some idea of how you would 

expect the efficiency to change if those 

motors were to meet the current 

specifications. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Yes and maybe just to understand why current 

is important locked rotor current is a 

requirement of the National Electrical Code 

and so someone who is obtaining a NEMA general 

purpose motor to put it into an application 

for which he knows or he has to adhere to the 

National Electrical Code insulation 

requirements has to have confidence that that 

level of locked rotor current is not going to 

exceed the code level or he's going to 

introduce problems into his application. 

Now those who use motors of higher 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 71 

locked rotor current levels know what those 

levels are and know how to account for the use 

of those levels. So when we're talking 

general purpose there's a lot more than just 

the NEMA standard that applies. We have to go 

also to National Electrical Code. 

Now to answer your question to try 

to reduce that level of locked rotor current 

if you just took the basic amount of material 

that is within the design to get that current 

down chances are the efficiency is going to go 

down because you've got to raise the number of 

turns which is one way to do it in order to 

raise the leakage reactance of the motor so 

that under locked rotor conditions the 

impedance of the motor looks higher and the 

current goes down. What's the consequence of 

that? Well, the torque is going to go down 

with that current going down and you already 

don't meet locked rotor torque requirements 

and now you're going to reduce them further. 

You're going to drag efficiency down. The 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 72 

motor is going to run slower and the 

application customer is not going to be 

driving his equipment at the speed that he 

thought he was going to be driving it at and 

he's going to suffer on his output from his 

load equipment. 

There are so many complex things 

that go into doing a motor design that you 

can't limit it to one and that's why NEMA 

standard has requirements in place for locked 

rotor torque to locked breakdown torque, pullup torque and locked rotor current and there 

are a lot of others that I haven't even 

addressed that also have to be considered that 

DOE doesn't even make reference to yet. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Is it John? 

MR. ANDRLE: John Andrle. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Please say 

your name for the record. 

MR. ANDRLE: John Andrle. I would 

just like to add to that that the importance 

of that in addition to what Roger has talking 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 73 

about is the cost that have been assumed in 

all these life cycle analysis and everything 

means that the costs are really going to 

higher if you try to get to the efficiency 

levels that are stated here plus meet the NEMA 

torque requirements. Because in addition to 

turn count for single phase motors you're 

probably going to talk about more larger 

capacitors. 

And then the other comment I have 

on the baseline efficiency is these motors 

were picked out one motor and I wasn't sure 

that there was any analysis on whether that in 

a population of motors that was actually any 

minimum motor or maximum motor or nominal 

motor. So depending on what that is that also 

can impact the --

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Do you want 

to say just briefly how these were picked out? 

MR. NARDOTTI: So we, when -- This 

is Matt Nardotti from Navigant Consulting. 

When we selected our baseline or 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 74 

representative units we went to the product 

classes that we had selected and found the 

motor with the least efficient catalog list 

efficiency. Then we tested them according to 

the IEEE test procedures. So this efficiency 

that you see here is what comes out of those 

test procedures, the full load efficiency. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Follow on. 

Yes. 

MR. ANDRLE: Yes, that's true, but 

you picked a catalog efficiency that catalog 

efficiency represents a population of motors. 

The motor that you actually picked you still 

don't know where it stands in that population 

whether that was the high end of the 

efficiency of that population or the low end. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: And you're 

talking about variability within what's listed 

there? Is that what you're speaking of? 

MR. ANDRLE: Yes. I mean they 

picked a design that has a variance in 

efficiency for population. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 75

 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Got you. 

Okay. Roger. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

I certainly agree with what John is saying and 

I actually have a much more detailed response 

to one of the other questions when we get to a 

discussion about nominal efficiency that I 

think will help to clarify exactly the point 

that's trying to be made. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. So 

we're going into considerable depth here and 

in doing so I hope we get through all of the 

material that we're slated to get through 

today. So to the extent we can keep these 

focused and concise that would be helpful. 

Anything else you want to ask 

about before we press on? 

MR. NARDOTTI: Well, one thing I 

would like to add to the last comment that was 

made by John and Roger is that the list 

efficiency in these manufacturers' catalogs 

corresponds. There are no test procedures for 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 76 

small electric motors or there were none when 

these were in place. So we also don't know 

how the motors were tested and then what was 

listed. But I do understand that there is 

variability in the efficiencies that you'll 

get when you buy motors. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. So 

let's press on with the slides. 

MR. NARDOTTI: So after modeling 

its baseline units in the software, DOE 

applied various design options to that 

baseline model to create more efficient 

designs. When doing so DOE considered 15 

design limitations that were intended to 

maintain the manufacturability and the utility 

of that baseline unit. What you see here are 

the 15 parameters with design limitations that 

DOE considered and the TSA lays out what all 

of those are. 

But right now I would like to 

highlight one of those and that's stack 

length. In general, increasing the stack 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 77 

length of a motor is a relatively inexpensive 

way to increase the efficiency of the motor. 

But it can have an adverse effect of that 

motor's ability to fit into space constrained 

applications. 

So when DOE conducted its 

engineering analysis it developed two cost 

efficiency curves for each of the 

representative units. One of these sets of 

designs was intended to model motors going 

into space constraint applications and the 

other was intended to model those going into 

non-space-constrained applications. 

For space constrained 

applications, DOE assumed a maximum increase 

of 20 percent relative to the baseline was 

appropriate. DOE received this number, 20 

percent, in a NEMA comment that was provided 

for the preliminary analysis and that they 

felt was not an overly, an excessive, increase 

in stack height such that it would be 

prohibitive. For the non-space-constrained 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 78 

applications, motors going into those 

applications, the stack height was allowed to 

as much as double. 

And we would like to take any 

comments on design options and limitations 

that we've presented in the engineering 

analysis. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Just a follow-up question on your statement 

about stack length and the lengths that you 

looked at. In at least the three motors that 

you did purchase and that within Table 5A you 

looked at increase in the stack length by 20 

percent, was any observation made as to 

whether or not that increased length would fit 

within that frame that motor was in? 

MR. NARDOTTI: I would actually 

like to defer to Brad. He actually did the 

design work for us and he can perhaps comment 

to what that baseline unit looked like and how 

much room was relative. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 79

 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Brad, did 

you hear the question? 

MR. FRUSTAGLIO: I did. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Good. Go 

ahead. 

MR. NARDOTTI: Before you answer, 

we did also account for in our cost model the 

accounting for an increased housing that would 

allow the increased core length to fit in. 

MR. FRUSTAGLIO: Brad Frustaglio. 

In the engineering analysis what we tried to 

adhere was the UL electrical clearance of .094 

inch or 3/32 through air to any dead metal 

part. And in the baseline motors that we 

selected we don't have any data on whether the 

20 percent increase in stack will meet the UL 

electrical clearance. Like Matt said, we may 

have to take into account increase in stack 

length to maintain that UL electrical 

clearance. 

MR. NARDOTTI: And that was the --

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes please. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 80

 Let me see. 

MR. SCHIRMANN: This is Bob 

Schirmann from A.O. Smith. Brad, in your 

analysis, did you find that there was a law of 

diminishing returns applying to the efficiency 

you could obtain by increasing the stack of 

the motor? I question the feasibility of 

doubling the stack length of the motor and 

achieving some of the efficiency levels that 

we need. You will get to some point where 

essentially no efficiency increase is gained 

by increasing the stack length. 

MR. FRUSTAGLIO: Yes. Absolutely. 

There is a law of diminishing returns as you 

increase the stack length, balancing all of 

the losses that are encountered. If you get 

to a certain point, pretty soon your losses 

are going to -- other losses are going to take 

over. Absolutely. 

MR. SCHIRMANN: And again this is 

Bob Schirmann. That efficiency that can be 

achieved is kind of based on the baseline 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 81 

efficiency that you choose to work with. So 

for instance if you have a motor that is 75 

percent efficient and you choose to increase 

the stack you may be able to get the peak 

efficiency from a theoretical standpoint using 

a stack change at a 75 percent increase; 

whereas another design you might only get that 

at 25 percent. 

I really feel that going into the 

area of doubling the stack is getting into the 

area of impracticable applications for our 

customer base. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I just want 

to confirm. Doubling the stack, is that --

did you pick that out of the air or is that in 

the -- I thought it was referring to 20. 

MR. NARDOTTI: There's a 20 

percent increase in stack length. 

MR. SCHIRMANN: But there was also 

-- Bob Schirmann again. There was also a 

comment about doubling the stack in non-spaceconstrained applications. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 82

 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Thank you. Mimi. 

MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta. That 

doubling of the stack was something that was 

presented at the preliminary analysis just to 

give reference. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

MR. NARDOTTI: I would like to add 

to that as well. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Please add 

and then I'll come back to Roger. 

MR. NARDOTTI: And for the 100 

percent that we presented at the preliminary 

analysis for that preliminary analysis we 

conducted an engineering analysis where we 

went to manufacturers to ask for input on how 

they would increase their efficiency and when 

we received feedback from manufacturers some 

of the designs were actually even longer than 

100 percent increase. So it was from those 

suggestions that we kept an upper bound at 100 

percent increase. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 83

 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger, I 

haven't heard yet from Dale. So it is Dale? 

Sorry. 

MR. BASSO: Yes. Just as far as 

concern about the stack length and this is a 

concern we raised in the past with size, both 

diameter and stack length issues. But you've 

made an assumption that in non-spaceconstrained applications you could go even 

more than 20 percent. But you also made an 

assumption in space constrained that 20 

percent would be acceptable. 

I'm not sure how that was 

determined and why if this is a general 

purpose motor that has to be applied to all 

applications. You could separate spaceconstrained and non-space-constrained. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Do you want 

to follow on? 

MR. BOTELER: Yes, this is Rob 

Boteler. One of the things since the past 

NOPR or hearing that we were at is we've gone 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 84 

out and surveyed OEMs who actually purchased 

this type of product from the motor industry 

and we've done that through the NEMA 

organization and so far we've received 

responses from ten small OEMs and of those ten 

small OEMs nine of them told that any changes 

to the length of the motor or differences in 

the size of the motor would make the motor 

unusable in their current designs. That's new 

news. Because of the seriousness of the 

hearing we did that. 

And I think the other thing that 

we --

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Would you 

clarify? That's a survey that NEMA did 

recently? 

MR. BOTELER: Yes, we did that in 

the last couple of weeks to just a general 

population of our customers who used this 

category. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Emerson did 

that for your customers on behalf of NEMA. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 85

 MR. BOTELER: Yes. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

MR. BOTELER: And I think the 

other thing that we need to recognize here is 

that we made the distinction between the 

general purpose product and then our definite 

and special purpose product which is the bulk 

of the product that we manufacture as 

manufacturers in this category and the 

customers who use this product, the general 

purpose, are those small businesses and small 

OEMs who do not have the same volumes where 

they can come to us as manufacturers and have 

us design definite or special purpose products 

for their applications. 

In most cases, they're not well 

engineered companies. They're smaller 

companies that are taking this product and 

building a piece of equipment and it becomes 

very difficult for them to re-engineer their 

product when changes and sizes of our motors 

that they purchase occur. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 86

 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Thank you. 

Mimi. 

MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Leave that 

thing on. 

MS. GUPTA: Sorry. I'd just like 

to respond to the concern about the 20 percent 

increase and questioning that. NEMA submitted 

a comment after the preliminary analysis 

actually recommending the 20 percent increase 

and I'd like to quote on page four. But I 

mean --

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: They 

acknowledge. 

Okay. Roger, did you want? Yes. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

My question was actually while they were 

talking about the design. I'd like to know 

why none of the EL design information that's 

presented in Appendix 5A, why for none of 

those designs, the locked rotor current 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 87 

breakdown torque and locked rotor torque do 

not meet the requirements for NEMA general 

purpose small electric motor. Why wasn't that 

not a criteria in creating those designs? 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Which one? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: All of them. 

(Off the record comment.) 

MR. FRUSTAGLIO: All of the 

designs that we did in the EL 7 were based on 

the baseline motors is the reason for the 

data. 

MR. RIVEST: I want to cycle back 

on something. Mike Rivest, Navigant 

Consulting. You know that earlier discussion 

about temperature rise and you were applying 

that discussion to actual motors that we 

purchased and you were saying that those 

didn't apply to NEMA. They were not NEMA. So 

you're saying we didn't buy NEMA motors. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

What I said with respect to the one horsepower 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 88 

4-pole motor is it's not a NEMA general 

purpose small electric motor. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: As defined. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: As defined. So 

what you purchased and what I would ask 

because also missing from any information 

that's provided is the information that was on 

the nameplate and I would wonder if that 

nameplate did not say "Insulation Class B." 

So you didn't buy a motor that's Insulation 

Class A rated temperature. 

You went out and you got a motor 

that is not a small electric motor possibly of 

an insulation class that is not for a small 

electric motor and you tested it and you found 

that it did not -- First of all, you couldn't 

even go and find a standard to compare the 

performance to that you tested to. But if you 

went and compared it to the medium you found 

it doesn't meet the requirements of medium 

performance and the reason is that rating is 

over in a small frame size. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 89

 So I mean what more can I say 

about the selection of motors? It's just you 

have -- If you're going to start with a 

definition, if you're going to start with 

performance, that's what you go. That's where 

you start. When you make EL designs, those 

designs should be based upon your goal of 

adhering to your definition and none of the 

designs that were reported on adhere to your 

definition and it's hard to find it to adhere 

to any of the definition. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Say your 

name please. 

MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne, 

Underwriters Laboratories. I think the -- You 

know we've talked quite a bit about the same 

issue and I think there's really two ways to 

look at it and what I'm looking at is I think 

that the definition as stated by a gentleman 

earlier, the definition is arbitrarily narrow 

and thus specifically excludes a very large 

population of motors that we believe should be 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 90 

included under the scope of the final rule. 

So that's one comment. 

The other comment is that when we 

talk about sensitivity to an increase in the 

stack length or maybe a slight increase in 

stack length it seems to me that if our 

objective is to increase motor efficiency 

something is going to change. And it's going 

to create some temporary inconvenience. If 

you do what you've always done you get what 

you've always gotten. Okay. So we have to 

recognize that there are going to be trade 

offs. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

I'd just like to comment that the NEMA frame 

sizes for the medium frame motors have been in 

existence well before I ever started designing 

electric motors. And within those T frame 

sizes without changing any of the NEMA frame 

size requirements those efficiencies of those 

motors that the manufacturers produce have 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 91 

increased from what we used to call standard 

efficient. Then we had the EPACT levels and 

now we have the NEMA premium levels. And all 

those were done within that envelope of 

working with appropriate design techniques, 

use of materials. 

So we're not saying that it's 

impossible, but in today's situation in 

consideration you do have to think about the 

size that the motor's in and try to work 

within that envelope and many of the 

efficiency levels that DOE is proposing in 

changes are not practical in today's 

technology or even in the technology in five 

years. But the manufacturers are certainly 

working on that goal and even in the small 

motors you find different efficiency levels 

and you find improved levels and you find high 

efficiency levels. 

So we work toward that goal. 

Everyone struggles to get to that goal, but 

you can't arbitrarily say "Well, just go out 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

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 increase your stack length by 20 percent. 

Put it out to your customer who can't use it 

and expecting to buy it and apply it." It 

just doesn't work. We work with our 

customers. 

So maybe some of the high 

efficiency motors that we can produce in small 

frame sizes are specific to an application to 

a specific customer who knows how to use that 

motor. But that motor does not necessarily 

meet the definition of a general purpose motor 

because it goes over into that specific area. 

So there are things that are possible to do, 

but today we're talking about staying within 

the definition of a small electric motor that 

DOE has stated is the definition for 

approximately 15 years. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Tim. 

MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, 

Earthjustice. Also I would just like to point 

out to the extent that there is a problem for 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 93 

certain manufacturers seeking to serve certain 

customers who need a motor that their present 

equipment design can accommodate there is a 

waiver provision in the DOE organic statute 

which would allow DOE to grant a waiver on a 

temporary basis to provide those equipment 

manufacturers the time to revise their designs 

to accommodate a more efficient motor. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you, 

Tim. Okay. 

So it seems -- I want you to press 

on. 

MR. NARDOTTI: So now I'd like to 

move onto how DOE developed its cost for the 

designs created. One of the benefits of the 

software package we used is that we were able 

to obtain a bill of materials from there. And 

that bill of materials was then marked up for 

scrap factor, factory overhead and nonproduction costs which include profit. 

And one thing I would specifically 

like to highlight here is how DOE handled its 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 94 

cost for the copper rotor designs. For those 

designs that incorporated a copper rotor 

instead of an aluminum rotor, a higher 

material price was used for that die-cast 

material. But also DOE incremented its markup for factory overhead to take into account 

the higher cost of tooling necessary to 

manufacture those models and thus the higher 

depreciation associated with those designs and 

that tooling. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, 

please. John. 

MR. ANDRLE: John Andrle. I just 

wanted to comment that looking at the 

publication when you did interview the 

manufacturers according to your statement 

there was considerable concern about the use 

of copper cast rotors. In fact, the cost to 

implement that technology was significant and 

I'm not sure that I read that into the 

comments that were just made here. 

MR. NARDOTTI: DOE tried to 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 95 

account for the change in -- The engineering 

analysis only accounts for the change in 

material prices and the change in mark-ups. 

The manufacturer impacts analysis that will be 

discussed later on we'll talk about the 

investments that will be necessary and that 

are associated with those copper designs. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

MR. NARDOTTI: Now I'd like to 

move onto what the results look like. This is 

a graph of the manufacturer or selling price 

versus full load efficiency for the polyphase 

4-pole one horsepower design that was 

analyzed. As you can see, the first five 

points on this curve, the space-constrained 

design curve and the non-space-constrained 

design curve are at the same point and that's 

because for those first five levels DOE was 

able to obtain the efficiency without 

exceeding the 20 percent limit on stack height 

increase. 

DOE then gets a point of 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 96 

divergence going from the fifth to sixth point 

and that's because we now need to exceed that 

20 percent increase and the design options 

necessary for the space constrained design to 

meet the target efficiency level necessitated 

a higher grade of steel. This point also 

corresponds to the level that is being 

proposed in today's rule. 

One last thing I would like to 

point out is the maximum technology point for 

the space constrained design is not pictured 

and that's because there was a extremely high 

cost associated with the exotic steel that was 

used in that design. 

After obtaining these results DOE 

then needed to scale the results of the 

analyzed product classes to those not 

analyzed. This table is intended to show 

pictorially what DOE needed to do and as you 

can see we selected one representative unit 

from the three motor categories covered to try 

and facilitate that. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 97

 So within --

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Keep going. 

MR. NARDOTTI: Okay. Within each 

motor category that DOE selected, DOE scaled 

its engineering results based on efficiency 

relationships between pole configuration and 

horsepower rating for that motor category. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

So it's DOE's contention that you can start 

with a one half horsepower 4-pole motor and by 

pure extrapolation come up with an efficiency 

of a motor in a different frame size that 

three horsepower and higher than three 

horsepower. 

MR. NARDOTTI: That's correct. 

I'll get into it a little bit more, but DOE 

did consider the frame size when it did its 

scaling and when it examined the efficiencies 

that were listed in categories. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Go ahead, 

Roger. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 98

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Than after having done that extrapolation of 

three horsepower, did DOE create an actual 

design at three horsepower that would have the 

efficiency that the extrapolation method 

predicted and did it also do that for all of 

the other extreme points of all of its 

extrapolations? 

MR. NARDOTTI: No, DOE did not do 

that. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Then what I'm hearing is that DOE has never 

made any designs that substantiate that 

practical designs are possible for the 

extrapolated values of efficiency. Is that 

correct? 

MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, Navigant 

Consulting. I must say I'm a little 

distressed at the tone and the implications. 

This methodology was discussed previously and 

I believe in conversations with you as well. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 99 

And this methodology is used in every 

rulemaking. So the implication here that this 

is somehow extraordinary is a little baffling. 

Furthermore, you'll see that it's 

not based on pure air, but it's based on 

market data as well. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Mimi. 

MS. GUPTA: And also -- Mimi 

Gupta. In interviews with manufacturers the 

approach that we took to scale was suggested 

by manufacturers. So just another point of 

interest. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. Do 

you wish to follow on? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

I'll hit this in a later comment. But it's 

your contention that you're going to be able 

to project that at a three horsepower value of 

level that you're going to be able to -- The 

present frame size for the 6-pole three 

horsepower motor in a polyphase is a 213 Tframe and you're going to project that you're 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 100 

going to get I think it was 27 percent lower 

losses when you do that rating in a 56 frame 

which has only 44 percent of the cross 

sectional size of that 213 T-frame. Is that 

correct? Because that's what the data is you 

presented. 

MS. GUPTA: That is not correct. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Mimi. 

MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta. That is 

not correct. All data used to do the scaling 

was taken from small motor data, two digit 

frame size data, not the three digit frame 

size data. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

But I believe you missed my point. Today 

there's a NEMA premium efficiency level of a 

three horsepower motor in the 213 T-frame. 

You are proposing by your extrapolation method 

that the manufacturer is expected to obtain a 

higher efficiency level in the 56 frame than 

NEMA premium and as required by EISA of 2007 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 101 

for that larger frame using a cross sectional 

area that is only 44 percent of that NEMA 

premium motor in the 213 frame. That is what 

your results state in the tables that you have 

presented. 

So is that your contention that a 

manufacturer must be able to reduce losses by 

27 percent from the NEMA premium level of 213 

T-frame and build that in a 56 frame motor? 

MS. GUPTA: I can't comment --

Mimi Gupta. I can't comment on the comparison 

with a NEMA premium motor. But if 

manufacturers have a better way to scale we 

would very much appreciate those comments. 

And that's all I can really say. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Let's let 

him keep going. 

MR. NARDOTTI: Yes. So to start 

its scaling, DOE purchased several motors from 

the same manufacturer on the same product line 

for a given motor category. DOE then had an 

accredited laboratory test those motors 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 102 

according to the IEEE test procedures and 

observed efficiency relationships relative to 

horsepower and pole configuration for a given 

motor category. 

To supplement those relationships, 

DOE examined manufacturer catalogs and pulled 

efficiency data from those manufacturer 

catalogs from the same product line and for 

the same motor category. Finally, the 

combined relationships that were found from 

the test data and the catalog list data was 

then used to extrapolate the results for each 

motor category for the representative product 

classes. 

Another additional note for CSCR 

motors DOE used the efficiency relationships 

they found for CSIR motors to extrapolate and 

scale those results because of the lack of 

product availability in CSCR motors. And 

lastly DOE scaled its manufacturer selling 

prices again by examining manufacturer 

catalogs and seeing how price changes relative 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 103 

to horsepower and pole configuration for a 

given motor category. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So you can 

see the comment box there. DOE seeks comment 

on the approach to scale engineering analysis 

results to produce classes for which a 

complete analysis was not performed, 

especially the decision to use the 

relationship found in CSIR motors to scale 

results for CSCR motors. 

Roger. I think we've covered some 

of this already. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Yes, just to provide some emphasis to previous 

comments about these real high efficiencies 

and real small motors, that's a direct 

contradiction of the DOE statement on page 

61423 of the NOPR and I quote. "DOE agrees 

that motors in a smaller frame size, and 

therefore made with a potentially smaller 

diameter," in this case that which has a cross 

sectional area of only 44 percent of the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 104 

reference frame size, "will not be able to 

achieve the same efficiency rating as a larger 

frame." That's all. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Yes, Dale. 

MR. BASSO: Dale Basso. I was 

just curious if in the analysis when you 

looked at the catalogs to come up with the 

efficiencies from the various manufacturers 

and pricing where is frame size considered so 

that if one had it in the 48 and another had 

it in the 56 was that taken into 

consideration. 

MR. NARDOTTI: I actually would 

like to defer this to Asa. 

MR. HOPKINS: Asa Hopkins, LBNL. 

For the pricing the frame series which was not 

taken into account for many of the product 

classes the overwhelming majority of the 

product that's available in the market is in 

only one frame size. So between product 

classes there are changes in frame size. But 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 105 

DOE did not take into account variation within 

each product class. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. Rob. 

MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler. In the 

scaling process when you did the designs we on 

the large motor side we have to test 25 of our 

ratings. Actually, I'm sorry. Five of our 

ratings, five each. So a total of 25 to 

verify the accuracy of our designs. How many 

of the actual designs did you build and test 

to verify or correlate your design program to 

any kind of real world design? 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Mimi. 

MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta. Our 

baseline design was one that we purchased, 

tested, tore down, modeled and achieved an 

efficiency almost identical in the software. 

And I think I'll let Brad comment a little bit 

more on some of the other work that they've 

used their software for and achieve some 

validation that way. 

MR. FRUSTAGLIO: Brad Frustaglio. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 106

 We've used our software to best design, 

prototype and bring the manufacturer many 

types of polyphase and single phase induction 

motors and have verified our software against 

those designs that were produced. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Rob, did 

you want to follow on? 

MR. BOTELER: Is any of the data 

that you used to 

available to NEMA? 

verify the test data 

MR. 

It's confidential. 

FRUSTAGLIO: It's proprietary. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. Tom. 

MR. HINK: Tom Hink, Regal-Beloit. 

I understand the whole process of scaling 

data. But I think then what a person should 

is stand back and look at the entire tables 

when you're done and say "Do they make sense?" 

There's a couple of things that really stood 

out to me when I was looking at this data. 

Specifically in the polyphase I 

think that DOE has gone on record even in the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 107 

Federal Register indicating they wanted a 

harmonization of the polyphase values to Table 

12.12 which is already established in NEMA for 

medium motors and they do not. 

The one specific one horse 4-pole 

that they worked on is fairly close. It's 

within a couple tenths of a percent. But in 

many of the other if not all of the other 

ratings I've seen as much as difference of 6.6 

percent in efficiency between this table and 

the one that's already in NEMA and I think it 

would behoove us to have the same efficiency 

levels especially where there's overlap in 

that regard. 

The other thing I wanted to 

comment too is standing back and checking for 

reasonableness is looking at the table for cap 

start induction run versus cap start cap run. 

The DOE has gone on record. They recognize 

the fact that adding a run capacitor does 

improve efficiency. Yet when you compare the 

two tables they have set higher values for cap 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 108 

start induction motors than they have for cap 

start cap run motors which to me as a motor 

designer makes no sense at all just as a check 

for reasonableness. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Yes. Bob. 

MR. SCHIRMANN: Bob Schirmann. 

Yes. I just want to say that I do agree with 

Tom's comments regarding the efficiency 

comparisons on cap start induction run and 

capacitor-start, capacitor-run motors. For a 

given horsepower and frame size, typically you 

can much more easily achieve a higher 

efficiency level at some operating point than 

you can with a capacitor-start, induction-run 

motor. That's clearly not reflected here in 

the efficiency levels proposed which I guess 

is where I would question how the analysis was 

done and how those efficiency levels were 

derived. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Thank you. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 109

 MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti. One 

of the things that we will discuss in later 

analysis is the market interaction expected 

between the CSIR motors and CSCR motors and 

that went into the Department's decision to 

propose the standard levels that you see in 

those tables. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Let's do 

the next slide. 

MR. NARDOTTI: In DOE's Final Rule 

on test procedures for small electric motors 

DOE uses the term "nominal full load 

efficiency" when it defines the term basic 

model and the reason this term was used was to 

be consistent with how certain certification 

and compliance reports are done for electric 

motors. 

However, this term is currently 

not defined for small electric motors. 

Currently the definition of a nominal full 

load efficiency for medium motors is based on 

a table within NEMA MG-1 that is based on test 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 110 

data and test procedures that are only 

applicable to polyphase medium motors. And 

therefore without such a table that is 

appropriate for small electric motors DOE can 

not define it the same way and it's proposing 

today instead to define it as the average full 

load efficiency. 

And DOE would like to note that 

should a table that is appropriate for small 

electric motors be developed in the future DOE 

will consider revising its definition at that 

time. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

I have to apologize. My comments on this are 

extremely long. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: And if you want me 

to go through them at this time, but I think 

there are so many points here that need to be 

presented to DOE's information. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 111 

Let's -- How many pages do you have? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: This is probably 

four or five. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Can you 

think of any other way to do this? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: No. Because I 

think this needs to be brought to the 

attention of those others in the group who 

understand the complexity of this and give 

them an opportunity to comment in this open 

forum. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: And you can't do 

that through written comments. 

MR. RIVEST: Doug, I think it 

would be helpful for us to hear it. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Great. The floor is yours. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: As you heard, DOE 

is proposing to add a new definition of 

Section 431.442 in subpart X. The "nominal 

full-load efficiency" means the arithmetic 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 112 

mean of the full-load efficiencies of a 

population of electric motors of duplicate 

design where the full-load efficiency of each 

motor in the population is the ratio expressed 

as a percentage of the motor's useful power 

output to its power input when the motor is 

operated at its full rated load, rated 

voltage, and rated frequency. 

The only difference between that 

definition and the definition of average fullload efficiency that is already in 431.442 is 

that the definition of average full-load 

efficiency refers to small motors. Why is DOE 

proposing definition for two terms that are 

defined to be so similar as to create nothing 

but confusion? 

Another concern with the new 

definition is that there is no stipulation as 

to what constitutes a population of motors. 

As proposed, the nominal full-load efficiency 

value could be based on a population of one or 

two thousand motors. Statistical analysis or 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 113 

just common sense would indicate that under 

the proposed definition, the value of nominal 

full-load efficiency would change every time 

another motor is added to the population. 

During the process of establishing 

subpart B of 10 CFR Part 431, DOE requested 

that NIST conduct a study of proposed 

compliance and enforcement procedures. In 

January of 1998, NIST issued a report NISTIR 

6092 titled "The Analysis of Proposals for 

Compliance and Enforcement Testing Under the 

New Part 431 Title 10 Code of Federal 

Regulations." Under the section titled 

"Sample Size Under NEMA Compliance Criteria," 

NIST states, and I quote, "From this we 

conclude that no fewer than four motors should 

be tested." Based on that conclusion in 

subpart B of 10 CFR Part 431, where the 

criteria for evaluating the value of motor 

efficiency by testing is based on the NEMA 

recommended criteria and the required sample 

size is five. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 114

 Another concern with the 

definition is that it infers that the 

arithmetic mean of the full-load efficiencies 

of the population of motors is known and that 

the nominal full-load efficiency must be 

specified to be equal to it. Under such a 

definition, there is no limit to the number of 

different values of efficiency that might be 

marked on motor nameplates, with each 

suggesting significant accuracy in the 

determination of the value. 

The NEMA Laboratory Standard 

Development Working Group was formed to assist 

NVLAP Handbook 150-10 to be used as the basis 

for accreditation of test facilities for 

measuring motor efficiency. That 

accreditation is based on testing in 

accordance with IEEE 112 Method B. It does 

not presently cover testing in accordance with 

IEEE 112 Method A nor IEEE 114. The DOE 

statement on page 61431 of the NOPR, and I 

quote, "An accredited lab performed IEEE 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 115 

Standard 112 Test Methods A and B and IEEE 

Standard 114 to find efficiency data for 19 

small electric motors" is misleading because 

no accreditation exists for two of the three 

listed methods. 

To support the development of 

handbook 150-10 in 11995 and 1996, NEMA 

conducted round robin testing which 

demonstrated that there will be variations in 

the measured efficiency of any motor that is 

tested multiple times or in different 

locations. There is no exact value of 

efficiency known for any particular motor 

taken from a population of motors. 

Consequently, there is no exact value of 

average efficiency known for a population of 

motors that can be used to set the value of 

nominal full-load efficiency under the DOE 

proposed definition. 

As mentioned previously, DOE has 

recognized the variation in measured total 

losses of efficiency that can occur when 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 116 

testing a population of motors. In Section 

431.17 of Subpart B covering electric motors, 

DOE stipulates that for the determination of 

compliance, the average full-load efficiency 

of a sample of motors can differ from a 

represented nominal full-load efficiency by an 

amount of total losses equal to up to five 

percent of the total losses equivalent to the 

represented nominal full-load efficiency. 

Further, DOE also stipulates that 

the lowest full-load efficiency in the sample 

can differ from the represented nominal fullload efficiency by an amount of total losses 

equal to 15 percent of the total losses 

equivalent to the represented nominal fullload efficiency. 

In Appendix A, the subpart U, DOE 

stipulates that the test condition for 

enforcement be based on assuming an increase 

of 20 percent in total losses for the 

represented nominal full-load efficiency. 

This corresponds to the recognition that the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 117 

motor may be tested at a facility that the 

manufacturer of the motor does not use for the 

purpose of determining compliance. Similar 

conditions can be expected to apply to small 

electric motors. 

As an illustration of the 

complexity of applying the DOE proposed 

definition of nominal full-load efficiency, 

consider how DOE has applied it in determining 

the proposed standards for efficiency levels. 

In the December 22, 2008 NOPR on test 

standards for electric motors, DOE proposed 

including a definition of an alternative 

efficiency determination method in subpart T 

for small electric motors. That is now 

subpart X. As noted in comments in the 

transcript of the January 29, 2009 public 

meeting, the concept of an AEDM was described 

as being similar to that for electric motors 

in subpart B. 

In written comments to the NOPR 

submitted on March 9, 2009, NEMA pointed out 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 118 

that DOE had not yet presented any actual 

formal proposal as to how an AEDM for small 

electric motors would be substantiated. 

In a final rule that was published 

on July 7, 2009, DOE prescribed that the 

substantiation of the AEDM is to be like that 

for electric motors. "This requires testing a 

sample of five motors of each of five basic 

models and that for each basic model, and I 

quote, the total power lost must fall within 

ten percent of the mean total power lost from 

actual testing." 

Rules for selecting the five basic 

models are described in subpart X. On page 

61417 of the NOPR, DOE, and I quote, "codified 

the ability of manufacturers to use an 

alternative efficiency determination method 

(AEDM) to reduce testing burden, while 

maintaining accuracy and ensuring compliance 

with potential future energy conservation 

standards." 

It would appear that if the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 119 

manufacturer's use of an AEDM is to be held to 

those requirements, then any AEDM that is used 

by DOE must also be held to those same 

requirements, particularly since the DOE is 

using AEDMs to establish the levels for the 

nominal full-load efficiency standards. In 

fact, DOE is using at least three AEDMs for 

the purpose of establishing the efficiency 

standards for small electric motors. 

One AEDM is used for the design 

analysis of individual polyphase motors. A 

similar AEDM is used for design analysis of 

single phase motors. And one or more AEDMs 

are used for the scaling of efficiency values 

across product classes. 

It is not easy to find any 

information in the NOPR nor the TSD that 

indicates that DOE has followed the 

requirements of Section 431.445(b)(3) of 

subpart X of 10 CFR Part 431 to substantiate 

any of the AEDMs that it is using for the 

indicated sets of product classes. The only 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 120 

information that is presented is that three 

motors were tested; one each of three 

different designs. 

Consider the case of the selection 

of the one horsepower four-pole polyphase 

motor for testing. In Table IV.5 of the NOPR, 

the manufacturer's stated efficiency rating 

for the motor is given a 74.0 percent. The 

tested value of efficiency for the single 

motor is given a 77.0 percent. However, in 

Table V.2.4 of Chapter V of the TSD, the 

tested value is given a 77.2 percent. It will 

be assumed that the 77.2 percent is the 

correct value, as that is the value DOE used 

for the motor in the analysis. 

In accordance with Table 12-6(a) 

of NEMA MG 1-1987, a value of 77.2 percent is 

a statistically viable value of efficiency for 

a single motor taken from a population of 

motors having a NEMA nominal efficiency of 

74.0 percent. Based on the testing of a 

single motor, the most logical conclusion is 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 121 

that the test results supported the 

manufacturer's efficiency rating for the 

population of motors of that design. However, 

the DOE apparently applied its proposed 

definition of nominal full-load efficiency and 

made a determination that the single test 

efficiency value of 77.2 percent was equal to 

the true arithmetic mean of the full-load 

efficiencies of the total population of motors 

of that design. 

Had DOE tested two motors, then it 

is expected that DOE would have determined 

that a different value of efficiency was the 

true arithmetic mean. A test of a third motor 

would then lead to another determination, and 

so forth. 

The fact that the calculated 

efficiency in the computer model exactly 

matched the tested value of efficiency of a 

single motor should have raised a red flag as 

to the likelihood that that single motor had 

an efficiency equal to the arithmetic mean of 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 122 

the full-load efficiencies of a population of 

electric motors of duplicate design. This 

appears to be attributable to an assumption 

without any substantiation in compliance with 

10 CFR Part 431 that the computer model is 100 

percent accurate in calculating the nominal 

full-load efficiency for any and all motor 

designs. Rather, if a sample of motors were 

tested and the results of the test of that 

sample supported the manufacturer's declared 

value of efficiency, then the computer model 

would fail the substantiation test if the 

requirements in subpart B are duplicated for 

subpart X. 

Despite all this, based on an 

unsubstantiated mathematical model of that 

motor, DOE apparently chose to make 

modifications to that model, including changes 

in core length of up to 100 percent and 

changes in electrical steel where the assumed 

change in core loss was as much as 77 percent 

to arrive at higher calculated values of 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 123 

efficiency that DOE then defined to be the 

true nominal full-load efficiency for each new 

design. 

Again, this is equivalent to 

stating that the accuracy of the computer 

model is 100 percent for any and all designs 

modeled with the results always matching the 

value of the arithmetic mean of the full-load 

efficiencies of a population of electric 

motors of duplicate design. 

Where the design selected for the 

purpose of establishing the efficiency 

standard for the ratings, the change in 

electrical steel was reported to change the 

efficiency of the prior design by three 

percentage points. According to the 

definition of basic model in the July 7, 2009 

final rule, such a significant change in 

efficiency constitutes a new basic model. 

Besides not indicating that there 

was any substantiation of the computer model 

as an AEDM in accordance with Section 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 124 

431.445(b)(3) of subpart X when applied to the 

original design, DOE provided no 

substantiation that the computer model can be 

used as an AEDM when sets of significant 

changes are made in the basic model, 

particularly when there is such a change the 

type of electrical steel. 

If a manufacturer was found to 

follow such a procedure, that manufacturer 

would be found in violation of 10 CFR Page 431 

and risk heavy fines and removal of motors 

from the market. If DOE is going to use 

purely calculated and extrapolated efficiency 

values as being 100 percent accurate for the 

basis for establishing standards for nominal 

full-load efficiency, then there needs to be 

substantiation of both the computer design 

AEDM and the extrapolation AEDM to the same 

requirements as required of motor 

manufacturers. 

In fact, it should be concluded 

that the analysis method used by DOE should be 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 125 

held to even more stringent requirements. 

Also, lacking from the method is the 

determination of any proper relationship 

between nominal full-load efficiency and 

calculated efficiency. 

Similarly, for the CSIR and CSCR 

motors, DOE followed the same procedure of 

determining that the single test value of 

efficiency was the true mean efficiency of the 

population of motors, rather than recognize 

that the results of the test only supported 

the manufacturer's rated efficiency. Lacking 

any other information and evidence to the 

contrary, DOE should have used the 

manufacturer's efficiency rating for each 

motor as the proper value for the population 

of motors of that design. For reasons similar 

to those discussed, the DOE made a 

determination that all baseline designs and 

related designs presented in a TSD in support 

of the NOPR of December 30, 2008 were invalid 

and needed to be replaced. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 126

 Consistent with that 

determination, all of the design work 

extrapolations and values and proposed 

efficiencies for Section 431.446 of subpart X 

in the present NOPR and TSD are invalid 

because they are based on improperly selected 

baseline models, improperly determined 

baseline nominal full-load efficiencies, and 

unsubstantiated AEDMs as required by Section 

431.445 of 10 CFR Part 431. This information 

should be replaced with properly selected 

baseline motors for testing, testing performed 

in a facility that has been accredited for 

testing in accordance with the required IEEE 

test method, proper interpellation of the test 

results to the related NEMA nominal 

efficiency, proper substantiation of the motor 

design AEDMs and proper substantiation of the 

scaling AEDMs. 

Because the proposed definition 

for nominal efficiency differs from that in 

NEMA MG1 that is familiar to motor users and 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 127 

promoted in numerous publications and NEMA 

Standards, there is potential for creating a 

great deal of confusion in a motor user 

community. Rather than create confusion, in 

Section 431.12 to subpart B for electric 

motors, DOE has adopted a definition based on 

the NEMA definition, and I quote, nominal 

full-load efficiency means with respect to an 

electric motor "a representative value of 

efficiency selected from Column A of Table 12-

8, NEMA Standards Publication MG1-1993, that 

is not greater than the average full-load 

efficiency of a population of motors of the 

same design." 

With respect to MG1-1987 and small 

motors, the reference table would be Table 12-

6(a). Under that definition, the value of 

nominal full-load efficiency selected for the 

population of motors recognizes the 

statistical variation in the full load 

efficiencies of the motors of the population 

without the need to know the exact value of 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 128 

the arithmetic mean as DOE is requiring in the 

proposed definition for Section 431.442. 

In Section V.2.1 of Chapter V of the 

TSD, it is noted that, and I quote, "DOE 

created a database of over 700 models that 

represent all of the small electric motors 

manufactured and listed in the catalogues." 

In Section V.2.2, it is stated, and I quote, 

"DOE chose these small electric motors to 

represent the characteristics of the least 

efficient motor for each analyzed product 

class." To reach that determination, DOE must 

have made a record of the efficiency levels of 

the motors it was examining. If DOE reexamines that record of efficiency levels, 

then it is likely to be apparent that for the 

majority of motors, the efficiency for each 

motor corresponds to a value from the values 

of NEMA nominal efficiencies in Table 12-6(a) 

in NEMA MG1-1987. 

The values of nominal efficiency 

listed in Table 12-6(a) are not restricted to 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 129 

the use with any particular class of motors. 

If DOE examines the content of clause MG1-

12.54.2 that refers to Table 12-6(a), it will 

find that the purpose of clause 12.54.2 is to 

require that the value of nominal efficiency 

selected from table 12-6(a) be marked on the 

nameplate of specific classes of motors. 

There is nothing that prohibits the use of the 

same values of efficiency as the values of 

nominal efficiency for other classes of 

motors, such as small electric motors. 

It should also be recognized that 

making reference to the NEMA nominal 

efficiencies in Table 12-6(a) in the NEMA 

based definition of nominal full-load 

efficiency herein recommended for Section 

431.442 of subpart X does not in any way 

suggest that the value of minimum efficiency 

associated with each nominal efficiency is 

applicable to small electric motors for the 

purpose of this Rulemaking. 

On page 61431 of the NOPR, DOE 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 130 

expresses the concern that over the range of 

numbers, the difference in values of NEMA 

nominal efficiencies from 0.1 percent to 2.0 

percent do not follow a regular pattern and 

can, at the larger intervals, constitute 

significant changes in efficiency, 

particularly for small electric motors. This 

concern appears to be based on a perception 

along the lines of incorrectly defining the 

percent total losses as the difference between 

100 percent and the value of efficiency that 

was presented in Chapter V of the previous 

versions of the TSD. My discussion of that 

can be found on page 188 of the transcript of 

the January 30, 2009 public meeting. It is 

good to see that that was removed in this 

version but apparently memory of it remains. 

If you apply the equation given in 

Section V.6.3 of Chapter V of the present 

version of the TSD for calculating total loss 

to the values of NEMA nominal efficiencies, 

then you should see a pattern emerge. The 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 131 

values of NEMA nominal efficiencies are 

derived on the basis that each incremental 

change in the nominal efficiency corresponds 

to approximately a 10 percent incremental 

change in total losses, with some variation in 

that ten percent value accounted for by 

rounding the numbers to the nearest whole 

integer or half value for the lower values. 

For example, an efficiency of 52.5 

percent represents a reduction in total losses 

of 8.3 percent from the value of total losses 

corresponding to an efficiency of the next 

lower value of NEMA nominal efficiency of 50.5 

percent. Similarly, an efficiency of 99.0 

percent represents a reduction in total losses 

of 9.2 percent from the value of total losses 

corresponding to an efficiency of 98.9. 

This can also be seen by observing 

that in the NEMA table for each NEMA nominal 

efficiency value, there is an associated 

minimum efficiency value, there is a statement 

that the minimum value is based on a 20 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 132 

percent loss difference from the nominal 

value. And the minimum value for each 

referenced nominal value can be seen to be 

equal to the nominal value that is two rows 

below the referenced nominal value. These 

incremental steps in total losses or 

efficiency have been considered sufficient for 

30 years, when recognizing the variation in 

efficiencies that can result in a population 

of motors due to variations in materials, 

manufacturing process, and testing. 

There is little value to the 

consumer to create a series of nominal 

efficiencies based on a smaller increment in 

total losses, particularly in small motors 

where the increment in total losses actually 

represents a small value in actual watts lost. 

For example, for a one-quarter horsepower 

motor with a NEMA nominal efficiency of 64.0 

percent, the incremental change in total loss 

for 65.0 percent, which is half-way between 

the two NEMA nominal efficiency values of 64 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 133 

and 66 corresponds to 4.5 watts. 

Also, on page 61431, I quote, "DOE 

feels that they cannot simply replicate a 

similar table without a significant amount of 

test data that would need to be provided to a 

manufacturer and verified by technical 

experts. In consideration of the 

inapplicability of the referenced medium small 

motor tables and the lack of data to produce a 

similar table for small electric motors, DOE 

does not feel that it is appropriate to set 

efficiency standards for small electric motors 

based on the values in Table 12-10 of NEMA 

MG1-2006." 

This misses the main point of the 

direction that DOE was given by EPACT of 1992. 

To quote from EPACT, "The secretary shall 

prescribe by rule energy conservation 

standards for those small electric motors for 

which the Secretary prescribed testing 

requirements under paragraph one." Nowhere 

does it state that the Secretary shall 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 134 

establish the values of the nominal efficiency 

levels nor establish the values of efficiency 

that can be marked on the motor nameplate. 

Rather, based on the language in EPACT for 

electric motors and the language proposed for 

Section 431.446 for small electric motors, all 

that DOE is directed to do is to establish a 

lower tier of values that apply to some 

identifiable value of efficiency marked on 

various small electric motors, regardless of 

what the magnitude of those marked values may 

be. 

It might also be noted that 

nowhere is it stated in EPACT that the value 

of any prescribed energy conservation standard 

assigned to that set of lower tiered numbers 

for any small electric motor must correspond 

to an actual nominal full-load efficiency 

value. 

In other words, if the title 

"Nominal Full-Load Efficiency" is removed from 

the Table of Efficiency Values referred to in 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 135 

the proposed section 431.446, then the text, 

and I quote, "Each small electric motor shall 

have a nominal full-load efficiency of not 

less than the following," identifies the 

characteristic of the efficiency value 

assigned to the motor to which some lower 

tiered number in the table applies. Then DOE 

can recognize as for electric motors that 

manufacturers mark NEMA nominal efficiency on 

small motors in accordance with Table 12-6(a) 

of MG1-1987 and a definition of nominal fullload efficiency for Section 431.442 can be 

similar to that of Section 431.12 for electric 

motors. 

For consistency in the 

marketplace, DOE is encouraged to adopt that 

definition of nominal full-load efficiency. 

Thank you. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Many of 

you are familiar with the way we typically do 

these meetings and it is very unusual to read 

lengthy comment into the record like this. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 136 

But it does seem since this is the NOPR and 

since the submission date is the end of 

January, it is very short, we do need to try 

and accommodate these comments as best we can. 

I would ask, though, as a matter 

of courtesy and consideration, if there is any 

way to summarize, that would also be helpful. 

Do you want to -- we should either 

take a break or we should just decide we are 

not going to break and press on to lunch, 

which would be in another half an hour or so. 

And anybody who has an emergency can leave 

the room shortly, then can come on back. I 

think we should just press on and go to lunch. 

Actually in terms of the material 

to be presented, I think we are altogether in 

pretty good shape to finish by at least 6:00 

or 7:00 this evening. I think we will be okay 

on that. 

I know this material is very 

detailed. If there is a way to make it 

briefer, let's proceed. Do you want to 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 137 

follow-on Mimi? 

MS. GUPTA: Yes. Mimi Gupta. I 

just wanted to make one point of clarification 

and ask about a clarification on what you just 

said. 

So one is that you repeatedly said 

that we use an AEDM to do the scaling. And I 

just wanted to make sure that everyone was on 

the same page that we didn't use software to 

do the scaling. We purchased motors of the 

different horsepowers and tried to create a 

relationship of efficiency across horse powers 

that way. Just to aid you all in submitting 

your comments and make sure we are all on the 

same understanding. 

The question I had, just to 

summarize what you said, so is what Baldor is 

saying that the table of nominal and minimum 

efficiency requirements in MG1 for medium 

electric motors, that is applicable, in your 

opinion, to small electric motors? 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 138

 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

With respect to the NEMA table, the NEMA table 

are value -- are numbers. And they represent 

a well-defined organized set of numbers. And 

if, as I said, you go back to losses, you will 

see that relationship throughout the numbers. 

Those numbers can be used for any 

classification of motors. There is nothing in 

NEMA that says that use of those values are 

restricted to any particular class of motors. 

What is in NEMA that accompanies that table 

is just a requirement that that motor has to 

be on the nameplate of motors rated from one 

to 400 or 500 horsepower, medium motors. But 

again, it does not restrict the use of the 

numbers for other classes. 

MS. GUPTA: Okay, thank you. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Yes, please. 

MR. AGAMLOH: Emmanuel Agamloh, 

Advanced Energy. So the NEMA discrete 

efficiency steps based on the loss differences 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 139 

were established based on round robin test and 

several studies on medium motors. 

So, are you saying that this can 

be applied for the single phase motors under 

consideration right now without any prior 

study similar to what was done to establish it 

for three-phase motors? 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Yes. Again, the table is a set of numbers of 

logical sequence. There is no reason they 

can't be. And as I said earlier if DOE 

examines that 700-motor database that they 

gathered data on and look at the values of 

efficiencies, I would fully expect that the 

majority of those are values out of that 

table. 

So manufacturers do use those for 

small motors. Again, the standard doesn't say 

they have to but that is what they use. The 

standard only says for medium motors you have 

to put it on the nameplate and gives a value, 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 140 

represented values. 

So there is no reason to create 

another set of values for small motors when 

there is a set that is already in existence. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Mimi. 

MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta. So it is 

my understanding, in order to appropriately 

use the table, you need both nominal values 

and minimum values. Is that incorrect? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

That is incorrect. 

MS. GUPTA: Okay. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: The requirement 

that is within the clause that references the 

table and within the definition of nominal 

efficiency is only that the motor nameplate 

must be marked with the represented nominal 

efficiency value, as a value that is selected 

from the table. 

The part about minimum is user 

information that is informing a user, and this 

is explained in MG10, another publication of 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 141 

NEMA, as a guideline for selection of energy 

efficient motors, that the purpose of the 

minimum is to provide to the user that if he 

picks any particular motor out of the group of 

motors, as I said, in this case you picked the 

motor, you tested it, you got 77.2 percent 

efficiency but that is fully within the 

statistical distribution of the 20 percent 

statement with regards to minimum. 

So it gives the variation to the 

users. So there are users and guidelines that 

if you are doing a cost-benefit analysis, 

there are users who may be purchasing a single 

motor. And to that user, it is recommended 

that in a cost payback analysis, he may want 

to use the minimum value that is associated 

with the nominal because the motor he gets may 

be down to that level. 

But if the user is purchasing a 

population of motors, it is recommended that 

he more likely would want to use the nominal 

efficiency value for doing cost payback 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 142 

analysis. 

MR. RIVEST: Is the use of the 

values in the cited table a change in position 

at NEMA? I mean because I have the comment in 

front of me from the NOPR, from the 

preliminary analysis and maybe we are 

misinterpreting it. But maybe we will read 

it. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you, 

Mike. 

MS. GUPTA: Well I mean, so NEMA 

has suggested that we use the nominal values 

but not the minimum values in their previous 

comment. And I think that is what you are 

saying right now, that the nominal values are 

appropriate but the minimum values are 

irrelevant. Is that what you are saying? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

That is what the NEMA comment was, that it is 

appropriate to use the nominal values but it 

does not necessarily mean that for user 

information that the minimums necessarily 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 143 

apply. Minimums are not a part of the 

rulemaking and they are really not a part of 

this discussion. 

MS. GUPTA: Well, I guess my 

confusion, Mimi Gupta, comes from how does a 

manufacturer, when they test their motor to 

determine compliance, determine what the 

nominal efficiency is? 

If we are saying that our standard 

is a nominal efficiency standard, when you 

test your motor, if you don't have a minimum 

efficiency correlated to the nominal 

efficiency, how do you determine the nominal 

efficiency? Is it just the average of all the 

motors that you test? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

For the point of compliance in electric 

motors, which NEMA had pointed out needs to be 

added to this NOPR on small motors, that you 

must take a sample of five motors of that 

duplicate design and test those five and then 

make a comparison between the value of average 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 144 

efficiency you get from that five to a 

represented value. Now, that is at the point 

of determining compliance that you have 

determined the correct nominal efficiency. 

Now, I can't speak for all the 

manufacturers because Baldor Electric probably 

has its way on a statistical basis of 

manufacturing motors for many years of knowing 

that when we use our AEDM that has been 

substantiating for use with electric motors, 

that when we calculate the efficiency, we know 

what the relevance of that is to nominal 

efficiency. And the NEMA standard actually 

says that the value of nominal efficiency that 

is to be selected, is not to be greater than 

the average value for the population. 

Because it is possible, in this 

case, like I said, if you take the step, say 

you got 64 and 66 percent, you could test your 

population of motors and make a determination 

that your average efficiency is 65. But with 

respect to the NEMA standard and recognizing 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 145 

variation the value the manufacturer can put 

on the nameplate is 64 because the only other 

choice he has would be 66. 

And so but, so you are not quite 

tied in to trying to be so exact as the DOE 

proposed definition that you have to know what 

that arithmetic mean is and you have to mark 

that arithmetic mean on the nameplate. But we 

use our own statistical information on our 

processes, our development, our testing, to 

make a determination as to what that nominal 

efficiency is for the population. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Yes? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

But I had one follow-up question, though. A 

statement was made that the extrapolation 

method is not an AEDM. However, as soon as I 

find it here, under the definition that is in 

the 10 CFR Part 431, and I quote, "An AEDM 

applied to a basic model must be derived from 

a mathematical model that represents the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 146 

mechanical and electrical characteristics of 

that basic model." So that is the computer 

program. Second, "based on engineering or 

statistical analysis, computer simulation, or 

modeling or other analytical evaluation of 

performance data." That, in my 

interpretation, applies to an extrapolation of 

evaluating efficiencies for a particular 

rating because, in the evaluation, you are 

extrapolating a value of efficiency and you 

are declaring that for that design, that is 

the nominal efficiency and putting it in a 

table. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Mike 

Rivest. 

MR. RIVEST: So an AEDM is a 

technique which is used in the context of 

certification and enforcement. So when you 

certify your products so that you don't have 

to test them all, you can demonstrate that you 

have a computer model that predicts the 

efficiency. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 147

 We are talking here about a 

rulemaking analysis. So the context is 

different. You are drawing a line between two 

separate things. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Then what I am 

hearing is that it is permissible for the DOE 

to go out and use any method of analysis that 

they want without any substantiation and 

derive efficiency tables for the purpose of 

rulemaking. 

Is that you are saying, that you 

don't have to use an approved, substantiated 

computer model? 

MR. RIVEST: I am saying that we 

are conducting a rulemaking for refrigerators 

today and we have computer models to model the 

performance of design options and we are not 

building refrigerators at those levels. 

Correct. And we are doing the same thing in 

this rulemaking. That is what I am saying. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So yes, I 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 148 

think we have covered this adequately. Final 

comment before we move on. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

However, I have to point out that the computer 

model that has been presented is a 

commercially used program that is used for the 

design of motors and supposedly used by those 

who are constructing motors. 

And therefore, it would certainly 

appear to me that that computer model should 

have been substantiated as an AEDM, since that 

is the purpose it is being used for and 

marketed as. 

MR. RIVEST: I understand your 

point about substantiation. I just disagree 

with your use of the term AEDM or reference to 

the AEDM sections of the Federal Register. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. So 

then let's return to the slides and make a 

little more headway here. 

MR. NARDOTTI: I am going to hand 

it over to Asa. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 149

 MR. HOPKINS: Thank you. Again, 

my name is Asa Hopkins. I am a contractor 

with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. I 

am going to take you through some of the lifecycle cost and payback period analyses. Again, 

much more detail is present in the TSD and in 

the NOPR than I can present today. 

So for the life-cycle cost and 

payback period analyses, there are a couple of 

other analyses that the Department needs to 

perform. Those include an energy use 

characterization, a markup analysis. The 

purpose of the energy use characterization is 

to develop electrical energy consumption 

savings estimates and also to develop 

distributions representing the variety of 

motor use patterns, including different hours 

of operation, etcetera. 

The purpose of the markup 

analysis, fundamentally, is to allow the 

Department to evaluate the cost to consumers 

of more efficient products, given the results 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 150 

of the engineering analysis that produce 

manufacturer costs. 

And the life-cycle cost and 

payback period analyses, obviously the output 

of that or the consumer life-cycle cost 

savings and payback period for higher 

efficiency equipment. 

So some changes in the way the 

energy use characterization was conducted for 

the NOPR relative to the preliminary analysis. 

The first is that DOE revised its methodology 

for calculating energy use for the considered 

levels. In the preliminary analysis, DOE had 

used values scaled, extrapolated in between 

the engineering designs. For this NOPR, DOE 

used the designs with their results directly 

from the engineering analysis with no scaling 

for the representative product classes. 

In the preliminary analysis on 

motor loading and annual hours of operation, 

DOE had used point values. For this NOPR, DOE 

used published survey data on motor duty 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 151 

factor for one to five horsepower motors as 

the closest available data regarding duty 

factor for small electric motors to develop 

distributions of motor hours of operation in 

different applications, and also used 

distributions of motor loading to characterize 

that. 

Any questions about either of 

these two points before I move on to talk 

about to talk about markups? Okay. 

So for markups to determine the 

customer price, DOE used U.S. Census Bureau 

data from the 2002 Economic Census to evaluate 

OEM markups; retailer and distributor data 

from the Census Business Expenses Survey; and 

a National distribution of sales taxes. 

And the output markup changed 

slightly from the preliminary analysis due to 

updates in the distribution channels it will 

show on the following slide. The baseline 

markup was 2.49, where it was 2.42 in the 

preliminary analysis; and it is 1.83 for 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 152 

incremental markups, where it was 1.75 in the 

preliminary analysis. 

This slide shows the distribution 

channels used to calculate these markups. The 

market shares for the different channels are 

based on comments submitted by NEMA following 

the preliminary analysis. 

So this slide presents a general 

overview of life-cycle cost and payback period 

analyses. The life-cycle cost equals the upfront consumer price including installation 

and shipping, plus the sum all the annual 

operating costs discounted to a particular 

base year, in this case 2015, which is the 

effective date of the standard under 

consideration. 

The economic evaluation is 

conducted from the consumer perspective. The 

analysis was implemented in an Excel 

spreadsheet, combined with Monte Carlo 

simulation tool. The Department used a thirdparty Monte Carlo simulation called Crystal 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 153 

Ball, although should you not have that 

program, the life-cycle cost spreadsheet 

available for download on the EERE website, 

does include a Visual Basic-based Monte Carlo 

simulation that can also be used. It is 

somewhat slower to run but it means that you 

don't require that third-party software in 

order to run the LCC spreadsheet with the 

Monte Carlo. 

Results are expressed generally in 

the tables in the NOPR and the TSD as lifecycle cost savings. They also calculate a 

simple payback period, using the incremental 

first cost and the first year operating costs. 

That figure at the bottom simply 

demonstrates the flow of information. 

One of the inputs for annual 

operating costs are energy prices, electricity 

prices are based on distributions calculated 

from the 2007 EIA Form 861 data and adjusted 

for inflation to be in 2008 dollars, 

consistent with all the rest of the dollar 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 154 

values presented. 

DOE derives separate distributions 

for industrial, commercial and residential 

applications. Agricultural customers were 

assumed to pay industrial electricity prices. 

The price projections, going forward, were 

based on the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act, that is the Stimulus Act 

case of the EIA's annual energy outlook. That 

is the most recent full publication of the 

AEO. 

DOE also conducted sensitivity 

forecasts based on the high and low energy 

price forecasts from the reference release of 

AEO 2009. There are no sensitivity releases 

to the Stimulus Act case. 

Prices beyond 2030, in accordance 

with other rulemaking practice, are 

extrapolated based on the trend between 2020 

and 2030. 

So a few more comments on various 

inputs to the life-cycle costs and payback 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 155 

period analysis. 

Both installation costs and repair 

and maintenance costs are unchanged from the 

preliminary analysis. And installation costs 

are based on data from RS Means. Input from 

various parties along the way in this process 

has indicated that small motors are generally 

not repaired in situ, but rather replaced so 

the Department did not consider repair and 

maintenance costs. 

What particularly matters for a 

life-cycle cost analysis of this sort is 

whether those repair and maintenance costs 

would change with efficiency. And the 

Department estimates they do not. 

At the preliminary public meeting 

concern was raised that more efficient motors 

might be heavier and therefore, more expensive 

to ship. DOE agrees and incorporated a 

marginal shipping cost of 50 cents per pound, 

based on examination of published freight 

shipping costs. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 156

 Discount rates were derived based 

for commercial and industrial customers based 

on the weighted average cost of capital and 

the average rates are as shown. 

A few other changes from the 

preliminary analysis. In the preliminary 

analysis, DOE used a lifetime distribution 

that independent of application or hours of 

operation. There were comments received that 

motors that operate greater hours generally 

might be assumed to have shorter operating 

life and those that operate fewer hours per 

year might have longer operating life. 

So, DOE developed a sort of a twopart lifetime calculation in which motor was 

assumed to have a mechanical life in hours and 

an application life in years. And based on 

the annual hours of operation for that motor, 

whichever of those lifetimes the motor reached 

first, was assumed to be its lifetime in use. 

Those distributions were 

calibrated to maintain the same average 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 157 

lifetime as determined in the earlier stages 

of the rulemaking. 

Also in response to comments of 

the preliminary analysis, the distribution of 

shipments among applications was changed to a 

much smaller list of applications and 

additionally, analysis was undertaken to 

divide the shipments among those different 

applications and the full details of that are 

in the technical support document. 

DOE estimated the shipments to 

space constrained applications comprise 20 

percent of small motor shipments. 

So this is just one example result 

for the polyphase 4-pole one horsepower motor. 

The results of various sensitivities, as well 

as the results for CSIR and CSCR motors at 

each different considered product class 

presented in appendices in the technical 

support document. 

The total life-cycle cost of a 

baseline motor was presumed to be roughly 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 158 

$1,275 and the life-cycle costs of the various 

other levels are as presented here and the 

exact numbers are in the technical support 

document or in the NOPR. 

Because DOE has distributions for 

motor hours of operation, and markups, and 

energy prices, etcetera, for a given standard 

level, DOE can evaluate what fraction of motor 

customers experience that benefit from the 

standard. And that is, a reduction in the 

life-cycle cost and what proportion experience 

in that cost. 

This slide shows for one example 

case of polyphase 4-pole one horsepower 

motors, what fraction of customers benefit 

from a given standard level, in terms of 

decreased life-cycle cost. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

In your explanation of the vertical axis here 

as percent, is this the percent of those users 

that would use, say EL5 level or is it a 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 159 

percent of some total of all the classes? 

Does this mean, for instance, 30 

percent of the customers would benefit from 

EL5 at this level that you are saying but that 

70 percent would not benefit from using EL5? 

MR. HOPKINS: That should the 

standard be set at EL5, that 30 percent of 

customers who might otherwise have bought, 

under baseline conditions would have bought a 

base case motor, that 30 percent of those 

customers would experience a reduction in 

their life-cycle cost and 70 percent would 

experience an increase in their life-cycle 

cost. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Why would 30 percent benefit and 70 percent 

not benefit? It's energy savings. 

MR. HOPKINS: There are a very 

wide distribution of motor annual hours of 

operation. In some applications, motors run 

virtually all the time and those users benefit 

much more from efficiency. Motors that are 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 160 

run many fewer hours of operation, those users 

tend to experience an increase in the lifecycle cost. So the width of that distribution 

and the particular shape of that distribution 

is the main driver the characteristics of this 

curve. 

MR. HOPKINS: So DOE invites any 

comments on any issues pertaining to the 

energy use, the markups, the life-cycle cost, 

or the payback period analysis. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, Tom? 

MR. HINK: Tom Hink. One of the 

things that I noticed when reading through the 

Federal Register on page 61418 under energy 

savings, it appears as though different time 

spans are used when you are comparing what 

energy savings would there be using the new 

standards versus the base standards. 

For this purpose of determining 

what the savings would be, they went from 2015 

to 2045, using the new standards but they went 

from 2008 to 2045. So just by use of those 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 161 

numbers, you are going to get a considerably 

higher number for energy usage using the base 

standards. And I think that equates to like 

23 percent more energy usage, just because of 

that time difference. 

MR. HOPKINS: Correct. 

MR. HINK: And I was also 

questioning why 2045. Where did that number 

come from? 

MR. HOPKINS: So I apologize if 

there is some confusion in the text regarding 

2008 and such. I believe the numbers that you 

are referring to are calculations from the 

National Impact Analysis, which we will 

hopefully get to after lunch. And those 

calculations, as I go into more detail then, 

are calculated at a national level over a 30 

year analysis period, starting in the 

effective year of 2015. So that is the origin 

of the 2045. 

For the life-cycle cost analysis, 

DOE analyzed, as its main life-cycle cost 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 162 

calculation, the life-cycle costs for a 

customer purchasing a new motor in the year 

2015, in the year of the effective date of the 

new standard. Doing the life-cycle cost in 

that first year is the standard way that the 

Department calculates those life-cycle costs. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Additional 

comments? Yes, Rob. 

MR. BOTELER: This is Rob Boteler. 

I am not sure if this is the right place to 

interject this or not but in the NOPR, DOE 

reduced the categories where the covered 

product is used down to I believe four 

categories. 

MR. HOPKINS: Five categories, 

including a miscellaneous general industrial 

category. 

MR. BOTELER: Okay. But one of 

the categories that you left in was conveyors. 

And conveyors don't use open motors. So, I 

mean, and in your calculations, I would assume 

that conveyors would have been one that you 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 163 

use with the higher hours of operation you 

mentioned run nearly continuously. And you 

are right. In the conveyor applications that 

we service, people like FedEx and AnheuserBusch, they runs their plants continuously. 

But conveyors are not a product, are not an 

application where we would use open motors. 

And in your comment you also 

mentioned agricultural and agricultural 

prices. Agricultural applications would never 

use an open motor. It would last, you know, 

maybe a few days in that kind of an 

environment. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay, 

thank you. 

MR. HOPKINS: If I may, the 

applications on the second point, DOE assigned 

a fraction of use to industrial, commercial, 

agricultural, and residential. The 

agricultural percentages was generally very 

low. In both that case and the case of 

conveyors, DOE examined products for sale into 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 164 

certain applications available in catalogues 

on the internet, etcetera, and evaluated those 

products and saw that there were in fact 

products offered for sale which use open 

covered motors. So we could no eliminate 

those as categories. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Go ahead, 

Rob. 

MR. BOTELER: This is Rob. The 

product may be offered for sale but open Tframe motors being applied to a conveyor, what 

would we do? Would we belt the gearbox? I 

mean, how would we connect it and why would 

you use an open motor in an industrial 

situation? It wouldn't last. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: You would 

suggest that they should remove that from 

their --

MR. BOTELER: Yes. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

MR. HOPKINS: Okay. Rather than 

following the chevrons exactly because the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 165 

consumer subgroup analysis is a refinement of 

the life-cycle cost analysis, I am going to 

present it now before we go to lunch. 

One of the analyses that the DOE 

conducts in the NOPR stage of the rulemaking 

is a life-cycle cost subgroup analysis, where 

DOE analyzes the effect of standards on 

customer subgroups that may be 

disproportionately impacted compared with the 

general user population. 

DOE identified two subgroups of 

particular interest; disadvantaged businesses 

exemplified by small businesses, which 

generally have a higher discount rate than 

average, and also customers with spaceconstrained applications. 

DOE then used the LCC spreadsheet 

tool with either higher discount rates or with 

100 percent space-constrained to evaluate the 

life-cycle costs. For those particular 

subgroups, the full results are in the NOPR 

but generally both space-constrained customers 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 166 

and small businesses experienced greater costs 

and fewer benefits to standard levels than 

average customers. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So let's 

pause there. Comments on life-cycle cost 

subgroup analysis or any of this material? 

MR. HOPKINS: And I may have 

gotten us back on schedule. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, I 

think we are due to break for lunch. Before 

we go to lunch, final comments before we 

break? 

I do appreciate people's efforts 

to try and keep their comments as brief as 

possible as we are going along. And having 

said that, it is now noon. If you are walking 

around inside the building, you need to wear 

this visitor's badge. And if you are going to 

big cafeteria, you will need a picture ID to 

get back in. You pass through security in 

both directions. 

And I didn't say so at the outset 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 167 

and I think most of you know, the restrooms 

are on both sides of the hall. 

We will resume at 1:00. This room 

will be locked, so you can leave your stuff 

here. And for those of you that are new here, 

you can just follow the whole train of folks 

down to the ground floor and underneath the 

street over to the cafeteria. And we will 

resume at 1:00 right back here. 

Okay, thanks for the coverage that 

we had this morning. 

(Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., a lunch recess was 

taken until 1:10 p.m.) 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Let's resume. 

So glad you made it back. I think 

they have improved the food in the DOE 

cafeteria, so glad to see that as an amenity. 

We are going to proceed with Asa. 

MR. HOPKINS: Thanks. I am going 

to take you through some slides to describe 

the national impact analysis. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 168

 So the national impact analysis 

depends on the earlier analyses, including the 

life-cycle cost analysis. 

Is this on? It sounds like it's 

on. If anybody can't hear me, please let me 

know, including the transcript. 

So in order to calculate a 

national impact, DOE needs not only the 

results of the life-cycle cost analysis, but 

also a shipments analysis. So I will first 

describe the shipments analysis, and then move 

on to the national impact analysis, whose main 

outputs are, and as sort of the national 

energy savings, and as sort of the national --

the economic impact of the standards expressed 

as a -- at a national net present value. 

So the shipments analysis is, as 

mentioned earlier, conducted to forecast 

shipments over the course of the analysis 

period, which is a 30-year period stretching 

from the implementation date of the standards 

in 2015 until 2045. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 169

 The Department estimated shipments 

over that period by using estimates of the 

2008 shipments, which were formed in part by 

comments following the preliminary analysis 

and growth drivers for motor shipments from 

the industrial-commercial and industrial 

sectors from the Annual Energy Outlook 

forecast. 

DOE also analyzed several 

alternative shipment scenarios as 

sensitivities, including the high and low 

growth scenarios from the Annual Energy 

Outlook, as well as an additional scenario 

which DOE termed the falling market share 

scenario in which shipments remain constant as 

the economy grows, and, therefore, the market 

share of covered small motors falls relative 

to other motors in that scenario. 

DOE used the -- DOE needed to 

evaluate shipments not only on an aggregate 

late, but also by product class. And DOE used 

the data that had been submitted by NEMA in an 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 170 

earlier stage of the analysis; however, that 

data was incomplete in terms of shipments in 

some product classes due to -- I believe due 

to antitrust concerns regarding release of 

data for product classes in which there are 

relatively few manufacturers. 

So in order to estimate shipments 

in those product classes, DOE used its 

database of model availability to use number 

of models as a proxy for shipments in order to 

assign shipments to each product class. In 

particular, this ensures that DOE did not 

assign shipments to any product class in which 

there are no models for sale. 

So for polyphase small electric 

motors this slide shows the shipments 

forecasts in the reference case, which is the 

blue line second from the top, as well as the 

three other alternative scenarios. There are 

similar figures that exist for CSIR and CSCR, 

but the drivers are the same, so the -- aside 

from slight shifts in use in commercial versus 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 -- 

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 171 

industrial applications and such, the shape of 

the curve is quite similar for those products. 

Do you have a question? 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Rob? 

MR. BOTELER: This is Rob. Are we 

going to do -- this is just polyphase? Are we 

going to do one for the cap start cap run or 

MR. HOPKINS: These are -- I don't 

have separate slides for the cap start. 

MR. BOTELER: Okay. So this slide 

says polyphase, but it is actually --

MR. HOPKINS: This is for 

polyphase only. I simply don't have separate 

slides that show that cap start -- base case 

forecasts for CSIR and CSCR. They are driven 

by very similar drivers, and, therefore, are 

simply -- could be approximated by scale 

versions of --

MR. BOTELER: Okay. So we would 

say they would be similar to this. 

MR. HOPKINS: Right. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 172

 MR. BOTELER: Okay. 

MR. HOPKINS: And the numbers are 

-- the figures for those products are in the 

TSD. 

MR. BOTELER: Okay. I just have 

one comment on that. You know, since we 

originally provided the numbers, NEMA provided 

numbers, we would say, I think most of us at 

the table, that the decline in the economy, 

and particularly a lot of this product in the 

cap start cap run area is residential, that we 

have seen declines in the 20 percent range in 

our 2009 estimated units versus prior years. 

And that is one thing that's happening. 

I think the other thing, in the 

applications, because the cap start cap run, 

one of the primary applications is residential 

compressors. And the residential compressor 

market is one that we as manufacturers are 

under tremendous threat from offshore. When 

you go to your big box Home Depot and you 

start looking at compressors, you will be 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 173 

hard-pressed to find one that has a motor or 

even a complete compressor that is 

manufactured in the U.S. 

So, you know, I am not sure which 

is the right line here, but it is certainly 

headed in the wrong direction for us as 

manufacturers to a lower level for those 

reasons. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

MR. HOPKINS: One issue for 

comment, the next several slides touch on 

various points where -- Mike? 

MR. RIVEST: Rob, just to clarify 

-- Mike Rivest. Just to clarify, when you say 

it -- we have competition from offshore, so 

are you -- do you think the size of the market 

served, so the number of products shipped in 

the U.S., is going down? Or is it the market 

share of the people in this room that is going 

down, sort of the U.S. manufacturing? 

MR. BOTELER: Well, I think -- two 

things. I think because of the condition of 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 174 

the market right now and, you know, the 

economy, the market -- the overall market is 

going down. And then, on top of that, there 

is more competition from offshore. So both 

things are occurring. 

MR. RIVEST: Okay. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So I was 

going to ask, you don't think that those 

markets will recover over time somewhat? 

MR. BOTELER: Don't know. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

MR. HOPKINS: It's a little bit 

small on this figure, but the AEO forecasts do 

-- and, therefore, our shipments estimates --

do fall from 2008 to 2009 as the AEO forecast 

takes into account the current downturn. So 

there is a downward dip before the AEO 

projects that the economy recovers. 

So several assumptions and 

estimates that DOE made in its shipments 

model. The first is regarding response of 

overall total shipments to the increase in 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 175 

prices that would -- that might result from 

standards. DOE's reference shipments analysis 

assumed that the market for covered small 

electric motors is inelastic. 

DOE did conduct a sensitivity 

analysis with the elasticities of minus .25 

and minus .5, between covered small electric 

motors and equivalent enclosed -- or, you 

know, not exactly equivalent, obviously, 

because they have to meet different 

performance requirements, but substantially 

equivalent totally enclosed motors. 

DOE also seeks input and data 

regarding how the small electric motors market 

might respond to proposed standards, 

particularly regarding alternative small motor 

technology, such as electrically-commutated 

motors and how this elasticity might affect 

the projected shipments. 

So if there are any comments on 

that question. 

MR. BOTELER: This is Rob, Rob 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 176 

Boteler. I guess on the ECMs, that is a 

product that all of us are working on, and it 

is a product that is -- we wish we were back 

in our offices right now working on it, 

developing new energy efficient designs, but 

we're not. 

It is not likely that it is going 

to replace a lot of the general purpose 

product, because it is a more definite purpose 

product. It is much more efficient, but it is 

more costly, includes a drive. 

Your comment about enclosed 

motors, I think we all have to realize that if 

the regulation were to go through the way it 

is today, and I think in the estimates that we 

have seen in the NOPR the average selling 

price would go up, I believe it's 18 percent, 

that the cost of an open motor would then 

become more than the cost of an enclosed 

motor. 

So what our customers would do 

would be up to them, but I think most of us 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 177 

know what would happen if that occurred. 

MR. HOPKINS: If I might go back 

just a moment -- and I apologize for taking 

this a little bit out of order -- but one of 

the things that would help the Department 

immensely in deriving an accurate total 

shipments forecast would be any record of 

historical change in shipments by year, so 

that the Department could compare the rate of 

growth of sales in the motor market with its 

-- with the drivers that it has otherwise 

considered, so as to build a more accurate 

forecast for total growth. 

MR. BOTELER: This is Rob. I 

think from NEMA records we might be able to 

provide something, but not over a 50-year 

timeframe. We might be able to provide five 

years, but -- of just the general trend in the 

motor market. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Thank you. 

MR. HOPKINS: Yes. One of the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 178 

challenges the Department faces is that the 

Census stopped collecting motor data some 

years ago, so it is difficult to map that data 

to the present. 

For single-phase capacitor-start 

motors, DOE understands that for many 

applications capacitor-start, induction-run 

motors and capacitor-start, capacitor-run 

motors are both options that are available for 

users. Often, in examination of manufacturer 

catalogs, capacitor-run motors are listed in 

the same tables as induction-run motors, and 

offered as -- highlighted as an energy 

efficient alternative. 

DOE examined the current estimated 

market shares for CSIR and CSCR motors within 

each combination of motor speed and -- speed 

and horsepower in order to better understand 

how the market, as it stands today, chooses 

between CSIR and CSCR motors. The Department 

then used the -- a model which relatively 

accurately reproduced the current market to 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 179 

evaluate the effect of standards in the future 

market. 

The model uses as its inputs the 

first cost difference between CSIR and CSCR 

motors, the difference -- and the difference 

in annual energy use between those two classes 

of motors for both space constrained and nonspace constrained motors. 

DOE used multiple reference -- or 

two reference cases for the capacitor-start 

market in order to account for uncertainty 

regarding the rate at which the market might 

shift from current market shares to the market 

shares projected by the model, and also 

developed as a sensitivity a model in which 

the market share shifting is calculated 

separately for space constrained motors and 

non-space constrained motors, in order to 

avoid potential biasing in that shifting from 

the potential for space constrained motors to 

be very expensive. 

So this slide just -- the figure 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 180 

here shows in blue diamonds the Department's 

current estimated market share for a variety 

of product class pairs. The purple squares 

show the logistic best fit to those market 

shares. 

Again, there is some uncertainty 

in the estimated market shares for CSIR and 

CSCR motors within each class, because of the 

unavailability of exact shipment numbers in 

many of the product classes. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Please say 

your name for the record. 

MR. HOYT: Bill Hoyt with NEMA. I 

just want to comment on those shipment data 

numbers, that if we go back and try and 

collect additional shipment data on any of 

these, and the information is not available 

due to constraints for antitrust violations, 

that really shows you how big the size of the 

market is, because releasable data on 

information that we collect to maintain the 

confidentiality of the people submitting the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 181 

data, in relation to U.S. antitrust laws, we 

can't -- by not releasing it, our economics 

department has determined that it will reveal 

specific market shares of the manufacturers 

involved. 

So it is not that NEMA can't 

supply the data, or does not want to supply 

the data, it's that NEMA cannot supply the 

data because of U.S. antitrust law. So even 

going back and trying to recollect the data to 

reconfigure your figures is probably not 

doable. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

MR. HOPKINS: It's good to know 

that. This slide recapitulates much of what I 

just said, but it includes the explicit 

request for comment on how the single-phase 

small motor market might respond to the 

proposed standards, particularly regarding the 

cross-elasticity model. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, 

please. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 182

 MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne. In 

my opinion, the scope, as presently -- is 

presently so narrowly defined that, based on 

our experience, we see negligible impact on 

the market as a whole, because so few motors 

would be affected. In the last five to six 

years, ECM motors have taken a truly 

significant share of the fractional horsepower 

market, and we see that share continuing to 

grow at an increasing rate. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Did you 

have a comment? Your name, please. 

MR. LIN: Paul Lin with RegalBeloit. Just one comment. I'm not sure if 

this is the right point in the presentation, 

but when we are talking about national impact, 

I think one of the things that I would want to 

put out there as more pressing than the tables 

themselves is the enforcement side, is if you 

have an equipment manufacturer outside of the 

U.S. that imports equipment, how do you 

enforce that person to have the right motor 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 183 

inside? 

And I think we are going to see a 

shift in manufacturing from the U.S. to 

outside countries, and I think we need to 

address that in order to have some confidence 

as manufacturers in the U.S. that others are 

going to abide by the same rules. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Thank you. 

MR. HOPKINS: Are there any 

further comments on this cross-elasticity? 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: You can see 

the comment box there. The Department would 

really like to get comment on that if you are 

able. 

MR. HOPKINS: For some context, 

this model is -- you know, is used in the 

national impact analysis and is -- it provides 

the basis for the shipments projections that 

project that the proposed standard level, 

where the efficiencies are relatively similar 

between the -- requirements between the CSIR 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 184 

and CSCR motors would result in a relatively 

dramatic shift of the market from CSIR to 

CSCR. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Tom? 

MR. HINK: I noticed on the 

question you are talking about barriers that 

customers may face if they switch. One of the 

areas we have not talked about is the aftermarket. You know, we have some pretty large 

customers that merely sell motors to people 

that already have the equipment. 

We have talked about having grace 

periods where they can redesign their 

equipment, but what about that poor guy that 

just spent $3- or $400 on a compressor and his 

motor goes out, and all of a sudden he buys a 

new motor and it doesn't fit? 

He is going to be forced to 

possibly buy an entirely new unit, unless he 

is very creative or handy to refigure his 

unit, so it will fit. And we really haven't 

addressed that from what I have seen so far. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 185 

We are just worried about motor manufacturers 

and the OEMs, not the after-market. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Dale, do you have a comment? 

MR. BASSO: Yes. Dale Basso. In 

really support of your statement there, we had 

engineering go back, because of a significant 

concern about motors fitting when you go up to 

the efficiency, and we did look at a threequarter horse single-phase capacitor-start, 

induction-run. 

And the things we would have to 

change were significant as a manufacturer --

tooling, design -- in order to keep it in the 

same frame size, in order to be able to meet 

that criteria. However, the little "gotcha" 

that they threw in there was it had to become 

a capacitor-start, capacitor-run, instead of a 

capacitor-start, induction-run, added that 

extra capacitor, and now the size really 

changed again. 

So it is a significant point that, 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 186 

yes, it could very well force things to 

capacitor start, capacitor run, but that also 

brings that extra capacitor into play when it 

comes to the replacement market as well as the 

redesign for the OEMs. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Yes, please. Your name. 

MR. JOHN: Bill John. I am just 

wondering if the DOE has done anything -- or 

not has done, but plans to do anything about 

other kinds of motors. Is it in your -- on 

your road map? Or once this current project 

is finished, are you going to have other 

priorities? 

MR. HOPKINS: I have to direct 

that one to someone from DOE. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Jim Raba. 

MR. RABA: Jim Raba, DOE. To 

answer your question, the only thing on our 

horizon would be the medium motors right now. 

By statute, we have to relook at that, and 

that will be a future rulemaking. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 187

 MR. JOHN: What is a medium? 

MR. RABA: One to 200 previously. 

We have to -- it is 1 to 200 horsepower, but 

we have to look at the EISA requirements also. 

But essentially it is a three-frame -- threedigit frames. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other 

questions or comments? 

(No response.) 

Okay. 

MR. HOPKINS: All right. So 

moving on to describe the national impact 

analysis, as I mentioned previously in the 

shipments forecast, the national energy 

savings is calculated for equipment purchased 

-- well, the national energy savings is 

calculated for equipment purchased from 2015 

to 2045, and the energy savings is calculated 

for those years alone. 

And the national net present value 

is calculated over the full lifetime of 

products purchased within that window, so 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 188 

products purchased in 2045 would still be in 

use some number of years later, so the 

analysis stretches further, then, into the 

future. 

The base case -- in order to not 

credit the standard with the efficiencies that 

are currently present in the market, the base 

case incorporates the penetration of higher 

efficiency motors currently in the market. 

DOE used, again, model availability, meeting 

the various standard levels, in order to 

develop that base case distribution. 

The standards simply roll up 

inefficient equipment into the lowest level 

that meets the standard. So the example shown 

here is for polyphase motors. The bar across 

the top shows DOE's estimate of the current 

market share at different levels in the 

market, and, if the level were at Level 4, 

then motors currently at Level 5 would remain 

unchanged, where the efficiency then -- the 

market share in Levels 4 and below all moves 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 189 

into Level 4. 

DOE accounts for all stock 

resulting from shipments during that period 

using the average -- using the lifetime 

distribution calculated from the life-cycle 

cost analysis. 

Other data points that come out of 

the life-cycle cost analysis include the 

national average customer prices for each 

product class, including different prices for 

space and non-space constrained motors, again 

with a 20 percent space constrained fraction. 

The annual energy use, the motor 

lifetime, and the energy prices from the LCC, 

the energy price forecast is again from the 

AEO. And all of the future streams of energy 

use and the total costs of operation are 

discounted to the present. 

In the national impact analysis, 

the discount rates are three percent, 

calculated both at three percent and at seven 

percent in accordance with guidance from the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 190 

Office of Management and Budget. 

The particular point here -- DOE 

requests comment on the behavior of customers 

with space constrained applications. DOE 

assumes that that -- that those customers 

constitute 20 percent of shipments, and also 

assumes that the additional costs faced by 

motor customers with those space constrained 

applications do not change during the course 

of the analysis period and are equal to the 

additional cost of motors which use the design 

options described in the engineering analysis. 

For example, it may be that a 

particular customer might choose to redesign a 

piece of equipment rather than -- rather than 

use a motor that is -- that meets a stack 

length constraint to fit in their existing 

equipment. DOE assumed that they would do 

that if it were economically beneficial for 

them to do that, so it -- by using the space 

constrained motor cost, DOE feels that that is 

a conservative assumption regarding the cost 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 191 

of meeting those space constraints. 

So DOE welcomes any comment 

regarding the behavior of customers who face 

space constrained applications, the cost they 

face, the timeframe over which they may 

redesign their systems, etcetera, in order to 

better characterize the economics of the 

market for space constrained customers, and 

also any further information that anyone here 

might have regarding the population and the 

distribution of space constrained 

applications. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Dale? Yes, 

thank you. 

MR. BASSO: This is Dale Basso. 

The assumptions on space-constrained quantity 

is something that we were trying to justify 

with our survey. He neglected to mention that 

we had a little glitch in our survey, so not 

as many people were able to answer it as we 

wanted. And so we will reissue it and try and 

get you further data in the comment period. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 192

 The concern is not only -- and the 

assumptions seem to be pointed at OEMs, who 

can redesign their equipment, and not the 

individual users that Tom mentioned that would 

be impacted much more significantly because 

they would have -- either replacing the piece 

of equipment or significant manual -- and over 

the life of the motors and the equipment, that 

is going to be significant as a replacement 

after-market. 

So there is a significant cost 

that probably hasn't been considered in the 

OEM world. I think your assumptions are 

fairly valid. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Thank you. Yes, Rob. 

MR. BOTELER: This is Rob Boteler. 

I think the other thing that we have to keep 

-- take into consideration after this 

morning's conversation is what Roger 

mentioned, is that by achieving the level of 

efficiency we may lose the capability to 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 193 

produce the torque that is required for the 

application, and we may go to thermal 

characteristics, thermal rise on the motor, 

that the motor no longer meets the National 

Electric Code. 

So we will meet the efficiency 

level, but we will create a product that can't 

be sold in the U.S. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Thanks. 

MR. HOPKINS: If I may, the -- any 

survey data that NEMA collects would be most 

valuable, in particular, if the -- if that 

data can break down responses by industry, so 

that we can do better than a blanket 20 

percent assumption. That would be very 

useful. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Any 

additional comment on population and 

distribution of space constrained customers? 

Can this be characterized simply? There are 

just too many different products out there. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 194

 MR. HOPKINS: If I can actually 

ask a followup question. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. 

MR. HOPKINS: In earlier rounds of 

the rulemaking, particularly in questions 

related to motor lifetime, DOE has been 

operating under the assumption that these 

motors are generally in applications -- that 

the application lifetime is one of the main 

drivers of the motor lifetime. 

So the assumption inherent there 

is that there is -- is effectively that there 

is not a large replacement market. So if the 

-- if there is a large replacement market, 

then it may be that the motor hours of 

operation lifetime is more -- plays a larger 

role in the motor lifetime rather than the 

motor application lifetime. 

Can you shed any more light for us 

on the size of the motor after-market, if 

there are particular applications where that 

is particularly important? 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 195

 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Can you 

restate the question, Asa. 

MR. HOPKINS: All right. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. 

MR. HOPKINS: Fundamentally, one 

of the assumptions that went into the lifetime 

calculation is that there is not a large 

after-market, because the main limiter on the 

lifetime is this application lifetime, which, 

fundamentally, if the application lifetime is 

the limiting thing, then the user isn't 

looking for a replacement. They have gone on 

to buy some other product. 

So I am just trying to understand 

what fraction -- how large is the replacement 

market, so that we can calibrate for the rest 

of the calculations? 

MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler. That 

is an estimate, because we do sell this 

product through distribution. We sell, I 

would say, close to 50 percent of it. And we 

have given you numbers before, and I don't 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 196 

remember exactly what they were, but through 

distribution we sell -- the distributor sells 

to the end user, which would be the 

replacement market, and then they also sell to 

the small OEM. In some cases, that small OEM 

is then also just turning around and selling 

it back into the MRO market. 

I really would be groping to, you 

know, tell you the MRO market might be 10 or 

15 percent of the total number of units sold, 

but I would really be taking a guess. 

As far as the -- as any surveys 

that we would do, we can ask some of those 

questions, and we -- we do try and pin down 

the application better. 

MR. HOPKINS: What does "MRO" 

stand for? 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: MRO, 

Maintenance Repair and Operating. Sorry. The 

after-market. 

MR. HOPKINS: Right, okay. 

MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Robert Van 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 197 

Buskirk from LBL. I think as Asa presented a 

little earlier, his lifetime model has 

an hours of operation component and contained 

equipment component. So when formulating your 

comments on the replacement market, if you 

look at the tradeoffs between his hours of 

operation model versus the equipment lifetime 

model, that will allow you to calibrate your 

experience against the models that DOE used. 

MR. BOTELER: This is Rob Boteler. 

Yes, I think one of the biggest contentions 

that we at NEMA have with the proposed rule is 

the hours of application. And as we learn 

more, and every time we come to Washington we 

learn more, and we do more analysis, we have 

reached the point in this product line where 

we really believe that small compressors, 

residential compressors, and fans -- call them 

belted fans that you might find when you go to 

the fast food place and it is blowing the hot 

air out the back of the building -- are the 

major users of this product. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 198

 And when we look at the hours of 

application at -- that we use -- and, again, I 

believe it was 1,800 hours -- and we think 

about the applications, and if compressors 

make up the major piece of that market, of 

what we sell this product into, our end user 

OEMs, the hours of operation for residential 

compressors are certainly not 1,800 hours per 

year. 

My example -- and I will, you 

know, use myself, I have -- I have five cars 

that I maintain, maybe six some days. 

(Laughter.) 

And I have a compressor, and I 

have had it for 20 years. And I can't think 

of a year when my compressor ran more than 10 

hours a year, because when we are using a 

piece of equipment like that it cycles, and 

then we go about it and we use the result of 

that compressed air. And maybe we are working 

on the -- on something for a couple of hours, 

and it may run for a total of five minutes in 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 199 

that couple of hours. 

And I think that is something 

that, you know, again, we have tried to 

understand the things that are being asked of 

us and how the applications fit, and the more 

we talk amongst ourselves the more information 

we gather. And we believe that one of our key 

reasons for not being receptive to this is 

that the actual economic justification is 

based on way more hours of usage per year than 

we really believe is going on. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

MR. HOPKINS: If I could, then, 

direct your -- if we are making comments on 

those points, there are -- there is a section 

in the notice, in the shipments chapter, where 

the Department goes through its justification 

for breaking down shipments by application, 

and then in the energy use chapter on number 

of hours of operation in each application. So 

if you can direct your -- when you submit 

further comments, if you can direct your 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 200 

comments to put it in that context --

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I won't 

give you the detail, but I have already redone 

your charts. 

(Laughter.) 

MR. HOPKINS: And, again, from our 

practical standpoint, the earlier we can get 

those comments, the easier it is for us to 

incorporate everything. 

One last request for comment 

regarding the national impact analysis before 

we continue on down the chain. In particular, 

on the single-phase national impact model with 

the cross-elasticity, this model depends on a 

series of assumptions and estimates that the 

Department made, including the costs 

associated with space constraints, the 

fraction of space constrained applications, 

the shipments in each product class, the 

scaling of motor losses and prices between the 

different product classes, as well as the 

model itself. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 201

 And so at this -- this is an 

appropriate time to make comments regarding 

the combined effect of these several 

assumptions in order to help the Department 

better develop its model for the -- you know, 

the analysis going into the final rule. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis? 

MR. LEWIS: I want to ask Rob --

we had two conversations here back to back 

that -- both very important and interesting, 

and they seem to have a relationship. So as 

you are giving us input on the last 

conversation, on the potential overestimate of 

usage of some -- and the lifetimes, we just 

had discussion about the replacement market, 

the after-market, of the difficulty perhaps 

with people. 

They seem to be tied together. If 

things are not being used as much, then they'd 

probably last longer. So the degree of 

difficulty, then, with getting replacements, 

the number of replacements, if you have any 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 202 

insights into that that would also be helpful. 

MR. BOTELER: I don't have any 

insights off the top of my head. And, I mean, 

certainly, I would tell you that if -- if my 

compressor is 20 years old, and I use it two 

hours a year, it is going to last a long time, 

yes. Versus the one at the gas station that 

maybe gets used, you know, two hours a day. 

It will last less. 

You know, and that is -- when we 

build motors, we look -- when we work with our 

OEM customers, we look at the design life, and 

we have a design life that we build to for the 

motor, and we have design lives that they 

build to for their piece of given equipment. 

And I think when we see some of 

the hours, and then we looked at equipment 

that we build to that might have a 5,000-hour 

design life for the piece of equipment, and we 

are seeing the motor, the polyphase motor, has 

a nine-year life, and we are going to run it 

for 1,800 hours a year. And we all know that 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 203 

when we sit down and we are talking -- not 

always, but sometimes, about equipment with a 

much shorter design life than that, that it 

doesn't pass the test of reasonableness for 

us. 

And it is not like something, a 

general purpose product that we do every day. 

We don't sit down with that OEM every day, 

because this category of product is general 

purpose. It goes into the catalog. Many 

times we don't really know where it goes. 

MR. HOPKINS: May I ask a followup 

question? To what extent do the products that 

you or any of the other manufacturers design 

and ship into the specialty applications meet 

the performance requirements of a general 

purpose motor in terms of service factor and 

torque, etcetera? 

MR. BOTELER: I have no idea. I 

mean, we build motors in the definite and 

special purpose category that are -- you know, 

the motor that goes into your washing machine 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 204 

or your dryer. It has no frame. It is a 

stack of laminations with a shaft, and, you 

know, we build it to the torque requirement 

and to the amp draw that the customer is 

looking for, and that's it. And we really 

don't follow necessarily NEMA standards or 

qualifications at all. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: John? 

MR. ANDRLE: I would just like to 

expand on that. And as -- when you look at 

the application -- in our company, application 

engineers who design products for OEMs, Rob is 

entirely correct. NEMA is not -- the NEMA 

standards are not in their design criteria. 

They are designing simply to the customer 

request. 

A customer brings them generally 

an operating point, and sometimes a --

sometimes a current and amp requirement, but 

-- so the motor doesn't necessarily -- it 

usually does not meet any NEMA -- any NEMA 

spec. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 205

 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Thank you. 

MR. HOPKINS: I am going to turn 

it over to Matt Nardotti to talk about the 

trial standard levels, and then the 

manufacturer impact analysis. 

MR. NARDOTTI: So as Asa 

mentioned, I am going to start talking about 

the trial standard levels that were developed 

for small electric motors. 

DOE uses trial standard levels, or 

TSLs, to develop a list of standard levels 

from which impacts, both benefits and burdens, 

can be weighed, and then ultimately a level 

can be proposed. DOE develops these TSLs in 

the NOPR, and some of the analyzed efficiency 

levels can include the efficiency level 

corresponding to the maximum energy --

national energy savings, the minimum lifecycle cost, the max-tech efficiency level, and 

any gap fillers. 

TSLs can also be combinations of 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 206 

efficiency levels, and for the CS motors DOE 

has paired the efficiency levels to generate 

one set of TSLs for those two markets, because 

of the potential for market interaction and 

migration of shipments. For example, it is 

possible that an efficiency level for CSIR 

motors could potentially affect those 

shipments for CSCR motors. 

For capacitor-start motors, DOE 

developed eight trial standard levels that are 

unique combinations of efficiency levels for 

CSIR and CSCR motors. These combinations are 

numbered in order of increasing national 

energy savings. 

Due to the market interaction that 

Asa alluded to before, the efficiency levels 

that correspond to the maximum technology 

level for CSIR motors and CSCR motors do not 

correspond to what we estimate to be the 

highest energy savings. That is what you can 

see at Trial Standard Level 6. 

Today's rule is proposing Trial 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 207 

Standard Level 7, which sets somewhat 

equivalent efficiency standards for both CSIR 

and CSCR motors. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. 

Roger? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

If you go back to the previous slide --

MR. NARDOTTI: This one? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Well, within your 

definition, at the top, in the CSCR, you are 

saying that your Level 7 offers the greatest 

energy savings. Level 8 is the level that is 

achievable with maximum technology. And in 

the tables you present, the efficiency of 

Level 8 is greater than Level 7. So why 

doesn't a motor at Level 8 have greater energy 

savings than motor level 7? 

MR. HOPKINS: If I may? As the 

analyst who conducted the energy savings 

analysis, I can answer that. This is Asa. 

The market share -- the maximum 

technology levels, the motors seem to be very 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 208 

expensive, and they involve exotic steels, 

etcetera, for the particular -- for space 

constrained applications. 

At the -- at TSL6, where there is 

efficient level 7 for CSIR and 8 for CSCR, the 

CSCR motors are expensive enough that the 

cross-elasticity model projects that the 

market would stay predominantly in CSIR 

motors, which are then somewhat less efficient 

at -- for that particular pair, because CSCR 

Level 8 is more efficient than CSIR Level 7. 

For the -- for TSL8, we are at 

seven and seven. The CSCR motor Level 7 is 

somewhat less expensive than the CSIR Level 7, 

so the model projects significant marketswitching, which that ends up resulting in 

more energy savings when that model carries 

through. 

So it basically -- TSL8, the 

market switches almost entirely in the 

reference case to CSCR. And in Level 6, the 

market switches almost entirely to CSIR. And 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 209 

the difference between those two in energy 

savings is not that great, if you look at the 

total energy -- national energy savings 

results. 

But because CSCR Level 7 results 

-- is more efficient than CSIR Level 7, Level 

8 ends up having more energy savings than 

Level 6. 

Sorry if that was a little 

convoluted. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: A followon, Roger. 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

But, to me, that is confusing, because it 

would seem to me that whether or not and where 

that motor with that efficiency might be used 

is a decision that would be after, by 

established -- the TSL levels. The TSL 

levels, to me, just indicated that these were 

various levels of efficiency ratings that were 

achievable in that particular product class. 

And so anything that has a higher 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 210 

efficiency level would move up in the class. 

So why EL8 still doesn't have more energy 

savings than 7, if that motor is used in the 

application for which it is intended, and not 

tied to whether or not it will be replaced, 

then I lose what you are trying to do. 

MR. HOPKINS: If I may, for -- in 

the life-cycle cost calculation, that is 

exactly correct, that a more efficient motor 

uses less energy. However, in the aggregate 

national model, with the shipments and the 

market share switching, in the aggregate, 

because of -- because of that cross-elasticity 

between the IR and CR motor classes, the 

national energy savings at the 7-7 pairing is 

greater than the national energy savings at 

the 7-8 pairing. 

And the TSLs are ordered in order 

of -- not of motor efficiency, but in order of 

national energy savings. So, in particular, 

you know, the 7-3 level -- that is, the level 

of the proposed standard -- actually results 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 211 

in more energy savings than the 7-7 -- than 

the 7-8, because of that market share 

switching, even though the actual efficiency 

of the motors sold is less. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Bob, I 

thought you wanted in here. 

MR. SCHIRMANN: Yes. This is Bob 

Schirmann. I just wanted a clarification. I 

think you have already provided it. Was this 

life-cycle cost or energy efficiency savings? 

And you just clarified it as life cycle. 

MR. HOPKINS: It is the national 

energy savings. 

MR. SCHIRMANN: Yes. And I think 

what -- I think what --

MR. HOPKINS: Not the life-cycle 

cost. 

MR. SCHIRMANN: Right. And I 

think what we are talking about here is the 

mix of the product in those particular groups, 

and that is what is shading the numbers, I 

believe, is what you are explaining. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 212

 MR. HOPKINS: So within the 

capacitor-start market, as a whole, the --

what share goes to CSIR and what share goes to 

CSCR affects the energy savings on a national 

aggregate level. 

MR. SCHIRMANN: I understand. 

MR. HOPKINS: And that's what is 

affecting the ordering. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

MR. NARDOTTI: So for polyphase 

motors, it is a little more straightforward. 

Each efficiency level that DOE developed in 

its engineering analysis corresponds to a TSL 

that was analyzed. And today DOE is proposing 

TSL5, which approximately harmonizes with the 

medium motor standards that we discussed 

earlier. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

With respect to the comment you just made, and 

that is reiterated on page 61419 of the NOPR, 

and I quote, "DOE proposes a standard for 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 213 

polyphase small motors with output power of 

one horsepower an above that is closely 

aligned with the EPACT 1992 standard for 

medium motors." 

I don't understand how DOE can 

make that statement when the level of 

efficiency proposed for small motors and those 

ratings is greater than those in EPACT 1992 by 

more than four percentage points, requiring a 

reduction in total losses of more than 35 

percent. 

MR. NARDOTTI: Part of the 

discrepancy in the efficiency levels that are 

being set are -- that are being proposed for 

today's rule is -- and the NEMA premium levels 

is the difference in scaling relationships, 

that we use -- the scaling relationships that 

we use for small electric motors don't 

necessarily exactly map to the efficiency 

levels that are set by EISA and NEMA premium 

levels. The efficiency level from which we 

scaled with our representative unit was 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 214 

approximately a NEMA premium motor. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

But the point is that your statement is -- and 

your comment was that these were with levels 

comparison to EPACT levels, not comparison to 

NEMA premium levels. That's why I didn't 

understand the comparison that you were 

making. 

MR. VAN BUSKIRK: And I think the 

Department welcomes all comments that will 

lead to more accurate analysis in the final 

rule. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you, 

Robert. Okay. Additional comments on this 

before we move on? 

(No response.) 

Okay. 

MR. NARDOTTI: So I would like to 

finish up with some of the results of the 

proposed TSLs. TSL5 for polyphase motors was 

the highest efficiency -- or TSL examined that 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 215 

we would provide a positive NPV while also 

maintaining significant energy savings of .33 

quads. 

For capacitor-start motors, there 

is -- DOE presents its results as a range 

because of the uncertainty regarding the 

market share and shifting between CSIR and 

CSCR motors. And as you can see, TSL7 would 

provide an NPV of anywhere from 1.47 to 5.67 

billion, and an energy savings of around 2.1 

to 2.13 quads. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: John? 

MR. ANDRLE: I have a question 

about the energy savings concerning the extra 

material that would be going into these 

motors. In some cases, you are recommending 

double the steel and copper. That is 

increasing one and a half times. Has the cost 

of the -- cost of procuring these extra 

materials been associated with the -- or 

incorporated into these savings? 

In other words, we are going to be 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 216 

spending a lot more energy getting materials 

for trying to make these motors more 

efficient, but I didn't see anything in the 

analysis that said that we were counting from 

that --

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Do you mean 

the embedded energy and the raw materials? 

MR. ANDRLE: No, the energy that 

it costs to, you know --

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: In the --

MR. ANDRLE: -- turn the ore into 

copper and then -- and then the copper into 

copper wire and then the --

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, thank 

you. Yes. 

MR. NARDOTTI: Did you want to say 

something, Asa? 

MR. HOPKINS: This is Asa. That 

energy is not accounted for in these -- in 

these calculations. The national impact 

analysis is really -- really is a consumer 

national impact analysis with a -- rather than 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 217 

incorporating all of the -- necessarily all of 

the spillover effects into other aspects other 

than simply aggregating the consumer effects. 

So the energy costs and the energy 

savings are all calculated from a consumer 

perspective, rather than including embedded 

costs and embedded energy. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Yes, please. 

MR. SCHIRMANN: Bob Schirmann. 

Just to clarify once again. TSL7 is the 

assumption that the CSIR and CSCR motors are 

equal in efficiency? 

MR. NARDOTTI: Roughly equivalent, 

yes. 

MR. SCHIRMANN: Okay. And did the 

analysis consider the fact that -- first of 

all, in order for that to happen, it is a bit 

unnatural from a theoretical standpoint, 

because typically for a given horsepower and 

frame size CSCR motors tend to be more 

efficient than CSIR. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 218

 So it would take significantly 

more cost to make a CSIR motor as efficient as 

a CSCR motor. Was that considered? And to 

what extent? 

MR. NARDOTTI: That was 

considered. 

MR. HOPKINS: This is Asa. That 

is one of the -- the cost efficiency relations 

developed in the engineering analysis 

confirmed that statement. And the fact that 

CSIR motors that meet those requirements would 

be more expensive is the -- one of the main 

drivers for the market to shift to CSCR motors 

in the cross-elasticity model. 

MR. SCHIRMANN: Okay. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger? 

MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Well, within the selection of the baseline 

motors, the baseline motor that was selected 

for the CSCR was a three-quarter horsepower 

motor in a 56 frame, and that was selected for 

CSIR was a half horsepower in a 48 frame. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 219

 So to make this comparison that 

the EL7 levels were the same for the two 

product classes, was a motor design actually 

created to provide that cross-reference with 

those two product classes? 

MR. VAN BUSKIRK: The Department 

had the motor catalog data, which provided the 

efficiency ratings provided -- published by 

the manufacturers for the different horsepower 

size categories of the CSIR motor. And it did 

the --

MR. HOPKINS: And the Department 

also -- a contractor also tested a number of 

CSIR motors at different speeds and powers in 

order to develop the scaling relations. 

MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Right. So the 

assumption made in the Department's analysis 

was that the losses -- the relative size of 

the losses in the half horsepower or, let's 

see, half horsepower to three-quarter 

horsepower motor, that relative magnitude of 

losses scaled proportionately for the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 220 

different designs in its analysis. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you, 

Robert. Dale? 

MR. BASSO: I guess I'm not 

completely sure I understand the -- if you are 

scaling from a 48 frame, and then you are 

looking at a catalog for a 56 frame, and then 

you are assuming that you -- so you have made 

a jump in frame size, which will be a step 

function as far as scaling, you then linearize 

that step function to go larger, if that's my 

understanding, which I'm not sure could be 

valid. Is that what you did? 

MR. NARDOTTI: I can answer. When 

we collected the efficiency data from 

catalogs, we considered the frame size with 

that data. And when we collected the data, we 

considered the most -- the smallest frame size 

that we could find in that product class, and 

efficiency data corresponding to those. 

So the efficiency relationships 

that we developed were all based on if there 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 221 

were, say, at one horsepower and one pole 

configuration, one product class there is two 

frame sizes, the efficiency data that we 

collected and used to scale the relationships 

was for that smaller frame size. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Additional 

comments? Questions? 

(No response.) 

MR. NARDOTTI: Okay. I'll hand it 

over to my colleague. 

MR. ROSSIN: Thanks, Matt. My 

name is Doug Rossin, and I will be presenting 

the manufacturer impact analysis, or MIA. 

So the MIA has three main 

purposes. The first main purpose is to assess 

the impacts of energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers of small electric motors. 

The second main purpose of the MIA 

is to identify and estimate the impacts on 

manufacturing subgroups, such as small 

businesses, that may be more impacted than the 

industry as a whole. Now, in DOE's research 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 222 

it could not identify any such businesses that 

would be more adversely impacted by the 

proposed standards. 

And, finally, the third main 

purpose of the MIA is to examine the 

cumulative regulatory burden on the industry. 

Now, this is where DOE looks at other DOE 

regulation and federal regulation that may 

impact manufacturers financially. 

In terms of methodology, DOE uses 

the Government Regulatory Model -- Impact 

Model, or GRIM, to calculate the industry net 

present value, or NPV, at each efficiency 

level analyzed. Also, DOE uses information 

provided by manufacturers and other interested 

parties to further develop the analysis. 

Now, this picture shows the basic 

structure of the MIA process in three phases. 

In Phase 1, which happens during the 

preliminary analysis, DOE uses -- DOE uses 

publicly available information such as 

manufacturer's financial -- or manufacturer's 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 223 

annual reports to develop an industry profile. 

It also uses this information to develop --

or to develop the manufacturer financial 

parameters, and also to estimate costs of 

complying with standards. 

In Phase 2, which happens during 

the NOPR phase, DOE develops the spreadsheets 

for the GRIM. Now, the GRIM outputs cashflows 

for the analysis period and calculates the NPV 

by submitting the discounted cashflows over 

the analysis period. Now, this is done for 

both a base case or absence of standards in a 

standards case. The difference between the 

two is a quantitative representation of the 

impacts on manufacturers. 

Also, in Phase 2, DOE develops the 

interview guides. In Phase 3, DOE conducts 

interviews and uses the information to further 

develop the sub-analysis and to finalize the 

inputs to the GRIM. 

Now I will talk about key issues. 

During manufacturer interviews, manufacturers 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 224 

reported several key issues. The whole list 

of these key issues are found in Chapter 12 of 

the TSD, but for today we would like to 

discuss two of these key issues, the first one 

being the impact of increasing motor size. 

Now, manufacturers were concerned 

that in order to achieve higher efficiencies 

they may need to increase the size of their 

motors. Now, the concern is that larger 

dimensions could prohibit the ability to 

retrofit existing -- or the ability to 

retrofit/redesign motors into existing 

applications. 

Manufacturers were concerned that 

-- or manufacturers reported that the 

customers or consumers or the OEMs may choose 

to go and use other unregulated motors or 

motors of smaller horsepowers. 

Now, DOE incorporated these 

concerns into the analysis, including the 

engineering and shipment analyses, which are 

inputs to the GRIM. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 225

 The other key issue was of capital 

conversion costs. Now, according to 

manufacturers, standards may result in capital 

conversion costs or higher capital conversion 

costs. Now, for some manufacturers they 

reported that these covered motors is a small 

segment of their entire business. These same 

manufacturers reported that if they have -- if 

they cannot recuperate most of the investment 

costs, they may choose to exit the covered 

motors market. 

Also, manufacturers were concerned 

about the high capital conversion costs for 

some of the design options, such as cap rotors 

and exotic steels. Now, DOE estimated capital 

conversion costs for each of the design 

options in the engineering analysis, taking 

into consideration both space constrained and 

non-space constrained assumptions. 

DOE used information provided by 

manufacturers and industry experts to divide 

these costs, and DOE derived the industry-wide 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 226 

capital conversion costs by aggregating 

manufacturers' responses in its own estimates. 

And a full list of each of these capital 

conversion costs are found in Chapter 12 of 

the TSD, and DOE seeks comments on these 

capital investments. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So you can 

see the specific comment box. 

MR. ROSSIN: Okay. I will talk 

about markups now. Now, for the MIA, DOE 

analyzed two markup scenarios to bound the 

uncertainties about potential impacts on 

prices and profitability. First one is the 

preservation of return of invested capital. 

In this scenario, DOE applies a markup at each 

TSL that sets the return on invested capital 

in the standards case to the same level as in 

the base case. 

Now, this scenario models a 

situation where manufacturers maintain a 

similar level of profitability from 

investments required by standards as they 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 227 

would from their current business operations. 

After standards, manufacturers have higher 

net operating profit, but also have greater 

working capital investments requirements. 

Now, because manufacturers earn 

additional profit -- additional operating 

profit from the investments required by 

standards, this is considered the upper bound 

to profitability. 

The other scenario analyzed is the 

preservation of operating profit. This is 

where DOE applies a markup at each TSL that 

results in the same operating profit absolute 

dollar value in the standards case to that of 

the base case. 

This scenario models a situation 

where manufacturers can only maintain their 

operating profit in absolute dollars following 

standards. Because manufacturers' capital 

base increases as a result of standards, but 

manufacturers don't earn additional profit 

from these investments, this is considered the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 228 

lower bound to profitability. And DOE seeks 

comments on both of these markup scenarios. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. Paul? 

MR. LIN: Paul Lin. I would just 

-- I made the comment before, and the --

didn't get any feedback from anyone in terms 

of enforcement. And I think when we start 

talking about impacts to the manufacturers, 

speaking on behalf of Regal-Beloit, and not 

necessarily NEMA right now, is we feel that 

that is the largest focus of our company and 

concern of our company is the enforcement 

side. 

If we get a table, we will 

eventually have four years or five years to 

meet the table requirements. That is not a 

concern. 

Now, from our side, it is from the 

outside influences of manufacturers who import 

goods into the U.S. That may not be under the 

same -- they may not abide by the same 

regulations that we do. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 229

 So you can tell Roger understands 

regulations, and we all abide by the 

regulations. I can't say that for sure for 

outside manufacturers of the U.S. So, again, 

our company's biggest concern is enforcement, 

and there is nothing in that NOPR that has 

anything specific in terms of how they are 

going to do enforcement. That's the biggest 

concern we have. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

MR. LIN: And I haven't heard any 

comments other than that they want to speed up 

a deadline in terms of and enforcement. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Thanks. Yes, Robert. 

MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yes. Robert Van 

Buskirk, Lawrence Berkeley Lab. Are there 

specific suggestions or approaches that 

commenters can recommend to the Department on 

approaching enforcement? 

MR. LIN: One of the things --

Paul Lin again. This is -- you know, one of 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 230 

the things we talked about from a very high 

level is some sort of a marking on the motor 

itself, like we do with the NEMA Premium side, 

to highlight that that motor meets certain 

requirements. 

And then, at that side there is --

and I know that DOE is gearing up to do audits 

for various efficiency standards for different 

appliance standards. I mean, that would be 

the second phase as well. 

I think we need just as much focus 

on the enforcement side as you guys have done 

on just the -- define the engineering for the 

efficiency levels, because the -- again, if 

outside manufacturers don't have to abide by 

it, and the manufacturers see a 20 percent, 30 

percent increase in the cost of goods, and 

they see a lower labor rate outside of the 

U.S., it is going to make a business case for 

them to move the manufacturing outside. 

MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Robert van 

Buskirk, Lawrence Berkeley Lab. Would it be 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 231 

possible for commenters to provide a list of 

those categories of OEM product that you think 

the Department might pay particular attention 

with regards to certification and enforcement? 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Please? 

MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest following 

up on this. I think the --

MR. HOYT: Bill Hoyt, NEMA. That 

would be extremely difficult to do. I was in 

China two years ago for an energy, motor 

energy, conference. Chinese equivalent of our 

labs over in China submitted. 

There are 3,000 motor 

manufacturers in China. And you can imagine 

what kind of applications they are 

manufacturing 3,000 motors for, maybe anything 

from the smallest thing for use outside China 

or they may be manufacturing for use in China. 

So estimating what the 

applications are for some of the product that 

is coming in from offshore -- and China is 

just one example -- is very, very difficult, 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 232 

if not impossible. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: They do not 

correspond, they would not correspond, to the 

product classes, the descriptions that NEMA 

generally applies? 

MR. HOYT: No, they would not. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. Ron 

Lewis? 

MR. LEWIS: Just as you were 

preparing input and comments to give us on 

things that you would like to see us do, I am 

struck between the concern for enforcement 

versus this morning I heard a lot of 

constraints on where actually the definitions 

within MG-1 and the use of general purpose 

motors versus things that are made for 

specific applications or things that are not 

to the horsepower and the torque requirements 

and all of the other things, all these other 

characteristics that were limiters, being 

characterized as limiters, how that fits into 

the ability, then, to characterize all these 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 233 

other motors that may be coming from other 

sources. 

It sounded like there was a large 

proportion of motors being used that don't fit 

this definition, so how you do things so that 

you are focusing on and addressing things as 

effectively as possible but also addressing 

any limitations that might be there. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, Dale? 

MR. BASSO: Yes. I mean, I think 

you bring up a really good point. And those 

two things do relate very closely. When there 

is a standard, you can enforce to it. When 

there isn't a standard, you can't. 

And so having a correct definition 

of the motors to start with at least gives a 

basis for enforcement. It may also give very 

little justification for the legislation at 

the same time. 

So I think that it is something 

that has to be weighed out. But if we are 

going to go forward with something, it needs 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 234 

to be clearly defined what that is, what all 

the characteristics are of the motor, not just 

an efficiency level. 

And so covered motors should be 

clearly defined. And then it should be 

clearly enforced. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

So I just would refer you again to the 

comment box, preservation of operating 

profits, as the lower bound scenario and the 

preservation of return on invested capital as 

the upper bound scenario. Comments on that, 

Rob? 

MR. BOTELER: Yes. I would just 

like to comment. You know, when we look at 

the product that we're talking about, I 

believe it's roughly four million units a 

year. 

And you see five manufacturers 

here. So you divide that up as to the number 

of units each of us makes. And there are 

probably a couple of manufacturers that are 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 235 

small motor guys that are represented here. 

And I can tell you that when we 

look at this product and if the capital 

investment includes copper bar or if it 

includes new lamination dyes and punches and 

things that are required -- and from the 

levels of efficiency that we see, they will be 

required -- all of us are going to sit down to 

do that evaluation. 

And I would guarantee you that 

some of us will exit pieces of the market. If 

the levels stay the way they are and we have 

to investment in copper die-casting equipment 

in order to maintain a few hundred thousand 

units of our business, the numbers are not 

going to work for us as American companies and 

we will exit. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So as much 

as it's possible in the details in your 

written comments, it would make it easier for 

the Department to see your specific case in 

the larger context. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

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. BOTELER: This is Rob again. 

One other comment. Talking about the 

enforcement issue, there are countries today. 

Australia, New Zealand, and Fuji are 

companies that use electric motors. They do 

not manufacture any electric motors. 

They have a check testing program, 

where they bring all of the product in and 

stop it at their borders on their docks. And 

they sample at the manufacturer's expense. 

And they go through and take it to an 

independent lab. And they do testing of that 

product. 

And if the product doesn't pass, 

the container load of product is not released 

to come into the country, very, very costly 

for them, but they do do it. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: How do they 

deal with the differentiation situation that 

he referenced; that is, the many, many 

different kinds of motors? They still sample 

them? 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 237

 MR. BOTELER: They don't follow 

NEMA rules. They follow IEC guidelines. And 

their Customs people must have -- and I am 

guessing a little bit here, but they have to 

have some guidelines based on the IEC 

standards. 

How they handle motors embedded in 

other pieces of equipment I don't know. You 

know, as you were commenting or Dale 

commented, there are some specific categories 

that I have tried to bring up with the 

compressors and fans that cover a large 

portion of the product. 

There are also thousands of 

applications of very small pieces of unique 

equipment that you and I would never see, 

never dream of that are used in various 

processes and pieces of equipment that could 

potentially use this type of product. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Thank you. 

MR. BASSO: I have a comment. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 238

 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, Dale? 

MR. BASSO: A comment to your 

question here. As far as the analyzed markup, 

I am not sure if I completely understand it, 

but if I understand, you're looking at it as 

return on capital is the ratio. But you're 

making it an absolute dollars on the company's 

profit. So it means if we sell more, we still 

make the same number of dollars, which is a 

smaller percentage. 

So this is saying that companies 

should make a smaller percentage return to 

their stockholders, which would impact stock 

prices if I'm reading this correctly. 

MR. RIVEST: You're reading 

correctly. So that's why we characterize 

these two scenarios. And on the next page, 

you'll see the results. 

And, really, if you are able to 

invest, say, $20 million and earn, you know, 

increase your capital base of the company by 

20 percent, then maintaining the same return 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 239 

on capital means that your company will be 

worth more. And that is the top scenario. 

That is the world is good. 

On the lower scenario, what you 

are saying is you are going to invest the $20 

million and you're not going to make a penny 

more. So your return on capital goes down. 

Your industry value goes down. 

So you read it totally correctly. 

And any insights you can provide that will 

help us weigh an outcome, I think, for 

example, the enforcement issue is a powerful 

one. 

I mean, are there other examples 

from, let's say -- one example we like to 

reference is when there were significant 

increases in the prices of steel, for 

instance, how did that affect your margins? 

You know, were you able to pass on any of 

those costs or did your margins go down? 

If you had other standards induced 

or investments, were you able to recover those 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 240 

costs? You know, you have history with 

legislation, not regulation but with 

legislation. How did that change your 

business? Anything that would help us reduce 

that uncertainty band, which you will see is 

very large. 

We can get a better handle on the 

magnitude of the investments you have to make. 

Just in talking to you, you know, we 

understand what is involved in cutting more 

laminations, the tooling for that, the 

redesign cost, the testing cost. 

So we can get that pretty good. 

The pricing is what is hard to speculate. 

Let's 

results. 

go 

FACILITATOR 

to the next. 

BROOKMAN: 

Let's 

Okay. 

go to the 

MR. ROSSIN: All right. So I will 

present some of the results. This table shows 

the INPV results for polyphase motors. We see 

that the change in INPV is centered around 

zero. And this will greatly depend on the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 241 

type of investments and also the markup that 

manufacturers experience. 

Up until TSL4, DOE estimates 

manufacturers may achieve these levels with 

slight increases to the number of laminations 

in their motors. So we see that investments 

get up into about $2 million, which is roughly 

about 3 percent of the calculated INPV. 

When you get into TSL5, the 

proposed standards, DOE estimates 

manufacturers can achieve this level with a 

significant increase to the number of 

laminations, but you see that investments are 

roughly three times that of the TSL4. But 

they're not high enough to cause a significant 

impact on INPV. When you get to TSL6 and 7, 

DOE estimates manufacturers may need to use 

both copper rotors or exotic steels. 

Now, then we see significant 

investment requirements in TSL7, which is 

about 30 million, which is about 47 percent of 

the calculated INPV. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 242

 MR. RIVEST: So getting back to 

the table, what was I guess mentioned earlier, 

the investment required; this is, the total 

investment for the industry that we estimated 

on the basis of conversations with you and 

also with some bottoms-up calculations that we 

did. And we definitely would like to have 

comment on that. 

In terms of how good or how bad 

things might be, as you get to higher levels, 

the uncertainty band grows because the 

quantity of steel increases and the capital 

investment requirements grow. So the higher 

it goes, the more uncertain. And the higher 

the magnitude of the bad scenario. 

I don't know if you want to turn 

the page, too. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Sure. 

MR. RIVEST: A very similar story 

on CSIR, CSCR. And here the hard thing for us 

to gauge and the impact on industry is there 

is an anticipated massive shift at the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 243 

proposed level from IR to CR. 

And, therefore, what we're saying 

is you're not really going to build because 

people aren't really going to buy a whole lot 

of resistive run motors. Now, if that is not 

true, then we have understated the capital 

investments. 

So a fundamental question we would 

like comment on is the magnitude of the shift. 

Is it reasonable? And are there other 

reasons why people buy those resistive run 

motors, CSIR, the induction run motors, other 

reasons than simply than today they are less 

expensive? 

And we see the investments are 

significantly higher here. And that 

corresponds to the greater change in the motor 

technology and also to the fact that there are 

higher volumes of sales for this category. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Bob? 

MR. SCHIRMANN: I guess a comment. 

This isn't a direct answer to your question, 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 244 

but looking at those charts, there are 

definitely thresholds that would cause us to 

react differently. And I'm not sure for our 

company what those thresholds would be, but 

certainly one threshold would be to exit in a 

market, as was stated earlier. 

So in some cases, it is not only a 

decision. You want to go to a CSIR motor or 

CSCR motor. But it may not be worth going to 

either one and basically exiting those markets 

entirely depending on the application and need 

and some of the information provided 

previously. 

The comment was made about when 

you use a CSIR motor. Well, you know, 

typically historically they have been fairly 

low-cost and low-horsepower motors that are 

operating on a -- they have plenty of amp 

capacity on the feeder circuit that is running 

the motor. It just makes it a cheap way to 

go. 

That option will not be available 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 245 

to some of our customers at this point if we 

make some of the shifts. As I said, I don't 

think that answers your question, but --

MR. RIVEST: Oh, I think it does. 

I mean, the assumption here in the national 

impacts analysis is that there is no reason to 

buy an induction run motor if it's more 

expensive than a capacitor-run motor. 

MR. SCHIRMANN: Correct. Right. 

MR. RIVEST: So, I mean, I think 

that's what I heard. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Additional comments on this? Tom? 

Thanks. 

MR. HINK: Tom Hink. One of the 

things that we didn't mention, you are talking 

about, one of the other concerns I know 

Regal-Beloit has is just the availability of 

some of the materials that may be needed to 

meet these efficiencies, such as exotic lam 

materials. 

I think it's a fairly known fact 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 246 

that as of today, there is only a limited 

supply available. And if there is this huge 

shift of having to go, is this supply going to 

be there that will meet all of the needs of 

all of the manufacturers when the time comes? 

And so that is another concern that we have. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: In four or 

five years? 

MR. HINK: It could be. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, 

Roger? 

DR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

And along that line, when you're talking the 

capital investment and if you look at what you 

have proposed in the EL designs that you base 

the projected proposed efficiency levels on, 

in a polyphase motor, you base those on the 

electrical steel 29M15. 

In the capacitor-start induction 

run motor, you based that on Hiperco 50. And 

on the capacitor-start, capacitor-run, you 

based it on 24M19. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 247

 So you're wanting to tell a 

manufacturer that makes all three of these 

classes of motors that he is to bring into his 

facility three different electrical steels and 

use one particular electrical steel in order 

to achieve the efficiencies that are proposed 

for these. 

I just wonder, why didn't you 

reach a conclusion that there should be a 

common steel used across these 

classifications. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Mike 

Rivest? 

MR. RIVEST: I think your comment 

is a fair one. So you're saying that there 

are economies to standardizing to a single 

steel grade and that it might be a less costly 

way of making a motor. But there are other 

reasons why you would want to standardize. I 

think it's a valid comment. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, Rob? 

MR. RIVEST: No. We don't tell 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 248 

anyone what steel to use. We just show one 

path. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, Rob? 

MR. BOTELER: Yes. And further to 

what Roger is saying, what that means to us if 

we use three different steels in our 

laminations, in a lot of cases, that means 

three different dies that we will have to go 

out and purchase. So we're in the quarter of 

a million --

MR. RIVEST: We did make every 

attempt to capture that in our capital costs. 

MR. BOTELER: So you captured 

three different dies? 

MR. RIVEST: Yes. 

MR. BOTELER: Good. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, Dale? 

MR. BASSO: Yes. I guess that was 

part of my question. In the assumptions you 

made, these are the capital investment numbers 

at the top of each column, correct? So it's 

243 to 390? 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 249

 MR. RIVEST: No. I'm sorry. It's 

the last row. The top is sort of the industry 

value, if you will. So that last row, "Total 

Investment Required." 

MR. BASSO: Oh, investment. So 

you're saying that the industry, all ten 

manufacturers --

MR. RIVEST: Right. 

MR. BASSO: -- in Europe, where it 

is $45 million? 

MR. RIVEST: On the single phase. 

And then on the previous page, there's 

another --

MR. BASSO: Only $6 million. 

MR. RIVEST: Right. 

MR. BASSO: So fairly low numbers 

for investing in die-cast at ten different 

facilities and lamination stamp tooling --

MR. RIVEST: We did document our 

assumptions --

MR. BASSO: Okay. 

MR. RIVEST: -- and the price of a 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 250 

die, for example, and increasing cutting 

capacity. But we appreciate comment on it. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Thanks. Comments on those specifics would be 

helpful. Yes. 

MR. ROSSIN: So I'll pass it along 

to Asa. 

MR. HOPKINS: Thanks. 

I'm going to take you through some 

of the remaining analyses that we're working 

up to for the NOPR, the last four on this 

slide, beginning with the utility impact 

analysis. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

investigate the effects on electric power 

generation utilities from reduced energy sales 

and reduced peak load demand resulting from 

potential standards. 

These results are calculated. The 

inputs are the national energy savings results 

in terawatt-hours in a given year from the 

national impacts analysis. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 251

 And those are then used as inputs 

to the building and technologies version of 

the EIA's National Energy Modeling System, or 

NEMS, which is the same system that is used to 

produce, the EIA version is what is used to 

produce, the AEO forecasts. 

The outputs of this utility impact 

analysis, the changes in electricity sales and 

price by region, any change in the mix of 

electricity generation among different natural 

gas, coal, renewables, et cetera, and the 

change in installed capacity and total 

generation, the full details are available in 

tables in the technical support document. It 

varied by different trial standard levels and 

for each motor category. 

But, just to give you a ballpark 

sense, the installed capacity for different 

TSLs ranges between 1.1 and 2.9 gigawatts. 

And the level of reduction in capacity 

projected -- these are for 2030; sorry -- for 

the proposed standard level is roughly 2 and a 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 252 

half gigawatts. 

Yes? 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: John? 

MR. ANDRLE: This is John Andrle. 

I go back to I guess my question a little bit 

ago that if we're looking at the impact on 

electricity use and we're not considering the 

use of electricity into the processing of 

materials that go into motors, which are 

primarily steel, copper, and aluminum, then I 

think we're missing the real effect on --

we're projecting savings that really aren't 

there. 

I don't know how you account for 

that, but it seems to me there's a big gap in 

the analysis. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Michael 

McCabe? 

MR. McCABE: This is Michael 

McCabe with the Department of Energy. You are 

absolutely correct as far as not capturing 

that. However, the analysis is structured in 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 253 

that way in order to respond to the specific 

legislative requirement that directs us to 

look at the energy that is directly saved by 

the regulation. And it defines energy as that 

which is consumed or used by the product. 

So this is structured in this 

fashion to respond to specific legislative 

directions. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

MR. HOPKINS: One of the other 

analyses that the Department undertakes is an 

employment impact analysis. This analysis 

analyzes only the indirect effects on 

employment resulting from standards; that is, 

effect on employment due to the reduction in 

energy demand and the changes in business 

costs, et cetera, that might result from a 

standard. Direct impacts on employment in the 

motor manufacturing industry are captured in 

the manufacturing impact analysis. 

So this analysis is designed to 

estimate the net jobs created or eliminated as 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 254 

a consequence of the standards. It uses a 

model called the Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies model, or ImSET model. 

The inputs include the reduction 

in revenue to utilities, the reduced energy 

prices among end users of -- reduced energy 

use among and, therefore, reduced bills among 

people who are using electric motors, et 

cetera. Those energy flows and dollar values 

are, again, outputs of the national impact 

analysis model. 

And just example results, again, 

for 2030, the various standards, various TSLs, 

result in ranges of unemployment from an 

increase of roughly 5,300 jobs to 26,000 jobs. 

The proposed standards are estimated to 

result in an increase of employment of roughly 

11 and a half thousand jobs. Again, the full 

details are available in the technical support 

document. 

Moving on to the environmental 

assessment, the purpose of this assessment is 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 255 

to evaluate and report environmental impacts 

that would result as a consequence of the 

energy conservation standards, including 

changes in power plant emissions. Again, 

these are estimated using the same NEMS model 

that is used to evaluate the utility impacts. 

In particular, the emissions in question are 

carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. 

Sulfur dioxide is not included due 

to the uncertainty regarding effects of 

reduction in electricity use on capped sulfur 

dioxide emissions under various regulations 

and legislation. 

The NEMS model is designed to 

incorporate those regulations. And so the 

NEMS model predicts no change in physical 

sulfur dioxide emissions from the power sector 

as a result of this rule. 

One of the other outputs of this 

analysis is monetary values for assigned to 

reductions in these three pollutants. The 

values are determined through an interagency 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 256 

process detailed in the NOPR, but they 

generally are based on social cost 

calculations. 

In response to comments received 

in the preliminary analysis, the Department 

examined whether it could make projections 

regarding particulate matter. DOE has decided 

not to include that because it was unable to 

generate a reliable estimate given the complex 

interactions between particulate matter 

emissions, direct emissions, other power plant 

emissions, meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, 

that all impact human exposure to 

particulates. 

Again, all of the numbers 

regarding changes in emissions are in the 

notice as well as the monetary analysis. 

So there are two issues for 

comment related to this analysis. The first 

regards the appropriateness of using discount 

rates other than three or seven percent to 

discount emissions reductions. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 257

 So if there are any particular 

comments on that issue? 

(No response.) 

MR. HOPKINS: The other issue 

regards the methods for valuing reductions in 

these emissions. There is no legal 

requirement that the economic value be 

incorporated into the net present value, 

although the Department has presented numbers 

in the NOPR in which those numbers are added 

for context. 

So DOE welcomes any comments 

regarding valuation of these emissions. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: No 

additional comments? 

(No response.) 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

MR. HOPKINS: And, again, any 

comments on these questions in the written 

comments would be welcomed also. 

The final step of these analyses 

conducted for the NOPR is the regulatory 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 258 

impact analysis. The purpose of the 

regulatory impact analysis is to investigate 

the national 

alternatives 

standards. 

impacts of 

compared with 

non-regulatory 

mandatory 

DOE considered a range of 

non-regulatory alternatives, those listed 

here, including bulk government purchases, 

rebates, tax credits, and voluntary energy 

efficiency targets, like ENERGY STAR or the 

NEMA Premium Program. 

The national impacts of these 

non-regulatory alternatives are calculated 

using a variant of the national impact 

analysis model and in order to calculate 

similar national energy savings and net 

present value that would result from any of 

these non-regulatory programs. And, again, 

there are a number of scenarios. And the 

results are presented in chapter 16 of the TSD 

and summarized in the notice. 

So are there any comments on any 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 259 

of this? I think, other than that, I think we 

have actually reached the end of the line of 

chevrons. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: The end of 

the slides. So now it is an opportunity for 

anybody to make concluding remarks, brief 

summary remarks, other issues that you wish to 

raise. Yes, please? Yes? And your name, 

please? 

MS. TROMBLEY-McCANN: This is 

Molly Trombley-McCann with PG&E. I had a 

question regarding scope and specificity of 

this particular standard. 

In the morning, there was a lot of 

discussion about the NEMA standard for what a 

small general purpose motor is and how exactly 

it is defined. And it includes a lot of 

incredibly specific numbers for horsepower, 

things like maximum current, minimum breakdown 

torque. 

It occurs to me that you could 

manufacture a motor that was very similar to a 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 260 

NEMA general purpose motor but that had slight 

changes in maximum current or minimum 

breakdown torque that no longer fell under the 

scope of the standard. And that seems like a 

rather glaring loophole in that you could have 

functionally equivalent motors on the market 

that were completely not covered by this 

rulemaking. 

So I am asking, I suppose, the 

Department what their reaction is in terms to 

that loophole. 

MR. KIDO: Michael Kido. We 

obviously would be interested in any kind of 

feedback from industry on this. That is 

something that is of concern. And to the 

extent that any commenters can give us some 

input on that, that would be really helpful. 

MS. TROMBLEY-McCANN: I actually 

did have a follow-on question, which was that 

because the scope of this rulemaking is tied 

to MG from 1987. If NEMA does revise that 

standard such that NEMA's small general 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 261 

purpose motors no longer fit the requirements 

of MG from 1987, then you could still make a 

NEMA small general purpose motor that was no 

longer covered by this standard. 

Is that true? Because you could 

make it under the newer MG1 instead of the 

1987 version of MG1, which is what governs the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Michael 

Kido? 

MR. KIDO: I think that's right. 

I'll have to look into it. But, just as Ron 

had sort of or I think it was Jim who had 

indicated, there is a requirement within EPCA 

now that has as review our standards on a 

periodic basis. 

So it might be that something like 

that would be revisited at another time. I am 

not going to commit probably one way or 

another on that, but I just throw that out 

there as part of the landscape. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 262

 Yes? Dale first. 

MR. BASSO: I would like to offer 

some feedback to that comment. First of all, 

the motor manufacturers have long been very 

strong proponents of energy efficiency. You 

know, it's good for us. And we think it is 

good for the country. 

So don't take any of our comments 

the wrong way, that we're trying to get out of 

doing something that is the right thing. And 

we supported regulation when it's valid 

regulation and I guess responsible regulation. 

The concern with small motors is 

that they are very different. There are a lot 

of very special applications. And, as you 

kind of heard, there is a lot that aren't 

covered already intentionally because of that 

variation. 

However, if you refer to the 

medium motor standards that are out there and 

the ESA requirements, again, you don't see 

motor manufacturers out there trying to get 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 263 

around it. We are out there actually 

supporting it very strongly. 

Most of our products we have the 

products available today that don't have to go 

into effect until 2010 because it is the right 

thing to do and there is a standard written 

around it that allows us to do it effectively. 

The concerns that we have with the 

fractional horsepower is the standards really 

aren't there to support it, that there are so 

many ways around it for what we'll call the 

illegitimate manufacturer, but there is also a 

lot of products out there that are very 

specific to OEMs that might be interpreted to 

be general purpose that are already outside 

the scope, like the ones in that one to 

three-horsepower range that are not 

specifically defined by NEMA. 

So a Weg motor could have 

different performance characteristics than 

Emerson or Baldor. And so some customers may 

not be able to use one guy or the other's 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 264 

motor in those applications. 

So their customers take a little 

bit more responsibility working outside of the 

standards. And it makes more work for them, 

but it is where they felt it's the right thing 

for their business. 

So that has been supported, even 

though it is outside a defined standard. They 

are all kind of like special motors. Even 

though we put them in the catalog, mine are 

different than the other guy's. 

So as long as we can tie things 

down to a defined standard that allows our 

customers to apply motors properly, you know, 

we don't have a problem with it. We don't 

really believe in this case that the energy 

savings justification is there based on the 

other criteria, the investments and the rework 

for our customers and their customers. 

We are supporting other 

legislation for supporting new technologies 

and better technologies that would hopefully 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 265 

displace these motors in a lot of 

applications. And that would be fine in our 

estimation. 

So please don't take it wrong that 

we just like to fight stuff to fight it. 

We're not really fighting it to be negative. 

We're trying to make sure that what does get 

done is something that we can legally adhere 

to. 

That is certainly a concern that 

we all have, that if a regulation goes out 

there that doesn't have a standard behind it, 

we're not really sure what it is that we have 

to conform to. And our customers won't know 

what they have to conform to. 

So yes, you could get around it, 

but if it falls within the definition, I don't 

think you'll see people trying to get around 

it in this country, at least. 

We're not so sure about the 

equipment that comes from offshore. And 

that's why we're really concerned about the 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 266 

fact that legitimate manufacturers could be 

actually at a disadvantage by meeting the 

regulation. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Thank you. 

MR. BASSO: Thank you. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger? 

DR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

With respect to your question with regards to 

the NEMA standards, the tables of performance 

requirements that are in the DOE scope 

document that were copied from the standard, 

those values were created before 1987 and have 

been in that standard for many years. 

The present version of those 

tables that are in the 2006 version are the 

same values. There has been no change in any 

of those. 

The point is that over wide and 

over the years, those are established for the 

user so that he knows that when he purchases a 

motor from manufacturer A or manufacturer B 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 267 

and puts it into his application, he knows it 

will perform as expected in his application; 

whereas, if he went out and tried to buy a 

special purpose motor that was made to someone 

else's application and put it in his, he might 

be tripping his instantaneous trip circuit. 

He might overheat in his application. He 

might not be able to start his application 

because it doesn't have enough locked rotor 

torque. 

So that is why those performance 

requirements are there. They're to the user's 

benefit. And he has a choice of where he 

wants to get the motors from. 

I can't see that those numbers are 

going to change and that there's no reason 

within the motor community to go and change 

those numbers after 30 years. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Rob? 

MR. BOTELER: And I just want to 

pick up on what Dale said. You know, when we 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 268 

look at where we as motor manufacturers are, I 

mean, I have traveled the world in support of 

efficiency standards. I have testified in 

Brussels. And I take some of the credit for 

the EU switching over and now having 

standards. 

Last year I was in -- I was in 

China, but I was in Chile and in Peru trying 

to help them understand standards. And I am 

always doing that with standards that I think 

will actually have a very positive impact and 

will help those countries save energy. 

We as manufacturers today on our 

small motors are spending very large amounts 

of money on our R&D. And we're doing it in 

these new technologies, where we're 

eliminating this type of product. 

We're eliminating induction 

motors. We're eliminating other components of 

the system. We're eliminating belts and 

pulleys and gearboxes with motors that have 

greater torque, taking the efficiency of that 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 269 

system from 40 or 50 percent up to 80 or 90 

percent by doing creative things with our 

customers. But we're doing it in the definite 

purpose world. We're doing it where we create 

large numbers of units for OEMs. 

Please don't get the impression 

that we are not in favor of standards. We're 

not in favor of this standard. That's for 

sure. But standards in general that are 

beneficial to our community at large we do 

support when they make sense. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Roger? 

DR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

I guess I would just like to clarify -- maybe 

it wasn't so obvious from the comments this 

morning -- that it's important to establish a 

very clear definition to provide a level 

playing field so that when you do talk about 

enforcement, you are going to be able to go 

out there and say, "That motor should comply" 

and then make a determination that it does 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 270 

comply or you are able to point at a motor and 

say, "That motor doesn't have to comply." 

So it is very, very important to 

have a clear definition. We went through this 

in the electric motors. And in the electric 

motors, DOE published a guideline for the 

determination as to what construction of 

motors had to comply and those motors which 

did not have to comply within the definition 

of electric motor. 

It became very important because 

we as a motor manufacturer could point our 

customers to that when he would ask, "Does 

this motor have to comply or does it not have 

to comply?" And that became a very, very 

important document. 

And so in that same sense, that's 

why I stressed this morning it is very 

important to have a very clear definition as 

to what a small electric motor is. 

And then once you have that clear 

definition, do your design work and your 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 271 

analysis within your definition so that when 

you establish efficiency levels, they are 

projected levels that are actually achievable 

within your definition and don't go outside 

your definition when you are trying to do that 

effort. 

So that is the major point I was 

trying to make this morning. Let's be clear 

and as much as we can within the definition 

that you want to establish. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Thank you. 

I think we have moved toward the 

final segment, which is to give summary 

remarks, raise any additional issues that 

haven't been raised or raised sufficiently. 

So let's do that now. 

Well, some of you are responding 

to a specific query. And some of you are 

making more global comments. Roger, final 

comments? 

DR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 272 

It may not be my final comment. 

(Laughter.) 

DR. DAUGHERTY: But I assume that 

the Department is aware that many of these 

small motors are rated with a rating that is 

specified, like 208-230/460 volts, and that 

within the NEMA standard, there is a 

requirement that we call that 208 to 230 volts 

a broad voltage range. And within the 

standard, there is a requirement that the 

motor must meet its performance requirements 

over the broad voltage range. 

So my question to the Department 

is, in their investigation into these various 

designs and efficiency levels that are 

achievable, are these efficiency levels 

achievable when that motor is operated at 208 

volts? 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Mimi? It 

takes -- okay. Dan? Brad? 

MR. FRUSTAGLIO: In our analysis, 

we did not simulate the motors at 208 volts. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 273 

We stuck with the 230-volt simulation. So I 

guess I can't say with certainty that when you 

mack the voltage out to 208, that it will meet 

the standard. 

MS. GUPTA: This is Mimi Gupta. I 

mean, you make a good comment. Thank you for 

your comment. We will have to explore. We 

don't have this information right now at our 

fingertips. We will have to explore what the 

test procedure says. 

I know that motors will only have 

to meet the efficiency standard at the voltage 

that is specified in the test procedure. 

Thank you for your comment. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Rob, follow 

on. 

MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler. We 

have had this conversation a little bit with 

DOE on the EPACT version of the product, the 

one to two hundred-horsepower. 

And we have been told that the way 

the regulation is written, it's the 230-460 is 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 274 

the level of efficiency and that the 208 is an 

unusual service condition that is not 

required. It's the tri-voltage not required. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Thank you. 

Roger? 

DR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

However, in electric motors, the voltage 

rating is included within the definition of 

electric motor. Voltage rating is not 

included in the definition of small electric 

motor. 

And so within the NEMA standard 

over broad voltage range, the motor shall 

provide the performance over the entire 

voltage range. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thanks for 

that clarification. 

Other comments here, summary 

remarks, other issues that need to be 

addressed? Yes? 

MR. AGAMLOH: Emmanuel Agamloh. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 275 

The efficiency levels that we see, I think one 

of the parameters that you looked at was power 

factor. I am wondering what kind of power 

factor levels are assisted with these 

efficiency levels. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Matt? 

MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti, 

Navigant Consulting. The baseline motor that 

we analyzed, we took the power factor from 

that motor. And the design parameter for 

power factor, we maintained the power factor 

in each increasing efficiency-level design. 

I can't speak to the -- I don't 

remember exactly what the specifics were, but 

it is in the appendix for the engineering 

chapter. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger? 

DR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

I believe if you look in the transcript of the 

meeting that was held in January, you will 

find comments from user groups that it was 

preferred that that power factor be above 85 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 276 

percent. And, in preference, one of them even 

stated a much higher level. Like for the 

polyphase motors, the levels you are working 

with are around 71 to 73 percent. 

So in today's design of high 

efficiency motors, it is not necessarily a 

position of manufacturers to provide the same 

power factor as in a standard efficient motor. 

We do strive to get that power factor up. 

And that was explained back at a previous 

meeting you will find in the transcript. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

MR. NARDOTTI: Thank you. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Any 

additional comments as we move towards closure 

here? Roger? 

DR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

I looked at the appendix 5A. And I noted that 

the core losses for the EL designs that 

included change in electrical steel appear to 

be based on using the watts per pound core 

loss data from the electrical steel 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 277 

manufacturer. 

As was pointed out in my comments 

on January 30th and recorded in the transcript 

on pages 96 through 103, I have experience in 

building and testing multiple motors using 

various types of the so-called improved 

electrical steels. 

As stated then and I will repeat 

now, the ratio of measured core loss for using 

two types of steels in the same state of 

design have never ever approached the ratio 

indicated by Epstein testing. 

At best, it is my estimate that 

for the EL7 design of the CSIR motor, that the 

efficiency is not 77.0 percent, but, rather, 

it is not greater than 72 percent. 

This makes suspect all of the EL 

designs that included change in electrical 

steel, particularly 29M15 and the Hiperco 50. 

If you have not built and tested any designs 

using these types of steels, then they should 

not be considered in establishing efficiency 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 278 

standards that the manufacturers will not be 

able to meet. 

Further, it makes suspect that 

design tools used by the DOE to calculate 

motor efficiency when such types of electrical 

steel are used. 

MR. RIVEST: Roger, we appreciate 

your comment. And any substantiation of your 

observations would be very helpful to our 

modeling efforts. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, Roger? 

DR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

I will say that I am prepared, and I can 

provide the Department of Energy with 

numerical values that illustrate my point very 

well. 

However, I can't do that in the 

presence of my competitors. And the person 

that you have that is running the design 

analysis program is a competitor of Baldor 

Electric Company. 

I would have to ask that none of 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 279 

the information that I provide to the 

Department is passed on outside of the 

Department of Energy. I can substantiate 

everything I said, but I have to expect 

confidentiality in providing that kind of 

information. 

MR. RIVEST: We can come into that 

type of agreement with you and simply really 

any parameters that need to be changed in the 

modeling based on our observation and 

evaluation of the data you provide. That 

would be acceptable to us. 

DR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

By not passing on, I would have to expect that 

not even a summary of the comparison of one 

steel to another can be passed on. Because 

that is my competitor, the opportunity to 

improve his program and his design of the 

motors that he is designing at the expense of 

mine doing all the testing and constructing 

motors with these steels. 

MR. RIVEST: Well, how about we 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 280 

have a follow-on conversation and see if we 

can accommodate everyone's wishes? 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: The 

Department and its consultants create all 

kinds of agreements to protect data that needs 

to be protected. So you can talk with him 

about that. 

Do you want to keep going? Roger? 

DR. DAUGHERTY: Another issue 

deals with stray-load loss values. According 

to section 431.443 of subpart X, for the 

one-horsepower four-pole polyphase motor, the 

method of test to be used is IEEE 112, Method 

A. 

That test method does not provide 

a breakdown of losses and, hence, no value of 

stray-load loss for the motor. In appendix 

5A, the value of stray-load loss is given as 

2.4 percent, which is not the recommended 

value in IEEE 112 when stray-load loss is not 

known. 

So my question to the Department 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 281 

or its consultants is, was the value of 77.2 

percent for the motor determined from use of 

Test Method A or Test Method B of IEEE 112? 

That is my first question. 

MS. GUPTA: This is Mimi Gupta. I 

mean, I think this is all documented in the 

TSD. Matt, do you have it? 

MR. NARDOTTI: It should be in 

appendix 5A. 

DR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

I can only say --

MR. NARDOTTI: If it's not then it 

will be in the final rule TSD. 

DR. DAUGHERTY: Well, my question 

is, see, you have taken your test value of 

77.2. You have declared that as being the DOE 

definition of nominal efficiency for that 

baseline design. And if you compare the 

efficiency you will get from using Method B to 

the value you will get from using Method A, 

they are not going to be the same. 

Yet, you are making a declaration 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 282 

your test is 100 percent accurate in 

determining the mean average efficiency of a 

population of motors. 

And so if I continue along that 

respect, then I see that in the CSIR and the 

CSCR motors, the value of stray-load loss is 

given as 1.8 percent. And I remember that I 

brought this up with respect to the previous 

TSD in January because of the values that were 

used there. 

Now I happen to find that the 

value that is used is a value that seems to 

correspond to IEEE 112. The values in IEEE 

112 are for motors one horsepower and greater. 

These motors are fractional horsepower 

motors. 

Also, I like to know whether or 

not that 1.8 since it's the same for both 

types, if those were obtained since it appears 

they were not determined from testing in 

accordance with IEEE 114, which is the DOE's 

prescribed method of testing for those rated 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 283 

motors. 

So why is the same value used for 

both the baseline and the EL designs? Why is 

the stray-load loss not different for 

different types of electrical steel? And why 

is it expected that the stray-load loss is 

lower for CSIR and for CSCR motors than for 

polyphase motors of higher rating? 

MR. RIVEST: Rob, I think these 

are comments we are going to have to go back 

and address in our written responses in the 

notice itself. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So I think 

that if you have other specific questions, 

that they will have to --

MR. RIVEST: Right. These are 

very helpful, but at the risk of flipping 

through pages and coming with the wrong table, 

I think it's more productive than we --

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Thanks, Mike. 

Yes, Roger? 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 -- 

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 284

 DR. DAUGHERTY: Then this is to 

the Department. In section 5.1 of chapter 5 

of the TSD -- and I'll quote -- "After 

modeling the baseline motors and creating 

theoretical more efficient designs, DOE 

attempted to validate the results of the 

engineering analysis with the testing and 

tear-down of additional motors available in 

the current market." 

I don't find anything about that 

attempt in the TSD. So could you clarify what 

the results of that attempt were? 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Asa? 

MR. NARDOTTI: Those results are 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Oh. Pardon 

me. Matt? 

MR. NARDOTTI: -- depicted in the 

appendix 5A --

DR. DAUGHERTY: Additional 

tear-down? 

MR. NARDOTTI: -- of the TSD. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 285

 DR. DAUGHERTY: Additional 

tear-down? 

MR. NARDOTTI: They are labeled on 

the engineering curves that I had I presented 

before. There is a third set of a third curve 

on that same graph in the TSD for each of the 

motors that we examined. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes? 

MR. AGAMLOH: I just wanted to 

make a quick comment on the stray-load losses. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Your name? 

MR. AGAMLOH: Emmanuel Agamloh. 

The stray-load losses for models of this size 

that we are considering is spelled out both in 

the IEEE 112 and IEEE 114 as 1.8 percent of 

output power. 

So if DOE is using anything above 

that, I think I had 2.4 percent. I don't 

think there is anything like that in 112. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Thank you. 

MR. AGAMLOH: However, for 112A, 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 286 

there is no segregation of losses. So you 

cannot pinpoint any particular stray-load loss 

if you are testing according to 112A. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Roger? 

DR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Just to clarify those IEEE standards, those 

values of stray-load loss that are in the 

standards are suggested values if you don't 

determine the value by testing. 

So they're not applicable to like 

IEEE 112, Method B because you measure strayload loss. And they're not really applicable 

to IEEE 114 because if you follow the entire 

procedure, stray-load loss is measured. 

So that's why I just wondered if 

the 114 was followed because the stray-load 

loss I saw for both the CSIR and the CSCR 

motors would not seem to be the values that 

would be applicable to those motors. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, 

Emmanuel? 

MR. AGAMLOH: Emmanuel Agamloh. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 287 

That is correct, but IEEE 114 also suggests a 

value of 1.8 for stray-load losses if it is 

not determined. So it is also there in that 

standard, even though the standard you don't 

necessarily need to use that value to 

determine the efficiency. 

But it is written there that if a 

test is not performed to determine the strayload loss, a value of 1.8 percent can be used. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. Rob? 

No? Yes? Go ahead. 

MR. BOTELER: We're doing closing 

now? 

(Laughter.) 

MR. BOTELER: I'm ready to close. 

This is Rob. 

Roger? Go ahead. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, 

please? And some of these are rather 

specific. And maybe they could be submitted 

to the Department and they could address them 

in their detailed comments. But keep going. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 288

 DR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

Again, this is the Department and the 

structure of the 10 CFR part 431. On page 

61422 -- and I quote -- "As to electric motors 

with non-standard kilowatt or horsepower 

ratings, section 431.25(b)(3) provides a 

kilowatt rating would be arithmetically 

converted to its equivalent horsepower rating 

and then based on whether the motor falls 

above or below the midpoint between 

consecutive horsepower ratings would be 

required to meet the corresponding higher or 

lower energy efficiency level, respectively. 

DOE proposes to adopt similar interpretations 

for small electric motors." 

While I am not necessarily 

objecting to this decision for small motors, I 

would be remiss if I did not point out that in 

the definition of electric motor in 431.12, 

there is no reference to standard ratings. 

However, with regards to the 

definition of small electric motor in 431.442, 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 289 

that references NEMA general purpose 

alternating current single-speed induction 

motor. DOE has shown in the scope document 

mentioned earlier that standard ratings are a 

part of the definition of small electric 

motor. 

To be correct, I think that DOE 

needs some other justification for expanding 

coverage to non-standard ratings. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thanks for 

the comment. 

DR. DAUGHERTY: I would like that 

justification. I just want to point out that 

it appears that it may not be there because 

that standard rating is part of the 

definition. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. Rob? 

MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler. Well, 

thank everybody. We appreciate having a 

chance to tell you our side of the story. 

A couple of things that we will 

do. We will take another look at doing an OEM 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 290 

survey to try and get better clarification on 

the applications and hours of applications and 

the impact of larger motors in the confined 

envelope that the manufacturers have. 

One of the things that concerns me 

still is that a lot of the economic 

justification is based on those hours of use 

and the types of applications. 

I think once we come to grips and 

really understand that, some of the economic 

justification is going to change dramatically. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

Additional final remarks? Yes, 

please? And your name? 

MR. LEBO: This is John Lebo. A 

great session today. I would like to say that 

whatever was discussed today was all using 

conventional technology. And, as brought up 

today, there are other technologies available 

which are soon to be -- I think you threw out 

the number of double the cost, but those are 

done in low volumes today. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 291

 So as part of any standard that 

will increase the use of higher efficiency 

motors and higher volumes, those of those 

alternate technologies will come down. 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

So from my part, I am going to 

turn it back to the Department of Energy for 

closing remarks. And I am going to hand out 

-- the Department has made copies of the 

business cards of the attendees. That is 

something they provide as a resource to 

everybody. So I am going to hand those 

around. 

And also each of you at the bottom 

of your packet has an evaluation form. If you 

would please take a few moments to fill that 

out? The Department is always interested in 

improving these meetings. So I will turn it 

back to Jim Raba and Ron Lewis for closing 

remarks. 

MR. LEWIS: In the spirit of the 

rest of today, I will ask a question, even 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 292 

though it is closing comments and thanking 

everybody for being here. 

Rob, in your gracious offer to go 

back and try to help us with some more data, 

as you know, there is a deadline that we're up 

against. And we don't have any flexibility in 

that deadline. 

So if you give us any indication 

as soon as you have that of when you expect it 

that if it doesn't look like we're going to 

have that in time to do all of the extra 

analysis we may have to do, it creates some 

other challenges for us. 

So it would be helpful even once 

you get a sense of when that could be 

accomplished? We would appreciate that also. 

A lot of good information, a lot 

of good input today. I think we are all 

anxious to have the best end result. And we 

really appreciate you being here. And we look 

forward to the comments that everybody is 

going to submit. And to the degree that we 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 293 

can get things in writing so we can take a 

look at them and absorb them and comprehend in 

a logical manner, that would be very helpful. 

So thanks for being here. And a 

safe journey to everyone back. And we look 

forward to this final stretch to getting new 

data and doing what we need to do to consider 

it. 

MR. RABA: On behalf of the 

Department of Energy, I certainly would second 

Ron's comments. I appreciate everybody coming 

out, giving as much input as you possibly can 

now and, better still, written down data, 

information that will help us substantiate and 

move forward with this rulemaking from all 

sides. 

I just want to again say that we 

have got a transcript for the record. If 

anybody wants to get copies, these will be on 

our website very shortly. And the written 

comment period is open only until January 

25th. 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Page 294

 But, please, if you have comments 

you can provide sooner than that, it would be 

most appreciated. We have the addresses here 

if you need them. 

Again, thank you very much, 

appreciate you being here. And home safely, 

everybody. Thank you. 

(Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

was concluded at 3:19 p.m.) 

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 295 

A accurate 122:6 address 20:7 183:5 195:8 196:20 175:16 178:14

124:14 177:6,12 283:11 287:21 201:16 alternatives 258:4 abide 183:7 228:21

214:12 282:1 addressed 20:11 Agamloh 1:17 5:20 258:7,13 229:2 230:15

accurately 178:22 72:14 184:22 5:20 138:20,20 altogether 136:16 ability 35:19 45:3

ACEEE 19:18 274:21 274:22,22 285:9 aluminum 94:3 77:4 118:16

achievable 207:13 addresses 294:3 285:12,12,22 252:10 224:10,11 232:22

209:21 271:3 addressing 233:6,7 286:22,22 ambient 26:2,6 able 81:4 93:16

272:16,17 adequately 148:1 agenda 3:3 8:21 9:6 amenity 167:18 95:19 99:17,19

achieve 104:2 adhere 69:8 70:16 10:12 18:10,20 American 2:17 6:7 101:7 104:1

105:20 108:13 79:12 89:9,10 20:19 154:7 235:16 177:15,17 183:15

224:7 241:4,11 265:8 aggregate 169:20 amount 15:14 185:15 191:20

247:6 adherence 46:13 210:10,12 212:5 29:17 43:20 50:5 238:19 239:19,22

achieved 20:12 adhering 39:13 aggregating 217:3 71:9 116:7,13 263:22 267:8

80:22 105:16 50:2 89:8 226:1 133:4 269:20 270:1

achieving 80:9 adjourn 3:20 10:21 ago 178:3 231:10 amounts 268:14 278:2

192:21 adjusted 153:20 252:6 amp 204:4,19 absence 41:20

acknowledge 86:15 Adjuvant 2:17 7:15 agree 42:17 49:11 244:18 223:12

acknowledged adopt 135:16 69:6 75:4 108:8 amps 64:22 65:2,13 absolute 227:13,18

15:17 288:14 agreement 25:11 65:15 238:7

Act 14:6 154:8,8,16 adopted 39:10 67:16 279:8 analyses 10:9 12:20 absolutely 80:13,19

actual 87:16 98:3 127:6 agreements 280:5 12:22 14:9 15:22 252:21

105:10 118:1,12 Advanced 1:17,20 agrees 103:18 149:5,9,10 150:4 absorb 293:2

132:17 134:18 5:21 6:1 138:21 155:19 152:10 165:4 acceptable 83:12

199:9 211:3 adverse 77:3 agricultural 154:4 168:2 224:21 279:12

add 44:15 72:21 adversely 222:2 163:9,9,10,19,20 250:10 253:11 accommodate 93:3

75:19 82:8,10 Advisors 1:21 ahead 79:5 97:21 257:21 93:8 136:4 280:2

111:20 AEDM 117:18 164:7 287:11,17 analysis 3:7,9,10 accompanies added 47:18 113:4 118:2,6,18 119:1 aid 137:13 3:10,11,12,13,15 138:11

143:19 185:19 119:2,10,12 air 79:13 81:15 3:15,16 9:17,20 accomplished 257:10 123:22 124:4,18 99:5 197:21 9:22,22 10:4,5,6,7 292:16

adding 47:14 124:18 137:7 198:20 10:7 14:16 15:10 account 14:20 71:2

107:20 144:9 145:18,20 aligned 213:3 15:21 26:11,19 79:7,18 94:6 95:1

addition 11:21 23:4 146:16 148:11,16 Alliance 7:16 27:7 28:21 37:18 104:18 105:1

47:14 72:22 73:6 148:17 allow 79:9 93:5 47:20 50:6 54:20 174:16 179:11

additional 13:5 AEDMs 119:5,7,13 149:20 197:8 55:11 59:19,20 252:14

21:19 23:9 31:8 119:21 126:9,18 allowed 78:2 60:18,19 73:2,13 accounted 131:6

43:2 51:14 59:16 126:19 allows 263:7 77:7,19 78:7 216:19

66:10 102:15 AEO 154:11,15 264:13 79:11 80:4 82:5 accounting 79:8

162:7 169:13 174:13,15,17 alluded 206:16 82:14,14,15 86:10 accounts 95:2

180:16 190:7,11 189:16 251:6 alternate 291:4 95:2,4 103:5,7 189:2

193:19 214:15 affect 175:18 206:7 alternating 22:15 104:7 108:18 accreditation

221:6 227:6,6,21 239:18 23:3,21,22 30:4 109:3 112:22 114:15,17 115:4

245:13 257:15 affiliation 4:22 36:11 39:20 46:14 113:10 119:11,12 accredited 101:22

271:15 276:15 affirm 30:19 47:15 56:17 289:2 120:15 124:22 114:22 126:13

284:8,20 285:1 afternoon 10:10,19 alternative 45:4 141:12,15 142:1,6 accuracy 105:9

290:13 after-market 185:2 117:13 118:17 146:4 147:2,8 114:10 118:19

additionally 157:7 192:10 194:20 169:10 170:19 149:12,20 150:1 123:5

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 296 

150:10,13,17,19 72:17,17,20,20 24:1,18 26:8 87:15 117:7 148:22 149:2

151:18,22 152:2,7 74:10,20 94:13,13 41:21 65:22 110:2 appreciate 4:6 167:19 195:2

152:19 155:1,4,12 204:9 215:13 129:20 137:20 13:22 101:14 197:1 205:7

156:6,7 157:4,7 216:8,11 252:4,4 286:10,12,19 166:13 250:2 206:16 207:20

160:10 161:14,18 Anheuser 163:4 application 65:20 278:7 289:19 216:17,18 218:7

161:21 165:1,2,6 annual 150:20 70:15,21 72:2 292:16,20 293:11 250:7 284:13

166:6 167:22 152:12 153:17 92:8 156:8,17 294:6 aside 170:21

168:1,3,9,10,11 154:9 156:18 163:7 193:2 194:9 appreciated 294:3 asked 52:4 199:4

168:12,17,19 159:19 169:7,12 194:18 195:9,10 approach 99:10 asking 260:9

169:4 170:1 175:2 179:6 189:13 196:15 197:13 103:5 aspects 217:2

175:6 183:18 223:1 198:2 199:18,20 approached 277:11 assess 221:15

187:13 188:3 answer 53:20 68:1 204:11,11 210:4 approaches 229:18 assessment 3:15

189:6,8,19 190:10 71:7 79:6 186:19 244:11 267:1,2,5 approaching 10:8 254:22,22

190:12 197:15 191:20 207:20 267:7,8 229:20 assign 170:11,13

200:11 201:6 220:14 243:22 applications 18:12 appropriate 46:4 assigned 134:16

205:6 207:20 answers 245:3 32:10 33:11,13,17 57:8,11 77:17 135:6 163:17

212:13 214:12 ANTHONY 2:9 69:22 77:5,11,13 91:5 110:4,9 255:20

216:4,21,22 anticipated 242:22 77:15 78:1,2 133:11 142:16,20 assist 114:13

217:17 218:9 antitrust 170:4 81:11,22 83:9,16 201:2 assisted 275:4

219:17 220:1 180:18 181:1,9 85:15 151:5 154:4 appropriately associated 94:9

221:13 222:16,20 anxious 292:19 157:5,6,9,12 140:7 95:7 96:13 129:19

223:9,11 224:20 anybody 8:11 9:9 159:20 163:3,10 appropriateness 131:20 141:16

225:17 245:6 12:2 18:22 59:12 163:17 164:1 61:21 256:20 200:17 215:20

250:13,14,22 136:12 168:5 165:16 171:1 approved 147:13 association 2:4,8

251:8 252:16,22 259:6 293:19 172:16,17 178:7 approximated 5:4 19:6 63:15

253:12,12,20,21 apologize 110:15 190:4,9 191:4,12 171:18 assume 162:21

254:11 255:20 161:10 177:3 194:8,21 198:4 approximately 272:3

256:5,17,19 258:1 apparent 128:16 199:5 200:18 27:20 28:3 29:7 assumed 26:2 73:1

258:2,15 271:1 apparently 121:4 203:15 208:3 92:17 131:4 77:15 120:13

272:21 278:20 122:17 130:17 224:13 231:15,20 212:15 214:1 122:20 154:5

284:7 292:12 appear 118:22 232:17 237:15 arbitrarily 89:20 156:11,16,20

analyst 207:19 148:10 276:20 262:15 264:1 91:22 175:3 190:18

analytical 146:5 appears 43:9 50:6 265:2 290:2,2,8 area 81:10,11 assumes 190:5,7

analyze 60:6 62:15 63:13 122:3 130:8 applied 76:11 92:12 101:2 assuming 55:20

analyzed 95:14 160:15 282:19 83:15 117:9 121:4 103:22 172:11 69:14 116:19

96:17,18 128:11 289:14 124:1 139:4 areas 21:22 184:8 220:8

161:22 169:9 appendices 157:19 145:21 164:11 arguing 50:7 assumption 54:18

205:16 212:14 appendix 27:5 applies 25:20 29:1 arithmetic 111:22 55:12 83:8,11

222:14 226:11 54:20,21 63:21 58:3 71:5 135:7 114:3 121:8,14,22 122:3 190:22

227:10 238:3 67:15 69:14 86:21 146:7 226:15 123:8 128:1 145:7 193:16 194:7,11

275:9 116:17 275:15 227:12 232:5 145:8 217:12 219:17

analyzes 165:7 276:18 280:17 apply 44:10 47:5 arithmetically 245:5

253:13 281:9 284:19 52:19 87:18 92:3 288:7 assumptions 13:3

Anderson 1:17 appliance 2:1 117:4 130:18 arrive 122:22 174:19 191:16

7:22,22 230:9 134:8 143:1 arrived 16:17 192:2,13 195:6

ANDREW 2:1 applicable 17:16 264:14 Asa 2:6 3:10,12,16 200:15 201:4

Andrle 1:18 6:2,2 17:19 22:22 23:12 applying 80:5 6:21 104:15,16 225:19 248:19

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 297 

249:20 B 227:15,20 238:21 basis 53:4 69:9 68:4 149:3 229:17

atmospheric B 246:15,17 93:6 114:14 230:22 1:19 24:4,8,9,15

256:12 based 15:6 31:14 124:15 131:2 best 11:8 14:2 31:7 47:9 88:9

attempt 248:12 32:18 45:6,16 144:7 183:19 21:13 22:4 60:21 113:6,18 114:18

284:11,12 55:9 59:7 66:7 233:17 242:5 106:1 136:4 180:4 115:1 116:2

attempted 284:6 80:22 87:9 89:7 261:16 277:13 292:19 117:20 122:13

attendees 291:10 97:5 99:5,5 Basso 1:19 5:9,9 better 101:13 127:5 266:22

attention 111:8 109:21,22 112:21 49:11,14,14 83:4 178:18 191:7 281:3,19 286:11

231:3 113:17,20 114:17 104:6,6 185:5,5 193:15 196:15 back 11:11 13:18

attorneys 59:10 116:19 120:21 191:15,15 220:4 201:5 240:7 15:20 19:16 45:19

attributable 122:3 122:15 126:6 233:10 237:22 264:22 290:1 53:4 56:9 69:1

audience 4:17 127:6 129:15 238:2 248:18 293:13 82:11 87:12

audits 230:7 130:8 131:22 249:5,9,14,16,21 beyond 154:17 106:17 107:16

August 34:1 132:14 133:13 262:2 266:6 biasing 179:19 136:13 138:5

Australia 236:4 134:4 138:22 bear 32:21 big 166:19 172:21 166:8,20 167:9,16

authority 48:16 139:1 146:3 152:6 began 32:22 180:19 252:15 176:3 177:2

availability 15:18 153:19 154:7,13 beginning 250:12 biggest 197:11 180:15 181:10

102:19 170:9 154:19 155:5,21 behalf 19:9 48:8,10 229:5,8 185:7 196:7

188:10 245:18 156:1,2,17 182:3 48:13,13,18 66:21 bill 5:14 8:4 60:10 197:21 201:9,9

available 11:15,17 199:10 220:22 84:22 228:9 293:9 93:17,18 180:13 207:7 242:1 252:5

15:20 27:18 33:10 237:5 246:20,22 behavior 190:3 186:8 231:8 276:10 283:10

36:6 52:15 63:16 256:2 264:17 191:3 billion 215:10 291:7,19 292:4

64:5 104:20 276:21 279:10 behoove 107:12 bills 254:7 293:5

106:10 151:2 288:9 290:7 believe 21:6 52:1 Bison 2:5 7:10 bad 242:9,15

153:3 164:1 178:9 baseline 27:9 28:16 89:22 98:22 bit 13:12 45:6 badge 166:18

180:17 222:21 29:2 30:7 60:7 100:16 161:12 59:11 89:16 97:17 baffling 99:3

244:22 246:2 61:22 63:22 64:13 162:13 170:3 105:18 174:12 balance 17:9

251:13 254:19 64:19 65:2,5,10 176:17 197:17 177:4 217:18 balancing 80:15

263:4 284:8 Baldor 65:15,18 66:8,14 198:3 199:7,11 237:4 252:5 264:3 1:22 5:6

290:19 73:11,22 76:10,12 211:22 234:17 273:18 19:12 42:22 48:8

Avenue 1:13 76:16 77:16 78:21 264:16 275:19 blanket 193:15 48:14,18 137:17

average 110:6 79:14 80:22 87:10 believes 23:7 blowing 197:20 144:6 263:21

112:10,12 115:16 105:15 125:19 Beloit 5:17,19 blue 170:18 180:1 278:20

116:4 127:12 Ball 126:7,8,12 151:20 182:14 Bob 5:11 80:2,21 153:1

143:14,22 144:16 Ballo 157:22 159:9 belt 164:12 81:20 108:6,7 1:18 6:4,4

144:21 156:3,4,22 218:18,19 275:8 belted 197:19 211:5,7 217:10 20:16,17,17 49:20

165:15 166:3 281:18 283:3 belts 268:20 243:20 49:20 92:20,20

176:16 189:4,9 284:4 beneficial 190:19 borders 236:9 ballpark 251:17

282:2 basic 44:19 56:11 269:10 Boteler 1:19 5:7,7 band 240:5 242:11

avoid 179:19 66:8 71:9 109:13 benefit 48:4 158:9 49:5,6 83:20,21 bar 8:18 188:16

aware 272:4 118:8,9,13 123:17 158:15 159:3,5,16 84:17 85:1,3 235:4

Awareness 2:1 123:19 124:5 159:17,21 267:13 105:4,4 106:8 barriers 184:6

axis 158:20 145:21 146:2 benefits 17:5 46:9 162:9,9,18 164:9 base 27:14 81:12

a.m 1:13 4:2 222:17 93:15 166:2 164:19 171:5,11 152:14 159:10

A.O 2:16 5:12 basically 15:5 205:13 171:20 172:1,5 160:18 161:2

19:12 80:3 208:19 244:10 Berkeley 2:6,19,20 173:21 174:10 171:15 188:5,7,12

Basic-based 153:4 6:20,22 33:7 55:6 175:22 176:1 223:12 226:18

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 298 

177:14 192:17,17 Brookman 1:13,15 201:7 204:8 205:1 bulk 85:7 258:8 241:8,22 250:19

195:18,18 197:10 3:3,6,18 4:15,19 207:4 209:11 burden 45:5,21,22 258:13

197:10 202:2 6:16 7:9 8:9 211:5 212:9,18 118:18 222:6 calculates 162:6

203:19 234:14 18:19,21 20:15 214:2,14 215:12 burdens 17:6 223:9

236:1 237:1 248:4 21:18 25:2 30:14 216:6,10,14 217:8 205:13 calculating 122:6

248:13,16 267:21 31:2 32:20 47:22 218:16 220:2 burdensome 44:20 130:20 150:12

273:17,17 287:12 48:7,12,17,20 221:6 226:7 228:3 Bureau 151:12 calculation 156:15

287:15 289:18,18 49:9,12,15 51:11 229:10,14 231:5 Busch 163:5 162:1 195:7 210:8

bottom 153:15 51:18 55:4 56:6 232:2,7 233:9 business 151:15 calculations 161:13

291:14 59:9 62:1,6,10,17 234:7 235:18 225:7 227:1 161:16 162:21

bottoms-up 242:6 63:1 66:9,12 70:2 236:18 237:20 230:19 235:15 195:17 216:20

bought 159:8,9 72:16,18 73:18 238:1 240:15 240:4 253:16 242:6 256:3

bound 23:5 82:21 74:8,17 75:1,10 242:18 243:20 264:6 291:10 calibrate 195:16

226:11 227:8 76:7 78:8 79:1,4 245:12 246:7,10 businesses 85:11 197:8

228:1 234:10,12 79:22 81:13 82:1 247:12,21 248:3 165:12,13 166:1 calibrated 156:22

boundary 55:8,13 82:7,10 83:1,18 248:17 250:3 221:21 222:1 call 91:1 197:18

box 103:4 172:21 84:14,21 85:2 252:3,17 253:9 Buskirk 2:19 55:5 263:11 272:8

183:13 226:8 86:1,5,14 87:5,20 257:14,17 259:4 55:6 58:19 68:3,4 called 152:22 254:2

234:9 88:3 89:12 90:14 261:9,22 266:4,7 196:22 197:1 cap 107:17,18,18

Brad 7:5 78:19 92:18 93:9 94:11 267:19 269:12 214:10 219:6,16 107:22 108:1,2,10

79:1,10 80:3 95:8 97:2,8,21 271:11 272:19 229:16,17 230:21 171:7,7,10,15

105:18,22 272:20 98:11 99:7,13 273:15 274:4,17 230:22 172:11,11,16,16

BRADLEY 2:2 100:8,14 101:16 275:6,17 276:12 Butler 1:20 5:22,22 225:14

break 9:18 10:2,9 103:3 104:4 105:3 276:14 278:11 button 8:15 capability 192:22

10:11 136:9,10 105:13 106:6,13 280:3 283:13,20 buy 76:6 87:19 capacitor 32:8

166:10,12 193:14 108:5,21 109:8 284:13,16 285:8 88:10 92:3 184:19 34:11 35:10

breakdown 14:17 110:13,17,22 285:11,20 286:4 195:13 243:4,11 107:20 185:20

37:15 40:20 52:2 111:4,12,17 286:20 287:10,18 245:7 267:3 186:2,2,3

52:3,8,17 53:13 135:19 137:22 289:10,17 290:12 buys 184:16 capacitors 73:9

72:11 87:1 259:19 138:18 139:8 291:5 capacitor-run 32:6

260:3 280:16 140:5 142:9 brought 111:7 C 34:8 35:11 108:11

breaking 199:18 145:13 146:14 282:8 290:18 C 2:12 26:2,3,6,7,8 178:8,11 185:18

breakpoint 53:11 147:5,22 148:18 Brussels 268:4 27:7,9 28:2,3,5,11 245:8 246:21

BRIAN 1:21 158:18 160:11 BRYAN 2:13 28:15,16 29:8,15 capacitor-start

brief 8:20 9:7,13 162:7 163:14 Budget 190:1 29:17,19,22 32:2,6 34:6,8 35:9

12:3,12 166:14 164:7,16,20 166:4 build 101:9 105:10 cafeteria 166:19 35:11 37:19

259:6 166:9 167:14 177:12 202:11,13 167:8,18 108:11,15 178:5,7

briefer 136:22 171:4 173:9 174:7 202:15,18 203:20 calculate 144:11 178:8 179:10

briefly 73:19 174:11 177:20 204:3 243:3 152:4 153:12 185:10,18,19

bring 106:2 233:11 180:11 181:13,21 building 1:12 85:19 168:7 222:12 206:9 212:2 215:4

236:8 237:11 182:11 183:8,12 147:19 166:17 258:15 278:4 246:19,21

247:3 184:4 185:3 186:6 197:21 251:2 calculated 121:17 capacity 31:15

Bringing 34:21 186:17 187:7 277:5 122:22 124:13 32:12 244:19

brings 186:3 191:13 192:15 builds 57:14 125:5 153:19 250:2 251:12,18

204:17 193:9,18 194:3 built 22:16 43:7 161:17 179:16 251:20

broad 272:9,12 195:1,4 196:18 45:14 56:18 187:15,17,18,21 capital 156:3 225:1

274:14 199:12 200:2 277:20 189:5,21 217:5 225:3,4,13,15

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 299 

226:1,3,6,14,16 96:21 97:20 chances 71:11 characterize 60:2 24:7,8,14,17,19

227:4,19 234:11 162:12,14,15,19 change 32:1,3,5,14 151:6 191:7 24:22 25:5,9

235:3 238:6,21 164:6 219:10 32:15 70:7 81:6 232:22 238:16 28:22 31:6 44:15

239:1,7 242:12 231:2 237:10 90:8 95:1,2,3 characterized 45:16 61:10 88:9

243:6 246:14 category 31:21 113:3 122:21 12:20 193:21 88:11,14 105:2

248:12,20 32:1 68:6 84:20 123:13,14,18 232:21 128:12 129:1

capped 255:11 85:9 97:4,7 124:6 131:3,5 CHARLES 2:12 138:10 157:18

capture 248:12 101:21 102:4,9,13 132:20 142:3 Charlie 2:17 7:14 169:21 170:11,13

captured 248:13 103:2 162:17 155:14 177:8 chart 63:11 180:3,8 189:10

253:19 203:9,21 243:19 185:13 190:9 charts 200:4 244:1 200:19 209:21

capturing 252:21 251:16 240:3,21 243:17 Chaudhari 1:20 210:1 220:19

carbon 255:8 cause 241:15 244:2 251:9,12 255:16 8:7,7 221:2

cards 291:10 causing 20:13 266:17 267:16,17 cheap 244:20 classes 3:7 9:17

carefully 17:3 cell 11:22 276:20 277:18 check 65:21 108:3 18:5 22:12 25:13

Carlo 152:20,22 Census 151:12,13 290:11 236:7 27:3 31:11,14,14

153:4,9 151:15 178:2 changed 25:16 checking 107:16 31:21 32:18 42:4

carries 208:17 centered 240:21 42:17 151:17 chemistry 256:12 42:11 43:3 44:16

carry 50:21 51:9 Centigrade 25:21 157:5 185:21 chevrons 164:22 44:18 45:8,9,19

cars 198:11 cents 155:20 279:9 259:3 46:1,2,4,6 48:11

case 29:1,5,13 certain 15:12,14 changes 46:5 84:6 Chile 268:8 58:4 60:6,14,15

63:19 103:21 16:8 35:2,19 39:5 85:21 91:13 China 231:10,12,14 60:17 61:8 74:2

120:4 141:5 80:17 93:1,1 102:22 104:22 231:17,18,21 96:17 102:14

144:18 152:14 109:15 164:1 122:18,20 124:5 268:8 103:6 104:19,22

154:9,16 158:14 230:4 130:6 150:8 156:5 Chinese 231:11 119:15,22 129:7

159:10 163:21,21 certainly 13:22 251:8 253:16 choice 63:13 145:3 129:10 138:16

170:17 171:15 18:13 30:22 75:4 255:4 256:16 267:13 150:18 159:1

188:5,8,12 208:21 91:15 148:9 173:5 260:2 choose 81:1,3 170:3,5,8 179:6

223:12,13 226:17 198:8 202:4 244:5 changing 90:20 190:14 224:16 180:10 200:21

226:18 227:14,15 265:10 293:10 channels 151:19 225:10 210:14 219:3,5

230:19 235:21 certainty 273:2 152:4,5 chooses 178:19 232:4 247:3

264:16 certification 44:21 chapter 26:12 choosing 61:6 classification 138:8

cases 85:16 179:10 109:15 146:18 27:13 37:5 42:5 chose 122:17 128:9 classifications

196:5 215:16 231:4 67:15 120:11 circuit 244:19 247:11

244:7 248:7 certify 45:22 128:3 130:12,19 267:6 classified 41:21

cashflows 223:8,10 146:19 199:16,19 224:2 cited 70:4 142:3 classifies 50:15

cast 94:18 cetera 251:11 226:4 258:20 cites 22:19 23:6 classify 42:2

catalog 61:9 74:3 253:17 254:9 275:16 284:2 clarification 33:22 clause 129:2,4

74:11,11 102:11 CFR 45:1 46:22 characteristic 137:3,4 211:8 140:14

203:10 219:7 47:7 113:6,18 26:14 43:2 135:5 274:18 290:1 clear 33:19 48:3

220:7 264:10 119:20 122:5 characteristics clarified 211:11 269:18 270:4,19

catalogs 69:3 75:21 124:10 126:10 31:20 66:16 clarify 48:21 58:19 270:21 271:8

102:6,8,22 104:8 145:20 288:3 128:10 146:1 75:8 84:15 173:13 clearance 62:19

178:11 220:16 chain 200:12 160:5 193:3 173:14 217:11 79:12,17,20

catalogues 128:7 chairs 49:7 232:20 234:2 269:15 284:11 clearly 37:11 47:3

164:1 challenges 178:1 263:20 286:6 47:6,11 54:7

categories 32:4,19 292:13 characterization clarifying 55:7 69:12 108:16

37:19 61:1,3 chance 8:10 289:20 149:12,13 150:9 class 23:19 24:1,2,6 234:1,5,6

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 300 

close 14:3 107:6 19:1 24:21 31:5 66:10 68:20 78:5 238:7 comprise 157:12

195:21 287:15 49:17 55:7 59:13 94:21 101:14 compare 88:17 compromise 20:12

closely 213:2 61:20 68:16,22 103:15 108:9 107:21 177:9 computer 121:18

233:12 73:10 75:19 77:18 110:15 111:14 281:18 122:5,11 123:5,21

closes 13:20 78:20 81:21 86:10 117:16,21 136:4 compared 28:4 124:3,17 146:2,4

closest 151:2 87:7 90:2,3,16 137:14 152:6 88:19 165:9 258:4 146:21 147:14,17

closing 3:19 10:18 94:14 99:16 154:21 156:9 comparing 160:16 148:4,10

287:12 291:8,19 101:10,11 103:4,4 157:3 160:8 162:8 comparison 66:5 concept 117:18

292:1 105:18 107:16 166:5,11,14 169:4 101:11 143:22 concern 43:17 83:5

closure 34:21 111:10 135:22 175:20 183:11 214:6,6,8 219:1 83:6 86:8 94:17

276:15 142:4,14,19 148:2 187:8 197:5 279:15 112:17 114:1

coal 251:11 163:8 172:6 199:14,22 200:1,8 comparisons 65:21 130:1,8 155:17

code 50:10 70:13 173:11 176:12 201:2 214:11,15 66:3 108:10 185:8 192:1 224:9

70:17,20 71:6 180:14 181:17 221:7 226:5 228:2 competition 173:15 228:12,17 229:5,9

113:12 193:5 182:12,14 183:13 229:12 232:10 174:4 232:12 246:6

codified 45:3 183:14 185:4 234:12 235:20 competitor 278:20 260:15 262:13

118:15 190:3 191:2,22 245:13 250:4 279:17 265:10

COFFEY 1:21 193:19 200:10 256:4 257:2,12,15 competitors 278:18 concerned 20:10

colleague 221:10 212:20 214:5 257:19,20 258:22 complete 21:14,17 49:8 59:2 224:6

collect 180:16,21 226:8 228:5 234:9 262:8 269:16 103:7 173:2 224:14 225:12

collected 220:15,17 234:15 236:2 271:20,21 274:19 completed 47:21 265:22

221:4 237:22 238:2 275:21 276:15 completely 51:8 concerning 35:3

collecting 178:2 242:8 243:9,21 277:2 283:10 220:5 238:4 260:7 36:5 215:14

collects 193:12 244:14 247:14,20 287:22 292:1,21 complex 72:7 256:9 concerns 170:4

column 127:10 250:2 256:19 293:11 294:1 complexity 111:9 224:20 245:17

248:21 262:3 272:1 273:6 commercial 154:3 117:7 263:8 290:5

combination 273:7,14 278:8 156:2 163:18 compliance 21:1,9 concise 12:5 75:15

178:17 285:10 289:11 170:22 21:12 44:21 46:1 conclude 37:17

combinations 293:21 commercially 109:16 113:8,11 113:16

205:22 206:11,12 commented 43:1 148:6 113:14 116:4 concluded 38:16

combined 102:10 237:10 commit 261:19 117:3 118:19 39:9 124:21 294:9

152:20 201:3 commenters committed 21:12 122:4 143:7,17 concluding 259:6

come 8:16 14:1 229:19 231:1 common 61:3 144:3 conclusion 113:17

16:13 17:19 82:11 260:16 65:20 113:1 comply 269:21 120:22 247:9

85:13 97:12 104:8 commenting 237:9 247:10 270:1,2,8,9,14,15 condition 27:11

136:13 161:9 comments 3:5 4:9 community 127:4 complying 223:5 38:7 116:18

189:7 197:14 4:17 9:11 11:1,19 267:17 269:10 component 197:3,4 173:22 274:2

236:16 279:7 12:10 13:5,11,16 companies 85:17 components 268:19 conditions 71:15

290:9 291:4 13:17 14:1 16:5 85:18 235:16 comprehend 293:2 117:4 159:9

comes 74:6 143:5 16:18 17:10,14 236:5 238:11 compressed 198:20 conduct 113:7

186:4 246:5 18:11,15 20:8 company 1:18,22 compressor 172:18 175:5

265:21 21:19,20 22:2 5:6,8,13 6:3 7:19 173:2 184:15 conducted 33:8

coming 231:21 23:10 26:16 30:12 11:7 48:18 204:11 198:14,16 202:5 69:1 77:6 82:15

233:1 283:18 30:20 31:1,3,8 228:11,12 238:21 compressors 115:8 150:9

293:11 32:17 43:10 49:1 239:1 244:4 172:18,22 197:17 152:18 154:12

comment 10:13,14 49:4,22 51:12,14 278:21 197:18 198:4,8 168:18 207:19

12:17 13:20 14:3 59:16 62:16,18 company's 229:5 237:12 257:22

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 301 

conducting 147:16 136:6 139:5 consultant 33:7 192:20 201:13 46:6 53:11 60:11

conducts 165:5 152:16 192:19 consultants 280:4 273:18 280:1 131:12,17 205:18

223:17 225:18 281:1 conversations 8:19 220:20 288:12

conference 231:11 considerations Consulting 1:21 98:22 201:9 242:5 corresponds 26:3

confidence 70:18 15:2 2:3,4,10,14,15,16 conversion 225:2,4 75:22 96:7 116:22

183:5 considered 19:8 2:17 7:2,4,8,15 225:4,13,16 226:1 128:18 131:3

confidential 106:12 34:5 43:1 60:17 8:3 51:21 73:21 226:4 133:1 212:13

confidentiality 60:19 72:14 76:13 87:14 98:19 275:8 converted 288:8 243:17

180:22 279:5 76:18 104:10 consumed 253:5 conveyor 163:3 cost 3:9 9:21 14:9

configuration 132:7 150:12 consumer 3:10 164:11 46:8 60:2 73:1

31:22 32:13,15 157:18 177:12 9:22 132:13 150:5 conveyors 162:19 77:7 79:7 93:14

97:6 102:3 103:1 192:12 218:3,6 152:11,18 165:1 162:20,22 163:6 94:1,7,18 96:13

221:2 220:16,18 227:8 216:21 217:3,5 163:22 141:15,22 149:5,8

confined 290:3 227:22 258:6 consumers 149:21 convoluted 209:10 149:21 150:3,5

confirm 81:14 277:22 224:16 copied 36:8 56:14 152:9,10 153:2,12

confirmed 218:10 considering 26:19 consumption 20:1 266:12 153:14 155:12,20

conform 265:14,15 36:21 45:9 252:7 149:14 copies 36:3 291:9 156:3 157:21

confusing 209:14 285:14 contained 50:7 293:19 158:11,12,17

confusion 112:16 considers 46:20 197:3 copper 94:1,2,18 159:12,14 160:3,9

127:3,4 143:5 68:16 container 236:15 95:7 215:17 161:21,22 162:4

161:11 consistency 135:15 content 12:11 216:12,12,13 165:2,6 166:5

conjunction 47:2 consistent 109:15 129:2 235:4,13 241:18 168:3,9 176:18,19

connect 164:13 126:1 153:22 contention 97:10 252:10 179:4 189:6,8

consecutive 288:11 constant 169:15 99:17 101:6 copy 9:2 190:11,21,22

consequence 71:17 constitute 130:5 contentions 197:11 core 43:19 79:9 191:4 192:11

254:1 255:2 190:6 CONTENTS 3:1 122:19,21 276:19 205:20 210:8

Consequently constitutes 39:15 context 146:17 276:21 277:9 211:10,17 215:18

115:15 112:19 123:19 147:2 183:16 Corporation 1:19 215:19 218:2,8

conservation 1:4 constrained 77:4 200:1 235:22 5:17 230:17 240:12,12

7:17 14:6,7 21:7 77:14 81:22 83:9 257:11 correct 46:10 66:19 256:2 290:21

34:3 35:2,4 36:1 83:11,17 96:4,11 continue 18:19 97:16 98:17 100:5 costly 176:11

118:20 133:18 157:12 165:16 19:21 200:12 100:7,10 120:14 236:16 247:17

134:15 221:16 179:7,8,17,18,20 282:4 144:4 147:20 costs 73:3 93:20

255:3 189:11,12 190:4,8 continued 1:23 161:6 204:13 150:2 152:13

conservative 190:21 191:4,8,11 continuing 63:3 210:9 233:15 153:14,18 154:22

190:22 193:20 200:18 66:1 182:9 245:9 248:21 155:2,3,4,10,13

consider 14:6 208:3 225:18,19 continuously 163:2 252:21 287:1 155:22 158:1

16:20 17:11 28:12 constraining 50:2 163:5 289:7 162:1,6 165:20

45:20 66:18 97:18 constraint 32:9 contractor 149:2 corrected 47:1 166:1 189:17

110:11 117:9 77:11 190:17 219:13 correctly 238:14,16 190:7 200:16

120:4 155:9 constraints 180:18 contradiction 239:9 216:9 217:4,7

217:17 293:7 191:1 200:17 103:17 correlate 105:11 223:4 225:2,4,5

considerable 75:11 232:14 contrary 125:14 correlated 143:12 225:10,13,16,22

94:17 constructed 41:18 convened 1:12 correspond 134:17 226:1,4 239:20

considerably 161:1 constructing 148:8 conventional 206:17,19 232:3,3 240:1 248:12

consideration 11:4 279:20 290:18 282:13 253:17

91:9 104:13 133:7 construction 270:7 conversation 12:2 corresponding cost-benefit 141:12

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 302 

Council 2:17 6:7 creative 184:20 219:14 242:20 250:1 162:3 168:21

7:17 269:2 243:12 244:8,15 cycle 9:21 73:2 dated 36:2

Counsel 6:11 credit 188:6 268:4 277:14 282:5 87:12 149:5 Daugherty 1:22 5:5

count 73:7 credits 258:9 283:7 286:17 153:12 160:3 5:5 25:3,3 30:21

counting 216:4 criteria 16:9 44:4 cumulative 222:6 205:20 211:11 30:21 32:21 48:2

countries 183:4 44:16 64:11 67:21 curious 104:7 cycles 198:18 48:9,15,19 52:12

236:3 268:12 87:4 113:14,19,21 current 22:15 23:3 52:12 54:4,4 56:7

country 236:16 185:16 204:14 23:21,22 30:5 D 56:7 59:3,3 62:2,2

262:7 265:19 264:18 36:11 38:4 39:20 DAILIDA 1:21 62:8,12,22 63:3

couple 84:18 cross 100:3 101:1 46:15 47:16 53:13 Dain 2:3 19:3,5 66:20,20 67:22,22

106:19 107:7 103:21 56:17 64:22 65:13 Dale 1:19 5:9 49:14 68:21,21 70:10,10

149:9 198:21 cross-elasticity 68:20 70:5,8,11 83:2,2 104:5,6 75:3,3 78:9,9

199:1 234:22 181:20 183:11 70:12,19 71:1,8 185:4,5 191:13,15 86:17,17 87:6,21

289:21 200:14 208:7 71:10,17,19 72:12 220:3 233:9 237:9 87:21 88:4 90:15

course 17:15 210:13 218:14 84:9 86:22 174:16 238:1 248:17 90:15 97:9,9 98:1

168:19 190:9 cross-reference 178:15,22 179:13 262:1 267:22 98:1,12,12 99:15

courtesy 136:6 219:4 180:2 186:12 Dan 6:6 272:20 99:15 100:15,15

cover 4:7,11 37:7 Crystal 152:22 188:17 204:19 Dane 5:2 103:13,13 110:14

114:19 237:12 CS 206:1 227:1 259:19 DANIEL 2:17 110:14,18 111:2,6

coverage 3:7 9:16 CSCR 28:19 29:19 260:2 284:9 289:2 data 4:9 13:3,5 111:13,19 138:1,1

22:11 23:10 35:22 32:5 102:15,19 currently 109:18 16:19 17:10 18:15 139:9,9 140:10,10

39:5 167:10 289:9 103:10 109:4 109:20 188:7,9,20 27:18 61:9 63:7 140:13 142:18,18

covered 23:7,15,17 125:6 157:17 currents 40:18 68:7,12,19 69:1 143:16,16 145:15

23:20 24:20 39:9 170:20 171:16 curve 95:15,16,17 69:13,13,15,16 145:15 147:6

50:11,15,19 57:1 178:16,20 179:4 160:6 171:2 285:5 79:15 87:11 99:6 148:3,3 158:19,19

61:1,5 96:21 180:8 184:1,3 curves 77:8 285:4 100:5,10,11,12,13 159:15,15 207:6,6

103:11 148:1 206:8,12,18 207:3 customer 72:2 102:7,11,11 106:8 207:9 209:13,13

162:12 164:5 207:10 208:5,6,10 81:12 92:2,9 106:9,16,20 110:1 212:19,19 214:3,3

169:17 175:3,7 208:13,21 209:5 151:12 162:2 115:2 133:5,9 218:17,17 246:12

225:6,10 234:4 212:4 215:8 165:8 189:9 139:14 146:6 246:12 266:8,8

260:7 261:4 217:12,21 218:3 190:14 204:4,15 150:22 151:2,13 269:14,14 271:22

262:17 218:13,20 242:20 204:17 151:14 153:20 271:22 272:3

covering 33:9 244:9 282:6 283:7 customers 69:21 155:5 169:22 274:7,7 275:18,18

116:2 286:17 84:19,22 85:10 170:2,5 175:13 276:17,17 278:12

covers 37:19 CSIR 28:14 30:2 92:5 93:2 154:4 178:2,3 180:14,16 278:12 279:13,13

CR 210:14 243:1 32:5 63:20 64:16 156:2 158:9,15 180:20 181:1,7,8 280:9 281:10,10

create 76:12 90:9 65:7 102:17 103:9 159:3,8,11 165:15 181:9,10 189:7 281:14 284:1,20

98:3 112:15 127:4 109:4 125:6 165:22 166:3 191:22 193:12,14 285:1 286:5,5

132:13 137:11 157:17 170:20 176:21 184:7,10 219:7 220:15,17 288:1,1 289:12

140:2 193:7 269:4 171:16 178:16,20 190:3,5,8 191:3,8 220:17,20 221:3 day 11:19 202:8

280:4 179:4 180:7 193:20 202:12 276:22 279:11 203:7,8

created 93:15 183:22 184:2 224:16 245:1 280:5 292:4 293:7 days 11:17 163:12

128:5 219:4 206:6,12,18 207:2 263:21 264:2,14 293:13 198:12

253:22 266:13 208:5,8,11,14,22 264:19,19 265:14 database 128:5 dead 79:13

creates 292:12 209:6 212:3 215:7 269:3 270:13 139:13 170:9 deadline 229:13

creating 87:4 127:2 217:12,22 218:2 Customs 237:3 date 21:3,16 62:15 292:5,7

284:4 218:11,22 219:10 cutting 240:10 136:2 152:15 deal 127:3 236:19

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 303 

deals 280:10 50:8 51:7 55:12 20:9,11,21 21:5 47:17 125:19,20 150:15

dealt 43:6 56:10,11,12,20 21:11,17,22 35:8 design 27:14 28:6 150:16 176:5

December 1:10 58:13 59:6,8 65:3 35:14 50:1,4,10 28:16,17 29:2,9 220:1 246:15

117:11 125:21 65:16 67:5,16 51:4 52:14 55:11 36:15 44:4 54:20 272:15 276:19

decide 136:9 69:9 89:4,8,10,11 55:19 56:3 68:7 59:21 64:19 65:2 277:18,20 283:3

decided 22:21 89:19,20 92:11,15 68:17 70:6 149:10 65:11,15,22 67:15 284:5

23:14 24:16 256:7 92:16 109:20 149:21 152:21 71:10 72:8 74:21 Despite 46:16

deciding 40:8 110:11 111:20 155:9,15 162:6 76:11,14,17 78:5 122:15

decision 103:8 112:10,10,12,14 169:1 177:5,9 78:20 81:7 85:14 detail 59:11 149:6

109:5 209:17 112:18 113:2 178:1,20 181:3 86:19,20 91:5 161:16 200:3

244:8 288:17 114:2,7 115:19 183:13 199:17 93:3 95:13,16,17 detailed 75:5

declaration 281:22 117:8,13 121:5 200:16 201:4 96:3,4,11,14 98:4 136:21 256:1

declared 122:10 123:17 126:20 214:11 219:6,12 105:11,12,15 287:22

281:16 127:6,7,17 128:2 229:19 231:3 106:1 112:3 details 157:9

declaring 146:11 129:15 135:11,17 235:21 252:20 119:10,12 121:3 235:19 251:13

decline 172:9 140:15 145:6,19 253:11 256:5 121:10 122:2 254:19

declines 172:12 207:10 233:5,15 257:9 260:10 123:3,10,11,15 determination 3:9

decreased 158:17 265:17 269:18 272:4,13 278:14 124:2,17 125:17 9:21 15:10 35:3

decree 16:11 270:4,9,19,22 279:2,3 280:4,22 126:2,18 127:14 38:11,22 40:11

defer 78:19 104:15 271:1,4,5,9 274:9 284:2 287:21 143:21 146:11 45:4 60:18 114:11

define 31:20 57:15 274:11 281:17 288:2 291:7,9,17 147:18 148:7 116:3 117:14

57:15 67:3 110:5 288:19,22 289:5 293:10 185:14 190:11 118:17 121:6,15

110:6 230:13 289:16 Department's 51:8 202:12,13,14,19 125:3,19 126:2

defined 24:19 definitions 18:8 109:5 180:1 203:3,14 204:12 128:12 144:20

32:17 33:2 34:19 36:13 232:14 219:17 204:14 219:3 145:11 269:22

39:21 42:13 46:15 degree 26:2,6 29:15 depend 240:22 225:14,16 270:22 270:7

51:3 67:8 88:3,4 201:20 292:22 depending 73:16 275:10,12 276:5 determine 33:1

109:19 112:15 degrees 25:21 26:3 244:11 277:11,14 278:4 36:14 37:15 43:15

123:1 182:3 234:1 26:7,8 27:6,9 28:1 depends 168:2 278:19 279:18 58:17 143:7,7,13

234:5 259:17 28:3,5,11,15,16 200:14 281:18 151:11 286:9

263:18 264:8,13 29:8,17,19,22 depicted 284:18 designed 33:16 287:6,8

defines 22:14 23:20 deLASKI 2:1 Depot 172:21 38:6,12 67:13 determined 44:10

23:21 24:7 54:7 delineation 56:8 depreciation 94:9 253:21 255:14 47:20 83:14

109:13 253:4 57:4,5 depth 16:15 75:11 designer 108:3 121:12 126:7

defining 41:8 53:14 demand 250:17 derive 53:3 147:10 designing 90:18 144:4 157:1 181:3

130:9 253:16 derived 53:19 204:15 279:19 255:22 281:2

definite 85:6,14 demonstrate 54:22 108:20 designs 18:6 26:20 282:20 287:3

176:9 203:20 146:20 131:2 145:21 27:2,9 28:20 determines 50:20

269:3 demonstrated 156:1 225:22 29:16 60:8,12 51:5

definitely 242:7 115:9 derives 154:2 66:7 67:12,12 determining 39:14

244:2 demonstrates deriving 177:6 76:13 77:10 82:19 48:11 117:3,9

definition 22:20,22 153:16 describe 167:21 84:9 86:22 87:4,9 125:8 144:3

23:2,6 24:5,18 department 1:1,16 168:11 187:12 89:6,7,9 93:7,15 160:19 282:2

25:4 30:4 33:19 1:20 2:2,9,11,12 described 117:18 94:1,2,9 95:7 develop 149:14,15

36:10 39:3,19 2:13,13,14,15 4:4 118:14 190:12 98:14,15 105:5,9 151:3 188:12

40:9 42:18 46:14 6:10,12,14 8:6 9:3 descriptions 232:4 105:10 106:5 201:5 205:12

46:17,19 47:15 12:18 13:6 17:2 descriptor 47:16 120:3 122:8 123:6 219:15 222:16

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 304 

223:1,2,3,19 248:6,8,14 249:17 discussed 95:5 49:4 135:7,16 139:12

developed 12:18 251:10,15,18 98:21 125:18 documented 281:6 145:5 147:7

60:7 77:7 93:14 262:14 263:20 212:16 290:17 documents 46:17 150:11,13,15,21

110:10 156:14 264:11 283:4,5 discussing 16:4 DOE 8:8 14:6 150:21 151:12

179:15 205:9 differentiation 39:2 22:21 23:5,6,9,14 154:2,12 155:19

206:10 212:12 236:19 discussion 3:17 24:5,11,16,21 156:7,14 157:11

218:9 220:22 differently 244:3 43:4 44:12 46:11 26:10,14 30:5 158:5,8 160:7

developing 176:5 differs 46:17 75:7 87:14,16 31:11,13,19 32:17 161:22 162:11

development 66:6 126:21 130:13 143:3 32:22 34:2,22 163:17,22 165:4,7

114:13 115:6 difficult 85:20 201:15 259:15 35:18 36:2,6,8 165:11,17 167:17

145:10 178:3 231:9,22 displace 265:1 37:7,11 38:1,16 168:8 169:9,14,19

develops 205:15 difficulty 201:16 disproportionately 38:20 39:2,8,13 169:19,21 170:8

223:7,16 201:21 165:9 39:18,21 40:7 170:12 174:20

diameter 43:15 digit 22:17 56:2 dissertation 9:12 41:7 42:11,13,15 175:5,13 178:6,15

83:7 103:21 100:11,12 187:6 distinction 52:21 42:22 43:9,16 179:9 186:9,16,18

diammeter 43:12 dimensions 224:10 85:5 44:9,14 45:16,20 188:10 189:2

diamonds 180:1 diminishing 80:5 distressed 98:20 46:3,9,13,19,19 190:2,4,18,21

dictate 43:16 80:14 distribution 68:9 58:3,12 59:5,19 191:2 194:6 197:9

dictates 32:5,13 dioxide 255:8,9,12 141:8 151:16,19 60:4,5,13,17,22 205:11,15 206:1,9

die 250:1 255:17 152:3 156:7 157:4 61:8,11 62:5,14 212:12,14,22

dies 248:8,14 dip 174:17 159:19 160:3,4 62:19 64:16,21 213:5 215:5 222:7

die-cast 94:4 direct 103:16 188:12 189:5 65:3,8,12,16 66:4 222:7,10,14,20,20

249:17 186:15 199:14,21 191:11 193:20 67:5,16 72:15 223:7,16,17

die-casting 235:13 199:22 243:22 195:20 196:2 76:10,13,18 77:6 224:19 225:15,20

differ 116:5,12 253:18 256:11 distributions 77:15,17 91:12 225:22 226:5,10

difference 68:18 directed 12:5 134:7 149:16 151:4,6 92:16 93:4,5,14 226:15 227:12

107:9 112:9 130:2 direction 133:16 153:19 154:2 93:22 94:5,22 228:1 230:7 241:3

130:10 132:1 173:6 156:21 158:5 95:18,22 96:15,19 241:10,17 256:7

161:5 179:4,5,5 directions 166:21 distributor 151:14 97:4,4,17 98:3,9 257:12 258:6

209:1 213:16 253:8 196:2 98:13 101:19,21 266:11 270:6

223:13 directly 32:11 divergence 96:1 102:6,16,20 103:4 273:19 278:4

differences 43:6 150:16 253:3 divide 157:8 103:17,18 105:1 281:16 284:5

84:7 138:22 directs 14:6 253:2 225:21 234:20 106:22 107:19 285:17 288:14

different 14:12 disadvantage 266:2 divides 31:13,14 109:12 110:4,8,10 289:3,7

28:20 32:4 43:8 disadvantaged dividing 52:22 55:8 111:19 112:13 DOE's 33:7 37:18

45:10 54:10 91:17 165:12 doable 14:2 181:12 113:6 114:20 42:18,19 45:1

97:13 114:8 disagree 148:15 docks 236:9 115:18,20 116:3 97:10 109:10

115:11 120:3 discount 156:1 document 15:16,19 116:10,17 117:7,9 110:21 175:2

121:13 137:11 165:14,18 189:20 35:1,6,21 36:3,6,8 117:12 118:1,5,15 188:17 221:22

147:3 149:17 256:20,22 36:19 37:2 39:22 119:3,4,7,18 282:21

151:5 152:5 157:8 discounted 152:13 40:15 52:13,13 120:14 121:4,11 doing 11:19 72:8

157:18 160:15 189:18 223:10 53:6 54:6 67:7 121:12 122:17 75:12 76:13

175:10 188:18 discrepancies 70:4 157:10,20 158:4 123:1 124:2,12,22 141:12,22 147:20

189:10 193:22 discrepancy 213:13 249:19 251:14 125:7,14,18 127:6 162:4 262:10

200:21 219:9,14 discrete 138:21 254:20 266:12 128:1,4,9,12,14 268:10,15 269:2,3

220:1 230:8 discuss 16:15 18:3 270:16 289:3 129:2,22 133:2,10 269:4 279:20

236:21 247:4 109:2 224:4 documentation 133:16 134:7 287:12 289:22

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 305 

293:7 151:18 166:10 economy 2:18 6:8 100:17,21 102:2,7 211:3,10 212:12

dollar 153:22 170:3,3 180:18 169:16 172:9 102:16 104:2 213:7,13,19,21

227:14 254:9 206:15 253:15 174:2,18 105:17 107:10,12 214:22 217:13

dollars 153:21 255:9 EDMUND 2:5 107:21 108:9,14 218:8 219:8

227:18 238:7,9 duplicate 112:2 EERE 11:16 153:3 108:17,19 109:13 220:15,20,21

door 9:2,5 122:2 123:10 effect 77:3 165:7 109:21 110:7 221:3 222:13

double 78:3 215:17 143:21 179:1 201:3 111:22 112:3,11 230:8,14 234:3

290:21 duplicated 122:13 252:11 253:15 112:13,20 113:3 235:7 246:16

doubling 80:8 duty 51:8 150:22 263:5 113:20 114:5,8,16 258:10 262:5

81:10,14,21 82:4 151:2 effective 152:15 115:2,10,13,16,18 268:3,22 271:2

doubt 21:13 dyes 235:5 161:19 162:3 115:22 116:4,6,9 272:15,16 273:12

Doug 3:3,6,14,18 D.C 1:13 effectively 194:12 116:11,13,16,21 274:1 275:1,5

4:15,18 8:2 12:13

13:11 18:19 E

233:7 263:7

effects 217:2,3

117:8,10,14

118:17 119:6,8,14

276:6 277:15,22

278:5 281:17,19

111:15 221:12 E 2:6 250:15 253:13 120:7,9,18,20 282:2 287:6

Douglas 1:13,15 earlier 27:10 40:1 255:10 121:2,5,7,13,18 288:13 291:2

2:16 40:15 49:22 68:8 efficiencies 47:13 121:19,22 122:7 efficiency-level

download 153:3 68:19 69:6 87:14 61:16,17,22 76:5 122:11 123:1,2,12 275:12

downturn 174:16 89:20 139:12 90:21 97:19 123:15,19 124:13 efficient 2:18 6:7

downward 174:17 157:1 168:2,18 103:15 104:9 124:16 125:4,5,9 12:14,14 15:14

DR 246:12 266:8 170:1 194:4 197:2 112:1 114:3 121:9 125:9,12,15 61:9 74:3 76:12

269:14 271:22 200:7 212:17 122:1 123:9 126:4 126:17,21 127:8 81:3 91:2 93:8

272:3 274:7 242:2 244:6 289:4 126:8 127:21 127:10,13,18 128:11 141:2

275:18 276:17 early 14:1 33:17 128:19 129:14 128:13,15,17,21 149:22 155:17

278:12 279:13 69:2 130:3,21 131:1 129:5,9,10,16,18 176:5,10 178:14

280:9 281:10,14 earn 227:5,21 132:9,14 139:15 129:19 130:6,11 208:5,9,11 209:6

284:1,20 285:1 238:20 146:8 183:21 131:3,9,12,13,14 210:9 216:3

286:5 288:1 Earthjustice 1:18 188:6 224:7 131:17,20,21 217:22 218:2

289:12 6:5 20:18 49:21 245:20 247:6 132:7,19,22 276:8 284:5

draft 34:2 92:21 efficiency 1:3 4:5 133:12 134:1,2,9 effort 271:6

drag 71:22 easier 200:8 235:20 7:16 12:7 17:4 134:18,21,22 efforts 166:13

dramatic 184:2 easily 10:1 108:13 18:7 19:16,22 135:3,5,9,12,17 278:10

dramatically easy 119:16 23:16 31:17 33:1 137:12,19 138:22 EIA 153:20 251:5

290:11 EBM 5:14 33:6,9 42:12 43:7 140:16,18 141:7 EIA's 154:9 251:3

draw 204:4 EBM-Papst 2:8 44:5,7 45:4 46:7 141:22 143:8,10 eight 206:10

drawing 147:3 ECM 182:7 47:4,10,18 54:22 143:12,13,14 EISA 100:22 187:4

dream 237:17 ECMs 176:1 59:2,22 60:2,3,8 144:1,4,11,13,14 213:20

drive 176:11 economic 20:6 46:8 66:7 69:11 70:7 144:21 145:12 either 67:13 136:8

driven 171:16 46:9 151:13 71:11,22 73:4,11 146:10,12,22 151:8 165:18

driver 160:5 152:17 168:15 74:4,5,7,11,12,16 147:10 150:7 192:6 244:10

drivers 169:5 199:9 257:7 290:6 74:22 75:7,21 155:14 159:22 EL 67:11 86:20

170:21 171:17 290:10 77:2,8 80:5,9,11 185:9 188:9,21 87:9 89:6 246:15

177:11 194:10 economically 14:14 80:21 81:1,5 192:22 193:6 276:19 277:17

218:13 33:3 190:19 82:17 90:7 91:12 205:16,17,20 283:3

driving 72:3,4 economics 181:2 91:17,19 92:7 206:1,2,6,11,16 elasticities 175:6

dryer 204:1 191:7 95:12,19 96:5 207:2,14 209:16 elasticity 175:18

due 16:11 132:10 economies 247:16 97:5,12 98:5,16 209:20 210:1,19 electric 1:4,19,22

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 306 

5:6,10 7:13 12:16 283:5 209:7 116:19 146:18 Epstein 277:12

21:8 22:13,14 electrically-com... energy 1:1,3,3,4,16 182:19 228:7,12 equal 114:6 116:7

24:12 30:9 31:19 175:17 1:17,20,20 2:2,2,9 229:5,8,13,20 116:14 121:7,22

33:2,5,20 34:3,18 electricity 153:18 2:11,12,13,13,14 230:12 231:4 132:4 190:10

35:5,22 36:5 37:8 154:5 251:8,10 2:18,18 3:9 4:4,5 232:12 233:17 217:13

37:21 38:18 39:4 252:7,8 255:11 5:21 6:1,7,10,13 236:3 239:12 equals 152:10

39:15 40:3,9 41:9 eliminate 164:5 6:15 7:6,16 9:20 269:20 equates 161:3

42:3,13,18 44:4 eliminated 253:22 14:5,15 15:14 engineered 85:17 equation 130:18

46:21 47:10 48:6 eliminating 268:17 17:3 20:1,13 21:7 engineering 2:5 3:7 equipment 3:9 9:21

50:8 51:2,6,10 268:18,19,20 31:15 32:3 33:5 7:11 9:17 14:16 31:16 32:12 35:3

56:16 58:13,18 else's 267:5 34:2 35:1,4,22 14:19 59:19,20 45:16 46:3 50:11

59:22 64:14,16 EL5 27:9 28:6 51:1,10 52:15 77:7 78:6 79:11 50:13,14,16,19,19

65:4,5,7,17,18 158:22 159:4,5,7 118:20 133:18 82:15 95:1 97:5 72:3,6 85:19 93:3

67:1,17,20 68:10 EL7 28:17 29:9 134:15 138:21 103:5 146:3 150:1 93:6 150:7 182:20

68:17 76:1 87:3 219:2 277:14 141:1 149:11,13 150:15,17 185:7 182:21 184:11,14

88:2,13,15 90:19 EL8 210:2 149:14 150:9,12 190:12 212:13 187:15,17 188:14

92:15 109:11,16 embedded 216:7 153:18 154:9,13 218:9 224:21 190:15,18 192:3,7

109:19 110:4,10 217:6,7 237:7 158:7 159:17 225:17 230:13 192:8 197:4,7

112:2 115:3 116:2 emerge 130:22 160:9,14,17 161:2 275:15 284:7 198:18 202:15,17

117:5,12,15,19 emergency 136:12 161:4 168:14 285:4 202:19 203:2

118:3,7 119:9 Emerson 1:18,19 169:7,12 176:5 engineers 204:12 235:13 237:8,16

122:2 123:9 127:5 5:7 6:3 19:12 178:13 179:6 ensure 21:9 237:18 265:21

127:9 128:6,9 42:22 84:21 187:14,16,18 ensures 170:12 equivalencies

129:11,20 130:7 263:21 189:13,14,15,16 ensuring 118:19 23:17

133:10,12,19 emissions 255:4,7 199:19 205:18,19 entire 58:15 106:17 equivalent 45:19

134:5,6,10,17 255:12,17 256:11 206:14,20 207:12 225:7 274:15 116:8,15 123:4

135:2,8,13 137:20 256:11,12,16,22 207:16,19 208:17 286:13 175:8,9,12 207:2

137:21 143:17 257:6,13 209:1,3,3,7 210:2 entirely 184:19 217:14 231:11

144:6,10 151:3 Emmanuel 1:17 210:10,15,16,20 204:13 208:20,22 260:6 288:8

170:15 175:4,7,14 5:20 138:20 211:1,10,13 212:4 244:11 errors 54:19

193:5 205:10 274:22 285:12 215:2,10,14 216:1 entitled 35:1 ESA 262:21

213:18 221:17 286:21,22 216:7,8,19 217:4 envelope 91:4,11 especially 103:8

236:5,6 250:15 emphasis 35:18 217:4,7 221:16 290:4 107:13

254:8 270:5,5,10 46:12 69:7 103:14 231:10,11 250:16 environment essence 40:2

270:20 274:8,10 emphasized 41:7 250:20 251:3 163:13 essential 61:4

274:11 278:21 58:3 252:20 253:3,4,16 environmental essentially 80:11

288:4,15,19,22 employment 3:15 254:2,5,6,9 255:3 3:15 10:8 14:22 187:5

289:5 10:7 253:12,14,15 258:9,10,16 262:5 254:21 255:1 establish 23:15

electrical 2:3,7 5:3 253:18 254:17 264:16 268:12 EPACT 19:17 30:6 45:16 57:18 119:5

5:12 19:6 70:13 enclosed 23:4 278:14 279:3 30:6 33:2 34:19 134:1,2,7 139:6

70:17 71:6 79:12 175:8,12 176:12 288:13 291:7 40:9 57:1 91:2 269:17 271:2,10

79:17,19 122:20 176:19 293:10 133:16,17 134:4 established 53:18

123:14 124:7 encountered 80:16 enforce 21:9 134:14 213:3,8 57:7,8 59:6 107:3

146:1 149:14 encourage 11:10 182:22 233:13 214:6 273:19 139:1 209:18

246:18 247:4,5 66:4 enforced 234:6 EPCA 14:5 22:14 266:20

276:20,22 277:7 encouraged 135:16 enforcement 20:22 22:19 38:18 39:11 establishing 30:8

277:18 278:5 ends 54:14 208:16 21:12 113:8,11 50:8 261:14 43:3 113:5 119:8

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 307 

123:12 124:15 evidence 125:13 existing 190:17 153:10 168:15 74:8,17 75:1,10

277:22 evident 33:15 224:11,12 expresses 130:1 76:7 78:8 79:1,4

establishment exact 115:12,15 exists 55:21 115:4 expressing 43:18 79:22 81:13 82:1

33:19 53:16 69:11 127:22 145:5 exit 225:10 235:11 extensive 48:22 82:7,10 83:1,18

estimate 170:7 158:3 180:9 235:17 244:5 extent 50:4 75:14 84:14,21 85:2

188:17 195:19 exactly 75:8 121:18 exiting 244:10 92:22 203:13 86:1,5,14 87:5,20

206:19 221:19 164:22 175:9 exotic 96:13 208:1 218:4 260:16 88:3 89:12 90:14

223:4 253:22 196:1 210:9 225:15 241:18 external 32:7 92:18 93:9 94:11

256:9 277:13 213:19 259:16 245:20 extra 185:20 186:3 95:8 97:2,8,21

estimated 157:11 275:14 expand 46:3 215:14,19 292:11 98:11 99:7,13

169:1 172:13 examination 204:10 extraordinary 99:3 100:8,14 101:16

178:15 180:2,7 155:21 178:10 expanded 19:19 extrapolate 102:12 103:3 104:4 105:3

225:15 242:4 examine 40:12 23:2 102:17 105:13 106:6,13

254:16 255:5 222:5 expanding 289:8 extrapolated 98:16 108:5,21 109:8

estimates 149:15 examined 24:5,11 expect 70:7 139:15 124:13 150:14 110:13,17,22

155:15 169:2 97:19 102:6 279:4,14 292:9 154:19 111:4,12,17

174:14,20 176:15 163:22 178:15 expected 28:2 extrapolating 135:19 137:22

200:15 226:2 214:22 256:6 100:20 109:3 146:10 138:18 139:8

241:3,10,17 285:7 117:4 121:12 extrapolation 140:5 142:9

estimating 231:19 examines 128:15 267:2 283:6 97:12 98:2,5 145:13 146:14

estimation 265:3 129:2 139:13 expecting 92:3 100:19 124:18 147:5,22 148:18

et 251:11 253:17 examining 102:21 expeditiously 21:15 145:17 146:7 158:18 160:11

254:8 128:14 expense 236:10 extrapolations 98:8 162:7 163:14

etcetera 149:18 example 27:4 131:9 279:19 126:3 164:7,16,20 166:4

158:7 164:2 191:6 132:18 157:14 Expenses 151:15 extreme 98:7 166:9 167:14

203:18 208:2 158:13 188:15 expensive 155:18 extremely 96:12 171:4 173:9 174:7

EU 268:5 190:13 198:10 179:21 208:1,6,14 110:16 231:9 174:11 177:20

Europe 249:9

evaluate 59:21

206:5 231:22

239:12,15 250:1

218:12 243:14

245:8 F

180:11 181:13,21

182:11 183:8,12

149:21 151:13 254:12 experience 67:19 F 1:17 24:8,9,15 184:4 185:3 186:6

158:8 165:19 examples 239:14 70:5 158:9,11 31:7 186:17 187:7

169:20 179:1 exceed 26:7 27:3 159:11,13 160:2 face 184:7 191:3,5 191:13 192:15

255:1,6 29:14,16,21 70:20 182:4 197:9 241:2 faced 42:11 190:7 193:9,18 194:3

evaluated 27:12 96:2 277:4 faces 178:1 195:1,4 196:18

164:2 exceeded 26:21 experienced 166:1 facilitate 60:21 199:12 200:2

evaluating 65:19 exceeding 95:20 experts 133:7 96:22 201:7 204:8 205:1

113:19 146:8 exceeds 27:9 65:2 225:21 facilitator 1:13,15 207:4 209:11

evaluation 146:5,9 Excel 152:19 expert's 60:9 61:15 4:15,19 6:16 7:9 211:5 212:9,18

152:17 235:9 excessive 77:20 explained 140:22 8:9 18:21 20:15 214:2,14 215:12

279:11 291:15 exchange 11:11 276:10 21:18 25:2 30:14 216:6,10,14 217:8

evening 136:18 excludes 89:21 explaining 211:22 31:2 32:20 47:22 218:16 220:2

eventually 228:15 exemplified 165:13 explanation 158:20 48:7,12,17,20 221:6 226:7 228:3

everybody 8:10 exist 41:2 55:1 explicit 181:16 49:9,12,15 51:11 229:10,14 231:5

289:19 291:12 170:20 explicitly 39:4 51:18 55:4 56:6 232:2,7 233:9

292:2,21 293:11 existed 42:14 64:13 explore 273:7,9 59:9 62:1,6,10,17 234:7 235:18

294:7 existence 38:8,21 exposure 256:13 63:1 66:9,12 70:2 236:18 237:20

everyone's 280:2 55:14 90:18 140:4 expressed 112:4 72:16,18 73:18 238:1 240:15

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 308 

242:18 243:20 244:16 245:22 figures 170:20 256:19 262:1,3 follow-up 78:10

245:12 246:7,10 249:16 172:3 181:11 281:4 145:16

247:12,21 248:3 fall 118:10 174:15 filed 49:22 fit 77:4 78:16 79:9 food 167:17 197:20

248:17 250:3 falling 169:14 fill 291:16 180:4 184:17,21 force 186:1

252:3,17 253:9 falls 169:17 265:17 fillers 205:21 190:17 199:5 forced 184:18

257:14,17 259:4 288:9 final 13:9 15:5 16:6 233:4 261:1 forecast 168:18

261:9,22 266:4,7 familiar 15:8 16:10,20 19:20 fits 232:21 169:8 174:15

267:19 269:12 126:22 135:20 21:16 90:1 109:10 fitting 185:8 177:7,13 187:14

271:11 272:19 fans 197:18,19 118:4 123:18 five 60:4 91:14 189:15

273:15 274:4,17 237:12 148:1 166:11 95:14,18 105:7,8 forecasts 154:13,14

275:6,17 276:12 far 14:4 49:7 57:22 201:6 214:12 111:3 113:22 170:17 171:16

276:14 278:11 59:2 83:4 84:4 257:21 271:14,20 116:7 118:8,8,13 174:13 251:6

280:3 283:13,20 184:22 196:12 272:1 281:13 143:20,21 144:1 foregoing 294:8

284:13,16 285:8 220:10 238:3 290:13 293:6 151:1 162:15 form 153:20

285:11,20 286:4 252:21 finalize 223:19 177:17 182:6 291:15

286:20 287:10,18 fashion 253:7 finalized 16:7 198:11,22 228:15 formal 118:2

289:10,17 290:12 fast 197:20 finally 13:7 102:9 234:19 246:8 formed 33:5

291:5 favor 269:7,8 222:4 flag 121:20 114:13 169:3

facilities 114:15 feasibility 80:7 financial 222:22 flexibility 292:6 formulating 197:4

249:18 feasible 14:14 223:3 flipping 283:17 Forrestal 1:12

facility 117:1 15:12 17:7 33:3 financially 222:9 floor 111:18 167:7 forth 11:11 24:10

126:13 247:4 features 31:17 find 41:17 52:18,21 flow 153:16 33:13 121:16

fact 14:15 15:11 February 16:7,11 58:6 61:9 66:2 flows 254:9 forum 111:11

28:21 39:16 51:9 federal 35:1 107:1 69:4 80:4 88:17 focus 12:4 228:11 forward 16:9 49:1

94:18 107:20 113:12 148:17 89:10 91:17,18,18 230:11 154:6 233:22

119:7 121:17 160:14 222:8 115:2 119:16 focused 75:15 292:21 293:6,15

124:21 164:3 FedEx 163:4 129:4 145:19 focusing 233:6 found 15:11 20:3

217:17 218:10 feedback 82:18 173:1 197:19 folks 167:6 24:6,12 35:8,14

243:18 245:22 228:6 260:14 220:19 275:21 follow 46:12 67:9 61:18 74:2 88:15

266:1 262:3 276:11 282:11 74:8 83:19 99:14 88:19 102:10,17

factor 25:18,22 feeder 244:19 284:10 106:7 124:9 130:4 103:9 124:8,10

26:9 27:19 28:7 feel 81:9 133:11 finding 25:11 167:6 204:6 130:14 224:2

28:10 29:1,3,7,10 228:10 fine 11:12 265:2 209:11 237:1,2 226:4

29:14,21 37:4,9 feels 133:3 190:21 fines 124:11 273:15 286:13 four 27:8 41:4 52:7

37:10 38:17 93:19 fell 260:3 fingertips 273:9 followed 119:18 52:10 60:10 63:5

151:1,3 203:17 felt 50:1 77:20 finish 136:17 125:7 286:16 86:12 111:3

275:3,4,9,11,11 264:5 214:20 following 9:6,8,15 113:16 162:13

275:22 276:8,9 fewer 113:16 finished 48:1 9:19 10:3,10 213:9 228:15

factors 14:7,8 156:12 160:1 186:13 50:12 135:4 234:17 246:7

16:20 40:13 166:2 first 40:11 56:9,15 151:20 152:6 250:11

factory 93:19 94:6 field 269:19 67:2 88:16 95:14 164:22 169:4 four-pole 42:9 61:2

fail 38:16 122:12 fifth 60:13 96:1 95:18 150:11 227:18 231:6 120:5 280:12

failed 38:3 fight 265:5,5 153:14,14 156:20 followup 194:2 fraction 158:8,15

fails 44:22 fighting 265:6 162:5 168:10 203:12 163:18 189:12

failure 30:1 figure 63:7 153:15 174:21 179:4 follow-on 11:10 195:15 200:18

fair 247:15 174:13 179:22 217:17 221:15 137:1 260:19 fractional 182:8

fairly 107:6 192:14 figured 8:13 224:4 226:13 280:1 263:9 282:15

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 309 

frame 22:17 35:8 251:13 254:18 22:15 23:3,20,22 given 27:15 55:17 goes 11:20 13:8

41:19 43:1,8,11 fully 34:19 139:15 25:4,17 30:4 64:1 65:19 70:3 14:17 58:1 69:3

43:16,20 44:1,2,3 141:7 31:13 33:20 34:5 101:21 102:3 71:17 92:12

44:6,7,12,15 full-load 111:22 34:14 35:12,16 103:2 108:12 184:16 199:17

45:10,15,17 55:9 112:1,3,12,20 36:10,16 38:5 120:8,10,12 203:10,11,22

55:13,16 56:2,18 113:3 114:3,5 39:20 41:10,22 130:18 133:16 212:3,3 239:7,8

56:22 57:5,9,15 115:18 116:4,6,9 42:2 44:10 46:14 149:22 158:7,16 242:14 265:11

59:1 63:15,17,18 116:11,21 117:8 47:15 55:2,16 195:22 202:15 going 8:14,20,21

69:4 78:17 88:22 119:6 121:5,8 56:1,16 57:7 217:20 250:21 9:7 11:7 12:1,16

90:16,17,19,20 122:1,7 123:2,8 58:11,21 62:4 256:9 280:18 19:16 22:6,9 31:9

92:8 97:13,18 124:16 125:4 63:10,11 66:19 282:7 32:1 49:1 58:17

99:20,22 100:2,12 126:8 127:8,12,18 69:18,22 70:1,14 gives 15:21 139:22 67:8 69:4 70:19

100:12,21 101:1,3 129:15 134:18,21 71:4 76:22 83:14 141:10 233:16 70:20 71:11,18,19

101:9 103:19 135:3,17 84:18 85:6,10 giving 201:12 71:21,22 72:1,2,4

104:1,3,10,17,21 function 68:11 87:2 88:1 92:11 293:12 72:5 73:3,8 75:11

104:22 108:12 220:10,11 152:8 162:16 glad 4:11 167:16,18 77:10,12 78:1

164:11 185:15 functionally 260:6 165:10 176:8 glaring 260:5 80:18,18 81:9

204:1 217:21 fundamental 34:17 177:18 203:7,9,16 glitch 191:19 89:3,4 90:8,8,12

218:21,22 220:6,7 243:8 232:15 259:16 global 271:20 96:1 97:2 99:17

220:9,16,18 221:3 fundamentally 260:1,22 261:3 go 11:11 13:13 99:19,22 100:1

221:5 149:20 195:5,10 263:15 269:9 15:20 16:9 22:5 101:17 124:12

frames 187:6 further 13:6 17:11 289:1 31:11 52:16 53:8 136:10 148:21

framework 15:15 39:16 45:13 66:2 generally 25:9 32:7 54:10 56:9 58:15 149:4 154:6 161:1

Frank 2:10 7:20 71:21 116:10 153:10 155:7 62:20 69:12 71:5 165:2 166:15,18

89:14 182:1 183:11 188:3 156:10 163:20 71:11,18 72:8 167:19,20 171:6,7

freight 155:21 191:9,22 199:22 165:14,22 194:8 79:4 83:9 88:17 173:18,19 174:3,8

frequency 26:1 222:16 223:18 204:17 232:5 89:5 91:22 97:21 176:7 181:10

112:8 248:4 278:3 256:2 110:19 136:14 183:2,7 184:18

FRIEDRICHS 2:2 Furthermore 99:4 generate 60:11 138:5 147:8 186:13 192:9

front 142:5 152:11 future 47:20 206:2 256:9 161:16 164:7 199:11 201:6

Frustaglio 2:2 7:5 110:10 118:20 generation 250:16 165:3 166:11 202:6,21 205:3,8

7:5 79:3,10,10 179:1 186:22 251:10,13 172:21 176:14,17 215:15,22 229:8

80:13 87:8 105:22 188:4 189:16 generator 19:14 177:2 180:15 230:19 233:22

105:22 106:11 generators 34:16 185:7,8 193:2 235:8,16 239:5,6

272:21 G gentleman 89:19 197:19 198:19 243:3,4 244:9

Fuji 236:4 gained 80:11 germane 46:20 207:7 220:11 246:3 250:9

fulfilled 21:6 gap 205:21 252:15 getting 81:10 224:17 233:22 261:19 267:16

full 11:14 27:5,15 gas 7:13 20:1 202:7 201:21 216:1 236:11 239:20 269:20 280:8

27:22 28:2,9,14 251:11 242:1 293:6 240:16,16 244:8 281:21 283:10

29:5,12 49:4 gather 13:17 199:7 gigawatts 251:19 244:21 246:3 287:22 290:11

62:11 74:7 95:12 gathered 139:14 252:1 248:8 252:5,9 291:6,8,12 292:10

109:12,20 110:6 gauge 242:21 give 13:21 16:14 263:4 267:17 292:22

112:7,10 116:12 Gear 2:5 7:10 22:3 62:14 70:6 269:20 271:4 good 4:3 22:8 79:4

116:15 127:20 gearbox 164:12 82:6 111:9 200:3 283:10 287:11,17 130:16 136:17

135:11 154:10 gearboxes 268:21 232:10 233:17 292:3 181:14 233:11

157:9 165:21 gearing 230:7 251:17 260:16 goal 89:7 91:16,20 239:3 240:13

187:21 226:3 general 6:10 10:17 271:14 292:8 91:21 242:9 248:16

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 310 

262:6,7 273:6 108:17 143:4 happen 177:1 96:12 103:15 104:16,16 149:1,2

292:17,18 176:1 196:11 217:18 282:11 154:13 169:11 159:6,18 160:7

goods 228:20 220:4 242:2 happening 172:14 225:13 230:1 161:6,10 162:15

230:17 243:21 248:18 happens 222:19 241:15 276:5 163:16 164:21

gotcha 185:16 252:5 262:12 223:6 higher 24:17 25:9 166:7 167:20

gotten 90:11 166:8 269:15 273:2 hard 89:10 240:14 25:13,19 28:10 171:9,13,22 172:2

government 222:11 guessing 237:4 242:20 39:7 52:11 58:7 173:10 174:12

258:8 guidance 189:22 hardware 14:18 60:3,8 66:7 70:22 177:2,22 181:14

governs 261:7 guideline 141:1 hard-pressed 173:1 71:16 73:4 94:3,7 183:10,16 186:15

grace 184:12 270:6 harmonization 94:8 96:6 97:14 187:11 193:11

gracious 292:3 guidelines 141:11 107:2 100:21 107:22 194:1,4 195:3,5

grade 96:6 247:17 237:2,5 harmonizes 212:15 108:13 122:22 196:16,21 199:13

grand 14:11 guides 223:17 Hartley 2:4 7:7,7 150:6 161:2 163:1 200:6 203:12

grant 93:5 Gupta 2:3 7:3,3 head 202:3 165:14,18 188:8 205:3 207:18

graph 95:11 285:6 66:11,11,14 67:18 headed 173:6 209:22 224:7 210:7 211:12,16

great 111:18 127:3 67:18 70:3 82:3,3 headway 148:20 225:4 227:2 212:1,7 216:18

209:2 290:16 86:4,4,7 99:8,9 hear 13:1,4 17:20 242:10,13,14 218:7 219:12

greater 28:8 29:4 100:7,9,9 101:10 22:7 79:2 111:16 243:16,19 276:2 250:8 253:10

29:11 41:12,14,15 101:11 105:14,14 168:5 283:8 288:12 257:4,18

127:12 144:15 137:2,2 138:17 heard 51:13 83:2 291:2,3 horizon 186:20

156:10 166:1 140:6,6,12 142:11 111:19 229:11 highest 206:20 horse 23:18 27:7

207:15,16 210:16 143:4,5 273:5,5 232:13 245:11 214:22 31:21 32:11 41:4

213:8 227:3 281:5,5 262:16 highlight 19:2 41:5 107:5 137:12

243:17 268:22 guy 184:14 263:22 hearing 83:22 20:18 76:21 93:22 185:10

277:16 282:14 guys 230:12 235:1 84:11 98:13 147:7 230:4 horsepower 28:13

greatest 207:11 guy's 264:11 heavier 155:18 highlighted 178:13 39:2,5,8,17 40:3

greatly 240:22 heavy 124:11 Hill 1:21 40:16 41:3,11,12

green 1:21 8:15 H height 77:21 78:2 Hink 2:6 5:18,18 41:12,13,15,16

greenhouse 20:1 H 1:22 24:8,9 95:20 106:14,14 160:12 42:7,8,9 45:14

GRIM 222:12 half 28:13 41:5 held 119:1,3 125:1 160:12 161:7 51:22 52:4,6,7,10

223:8,8,20 224:22 42:9 56:1 63:13 275:20 184:5 245:15,15 53:10 54:1,6,7,10

grips 290:9 63:18,20 68:14 help 66:5 75:8 246:9 55:9,17 56:2

groping 196:8 97:11 131:8 177:5 201:4 Hiperco 246:20 57:10,13 58:22

ground 167:7 136:11 215:18 239:11 240:4 277:19 61:4 62:3 63:5,6,9

group 33:6 111:8 218:22 219:19,20 268:9,12 292:4 historical 177:8 63:13,18,20 64:2

114:13 141:4 252:1 254:18 293:14 historically 244:16 64:6,15 65:6

grouping 63:14 half-way 132:21 helpful 12:6 75:15 history 240:1 66:22 68:5,11,13

groups 211:20 hall 167:2 111:16 136:7 hit 99:16 68:14,15 69:15

275:21 hand 148:21 221:9 202:1 250:5 hold 8:18 87:22 95:13 97:7

grow 182:10 291:8,12 260:17 278:9 home 172:21 294:6 97:11,14,15 98:3

242:13 handbook 114:14 283:17 292:14 hope 9:4 20:10 22:2 98:4 99:18,21

grows 169:16 115:7 293:3 75:12 100:18 102:3

242:11 handle 237:7 240:7 Henke 2:5 7:10,10 hopefully 161:15 103:1 108:12

growth 169:5,12 handled 93:22 Hi 68:3 264:22 120:5 132:18

177:10,13 handy 184:20 high 43:21 44:1,7 hoping 62:7 138:14 151:1

guarantee 235:10 Hansen 2:3 5:2,2 54:22 57:13 60:20 Hopkins 2:6 3:10 157:15 158:14

guess 59:10 66:17 19:4,5 74:15 91:18 92:6 3:12,16 6:21,21 178:18 182:8

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 311 

187:3 213:2 61:19 74:5 102:1 implemented 90:1 255:9 274:9 224:5 250:1

217:20 218:20,22 114:18,20,20,22 152:19 274:11 276:20 275:12

219:9,19,20,21 115:1 126:14 implication 99:2 277:18 incredibly 259:18

221:1 232:18 280:13,20 281:3 implications 98:20 includes 47:16 increment 132:14

259:18 263:9 282:13,13,21 import 228:19 176:11 181:16 132:16

282:14,15 288:5,8 285:15,15 286:6 importance 26:19 235:4,5 259:17 incremental 131:2

288:11 286:11,13 287:1 30:11 33:18 34:17 including 35:9 131:4 132:6,20

horsepowers 55:15 ignoring 51:8 36:21 39:13 40:7 36:11 117:13 152:1 153:13

137:11 224:18 illegitimate 263:12 72:21 122:18 149:17 incremented 94:5

hot 197:20 illustrate 46:12 important 9:12 152:11 162:16 Independence 1:13

hour 136:11 278:15 20:20 21:4 23:1 168:2,6 169:11 independent 156:8

hours 33:12 149:17 illustration 117:6 44:3 53:15 70:12 189:10 200:16 236:12

150:20 151:4 imagine 231:14 194:22 201:10 217:6 224:20 indicate 113:1

156:8,10,12,16,18 Immediately 9:6,8 269:17 270:3,11 255:3 258:8 indicated 57:10

158:6 159:19 immensely 177:6 270:16,19 inclusion 23:11 119:22 155:7

160:1 163:1 impact 3:11,13,15 imports 182:21 incomplete 170:2 209:19 261:14

194:15 197:3,6,13 3:15,16 10:5,6,7,7 impossible 91:8 inconvenience 90:9 277:12

198:1,3,7,8,17,21 10:8 14:10,20,22 232:1 incorporate 200:9 indicates 68:16

199:1,10,20 202:6 18:12 46:7,9 impracticable 255:15 119:18

202:8,17,22 290:2 73:17 161:14 81:11 incorporated 94:2 indicating 50:1

290:7 167:22 168:1,8,12 impression 269:6 155:19 215:21 107:1 123:20

housing 32:8 79:8 168:15 182:4,16 improperly 66:7 224:19 257:8 indication 292:8

Hoyt 2:7 8:4,4 183:18 187:12 126:6,7 incorporates 188:8 indirect 253:13

180:13,13 231:8,8 189:19 200:11,13 improve 59:22 incorporating individual 119:11

232:6 205:6 216:20,22 107:21 279:18 39:19 217:1 192:4

huge 246:2 221:13 222:9,11 improved 91:18 incorrect 140:9,11 induced 239:21

human 256:13 224:5 238:13 167:17 277:6 incorrectly 130:9 induction 22:16

hundred 235:14 241:16 242:21 improvement increase 27:21 28:2 34:7 35:10 39:18

hundred-horsep... 250:12 251:7 16:19 44:17 77:2,15,20 40:17,21 54:8

273:20 252:6 253:12,20 improving 291:18 78:14 79:16,18 56:18 106:3

254:2,10 256:13 ImSET 254:3 80:11,15 81:3,6 107:18 108:1,10 I 258:1,2,14 268:11 inapplicability 81:18 82:17,20,22 243:12 245:7

ID 166:19 290:3 133:8 86:9,11 90:4,5,7 246:19 268:18

idea 16:14 70:6 impacted 165:9 inch 79:13 92:1 95:21 96:3 289:2

203:19 192:5 221:21 inches 43:13 64:1,8 116:19 159:13 induction-run

identical 105:17 222:2 64:10,18,20 65:9 160:2 174:22 108:15 178:7,12

identifiable 134:9 impacts 14:10 44:5 65:11 224:8 230:17 185:11,19

identification 95:4 205:13 include 23:4 24:22 238:21 241:12 industrial 35:2

34:18 48:3 221:16,19 223:15 31:5 42:6 50:18 254:15,17 291:2 50:12,14,19 154:3

identified 47:11 226:12 228:8 93:20 149:11 increased 78:16 154:5 156:2

165:11 245:6 250:22 153:4 189:8 79:8,9 91:1 162:16 163:18

identifies 135:4 253:18 255:1,6 205:17 254:4 increases 227:20 164:14 169:6

identify 58:11 258:3,12 256:8 239:17 241:5 171:1

221:19 222:1 impedance 71:16 included 19:11 242:12 industrial-comm...

IEC 23:11,14 237:2 implement 94:19 34:12 36:18 37:1 increasing 76:22 169:6

237:5 implementation 37:2,4,13 39:22 80:6,12 182:10 industry 19:10

IEEE 15:8,8 61:13 168:21 46:19 63:10,12,17 206:13 215:18 50:6 84:2 193:14

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 312 

221:22 222:6,12 155:2,4 intervals 130:5 issued 57:3 113:9 290:7,11

223:1 225:21 installed 251:12,18 interview 94:15 issues 3:17 4:9 9:11 justified 14:14

239:8 242:4,21 instance 81:2 159:2 223:17 9:13 10:13 12:21 15:13 33:4
 

249:2,6 253:19
 239:18 interviews 99:9 13:15 17:16 18:2 justify 191:17

260:14 instantaneous 223:18,22 18:5 19:1 20:4,8

industry-wide 267:6 introduce 70:21 22:4 83:7 160:8 K

225:22 insulated 24:1,2 introductions 3:3 223:21 224:1,2,4 K 2:16

inefficient 188:14 insulation 18:6 4:16,20 256:18 259:7 keep 12:4,4 75:14

inelastic 175:4 23:19 24:6,7,8,14 invalid 125:21 271:15 274:20 97:2 101:17

inexpensive 77:1 24:17,19,22 25:5 126:5 IV.A.1.C 38:15 166:14 185:14

infers 114:2 25:8 31:6 70:17 invest 238:20 239:5 IV.1.A.G 39:1 192:18 280:8

Infinity 2:9 287:22

kept 82:21

88:9,10,14 invested 226:14,16 IV.1.a.1.a 38:1

inflation 153:21 insulation-class 234:11 IV.5 120:6

influences 228:19 key 199:7 223:21

J

23:12 investigate 250:15

information 13:5 integer 131:8 258:2 224:1,2,4 225:1

J 1:21 Kido 2:9 6:9,9

JAMES 1:16 2:14

16:18 17:10 18:15 intend 10:21 investigation

33:14 68:1 86:20 intended 76:14 272:14
 260:12,12 261:10

88:6,7 110:21
 77:10,12 96:18 investing 249:17 January 13:20 14:3 261:11

119:17 120:1 210:4 investment 225:9 36:4 43:5 113:9 kilowatt 23:17

125:13 126:10 intentionally 235:4,13 241:20 117:17 130:15 288:5,7

140:21 142:22 262:17 242:3,4,13 246:14 136:3 275:20 kind 62:19 68:1

145:9 153:16 intentions 21:14 248:20 249:4,5 277:3 282:9 80:22 105:12

180:17,21 191:9 interaction 109:3 investments 95:6 293:21 163:12 231:15

JEFFREY 2:10 260:13 262:16

Jim 3:4,19 4:13,20

199:6 222:14,21 206:4,15 226:6,22 227:4,7

223:2,18 225:20 interactions 256:10 227:22 239:22 264:9 275:3 279:5

6:14 8:22 21:20 kinds 186:11

186:17,18 261:13

244:12 273:8 interagency 255:22 240:8 241:1,6,13

279:1,6 292:17 interest 99:12 243:7,15 264:18 236:21 280:5

291:19 KINGMAN 2:10

jobs 20:14 253:22

293:14 165:12 invitations 13:17

informing 140:21 interested 13:2 invite 12:16 13:10 Kirk 1:17 7:22

inherent 194:11 254:15,15,18 Kitt 1:20 5:22

John 1:18 2:8,11

17:14 18:11 13:12,16 16:18

initiated 19:18 222:15 260:13 17:9,13 knew 67:5,6

input 13:1 17:22 5:14,14 6:2 7:18 know 9:3 15:7 71:1

72:16,17,20 75:4

291:17 invites 160:7

82:16 112:6 155:5 interesting 26:10 inviting 16:4 71:2 74:14 76:2

75:20 94:12,13 86:19 87:14 89:16

186:8,8 187:1

175:13 201:12 28:18 36:22 involve 208:1

232:10 260:17 201:10 involved 48:4 127:22 136:20

204:8 215:12 144:11 145:6

252:3,4 290:15

292:18 293:12 interject 162:11 181:5 240:10

inputs 153:17 internet 164:2 in-depth 15:21 163:11 167:1

JOHNSON 2:9 168:6 172:6 173:4

journey 293:5

154:22 179:3 interpellation in/product 14:12

223:20 224:22 126:15 IR 210:14 243:1 174:1,10 175:9

Jr 2:5 177:1 181:14

July 15:5 34:22

250:20 251:1 interpolating 27:17 irrelevant 142:17

254:4 interpret 68:18 isolated 67:2 183:17 184:9

INPV 240:20,21 118:5 123:17 196:9 198:11

jump 220:9

interpretation isolating 58:16

241:8,16,22 34:20 48:10 59:8 issue 19:2 20:19 199:3 201:5 202:8

inside 166:17 183:1 Justice 2:15 8:6 202:10,22 203:11

justification 69:10

146:7 21:7 31:4 89:17

insights 202:1,3 interpretations 173:10 225:1 203:21 204:3

239:10 288:14 236:3 239:12 199:9,17 233:18 210:21 216:9

installation 152:11 interpreted 263:14 257:2,4 280:9 264:17 289:8,13 229:22 230:7

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 313 

234:15 237:8,9 194:13,14 195:7 79:9,19 80:8,12 109:6 117:10 likelihood 121:21

238:20 239:19 195:15 233:3 80:15 81:18 83:5 119:5 128:13,15 likes 9:3

240:1,9 242:16 237:12 240:6 83:7 84:7 90:5,6 134:2 147:19 limit 25:14,19 26:3

244:15 245:17 268:14 269:5,10 92:1 122:19 150:13 158:2 28:4 29:17 39:4

252:14 262:6 larger 43:22 44:7 190:17 166:2 188:11,18 51:4 52:5 64:21

264:14 265:14 73:8 101:1 104:2 lengths 78:11 188:22 205:5,9,11 65:12 72:9 95:20

267:22 273:11 130:5 194:16 lengthy 135:22 205:12,17 206:1,2 114:7

282:17 292:5 220:11 224:9 let's 22:5 59:17 206:10,11,16 limitation 26:15

knowing 144:8 235:22 290:3 76:8 101:16 109:8 207:22 209:18,19 limitations 76:14

known 114:4 largest 228:11 111:1 136:22 209:20 213:13,15 76:17 78:5 233:8

115:13,16 245:22 lastly 102:20 148:19 166:4 213:20,21 214:5,6 limited 40:4 64:5

280:21 late 10:20 169:21 167:15 219:19 214:7 219:2 246:1

knows 70:16 92:9 Laughter 30:16 239:15 240:16,16 230:14 235:7,12 limiter 195:8

266:21 267:1 198:13 200:5 271:8,17 241:4 242:10 limiters 232:20,21

Kristen 2:15 8:5 272:2 287:14 level 44:5 49:3 246:16 251:15 limiting 195:11

L

launch 9:15 12:10

law 80:4,14 181:9

70:19,20 71:8

96:5,7 99:19

271:2,3 272:15,16

275:1,4,5 276:3

limits 27:3 30:3

51:22

L 50:14 Lawrence 2:6,19 100:17,21 101:8 Lewis 2:11 6:12,12 Lin 2:12 5:16,16

lab 55:6 68:4 2:20 6:19,22 33:7 108:14 141:18 201:7,8 232:8,9 182:13,13 228:4,4

114:22 229:17 55:6 68:4 149:3 158:8,16,22 159:4 291:19,21 229:11,21,22

230:22 236:12 229:17 230:22 161:17 173:7 liability 26:15 line 52:22 57:19

labeled 55:15 285:3 laws 181:1 183:20 188:14,19 life 9:21 73:2 149:4 101:20 102:8

labor 230:18 lays 76:18 188:19,20 189:1 153:11 156:12,13 147:3 170:18

Laboratories 1:17 LBL 34:1 197:1 192:21 193:7 156:16,17 160:2 173:5 197:16

2:10 7:21 8:1 LBNL 33:9 104:16 205:14,17,20 192:8 202:12,13 246:13 259:2

89:15 LCC 153:8 165:17 206:6,18,21 207:1 202:19,21 203:3 linearize 220:10

laboratory 2:7,19 189:14 207:11,12,12,15 205:19 211:11 lines 130:9

2:20 6:20,22 33:8 lead 121:15 214:12 207:15,16,17 lifetime 156:7,15 list 74:3 75:20

101:22 114:12 leads 54:19 208:5,11,11,13,14 156:20 157:1 102:11 157:6

149:3 leakage 71:14 208:21 209:5,6,6 187:21 189:4,14 205:12 224:1

labs 231:12 learn 197:13,15 209:8 210:1,21,21 194:6,9,10,16,17 226:3 231:1

lack 102:18 133:9 leave 86:5 136:12 212:5,12 213:6,21 194:18 195:6,9,9 listed 18:10 21:22

lacking 42:1 63:14 167:4 222:14 226:17,21 195:10 197:2,7 31:4 37:11 38:13

64:4 125:2,12 leaving 42:10 230:2 234:3 lifetimes 156:19 58:21 61:17 68:13

Ladonne 2:10 7:20 Lebo 2:11 7:18,18 241:11 243:1 201:14 74:18 76:4 97:20

7:20 89:14,14 290:15,15 251:20,22 269:18 life-cycle 3:9 14:9 115:5 128:7,22

182:1,1 LED 8:16 274:1 276:2 149:8 150:3,5 178:11 258:7

lam 245:20 left 162:19 288:13 152:9,10 153:2 listen 4:8

lamination 235:5 legal 257:6 levels 3:13 10:6 154:22 155:12 listing 47:13

249:18 legally 265:8 14:18 15:15 16:12 157:21 158:1,11 little 8:15 45:6,21

laminations 204:2 legislation 233:18 16:17 17:2,3,4,7 158:17 159:12,13 97:17 98:19 99:3

240:11 241:5,13 240:2,3 255:13 17:22 18:7 33:9 160:9 161:21,22 105:18 132:12

248:7 264:21 34:13 69:11 71:1 162:1,4,6 165:2,6 148:20 174:12

landscape 261:21 legislative 253:2,7 71:2,3 73:5 80:9 165:20 166:5 177:4 185:16

language 134:4,5 legitimate 266:1 91:2,3,12,17,18 168:3,9 189:5,8 191:19 197:2

large 44:17,19 51:2 length 16:15 76:22 91:19 95:18 210:8 211:10,16 209:9 212:11

89:21 105:6 184:9 77:1 78:11,14,16 107:13 108:17,19 light 194:19 233:18 237:4

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 314 

252:5 264:2 253:3 261:12 265:1 290:6 majority 24:13 170:6 172:19

273:18 268:1 275:19 292:17,17 104:19 128:17 173:7 181:4 183:6

lives 202:14 289:22 292:10,20 low 74:16 154:13 139:16 185:1 203:14

LLC 1:21 293:2,5 163:21 169:11 making 12:6 38:21 219:9 221:17

LLENZA 2:12 looked 17:3 61:8 249:16 290:22 129:13 199:14 222:9,15 223:15

load 25:22 26:5 78:12,14,21 104:8 lower 100:1 131:8 214:9 238:7 223:22 224:6,14

27:5,15,16,22 202:17 275:2 131:13 134:8,16 247:18 271:20 224:15 225:3,5,8

28:2,9,10,14 29:5 276:18 135:6 173:7 228:1 281:22 225:12,21 226:2

29:7,12,14 72:6 looking 17:21 18:4 230:18 234:10 Management 190:1 226:20 227:2,5,17

74:7 95:12 109:12 89:18 94:14 239:4 283:7 Manager 4:13 227:19,21 228:8

109:21 110:7 106:20 107:17 288:13 mandate 21:6 228:19 229:4

112:7,11 116:13 172:22 195:12 lowest 116:11 mandatory 258:4 230:15,16 231:14

116:16 127:20 204:5 220:7 238:5 188:14 manner 293:3 234:19,22 241:2,4

135:12 236:15 244:1 252:6 low-cost 244:17 manual 192:7 241:11,17 246:5

250:17 286:12 looks 71:16 222:7 low-horsepower manufacturability 249:7 262:4,22

287:9 loophole 260:5,11 244:17 76:15 266:1 268:1,13

loaders 55:8 lose 192:22 210:6 lunch 10:1,2,3 manufacture 14:10 276:7 278:1 290:4

loading 150:20 loss 20:13 27:19,21 136:10,14 161:15 48:5 85:8 94:8 manufacturer's 5:3

151:6 27:22 122:21 165:3 166:10,11 236:6 259:22 119:1 120:7 121:2

locations 115:12 130:20 132:1,20 167:12 manufactured 122:10 125:12,15

lock 40:13 138:22 276:22 128:7 173:3 222:22,22 236:10

locked 37:12 40:18 277:9 280:10,17 M manufacturer 3:13 manufacturing

53:12,13 63:21 280:18,20 282:6 M 2:2,3 43:14 55:22 60:11 10:6 18:14 132:11

64:5,17,22 65:9 283:4,6 286:2,7 machine 203:22 69:20 95:4,11 144:8 173:20

65:13 70:12,19 286:12,14,17 mack 273:3 100:20 101:7,20 183:3 221:20

71:1,8,15,20 287:9 magnitude 134:11 102:6,7,20,21 230:20 231:16,18

72:10,11,12 86:22 losses 27:14 28:6,8 219:21 240:8 106:2 117:2 124:8 253:19,20

87:1 167:4 267:9 29:3,4,10,11 242:15 243:9 124:9 133:6 143:6 map 178:3 186:12

logical 120:22 80:16,17,18 100:2 Mahima 2:3 7:3 145:1 150:2 213:19

139:11 293:3 101:7 115:22 main 133:15 160:5 178:10 182:20 March 26:16

logistic 180:4 116:7,8,13,14,20 161:22 168:12 185:13 205:6 117:22

long 9:12 110:16 130:10 131:5,10 194:9 195:8 221:13 223:3,22 marginal 155:20

202:6 262:4 131:11,15,16 218:12 221:14,15 247:2 263:12 margins 239:18,20

264:12 132:6,15,16 138:5 221:18 222:4 266:22,22 270:12 mark 2:2 9:20 94:5

longer 68:16 82:19 200:20 213:10 maintain 76:15 277:1 135:9 145:7

156:13 193:4 219:18,19,22 79:19 156:22 manufacturers 2:4 marked 93:18

201:20 260:3 276:19 280:16 180:21 198:12 2:8 14:21 19:6 114:9 129:6 134:3

261:1,4 285:10,13 286:1 226:20 227:17 43:17 44:20 45:3 134:9,11 140:17

look 12:15 15:21 287:2 235:14 45:22 49:17 55:15 market 18:9 24:11

17:2,5,17 56:20 lost 118:10,11 maintained 275:11 58:21 61:8 75:21 41:18 66:15,18

67:11 69:13 89:18 132:17 maintaining 82:16,18 85:9,13 67:20 99:6 104:20

95:10 106:17 lot 4:7,8 71:4 72:13 118:19 215:2 90:22 91:15 93:1 109:3 124:12

139:14 185:9 172:10 176:8 238:22 93:7 94:16 99:9 152:5 169:14,16

187:4 197:6 198:1 216:1 232:13 maintenance 155:3 99:11 101:13 172:19 173:16,18

202:11,12 204:10 243:4 248:7 155:10,13 196:19 104:9 118:16 174:1,2,2 175:3

209:2 234:15 259:14,17 262:14 major 197:22 124:20 135:9 175:14 177:10,19

235:3 246:14 262:16 263:13 198:5 271:7 139:18 144:6 178:16,19,22

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 315 

179:2,11,12,13,13 22:7,9 73:21 53:2,22 54:12,17 47:6 115:20 163:2 MG1-12.47 38:17

179:16 180:2,4,7 79:17 109:1 205:4 55:8 56:4,11,21 163:9 168:18 MG1-1987 22:18

180:20 181:4,18 221:11 275:6,7 57:12 58:22 64:7 187:13 192:4,21 23:6 127:15

182:5,9 184:2,9 281:7 284:17 64:9 88:19,20 205:8 242:2 289:4 128:20 135:11

186:4 188:7,9,18 matter 9:14 136:5 90:17 107:4 mercury 255:8 MG1-1993 127:11

188:19,22 191:8 256:7,10 294:8 109:21 110:2 merely 184:10 MG1-2006 133:14

194:13,14 195:16 matters 155:11 133:8 137:19 metal 79:13 MG10 140:22

196:4,7,9 197:5 Matthew 1:21 2:4 138:14 139:2,21 meteorology MIA 221:13,14,18

198:5 201:15 2:14 51:20 186:20 187:1 256:12 222:5,18 226:10

206:4,15 207:21 maximally 17:6 212:16 213:4 method 45:4 98:5 Michael 2:9,13,15

208:8,15,20,22 maximum 28:4 262:20 100:19 114:18,20 6:9 252:17,19

210:12 211:2 45:11 63:4 64:21 meet 16:9 24:9 30:2 117:14 118:17 260:12 261:9

212:2 215:7 65:12 73:15 77:15 34:13 35:11,15,19 124:22 125:2 microphone 8:15

218:13 225:11 96:10 205:18 37:8,16 38:3,17 126:15 145:18 microphones 6:17

235:11 244:6 206:17 207:13,21 40:8 44:8 58:9 147:8 280:13,13 8:17

260:6 284:9 259:19 260:2 65:3,16 67:13,20 280:15 281:3,3,19 mid 10:9

marketed 148:13 max-tech 205:20 69:18 70:8 71:20 281:20 282:22 midpoint 288:10

marketplace 17:8 McCabe 2:13 73:5 79:16 87:2 286:11 mid-afternoon

18:14 58:6 135:16 252:18,19,20 88:20 92:11 96:5 methodologies 10:10

markets 174:9 mean 74:20 86:13 175:10 185:15 12:19 13:3,15 mid-day 10:2

206:3 244:10 89:1 112:1 114:3 193:6 203:15 16:1 mid-morning 9:18

marking 230:2 118:11 121:8,14 204:21 218:11 methodology 98:21 migration 206:5

markup 149:12,19 121:22 123:8 228:16 245:20 99:1 150:11 Mike 87:13 98:18

151:17,21 226:11 125:9 128:1 142:4 246:4 272:11 222:10 142:10 146:14

226:15 227:12 142:11,21 145:7,8 273:3,12 278:2 methods 115:1,5 173:12,14 231:6

228:2 238:3 241:1 159:2 162:21 288:12 257:5 247:12 283:21

markups 3:9 18:6 164:13 202:3 meeting 1:7,12 4:5 metric 23:11,14 MILLER 2:13

60:10 151:10,11 203:20 216:6 4:14 11:15,20 MG 22:19 50:3 million 234:17

151:14 152:1,4 230:9 233:10 12:7,14 13:8 120:17 260:21 238:20 239:6

158:6 160:9 239:14 245:5,10 15:17 17:17 18:4 261:2 241:7,21 248:10

226:10 268:2 273:6 281:6 22:3,10 36:20 MG-1 56:10 58:10 249:10,14

mark-ups 95:3 282:2 43:5 117:18 69:9 109:22 Mimi 66:11,12

massive 242:22 meaningful 20:12 130:15 155:16 232:15 67:18 70:2 82:2,3

matched 121:19 means 19:22 40:2 188:10 191:1 MG-1.1.05 25:5 86:3,4 99:7,8

matching 123:7 50:12 56:16 73:3 266:2 275:20 MG1 22:22 23:2,20 100:8,9 101:11

material 43:20 111:22 127:8 276:11 24:7,19 25:19 105:13,14 137:1,2

71:9 75:13 94:4,5 153:6 155:5 238:8 meetings 36:4 30:3 34:16,20 140:5,6 143:5

95:3 136:15,20 239:1 248:5,7 135:21 291:18 35:20 36:9 37:3 272:19 273:5

166:6 215:15 measure 286:11 meets 65:22 188:15 37:12,14 38:3 281:5

materials 60:10 measured 115:10 190:16 193:4 39:14,21 40:5,16 mine 264:10

91:6 93:17,18 115:21 277:9 230:4 40:18,19 41:6 279:20

132:10 215:20 286:14 members 19:11,20 42:1,19 46:16,18 mini 19:7

216:1,7 245:19,21 measuring 114:16 20:2 53:21 54:11,16 minimum 64:5,7

252:9 mechanical 146:1 memory 130:17 126:22 129:2 64:10,17 65:8

mathematical 156:16 mention 44:11 137:19 261:6,7 73:15 129:18

122:16 145:22 mechanics 11:18 191:18 245:16 MG1-1.05 25:10,15 131:21,22 132:2

Matt 3:8,13 7:1,7 medium 24:4 52:20 mentioned 40:1,15 MG1-12,42 25:7 137:18 140:9,20

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 316 

141:3,9,16 142:13 models 60:7,8,20 64:16,19 65:1,3,4 194:17,18,20 41:2,3,4,5,14,16

142:16 143:11 60:20 61:22 66:8 65:5,7,10,14,15 200:20 202:14,20 41:18,20,22 42:2

205:19 259:19 94:8 118:9,14 65:17,18,22 66:22 202:20 203:17,22 42:3,8,9,10 44:11

260:2 126:7 128:5 67:1,3,17 68:6 204:20 207:16,17 46:21 47:6,10,11

minimums 142:22 147:17 170:10,14 69:15,17,18,21 208:13 209:16 47:12 48:6 50:6

143:1 197:9 226:19 70:1,15 71:14,16 210:3,9,14,19 51:2,6,10 52:6,7

minus 175:6,7 227:16 285:13 72:1,8 73:12,15 212:16 214:1 52:10,18,20,20

minutes 198:22 modifications 73:15,16 74:3,13 218:2,3,19,21 53:1,2,7,9,22,22

miscellaneous 122:18 77:1,2 78:17 80:7 219:3,7,10,21 54:8,12,17,17

162:16 Molly 2:18 7:12 80:8 81:2 83:15 224:5 230:2,4 55:1,2,16,21 56:8

misinterpreted 259:11 84:2,7,8,8 87:3 231:10,13 234:2 56:12 57:7 58:6,8

43:10 moment 17:13 88:1,2,10,12,13 235:1 243:17 58:11,20,22 60:1

misinterpreting 177:3 88:15 90:7 92:10 244:8,9,15,20 60:3,5 61:2 65:19

142:7 moments 291:16 92:10,11,15 93:2 245:7,8 246:17,20 66:8,15,18,19

misleading 115:3 monetary 255:20 93:8 96:21 97:4,7 247:18 251:16 67:10,20 68:10,13

missed 10:15 256:17 97:11,13 99:21 253:19 259:16,22 68:14,14,17 69:5

100:16 money 268:15 100:11,18 101:3,9 260:1 261:3 262:4 69:10 70:8,22

misses 133:15 Monte 152:20,22 101:12,21 102:4,9 262:20,22 263:19 73:7,11,14 74:12

missing 88:6 153:4,9 102:13 103:2 264:1 266:22 76:1,3,6 77:10

252:11 morning 4:3 22:8 105:6 108:2,16 267:4,17 268:1 78:1,12 79:14

mix 211:20 251:9 167:11 232:13 112:4,6 113:4,19 269:21 270:1,2,10 85:21 87:10,16,19

mode 12:1 259:14 269:17 114:9,16 115:10 270:12,14,20 89:2,22 90:17,19

model 76:12 77:10 270:18 271:8 115:13 117:1,2 272:11,17 274:10 90:22 91:17 92:7

77:12 79:7 109:14 morning's 192:20 120:6,8,10,15,19 274:12,14 275:8 101:19,22 102:16

118:9 121:18 motor 1:18,19 5:8 120:22 121:14,20 275:10 276:8 102:17,19 103:9

122:5,11,16,18 6:3 7:19 19:7,10 121:21 122:7,17 277:14 278:5 103:10,16,19

123:6,17,19,21 19:14,15,17,21 124:19 125:16 280:12,17 281:2 106:4 107:4 108:1

124:3,5 145:21,22 22:13,14,16 23:3 126:17,22 127:3,9 288:9,19,22 289:3 108:2,11 109:4,4

146:2,21 147:14 23:21,22 25:5,21 128:11,18 132:19 289:6 109:11,17,19,21

147:17 148:5,10 26:7 28:14,19 133:9 134:3,17 motors 1:4 12:14 110:2,4,10 112:2

170:9 174:21 29:6,14,19 30:1,2 135:2,6 138:12 12:15,16 15:11 112:13,19,22

178:21 179:3,14 30:5 31:20,21 140:16 141:4,6,14 16:22 18:1 19:7 113:16 114:4

179:15 181:20 32:1,2,4,7,14 33:6 141:17 143:6,11 21:1,8 23:4,5,7,12 115:3,14,17 116:1

183:17 188:10 33:21 34:10 35:19 149:17 150:20,22 23:15,16 24:2,4 116:2,5 117:5,12

197:2,7,8 200:13 36:11,16 39:4,15 151:4,6 156:15,18 24:12,13 25:7,9 117:15,19 118:3,7

200:14,22 201:5 39:20 41:9,10,11 156:19 157:13,15 25:15,18,20 27:8 118:8 119:9,11,13

208:7,15,17 41:13 42:4,13,19 157:22 158:6,8 28:22 30:7,8,9 120:2,20 121:3,9

210:11 218:14 43:2,7,11 44:4 159:10,19 162:2 31:19 33:2,10,11 121:11 122:2,8

222:11,12 254:2,3 45:14 46:15 47:16 163:11 164:14 33:12,16 34:4,4,5 123:10 124:11

254:3,11 255:5,14 50:8 52:10 56:1,4 169:5 173:1 34:6,7,9,12,14,16 125:7,10,17

255:16 258:15 56:4,11,12,16,18 175:16 176:18,20 34:18 35:5,7,9,11 126:12 127:6,13

modeled 61:14 57:21 58:12,13,18 177:10,19 178:2 35:13,14,15,17,22 127:16,19,21

105:16 123:7 58:22 60:22 61:1 178:17 181:18 36:5,12,13 37:8 128:6,9,14,17

modeling 76:9 61:10,12,14,18 182:22 184:16,17 37:16,20,21 38:3 129:1,7,11,11,20

146:5 251:3 62:4,4 63:12,16 185:1 189:13 38:5,16,18 39:9 130:7 132:10,15

278:10 279:10 63:20,22 64:3,3,6 190:8,16,21 193:3 39:18 40:3,8,9,14 133:10,12,19

284:4 64:7,9,12,13,14 193:4 194:6,10,15 40:17,19,21,22 134:5,6,10 135:8

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 317 

135:10,14 137:10 276:3,6 277:5 93:13 94:22 95:9 217:1 228:10 58:11,20 62:4,20

137:20,21 138:8 279:19,21 282:3,6 97:3,16 98:9 276:6 287:5 63:9,11 64:2,17

138:10,13,14 282:14,15,16 101:18 104:14 288:16 64:21 65:8,12

139:2,4,7,19,21 283:1,7,8 284:4,8 109:1,1,10 148:21 necessary 38:9,10 66:17,19,21 67:21

140:3 141:2,5,20 285:7 286:18,19 205:4,7 207:8 47:21 50:20 58:9 68:8,13,13,16,19

143:15,18,19,20 288:4,15,17 290:3 212:10 213:12 94:7 95:6 96:4 69:1,8,18 70:1,14

144:8,10,20 148:7 291:3 214:19 216:16 necessitated 96:5 71:5 72:9 73:5

148:8 151:1,3 motor's 77:4 91:10 217:14 218:5 need 6:17 8:14 11:6 77:18 84:3,15,22

155:7,17 156:10 112:5 220:14 221:9 36:14 46:10 57:17 86:9 87:2,18,18

157:17 158:15 mounted 32:8 275:7,7 276:13 59:13 62:20 80:10 87:19 88:1 90:16

159:20,22 162:20 move 19:18 51:15 281:8,12 284:14 85:4 93:2 96:2 90:20 91:3 100:17

163:7 164:5,11 59:14 93:14 95:10 284:18,22 285:3 110:20 127:22 100:22 101:2,8,12

169:17,18 170:16 148:2 151:9 narrow 89:20 133:5 136:3 140:8 106:10 107:3,11

175:4,8,12,14,18 168:11 210:1 narrowly 182:3 166:17,19 183:4 109:22 113:14,20

176:13 178:6,8,9 214:16 230:20 national 2:3,6,7,19 224:8 230:11 114:12 115:7

178:11,12,16,20 276:15 293:15 2:20 3:11 5:3 241:17 244:11 117:22 120:17,20

179:5,7,8,17,18 moved 271:13 6:20,22 10:4 274:20 279:9 126:16,22 127:1,7

179:20 180:8 moves 188:22 14:10,11,21 19:5 287:5 293:7 294:4 127:11 128:19,20

182:5,7 184:1,10 moving 187:12 33:7 70:13,17 needed 96:16,19 129:13,14 130:2

185:8 186:11,20 254:21 71:6 149:3 151:16 125:22 169:19 130:21 131:1,13

188:9,16,20 MRO 196:7,9,16 161:14,17 167:22 245:19 131:19,19 132:19

189:11 190:11 196:18 168:1,8,12,13,14 needs 111:7 124:16 132:22 133:13

192:8 194:8 multiple 55:16 168:16 182:16 143:18 149:10 135:9 138:2,2,9

202:11 203:20 115:11 179:9 183:18 187:12,14 168:8 233:22 138:11,21 141:1

205:10 206:1,7,8 277:5 187:16,20 189:9 246:4 280:5 289:8 142:4,11,19

206:9,12,18,18 189:19 193:4 negative 265:6 143:18 144:13,22

207:3,22 208:6,9 N 200:11,13 205:19 neglect 39:12,16 152:6 169:22

211:4 212:11 name 4:21 6:18 206:13 209:3 neglected 30:13 172:7 177:15

213:1,4,7,18 11:5,8 22:9 49:13 210:11,15,16,20 191:18 180:13 181:6,8

214:21 215:4,8,16 51:19 72:19 89:13 211:12 212:4 negligible 182:4 193:12 197:12

216:2 217:12,21 149:2 180:12 216:20,22 245:5 NEMA 5:3 8:4 19:5 204:6,13,13,21,21

218:11,13,19 182:12 186:7 250:20,22 251:3 19:15,19 22:15 213:15,20 214:1,7

219:14 221:17 221:12 259:8 254:10 258:3,12 24:7 25:4,17 228:10 230:3

224:9,12,17,18 285:11 290:14 258:14,16 26:18,22 27:3 231:8 232:4 237:2

225:6,11 231:16 nameplate 88:8,9 natural 251:10 28:4 30:3,4,12 258:11 259:15

232:16 233:1,4,16 129:7 134:3 Navigant 1:21 2:3 33:5,9,20 34:5,13 260:1,21 261:3

234:4 236:5,6,21 138:13 139:22 2:4,10,14,15,16 34:16,19,20 35:12 263:18 266:10

237:7 240:20 140:16 145:2,8 7:2,3,8 8:2 51:21 35:15,20 36:9,16 272:7 274:13

241:6 243:5,12,12 nameplates 114:9 73:21 87:13 98:18 37:3,12,14 39:14 289:1

244:17 247:3 Nardotti 2:14 3:8 275:8 39:19,21 40:5,7 NEMA's 22:18

252:9 254:8 260:6 3:13 7:1,1 22:7,8 near 34:21 40:10,16,18,19 29:16 260:22

261:1 262:13 22:9 31:10 51:16 nearest 131:7 41:6,9,10,22 42:1 NEMS 251:4 255:5

264:9,14 265:1 51:20,21 53:21 nearly 163:2 42:2,19 43:8,19 255:14,16

267:14 268:14,19 55:3 59:18 73:20 necessarily 44:6 46:13 47:14 48:8 nervous 21:2

268:21 270:5,6,8 73:21 75:18 76:9 58:8 68:22 92:10 48:10,13,16 49:8 net 168:16 187:20

270:8 272:5,22 78:18 79:6,21 142:21,22 204:6 50:3 51:6 56:16 222:12 227:3

273:11 274:8 81:17 82:8,12 204:20 213:19 56:19 57:22 58:7 253:22 257:8

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 318 

258:16 258:3,7,13,18 number 22:17 obviously 26:21 187:10 193:9

never 42:14 65:4 non-servo 35:15 33:10,12 44:16,18 38:8 150:4 175:9 196:21 205:1

65:17 98:13 non-space 81:21 44:19 45:8,12,19 260:13 212:9 214:15,18

163:10 237:16,17 83:8 179:18 45:20 63:6 71:12 occur 85:22 115:22 217:16 218:15

277:11 189:11 225:19 77:17 114:7 135:7 occurred 177:1 221:9 226:9

new 27:1 84:9 non-space-constr... 161:2,8 170:9 occurring 174:5 229:10,14 232:7

111:20 112:17 77:13,22 83:17 173:17 188:2 occurs 259:21 237:20 240:15

113:12 123:2,19 95:16 196:10 199:19 OEM 151:14 246:10 249:21

160:17,21 162:2,4 non-standard 201:22 219:13 192:13 196:5,5 250:3 257:17

167:5 176:5 288:5 289:9 234:20 238:9 202:12 203:8 266:4 271:11

184:17,19 235:5 noon 166:16 241:5,12 258:19 231:2 289:22 272:20 274:4

236:4 264:21 NOPR 1:5 21:3 290:21 OEMs 84:1,5,6 283:20 285:20

268:16 293:6 26:18 36:19 38:1 numbered 206:13 85:12 185:2 186:5 287:10 289:17

newer 261:6 38:15 39:1 42:15 numbers 44:19 192:2 198:7 old 202:5

news 84:10 42:21 44:14 47:3 130:2 131:7 204:12 224:16 omitted 26:10

nine 84:6 50:22 59:20 66:3 134:16 138:3,4,6 263:14 269:5 once 53:17 57:4

nine-year 202:21 83:22 103:18 138:7,16 139:10 offer 262:2 292:3 61:10,18 186:12

NIST 113:7,9,15 114:21 117:11,21 158:3 161:1,12 offered 164:4,10 217:11 270:21

NISTIR 113:9 118:15 119:17 172:2,7,8 180:9 178:13 290:9 292:14

nitrogen 255:8 120:6 125:21 180:15 195:22 offers 207:11 ones 15:12 263:16

nominal 18:8 73:15 126:5 129:22 211:21 235:15 Office 6:10 190:1 one-half 64:15

75:7 109:12,20 136:1 142:5 248:20 249:16 officer 1:16 4:14 one-horsepower

111:21 112:20 143:19 149:7 256:15 257:9,10 offices 176:4 280:12

113:2 114:5 150:10,15,21 259:18 267:15,18 offs 90:13 one-quarter 132:18

115:18 116:6,9,12 153:11 158:4 269:5 offshore 172:20 open 23:4,7 41:18

116:15,21 117:8 162:11 165:5,21 Numeral 37:22 173:15 174:4 47:6,11,12,17,17

119:6 120:20 176:16 205:16 numerical 278:15 231:21 265:21 111:10 162:20

121:5 122:6 123:2 212:21 223:7 numerous 46:16 Oh 245:4 249:5 163:7,11 164:4,10

124:15 125:4 229:6 250:11 127:1 284:16 164:14 176:18

126:8,16,21 127:7 256:1 257:10,22 NVLAP 114:14 okay 8:11 12:12 293:21

127:18 128:19,21 NOPRs 36:5 21:20 22:5 31:2 opening 3:3 4:16

129:5,10,13,15,19 Northwest 7:16,17 O 31:10 49:9,16,19 9:10

130:3,21 131:1,3 note 38:11 49:6 objecting 288:17 51:12 59:10,16 operate 156:10,12

131:13,19 132:1,3 102:15 110:8 objective 90:7 62:10 63:2 75:2 operated 25:21

132:4,5,13,19,22 noted 42:22 117:16 observation 55:20 75:10 76:7 82:1,7 112:7 272:17

134:1,18,21 135:3 128:4 134:13 78:15 279:10 86:1,16 90:11 operating 27:6,11

135:9,11,17 276:18 observations 278:9 93:10 95:8 97:3 28:15 38:7 108:14

137:18 140:8,15 notice 1:5 199:16 observed 27:1 99:13 108:21 152:13 153:14,18

140:17 141:17,21 256:17 258:21 29:20 55:13 102:2 110:17,22 111:17 156:11,13 194:7

142:12,15,20 283:12 observing 131:18 136:18 138:17 196:19 204:18

143:8,10,12,13 noticed 160:13 obtain 80:6 93:17 140:12 148:18 227:3,6,11,13,18

144:4,12,14 184:5 95:19 100:20 151:10 162:18 234:9 244:18

145:11 146:12 noting 46:16 49:3 obtained 282:19 163:14 164:21 operation 149:18

281:17 November 16:3,4 obtaining 70:14 167:10,14 171:11 150:20 151:4

non 93:19 179:7 38:1 96:15 171:20 172:1,5 156:9,18 158:6

nonstandard 45:7 NPV 215:1,9 obvious 27:5 33:18 174:6,11 177:20 159:20 160:1

non-regulatory 222:13 223:9 46:7 269:16 183:8 185:3 163:1 189:17

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 319 

194:16 197:3,7 outset 12:9 19:2 pairs 180:3 party 152:22 144:19 157:13

198:7 199:20 21:19 166:22 paperwork 45:21 pass 166:20 203:4 158:21,21 159:1,3

operations 227:1 outside 43:12,15 Papst 5:15 236:14 239:19 159:5,7,10,12,16

opinion 137:21 182:20 183:4 paragraph 50:11 250:6 159:16 161:4

182:2 228:19 229:4 133:21 passed 279:2,16 165:19 172:12

opportunity 9:9 230:15,18,20 parameter 275:10 passing 279:14 176:17 189:12,20

10:12 18:22 62:13 231:17 263:15 parameters 76:17 path 248:2 189:21,22 190:6

111:10 259:5 264:3,8 271:4 223:4 275:2 279:9 pattern 130:4,22 193:16 195:21

279:17 279:2 Pardon 284:16 patterns 149:17 196:10 213:11

option 244:22 overall 174:2,22 part 45:1 46:22 Paul 2:12 5:16 230:16,17 238:22

options 59:21 overestimate 47:8 50:21 51:9 182:13 228:3,4 241:8,21 256:21

76:11 78:5 96:3 201:13 56:10 58:12 79:14 229:22 269:1,2 276:1,4

147:18 178:9 overhead 93:19 113:6,12,18 pause 18:17 166:5 277:15,16 280:19

190:12 225:14,17 94:6 119:20 122:5 pay 154:5 231:3 281:2 282:1,7

order 11:9 71:13 overheat 267:7 126:10 140:20 payback 46:8 285:15,18 287:9

140:7 153:8 168:7 overlap 54:15,16 143:1,2 145:20 141:15,22 149:5,9 percentage 112:5

170:7,10 177:4 54:19 107:13 156:15 169:3 150:4,6 152:9 123:16 213:9

178:18 179:11,18 overly 77:20 213:12 248:19 153:13 154:22 238:10,12

183:5 185:14,15 oversight 46:22 261:21 288:3 160:10 percentages 163:20

188:5,11 191:6 overview 3:4 8:22 289:5,15 291:1,6 peak 81:4 250:17 perception 130:8

201:4 206:13 9:8 12:12 16:12 Participants 3:5 penetration 188:8 perform 149:11

210:18,19 217:18 18:2 152:9 particular 17:15 penny 239:6 267:2

219:15 224:7 overwhelming 23:11 31:7 36:15 people 11:8 163:4 performance 26:13

235:14 247:5 104:19 55:14,17 115:13 173:19 180:22 27:12 31:16 34:15

253:1 258:15 oxides 255:8 129:1 138:10 184:10 191:20 35:16,20 36:14,17

ordered 210:18 o'clock 10:19 141:4 146:8 201:17 237:3 41:1 44:9 53:18

ordering 212:8

ore 216:11 P

152:13 160:4

165:12,20 170:12

243:4,11 254:8

265:18

57:17,18,20 58:9

58:10 64:11 65:21

organic 93:4 P 2:5 190:2,14 193:13 people's 166:13 66:1,16 67:21

organization 84:4 Pacific 7:13 194:21 200:12 percent 27:21 28:8 69:19 70:4 88:18

organizational package 93:16 208:2,10 209:21 29:4,11 77:16,18 88:21 89:5 146:6

4:22 packet 9:2 291:15 210:20 211:20 78:15 79:16 81:3 147:18 175:11

organized 138:4 page 42:21 44:13 231:3 247:5 255:7 81:6,8,18 82:13 203:16 263:20

origin 161:19 45:2 54:5 56:15 257:1 259:13 82:20,22 83:10,12 266:10 267:11

original 19:17 62:11 86:12 286:2 86:8,11 92:1 272:11 274:15

124:2 103:17 114:21 particularly 119:4 95:20 96:3 100:1 performed 28:22

originally 172:7 118:14 124:10 124:6 130:7 100:3 101:2,8 103:7 114:22

other's 263:22 129:22 130:14 132:15 155:11 103:22 107:7,10 126:12 287:8

outcome 239:11 133:2 137:9 172:10 175:16 116:8,14,20 period 13:20 14:3

outlook 154:9 160:14 212:21 181:19 194:5,22 118:11 120:8,10 149:5,9 150:4,6

169:7,13 238:17 242:17 277:19 120:12,13,17,21 152:9 153:13

output 72:5 112:6 249:12 288:3 particulate 256:7 121:7 122:6,19,21 155:1 160:10

150:4 151:17 pages 111:1 277:4 256:10 123:6 124:14 161:18 168:20,20

213:1 285:16 283:18 particulates 256:14 130:3,4,10,11 169:2 189:3

outputs 168:13 pair 208:10 parties 13:2 17:14 131:4,6,10,11,14 190:10 191:22

223:8 251:7 paired 206:2 155:6 222:16 131:15,16 132:1 223:9,11 293:21

254:10 255:19 pairing 210:15,17 parts 36:9 132:20,21 141:6,8 periodic 261:16

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 320 

periods 184:13 plant 255:4 256:11 173:12 189:7 268:11 77:19 82:5,13,14

permanent 34:11 plants 163:5 199:15 213:9 possibility 45:10 86:10 142:6

40:22 play 186:3 pole 27:8 28:14 possible 12:5 41:17 150:10,13,19

permissible 147:7 playing 269:19 31:22 34:10 38:3 49:1,2 92:13 151:18,22 152:2,7

person 12:3 106:16 plays 194:16 40:21 41:3,4,5,13 98:15 144:17 155:4,16 156:6,6

182:22 278:18 please 7:9 11:5,5 41:14 52:6,7,10 166:15 206:6 157:4 169:4

perspective 152:18 11:21 12:3 32:21 53:10 65:7 97:6 231:1 233:7 222:20 256:5

217:6 38:11 51:18 66:13 102:3 103:1 221:1 235:19 premium 19:19

pertaining 36:10 72:18 79:22 82:10 poles 63:5,6 possibly 46:4 88:13 91:3 100:17,22

160:8 89:13 94:12 Policy 14:5 184:19 293:12 101:3,8,12 213:15

pertinent 36:9 138:19 168:5 pollutants 255:21 posted 11:15 213:20 214:1,7

Peru 268:8 180:11 181:22 polyphase 16:21 potential 34:3 35:4 230:3 258:11

PG&E 259:11 182:12 186:7 18:1 27:8 28:19 45:18 118:20 prepare 65:20 66:4

phase 34:11 37:20 217:9 231:5 259:8 30:1 32:2 34:6 127:2 179:19,20 prepared 30:18

38:2 64:9,16 65:7 259:9 265:4 269:6 62:3 63:22 64:3 201:13 206:4 278:13

73:7 106:3 119:13 287:19 290:14 68:5,10 95:12 226:12 250:18 preparing 232:10

139:4 222:19 291:16 294:1 99:21 106:3,21 potentially 103:20 prescribe 133:18

223:6,7,16,17 pleased 19:9 107:2 110:2 206:7 237:19 prescribed 118:5

230:10 249:11 plenty 244:18 119:11 120:5 pound 64:1,8,10,18 133:20 134:15

phases 222:18 plus 73:5 152:12 157:15 158:14 64:20 65:11 282:22

phones 11:22 point 10:11,16 170:15 171:6,12 155:20 276:21 presence 278:18

physical 57:15 13:20 14:19 15:9 171:14 188:16 power 2:11 7:17,18 present 1:14,23

255:16 49:18 50:9 51:13 202:20 212:10 27:8 31:21 32:11 4:10 46:18 93:2

pick 81:15 267:22 69:7 75:8 80:10 213:1 214:21 41:4,5 65:9 112:5 99:20 126:5

picked 73:12,19 80:17 92:21 95:17 240:20 246:17 112:6 118:10,11 130:19 149:6,7

74:11,13,21 141:5 95:22 96:1,6,10 276:3 280:12 213:1 250:15 165:3 168:16

picks 141:4 96:10 99:11 283:8 255:4,17 256:11 178:4 187:20

pictorially 96:19 100:16 108:14 poor 184:14 275:2,3,9,11,11 188:7 189:18

picture 166:19 133:15 137:3 population 51:2 275:22 276:8,9 207:14 222:13

222:17 143:17 144:2 73:14 74:12,14,16 285:16 240:19 257:8

pictured 96:11 148:4,15 150:21 74:22 84:19 89:22 powered 23:18 258:17 266:15

piece 58:16 85:19 163:17 182:15 112:2,4,19,21 powerful 239:12 presentation 13:14

190:15 192:6 185:22 190:2 113:4 114:4 powers 137:12 16:16 182:15

198:5,18 202:15 197:16 204:18 115:14,16 116:1 219:14 presented 56:13

202:19 214:4 233:11 120:19 121:3,9 practical 91:13 62:14 63:7 78:6

pieces 235:11 237:8 245:1 266:19 122:1 123:9 98:15 200:7 82:5,13 86:21

237:15,18 270:1,12 271:7 125:10,16 127:13 practicality 15:1 100:6 101:5

pin 196:14 278:15 288:18 127:19,21 132:9 practice 154:18 110:21 118:1

pinpoint 286:2 289:13 141:20 144:16,20 predicted 98:6 120:1 125:20

place 21:9 62:21 pointed 26:18 145:12 165:10 predicts 146:21 130:12 136:16

72:10 76:2 162:10 30:11 38:2 58:5 191:10 193:19 255:16 148:5 154:1

197:20 66:22 117:22 282:3 predominantly 157:19 158:2

placed 35:18 39:13 143:18 192:2 portion 67:19 208:8 197:1 257:9

46:13 277:2 237:13 Preeti 1:20 8:7 258:20 285:4

plan 10:17,21 12:8 points 62:13 95:15 position 69:16 preference 276:1 presenting 221:12

plans 20:21 21:17 98:7 110:20 142:3 276:7 preferred 275:22 presently 114:19

186:10 123:16 151:9 positive 215:1 preliminary 60:19 182:2,3

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 321 

presents 152:8 111:2 144:6 119:15,22 128:11 prohibits 129:8 212:22 288:14

215:5 181:11 192:12 150:18 157:18 project 2:1 4:13 proposing 20:22

preservation 201:20 234:22 162:13 163:6 99:18,22 183:20 91:12 100:19

226:14 227:11 261:19 164:10 169:21 186:12 110:5 111:20

234:9,11 problem 92:22 170:3,5,8,11,13 projected 175:19 112:14 206:22

presiding 1:16 4:14 264:15 172:10 176:2,3,9 179:14 246:16 212:14

press 75:17 76:8 problems 70:21 176:10 180:3,10 251:21 271:3 proprietary 60:9

93:11 136:10,14 procedure 15:4,7 189:10 193:7 projecting 252:12 106:11

pressing 182:18 124:9 125:7 195:13,20 197:16 projections 154:6 protect 280:5

presumed 157:22 273:10,13 286:14 197:22 198:6 183:19 256:6 protected 280:6

pretty 15:6 80:17 procedures 61:13 200:19,21 203:7,9 projects 174:18 prototype 106:2

136:17 184:9 61:19 74:5,7 209:21 211:20 208:7,15 provide 13:6,11

240:13 75:22 102:1 219:3,5 220:19 proliferation 66:6 49:3 53:19 93:6

previous 26:17,21 109:11 110:1 221:2 231:2,20 promoted 127:1 103:14 141:3

30:12 103:14 113:8 232:4 234:16 proper 59:7 63:13 177:16,17 215:1,9

130:12 142:13 proceed 31:9 59:17 235:3 236:8,13,14 125:3,16 126:15 219:4 231:1

207:7 249:12 136:22 167:19 236:15 237:13,19 126:17,18 239:10 269:18

276:10 282:8 proceeding 55:11 253:5 268:17 properly 126:11 274:15 276:7

previously 98:21 proceedings 55:10 273:19 264:14 278:14 279:1,11

115:20 187:2,13 process 33:17 50:1 production 93:20 proponents 262:5 280:15 291:11

244:13 105:5 106:15 productive 283:19 proportion 158:11 294:2

previously-menti... 113:5 132:11 products 5:12 233:4 provided 36:4

45:7 155:6 222:18 19:19 20:14 55:14 proportionately 43:21,22 44:2

price 3:9 9:20,21 256:1 85:14 146:19 219:22 62:18 68:8,12,19

94:4 95:11 102:22 processes 145:10 149:22 163:22 proposal 24:22 77:18 88:7 124:2

151:12 152:11 237:18 164:3,4 171:2 31:5 118:2 133:5 172:7,7

154:6,14 176:17 processing 252:8 172:3 173:17 Proposals 113:10 211:9 219:7,8

189:15 249:22 procuring 215:19 187:22 188:1 propose 109:6 222:15 225:20

251:9 produce 90:22 92:7 193:22 203:13 proposed 1:5 4:6 244:12

prices 60:12 95:3 103:6 133:9 150:1 204:12 263:3,4,13 12:17 14:19 15:1 provides 20:13

102:21 153:18,19 193:1 251:5,6 profile 223:1 16:3,5 17:4 20:3 50:17 54:9 183:18

154:5,17 158:7 produced 24:14,14 profit 93:20 227:3 34:1 40:12 42:3 288:6

163:10 175:1 106:5 227:6,7,11,13,18 42:16 47:5,7 96:8 providing 69:20

189:9,10,14 product 3:7 9:16 227:21 238:8 108:17 112:20 279:5

200:20 226:13 14:12 18:5 22:11 profitability 113:2,7 115:19 provision 93:4

238:14 239:17 24:20 27:3 31:11 226:13,21 227:9 117:7,10,12 121:4 provisions 21:1,8

254:6 31:13,14,21 32:18 228:1 126:3,20 128:2 21:10

pricing 104:10,17 42:4,10 43:3 profits 234:10 134:5 135:1 145:6 proxy 170:10

240:14 44:16,18 45:8,9 program 22:6 35:2 175:15 181:19 prudent 25:12

primarily 17:21 46:1,2,6 48:11 61:15 105:11 183:20 197:12 PSC 38:3

252:10 58:4 60:6,14,14 146:3 148:6 153:2 205:15 210:22 public 1:7,12 4:4

primary 33:18 60:17 61:7,10 236:7 258:11 213:7,14 214:21 15:17,20 17:17

172:17 74:1 84:2 85:6,7,8 278:20 279:18 222:3 241:10 18:4 36:4,20 43:5

prior 123:15 139:5 85:10,18,21 96:17 programs 258:18 243:1 246:15,16 117:17 130:15

172:13 101:20 102:8,13 prohibit 224:10 247:6 251:22 155:16

priorities 186:14 102:19 104:18,20 prohibitive 32:9 254:16 publication 16:7

probably 73:8 104:21 105:2 77:22 proposes 37:7 22:18 94:15

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 322 

127:11 140:22 149:13,19 160:19 252:5 255:7 ranging 43:12 197:16 259:2

154:10 176:8,9 203:7,10 259:12 260:19 rate 165:14 177:9 react 244:3

publications 127:1 203:17,21 221:15 266:9 272:13 179:12 182:10 reactance 71:14

publicly 222:21 221:18 222:5 280:22 281:4,14 230:18 reaction 260:10

published 15:10,15 232:15 250:14 291:22 rated 24:2,3,15,17 read 21:2 94:20

16:2 34:1,22 254:22 258:1 questioning 86:9 25:22 26:5 88:11 135:21 142:7

52:14 118:4 259:16 260:1 161:8 112:7,7,8 125:12 239:9

150:22 155:21 261:1,3 263:15 questions 11:1 75:6 138:13 272:5 reading 160:13

219:8 270:6 267:4 269:4 289:1 151:8 187:8 194:5 282:22 238:14,15

publishing 42:12 purposes 50:21 196:14 221:7 rates 156:1,4 ready 287:15

pull 32:13,14 72:11 51:9 59:21 221:15 257:19 283:14 165:18 189:20 real 103:15,16

pulled 102:6 pursuant 51:6 queue 9:13 256:21 105:12 252:11

pulleys 268:21 push 8:14 queuing 11:8 rating 31:22 32:11 realize 176:13

punches 235:5 put 70:15 92:2 quick 19:4 285:10 36:16 40:3 41:3 really 13:1 19:4

purchase 48:5 139:22 145:1 quickly 62:18 41:11 43:7 45:11 22:1 48:22 56:9

78:13 85:22 248:9 182:18 200:1 quite 59:11 89:16 54:13 55:17 57:21 73:3 81:9 89:17

purchased 61:12 264:10 267:5 145:4 171:2 57:22 58:7 59:1 101:15 106:19

84:1 87:17 88:5 puts 55:22 267:1 quote 26:13 35:6 63:4,6 64:13 143:2 180:19

101:19 105:15 putting 146:12 37:6,18 39:3 68:11 88:21 97:7 183:14 184:21

137:10 187:15,17 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-... 42:22 44:14 86:12 100:2 104:2 120:7 185:6,20 196:8,11

187:22 188:1 4:1 103:18 113:15 121:2 125:15 197:17 199:11

purchases 258:8 p.m 167:12,13 114:22 118:10,15 146:9 272:5 274:9 203:11 204:5

266:21 294:9 127:7 128:4,8 274:10 283:8 216:21,21 233:11

purchasing 141:13 133:2,17 135:2 288:7,8 289:15 238:19 243:3,4

141:19 162:2 Q 145:20 212:22 ratings 23:18 36:12 252:12 260:17

pure 97:12 99:5 QM 2:11 7:18 284:3 288:4 37:1 38:6,12 39:2 263:9 264:16

purely 124:13 quads 215:3,11 quoting 45:2 39:6,17 40:4,16 265:6,13,22 279:8

purple 180:3 qualifications 41:1,20 42:6 45:8 286:12 290:10

purpose 22:15 23:3 204:7 R 52:4,11 53:1,2,7,9 292:20

23:20,22 25:4,17 quantitative Raba 1:16 2:14 3:4 53:17,17,19 54:1 reason 87:10 88:21

30:4,8 33:20 34:5 223:14 3:19 4:3,13 6:14 54:2,7,8,11,15 109:14 139:11

34:14 35:13,16 quantity 191:16 6:14 12:13 186:17 55:1 56:22 57:6,6 140:2 245:6

36:11,16,19 38:5 242:12 186:18,18 187:2 57:8,11,16,17,19 267:16

39:20 41:10,22 quarter 41:4 42:8 291:19 293:9 58:8 61:5 63:8,10 reasonable 243:10

42:3 44:10 46:14 52:7 185:10 248:9 raise 10:13 19:1 63:12,16 68:15 reasonableness

47:15 55:2,16 query 271:19 71:12,14 259:8 69:5 105:7,8 107:17 108:4

56:1,14,17 57:7 question 53:20 271:15 107:9 123:13 203:4

58:12,21 59:5 55:7 68:2 71:7 raised 83:6 121:20 209:20 213:8 reasoning 16:17

60:1 62:4 63:10 78:10 79:2 80:7 155:17 271:16,16 219:8 288:6,11,20 reasons 20:6

63:11 66:19 69:18 86:18 108:18 ran 198:16 289:4,9 125:17 173:8

69:22 70:1,15 137:16 145:16 range 52:1 61:4 ratio 112:4 238:6 199:8 243:11,13

71:4 83:15 85:6,7 171:3 175:21 130:1 172:12 277:9,11 247:19

85:11,14 87:3 184:6 186:19 215:5 258:6 raw 216:7 rebates 258:9

88:2 92:11 117:3 194:2 195:2 263:17 272:9,12 Raymond 2:15 8:5 recall 15:4

119:8 123:12 203:13 215:13 274:14,16 8:5 recapitulates

129:4,21 141:2 238:3 243:8,22 ranges 251:19 reach 128:12 247:9 181:15

147:10 148:12 245:3 248:19 254:14 reached 156:19 received 9:1 23:9

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 323 

77:17 82:18 84:4 45:18 71:8,21 61:21 108:9 151:2 relationship 60:2 repaired 155:8

156:9 256:4 101:7 118:18 161:11 170:4 103:9 125:3 repeat 277:8

receptive 199:8 240:4 174:21 175:14,16 137:12 138:6 repeatedly 137:6

recess 167:12 reduced 45:12 179:12 181:19 201:11 replace 176:8

recognition 116:22 162:12 250:16,17 190:22 191:3,10 relationships 97:6 replaced 125:22

recognize 25:12 254:5,6,7 200:11 201:2 102:2,5,10,16 126:11 155:8

44:22 85:4 90:12 reduction 131:10 215:6 255:10 213:16,17 220:21 210:5

107:19 125:10 131:15 158:10 256:7,16 257:13 221:4 replacement 186:4

135:8 159:11 213:10 259:12 relative 44:11 192:9 194:13,14

recognized 25:13 251:20 253:15 regardless 134:10 77:16 78:22 102:2 195:12,15 196:4

40:7 115:21 254:4 255:11 regards 141:9 102:22 150:10 197:5 201:15

129:12 reductions 255:21 231:4 256:20 169:17 219:18,21 replacements

recognizes 127:19 256:22 257:5 257:5 266:9 relatively 77:1 201:21,22

recognizing 45:13 refer 38:9 234:8 288:21 170:6 178:21 replacing 192:6

132:8 144:22 262:19 region 251:9 183:21 184:1 replicate 133:3

recollect 181:10 reference 38:11 register 9:5 35:1 releasable 180:20 report 34:2 113:9

recommend 55:19 64:4 72:15 82:6 107:1 148:17 release 154:14 255:1

229:19 104:1 127:16 160:14 170:4 reported 89:9

recommendations 129:13 148:16 registered 9:3 released 236:15 123:14 224:1,15

20:9 154:14 170:17 regular 130:4 releases 154:15 225:6,8

recommended 175:2 179:9,10 regulate 56:3 releasing 181:2 reports 109:16

113:21 129:16 208:21 239:16 regulation 59:5,7 relevance 144:12 223:1

141:14,20 280:19 288:20 176:14 222:8,8 reliable 256:9 represent 19:7

recommending referenced 43:6 240:2 253:4 relied 68:7 128:6,10 138:3

56:3 58:20 86:11 132:3,5 133:8 262:11,12,12 relook 186:21 representation

215:16 236:20 265:11 266:3 relying 38:20 223:14

reconfigure 181:11 references 37:14 273:22 remain 169:15 representative 60:6

record 11:5 72:19 42:19 140:14 regulations 19:16 188:20 60:13,16 61:6,7

87:7 106:22 289:1 19:17,22 113:13 remaining 250:10 61:11 68:6 74:1

107:19 128:13,15 referred 38:13 228:22 229:2,3 remains 130:17 77:9 96:20 102:13

135:22 177:7 39:18 51:22 52:13 255:12,15 remarks 3:3,19 127:9 150:18

180:12 293:18 134:22 regulatory 3:16 4:16 9:10,13 213:22

recorded 11:13 referring 43:10 10:8 222:6,11 10:18 11:10 12:5 represented 19:21

277:3 54:2 81:16 161:13 257:22 258:2 30:18 259:6,7 116:6,9,12,15,21

records 177:15 refers 112:13 129:3 reinforce 10:15 271:15 274:20 140:1,17 144:2

recover 174:9 refigure 184:20 Reinvestment 290:13 291:8,20 235:1

239:22 refinement 165:1 154:8 remember 196:1 representing 5:12

recovers 174:18 reflected 108:16 reissue 191:21 275:14 282:7 7:15 149:16

Recovery 154:7 refrigerators reiterated 212:21 remiss 288:18 represents 74:12

recuperate 225:9 147:16,19 relate 233:12 removal 124:11 131:10,15 132:17

red 121:20 Regal 5:16,18 related 12:21 17:19 remove 164:17 145:22

redesign 184:13 182:13 31:17 32:12 removed 130:16 reproduced 178:22

186:5 190:14 Regal-Beloit 2:6,12 125:20 126:16 134:21 request 181:17

191:6 192:3 19:12 106:14 194:6 256:19 RENEWABLE 1:3 200:10 204:16

240:12 228:9 245:18 relation 181:1 renewables 251:11 requested 62:15

redone 200:3 regard 107:14 relations 218:8 repair 155:2,9,13 113:6

reduce 20:1 45:5 regarding 23:10 219:15 196:19 requests 190:3

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 324 

require 129:5 resolve 55:19 103:6,10 121:1 264:5 273:8 75:2,3,20 78:8,9

153:7 resorted 33:15 122:9 123:7 283:16 82:11 83:1 86:16

required 30:3,5,6 resource 291:11 125:11 126:16 rise 25:6,14,19 86:17 87:20,21

34:13 62:5 100:22 respect 37:3 39:7 149:22 150:16 26:11 27:4 28:1,9 90:14,15 97:8,9

113:21 124:19 87:22 127:8,15 153:10 157:16,17 29:6,13,15,20 97:22 98:1,11,12

126:9,14 193:1 138:2 144:22 165:21 168:9 30:3 87:15 193:3 99:15 100:15

226:22 227:7 212:20 266:9 209:4,5 210:22 risk 124:11 283:17 103:11,13 110:13

235:6,8 242:3 282:5,8 214:20 215:5 Rivest 2:15 87:12 110:14 137:22

249:4 274:3,3 respectively 288:13 227:13 238:18 87:13 98:18,18 138:1 139:8,9

288:12 respond 86:8 240:17,19,20 111:15 142:2 140:10 142:18

requirement 64:8 175:15 181:18 250:19,20 254:12 146:15,16 147:15 143:16 145:15

64:17 65:8 70:13 253:1,7 258:20 284:6,12 148:14 173:13,14 147:5 148:3

138:12 140:13 responding 271:18 284:14 174:6 231:6,6 158:18,19 159:15

204:3,19 253:2 response 11:2 resume 167:3,9,15 238:15 242:1,19 192:20 207:5,6

257:7 261:14 26:17 59:15 75:5 retailer 151:14 245:4,10 247:13 209:12,13 212:18

272:8,10 157:3 174:21 retrofit 224:11 247:14,22 248:11 212:19 214:2,3

requirements 187:9 214:17 retrofit/redesign 248:15 249:1,8,11 218:16,17 229:1

21:14 24:10 35:12 221:8 256:4 257:3 224:12 249:15,19,22 246:11,12 248:5

35:16,20 37:9,10 257:16 return 9:19 148:19 278:7 279:7,22 266:7,8 269:13,14

37:13,17 38:4,17 responses 84:5 226:14,16 234:11 283:9,16 271:20,22 274:6,7

40:20 44:9 52:2,3 193:14 226:2 238:6,12,22 239:7 road 186:12 275:17,18 276:16

52:9 53:18 57:17 283:11 returns 80:5,14 Rob 5:7 83:20 276:17 278:7,11

57:18,20 58:9,10 responsibility reveal 181:3 105:3,4 106:6 278:12 279:13

66:1 67:6,7,9,13 264:3 revenue 254:5 162:8,9 164:8,9 280:8 281:10

69:19 70:18 71:20 responsible 262:12 review 3:3 8:21 9:7 171:4,5 173:13 283:22 286:4,5

72:10 73:6 87:2 rest 153:22 195:16 261:15 175:22,22 177:14 287:17 288:1

88:20 90:21 119:2 291:22 reviewed 20:3 192:16,17 195:18 role 194:17

119:4,19 122:13 restate 195:2 revise 93:7 260:21 197:10 201:8 roll 188:13

124:19 125:1 restrict 43:20 revised 42:7 59:19 204:12 234:13 Roman 37:22

133:21 137:19 138:15 150:11 236:1 247:21 Ron 2:11 6:12

175:11 183:22 restricted 128:22 revising 110:11 248:3 267:20 201:7 232:7

187:4 203:16 138:10 revision 47:7 273:15,17 283:9 261:12 291:19

218:11 227:4 restrooms 167:1 revisited 261:18 287:10,16 289:17 Ron's 293:11

228:16 230:5 result 33:4 44:18 rework 264:18 289:18 292:3 room 1:12 4:21

232:18 241:20 132:9 157:14 re-engineer 85:20 Robert 1:19 2:16 78:22 136:13

242:13 261:1 175:1 184:1 right 76:20 139:5 2:19 32:20 49:5 167:3 173:19

262:21 266:11 198:19 225:3 142:15 162:10 55:5 68:3 196:22 Rossin 2:16 3:14

267:12 272:11 227:20 253:17 163:3 167:9 214:15 220:3 8:2,2 221:11,12

requires 118:7 254:14,17 255:2 171:22 173:5 229:15,16 230:21 226:9 240:18

requiring 128:1 255:18 258:17 174:1 176:4 robin 115:8 139:1 250:6

213:9 292:19 182:15,22 186:20 Roger 1:22 5:5 rotary 37:12

research 221:22 resulting 189:3 187:11 195:3 25:2,3 30:21 rotor 40:13,18

residential 154:3 208:16 250:17 196:21 211:18 47:22 49:6 51:17 53:12,13 63:21

163:19 172:11,17 253:14 219:16 228:10 52:12 54:4 56:6,7 64:6,17,22 65:9

172:18 197:18 results 12:19 95:10 240:18 245:9 59:3 62:1,2,6 65:13 70:12,19

198:7 96:15,16 97:5 249:8,15 261:11 66:14,20 67:22 71:1,8,15,20

resistive 243:5,11 101:4 102:12,18 262:10 263:5 68:21 70:10 72:22 72:11,12 86:22

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 325 

87:1 94:1,2,3 198:22 202:21 249:6 261:8 263:16 235:7,21 237:16

267:9 243:5,11,12 245:7 says 20:21 138:9 266:11 289:3 238:18 240:5,20

rotors 94:18 246:20 139:21 144:14 scrap 93:19 241:6,13,19

225:14 241:18 running 244:19 171:12 273:10 screen 14:12 243:15 262:21

roughly 157:22 278:19 scale 14:11,11 second 32:7 60:1 265:18 267:15

217:14 234:17 runs 163:5 96:16 99:10 146:3 163:17 275:1 280:1

241:7,14 251:22 R&D 268:15 101:13 102:18 170:18 221:18 281:15 282:5

254:15,17 103:5,9 171:18 230:10 293:10 seeing 102:22

S round 9:18 115:8 221:4 secretary 50:15,18 202:20

139:1 safe 293:5 scaled 97:4 102:20 133:17,20,22 seeking 44:20 93:1

rounding 131:7 safely 294:6 150:14 213:22 section 19:7,14,18 seeks 103:4 175:13

rounds 194:4 sale 163:22 164:4 219:22 19:20 20:2 26:12 226:5 228:1

row 249:2,3 164:10 170:14 scales 60:13 37:22 38:15 39:1 seen 50:22 107:9

rows 132:4 sales 151:16 177:10 scaling 18:6 60:21 40:17 45:1 46:21 131:18 132:3

RS 155:5 243:19 250:16 97:19 100:10 47:5,9 50:10,16 172:12 176:16

rule 13:9 15:5 16:3 251:8 101:19 105:5 50:17 57:1 111:21 184:22

16:5,6,10 20:3 sample 113:14,21 106:15 119:14 113:13 116:1 segment 225:7

21:16 22:11 50:18 116:5,11 118:8 126:19 137:7,10 119:19 123:22 271:14

64:11 90:1 96:8 122:8,10 143:20 150:17 200:20 126:4,9 127:5 segregation 286:1

109:10 118:4 236:10,21 213:16,17 219:15 128:2,3,8 129:16 selected 28:17 60:5

123:18 133:18 save 14:15 15:13 220:6,10 130:19 134:6 60:22 61:4,11

197:12 201:6 51:10 268:12 scenario 169:13,15 135:1,12,13 63:4,18 64:12,19

206:22 213:15 saved 253:3 169:18 226:15,19 199:15 280:11 65:1,10,14 66:8

214:13 255:18 savings 20:13 33:5 227:10,16 234:10 284:2 288:6 66:15 69:17 73:22

281:13 51:1 149:15 150:6 234:12 239:2,4 sectional 100:4 74:2 79:15 96:20

rulemaking 1:5 3:4 153:12 159:17 242:15 101:1 103:22 97:4 123:11 126:6

4:11 8:22 9:7 160:15,17,20 scenarios 18:9 sections 20:10 126:11 127:10,18

13:7 15:16,22 168:14 187:15,16 169:10,12 170:19 148:17 129:6 140:18

16:21 17:12,15 187:18 205:19 226:11 228:2 sector 18:14 254:2 144:15 218:19,21

19:8 23:8 31:12 206:14,20 207:12 238:17 258:19 255:17 selecting 60:16

36:1 37:7 49:22 207:17,19 208:17 schedule 166:8 sectors 169:7 68:4 118:13

51:5 56:14 57:2 209:2,3,7 210:3 scheduled 16:6 security 166:20 selection 67:9

68:9 99:2 129:21 210:15,16,20 Schirmann 2:16 see 11:3 14:13 69:10 89:2 120:4

143:2 147:2,11,16 211:1,10,13 212:4 5:11,11 80:2,3,20 17:11 21:3,16,20 141:1 218:18

147:21 154:18 215:2,10,14,21 80:21 81:19,20 24:21 31:4 40:22 sell 184:10 195:19

157:2 165:5 217:5 250:20 108:7,7 211:7,8 49:16 53:10 61:16 195:20 196:2,4

186:22 194:5 252:12 258:16 211:14,18 212:6 62:11 63:1 66:17 198:6 238:8

260:8,20 261:8 264:17 217:10,10,16 74:6 76:16 80:1 selling 60:12 95:11

293:15 saw 164:3 286:17 218:15 243:21 95:14 96:20 99:4 102:20 176:16

rules 30:6,6 118:13 saying 75:4 87:17 245:9 103:4 109:6 196:6

183:7 237:2 87:19 91:7 137:18 scope 3:7 9:16 130:16,22 138:6 sells 196:2

run 34:7 35:10 72:1 139:3 142:15,17 22:10 23:10 35:21 167:18 182:4,9 sense 11:9 14:13

107:18,18,20 143:9 147:12,15 37:1 38:13 39:5 183:2,12 202:16 106:18 108:3

108:2,10 153:6,8 147:21 159:4 39:22 40:15 52:13 206:21 215:8 113:1 251:18

159:20 160:1 207:11 238:11 53:5 54:6 56:15 216:3 219:20 269:11 270:17

163:2 171:7 239:5 243:2 67:7 90:1 182:2 226:8 230:16,18 292:15

172:11,16 186:2 247:15 248:5 259:12 260:4,20 232:11 234:19 sensitivities 157:16

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 326 

169:11 171:1 shown 69:12 156:4 single 37:20 56:17 224:5,8 285:13

sensitivity 90:4 share 169:14,17 188:15 289:3 64:9,16 65:7 sizes 41:19 43:8

154:12,15 175:5 173:19 179:16 shows 152:3 158:13 67:14 73:7 106:3 45:10,15 55:16

179:15 180:2 182:8,9 170:16 180:1,19 119:13 120:9,19 57:9 85:21 90:17

sentence 48:2 188:18,22 207:21 188:17 222:17 120:22 121:6,20 90:20 92:8 221:3

separate 20:22 210:12 211:2 240:19 121:21 125:8 skewed 63:8

57:1 83:16 147:4 212:3,3 215:7 side 8:18 105:6 139:4 141:13 skip 2:5 7:10 50:13

154:2 171:10,14 shares 152:5 182:19 228:13,18 247:16 249:11 slated 75:13

separately 179:17 178:16 179:13,14 230:3,6,12 289:20 single-base 34:8 slide 31:4 109:9

separates 53:22 180:5,7 181:4 sidebar 12:2 single-phase 16:22 151:20 152:3,8

September 36:2 shed 194:19 sides 51:13 167:2 18:1 34:7 40:14 158:13 170:16

sequence 139:11 shift 179:13 183:3 293:16 40:19 178:5 171:11 179:22

series 14:9 22:17 184:2 218:13 significant 15:13 181:17 185:10 181:15 207:7

56:19 104:17 242:22 243:9 33:4 48:4 50:5 200:13 250:12

132:13 200:15 246:3 51:1 94:19 114:10 single-phased 35:7 slides 21:21 76:8

seriousness 84:10 shifting 179:16,19 123:18 124:4 single-speed 22:16 148:19 167:21

serve 93:1 215:7 130:6 133:4 182:8 289:2 171:10,15 173:11

served 173:17 shifts 170:22 245:2 185:7,13,22 192:7 Sir 55:6 259:5

service 25:18,22 ship 155:19 203:15 192:9,11 208:15 sit 55:21 203:1,8 slight 90:5 170:22

26:9 27:19 28:7 shipment 60:20 215:2 239:16 235:8 241:5 260:1

28:10 29:1,3,6,10 169:10 180:9,14 241:12,15,19 sitting 8:12 slightly 151:18

29:14,21 37:4,8 180:16 224:21 significantly 26:6 situ 155:8 slower 72:1 153:6

37:10 38:17 40:13 shipments 3:11 192:5 218:1 situation 91:8 small 1:4 12:15

163:4 203:17 10:4 68:7,10,19 243:16 164:15 226:20 15:11 18:1 21:1,8

274:2 157:5,8,11,13 signifies 8:16 227:16 236:19 22:13,14 24:2,12

session 11:13 168:10,11,17,19 silent 12:1 six 41:5 182:6 25:7,15,18 30:9

290:16 169:1,3,5,15,20 similar 42:6 112:15 198:12 31:19 33:1,5,10

set 14:21 24:10 170:2,7,10,11,13 117:3,19 119:12 sixth 96:1 33:20 34:3,18

26:14 31:11 55:21 170:16 174:14,20 125:17 133:4,10 six-pole 42:10 35:5,22 36:5,12

107:22 115:17 174:22 175:2,19 135:13 139:6 size 35:8 43:1,16,16 37:8,16,20 38:18

133:11 134:16 177:7,8 183:19 170:20 171:2,17 43:18,20 44:1,2,3 39:3,15,18 40:3,9

138:4 139:10 187:14 189:3 171:21 183:21 44:6,8,12,15 40:17 41:2,9,9,10

140:3,4 159:7 190:6 199:16,18 226:21 242:19 45:17 55:9,13 42:3,13,18 44:4

206:3 213:14,20 200:19 206:5,8 258:16 259:22 56:2,19,22 57:5 44:10 46:20 48:6

285:5 210:11 288:14 57:12,15,15 59:1 50:8 51:2,5 52:18

sets 77:9 119:22 shipped 173:17 Similarly 28:12 63:15,17,19 64:7 52:20 53:1,7,9,22

124:4 207:1 shipping 152:12 125:6 131:14 69:4 83:6 84:8 54:8,13,16 55:1,8

226:16 155:20,22 simple 153:13 88:22 90:21 91:10 56:4,11,12,16

setting 14:7 23:17 short 136:3 simply 133:3 97:13,18 99:20 57:21 58:13,18

44:15 shorter 62:9 153:15 171:14,18 100:4,12,13 59:22 60:5 63:10

seven 189:21 156:11 203:3 188:13 193:21 103:19 104:1,10 63:12 64:3,14,16

208:13,13 256:21 shortly 136:13 204:15 217:3 104:21,22 108:12 65:4,5,7,16,18

shaded 34:10 38:2 293:20 243:13 279:8 113:14,22 173:16 67:1,17,19 68:10

40:21 show 16:16 96:18 simulate 272:22 180:19 185:15,20 68:17 76:1 84:5,6

shading 211:21 151:20 171:15 simulation 146:4 194:20 217:21 85:11,11 87:3

shaft 204:2 180:4 248:1 152:21,22 153:5 219:10,18 220:9 88:2,13,14,22

shape 136:17 160:4 showed 67:6 273:1 220:16,18 221:5 91:16 92:7,15

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 327 

100:11 103:16 290:20 292:9 253:1,7 259:18 stand 66:12 106:17 38:9,21 39:10

109:11,19 110:4,9 sooner 294:2 263:14 271:19 196:17 40:8 41:2,21 42:1

112:13 115:3 sorry 83:3 86:7 283:14 287:20 standard 3:13 10:5 42:12 43:19 46:7

117:4,15 118:2 105:7 196:19 specifically 22:19 21:7 22:18 26:22 64:2 67:3 117:10

119:9 127:15 209:9 249:1 89:21 93:21 34:20 35:21 36:9 117:12 118:21

128:6,9 129:11,20 251:21 106:21 263:18 36:12,22 37:3,15 119:6,9 124:15

130:7 132:15,17 sort 55:18,19,21 specification 48:5 38:6,6,12 39:14 127:2,11 133:12

133:8,10,12,19 155:12 156:14 specifications 39:17 40:4 41:1,7 133:19 160:18,18

134:6,10,17 135:2 168:13,14 173:20 28:13 70:9 41:8 42:20 48:10 160:21 161:3

135:10 137:21 230:2 249:2 specificity 259:12 53:6,8,16,17 54:2 165:7 168:15,21

139:19 140:3 261:13 specifics 250:4 54:16 56:20 57:16 175:2,15 179:1

143:19 151:3 sorted 33:14 275:14 57:16,19,22,22 181:19 188:13

155:7 157:13 sounded 233:3 specified 25:6,10 58:1,7,15,16 71:5 204:6,14 207:2

165:13 166:1 sounds 168:4 25:14 28:14 114:6 72:10 88:17 91:1 212:16 221:16

169:17 170:15 sources 13:4 233:2 272:6 273:13 109:6 114:12 222:3 223:5,12,13

174:13 175:3,7,14 so-called 277:6 speculate 240:14 115:1,2 123:13 225:3 226:17,22

175:16 181:18 space 32:9 77:4,11 speed 32:13 39:17 134:15 139:19,21 227:2,8,14,19,20

196:5,5 197:17 77:14 83:11,16 40:16 54:8 56:17 143:9,10 144:13 230:8,9 237:6

205:10 213:1,7,18 96:4,11 157:12 72:3 178:17,17 144:22 152:15 239:21 241:10

221:17,20 225:6 165:15 179:7,8,17 229:12 158:7,10,16 159:7 250:18 253:14

235:1 237:15 179:20 189:11,12 speeds 219:14 162:4,5 166:2 254:1,13,16 255:3

259:16 260:22 190:4,8,20 191:1 spelled 285:14 183:20 188:6,11 258:5 261:15

261:3 262:13 191:4,8,11 193:20 spending 216:1 188:15 205:5,9,11 262:20 263:9

268:14 270:20 200:17,18 208:2 268:14 205:12 206:10,21 264:4 266:10

272:5 274:11 225:18 spent 184:15 207:1 210:22 268:3,6,9,10

288:15,17,22 space-constrained spillover 217:2 212:22 213:3 269:7,9 278:1

289:5 18:12 95:15 spirit 291:21 233:13,14 251:15 286:6,8

smaller 44:6 85:17 165:19,22 191:16 split 34:11,11 38:2 251:22 253:18 standing 107:16

103:19,20 132:14 span 11:16 22:2 split-capacitor 259:13,15 260:4 standpoint 81:5

157:6 221:5 spans 160:16 40:22 260:22 261:4 200:7 217:19

224:18 238:10,12 speak 8:14 11:4,6,9 spoke 61:8 263:6 264:8,13 stands 74:14

smallest 220:18 13:17 48:16 49:8 spreadsheet 152:20 265:12 266:12,14 178:19

231:17 66:21 144:5 153:2,8 165:17 269:8 272:7,10 STAR 258:10

Smith 2:16 5:12 275:13 spreadsheets 223:7 273:4,12 274:13 start 4:22 19:3

19:12 80:3 speaking 48:8,9,13 squares 180:3 276:8 287:4,4 35:10 54:12 89:3

social 256:2 48:18 74:19 228:9 stack 76:21,22 288:20 289:4,15 89:4,6 97:10

software 60:9 spec 204:22 77:21 78:2,11,14 291:1 101:18 107:18,18

61:15 76:10 93:16 special 85:7,14 79:16,18 80:6,8 standardize 247:19 108:1,2,10 171:7

105:17,20 106:1,4 203:21 262:15 80:12,15 81:4,6 standardizing 171:10,15 172:11

137:9 153:7 264:9 267:4 81:10,14,18,21 247:16 172:16,22 186:2

sold 193:8 196:10 specialty 203:15 82:4 83:5,7 90:5,6 standards 1:4 2:1 205:8 228:7

211:4 specific 12:21 92:1 95:20 190:16 4:5,6 12:17 14:8 233:16 267:8

Solutions 2:9,18 21:22 33:16 92:8 204:2 15:1,6 16:10 started 57:12 90:18

somewhat 153:6 92:9,12 107:5 stage 68:8 165:5 17:22 18:13 23:16 starting 161:18

174:9 207:1 208:9 129:7 181:4 226:8 170:1 30:9 33:1 34:15 state 101:4 133:22

208:14 229:7,18 232:17 stages 69:2 157:1 34:16 35:4 36:1 277:10

soon 80:17 145:18 235:21 237:10 stamp 249:18 36:14,18 37:12 stated 27:10 30:5

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 328 

30:10 42:15 54:21 steps 3:19 10:18 46:8 139:2 sub-analysis supportive 47:3

64:1 73:5 89:19 13:8 60:4 132:6 study 27:20 113:7 223:19 supports 69:16

92:16 120:7 128:8 138:22 139:6 sudden 184:16 suppose 260:9

134:14 244:6 Stimulus 154:8,16 stuff 167:4 265:5 suffer 72:5 supposedly 148:7

276:2 277:8 stipulates 116:3,10 subcommittee 49:7 sufficient 62:14 sure 73:12 83:13

statement 37:6,18 116:18 subgroup 3:10 9:22 132:7 94:20 137:8,14

38:14 44:14,22 stipulation 112:18 165:1,6 166:6 sufficiently 271:16 162:10 173:4

56:15 78:10 94:16 stock 189:2 238:13 subgroups 165:8 suggest 129:18 182:14 220:5,12

103:17 114:21 stockholders 165:11,21 221:20 164:17 229:3 238:4

131:21 141:9 238:13 subject 26:18 39:10 suggested 99:10 242:18 244:3

145:17 185:6 stood 106:19 51:12 142:12 286:8 265:7,13,20 269:9

213:6 214:4 stop 42:7 66:5 submission 136:2 suggesting 28:21 survey 84:15

218:10 236:9 submit 30:19 114:10 150:22 151:15

statements 13:11 stopped 178:2 199:21 292:22 suggestions 82:21 191:18,19 193:12

39:12,16 stops 53:9 submitted 26:17 229:18 290:1

states 1:1 35:6 39:3 story 242:19 30:22 86:9 117:22 suggests 287:1 surveyed 84:1

47:4 113:15 289:20 152:6 169:22 sulfur 255:9,11,17 surveys 33:8 69:2

stating 59:4 123:5 straight 9:16 22:6 231:12 287:20 sum 152:12 196:12

station 202:7 straightforward submitting 137:13 summarize 62:7 suspect 277:17

statistical 112:22 212:11 180:22 223:10 136:7 137:17 278:3

127:20 141:8 stray 286:11 287:8 subparagraph summarized switch 184:7

144:7 145:9 146:4 stray-load 280:10 50:13 258:21 switches 208:20,22

statistically 120:18 280:17,18,20 subpart 47:9 summary 9:11 switching 208:16

stator 43:11,18 282:6 283:4,6 111:21 113:6,18 13:11 49:2 259:7 210:12 211:3

statute 93:4 186:21 285:10,13 286:2,7 116:2,17 117:14 271:14 274:19 268:5

statutory 21:6 286:14,16 287:2 117:16,20 118:14 279:15 system 25:6 251:3

22:20 23:6 42:2 streams 189:16 119:20 122:13,14 supplement 102:5 251:4 268:20

stay 208:8 235:12 street 167:8 124:1 126:4 127:5 supplemental 269:1

staying 92:14 stressed 270:18 129:17 280:11 59:13 systems 2:2 7:6

steel 96:6,13 stretch 293:6 subsequent 23:2 supplementary 23:13,20 24:1,6,7

122:20 123:14 stretches 188:3 subset 37:16 10:14 24:9,15,19 25:1,8

124:7 215:17 stretching 168:20 substantial 29:17 supply 181:7,7,8 31:6 191:6

239:17 242:12 strictly 54:1 substantially 246:2,3 S.W 1:13

246:18 247:5,10 strike 17:9 175:11 support 15:18 S.1 54:6

247:17 248:1 striking 45:7 substantiate 98:14 19:21 36:18 115:6

252:10 276:20,22 stringent 125:1 119:20 279:3 125:20 157:10,20 T

277:19 278:6 strive 276:9 293:14 158:3 185:6 T 2:8 90:19 99:21

117:14 164:10

table 3:1 8:13

279:16 283:5 strong 19:15 262:5 substantiated 251:14 254:19

steels 208:1 225:15 strongly 263:2 118:3 147:13 263:10 268:2

27:13,18 36:22

37:4,11,13 39:21

241:18 247:4 struck 232:12 148:11 269:11

248:6 277:7,10,21 structure 222:18 substantiating supported 34:19

40:12,13,15,19

47:4,10,18,19

279:21 288:3 144:10 40:10 121:1

step 18:20 21:4 structured 252:22 substantiation 122:10 125:11

51:21 52:2,9,17

53:4,6 54:2,5,11

144:18 220:9,11 253:6 118:6 122:4,12 262:11 264:7

257:21 struggles 91:21 123:21 124:3,17 supporter 19:15

Stephens 2:17 7:14 stuck 273:1 126:17,18 147:9 supporting 20:5 54:11,14 61:17

7:14 studies 26:12 28:19 148:15 278:8 263:2 264:20,21 65:20 66:2 78:13

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 329 

96:18 107:2,10,17 talked 89:16 184:8 temporary 90:9 113:11,20 114:17 theoretical 81:5

109:22 110:3,9 184:12 230:1 93:6 114:19 115:8 217:19 284:5

120:6,11,16 talking 22:10 58:1 ten 84:5,5 118:11 116:1 118:7,12,18 thermal 26:15,19

127:10,16,16 58:4 71:3 72:22 131:6 249:6,17 120:6,21 126:12 27:11 28:21 30:11

128:19,22 129:3,6 74:18 86:19 92:14 tend 160:2 217:21 126:12,14 132:11 193:2,3

129:14 131:19 147:1 182:16 tentative 42:16 133:20 145:10 they'd 201:19

133:4,10,13 184:6 203:1 205:8 tentatively 39:8 236:7,12 240:12 thing 13:19 59:4

134:22 135:7,10 211:19 228:8 tenths 107:7 277:5,12 279:20 75:18 84:12 85:4

137:18 138:2,2,11 234:16 236:2 terawatt-hours 282:20,22 284:7 86:6 93:21 96:9

139:10,17 140:8 240:9 245:16 250:21 286:3,9 107:15 147:20

140:15,19 142:3 246:13 term 38:19 50:11 text 37:14 47:3,12 172:14,15 186:19

146:13 172:9 target 96:5 51:3 109:12,13,14 62:11 135:1 192:18 195:11

228:14,16 240:19 targets 258:10 109:18 148:16 161:11 231:17 242:20

242:2 283:18 tax 258:9 termed 169:14 thank 4:12 8:9 262:10 263:6

tables 42:4,6,16 taxes 151:16 terms 23:19 32:9 12:13 18:21 20:15 264:5

52:16,19,19,22 tear-down 284:8,21 70:5 112:14 21:18 30:13,14 things 18:8 69:3

53:3,12,13,13,14 285:2 136:15 158:16 31:3 48:6,20 72:7 83:21 92:13

53:16 54:12 101:4 technical 15:18 170:2 203:17 49:10,15 51:11 106:19 109:2

106:17 107:22 20:5 36:18 49:7 222:10 228:6 55:3,4 59:9 66:9 147:4 160:13

109:7 133:9 60:9 61:14 133:6 229:7,13 242:9 82:2 85:2 86:2 173:22 174:5

147:10 153:11 157:10,19 158:3 260:10 92:18 93:9 104:4 177:5 182:17

178:12 182:18 251:14 254:19 test 15:4,6 61:13,19 108:5,22 135:18 185:12 186:1

207:14 251:14 technically 33:3 69:13,15,16 74:5 138:17,18 142:9 199:4 201:19

266:10,16 technique 146:17 74:7 75:22 101:22 145:13 149:1 229:21 230:1

take 9:17 10:1 techniques 91:5 102:1,11 105:6,10 163:15 164:20 232:11,16,17,19

58:14 78:4 79:18 technologically 106:9 109:11,22 173:9 177:21 233:5,6,12 235:6

80:18 94:6 105:1 14:13 15:12 17:6 110:1 114:15 181:13 183:9 242:10 245:16

136:9 143:20 technologies 1:19 115:1 116:18 186:6 191:14 259:19 264:12

144:18 149:4 251:2 254:3 117:11 121:1,6,14 192:15,16 199:12 269:2 289:21

167:21 192:19 264:21,22 268:16 122:9,12 125:8,11 205:2 214:14 290:5 293:1

218:1 236:11 290:19 291:4 126:15,15 133:5 216:14 217:8 think 4:8 6:17 9:1

250:9 262:8 264:2 technology 91:14 139:1 143:6,11,15 220:2 234:7 10:15 18:18 20:19

265:4 268:4 91:14 94:19 96:10 143:21 144:19 237:21 245:12 21:3 50:22 55:10

289:22 291:16 175:17 206:17 146:20 203:4 253:9 261:22 69:12 75:8 84:12

293:1 207:13,22 243:18 273:10,13 280:13 266:5,6 267:19 85:3 89:15,17,18

taken 14:20 100:11 290:18 280:15 281:3,3,15 269:12 271:12 91:9 100:1 103:11

104:12,18 115:14 tell 196:9 202:4 282:1 287:8 273:6,14 274:5 105:18 106:16,22

120:19 167:13 229:1 235:2 247:1 tested 26:5,8 61:12 276:12,13 285:21 107:11 110:19

182:7 281:15 247:22 289:20 66:17 74:4 76:3 289:19 290:12 111:5,7,15 136:14

takes 174:16 temperature 25:6 88:15,18 105:16 291:5 294:5,7 136:16,18 142:14

272:20 25:14,19 26:4,5 113:17 115:11 thanking 292:1 148:1 161:3

talk 12:18 13:7 26:11 27:4,6 28:1 117:1 120:2,9,12 thanks 4:19 21:20 166:10 167:1,16

16:13 73:8 90:4 28:9,15 29:6,13 121:11,19 122:9 167:10,20 193:10 172:8,15 173:16

95:5 151:9,10 29:15,16,18,20 141:6 219:13 221:11 229:15 173:21,22 174:8

199:6 205:4 30:2 87:15 88:11 277:20 245:14 250:4,8 176:13,15,22

223:21 226:9 temperatures testified 268:3 274:17 283:21 177:15 182:17

269:19 280:6 26:20 28:20 testing 45:5 61:18 289:10 293:4 183:2,4 192:13,18

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 330 

197:1,11 198:3,15 three-quarter 176:15 178:19 28:8 29:2,4,9,11 123:2 125:9 243:6

199:2 202:16 45:13 63:5 65:6 212:14 224:3 42:10 45:19 105:8 261:5

211:9,14,15,19 218:20 219:20 236:3 243:13 115:21 116:7,8,13 truly 182:7

214:10 228:7 threshold 244:5 246:1 263:4 116:14,20 118:10 try 62:13 71:7 73:4

230:11 231:2,7 thresholds 244:2,4 268:13 290:16,17 118:11 121:9 91:10 96:21 136:3

233:10,20 239:11 threw 185:17 290:19,22 291:22 130:10,20 131:5 166:14 180:15

245:3,4,10,22 290:20 292:18 131:10,11,15,16 191:21 196:14

247:14,20 252:11 throw 261:20 today's 4:14 17:17 132:6,15,16,20 290:1 292:4

259:1,1 261:11,13 THURSDAY 1:9 18:3 19:8 22:10 157:21 159:1 trying 69:2 75:9

262:6 265:18 tie 264:12 91:8,13 96:8 174:22 177:6,13 145:5 181:10

268:10 271:13 tied 145:5 201:18 206:22 213:15 189:17 196:10 191:17 195:14

275:1 281:6 283:9 210:5 260:20 276:5 198:22 209:3 210:6 216:2 262:9

283:13,19 285:18 tier 134:8 told 84:6 273:21 213:10 242:3 262:22 265:7,18

285:19 289:7 tiered 134:16 135:7 Tom 2:20 5:18 6:19 249:3 251:12 268:8 271:5,8

290:9,20 292:18 Tim 1:18 6:4 20:16 106:13,14 160:11 totally 175:12 TSA 76:18

thinking 22:4 20:17 49:19,20 160:12 184:4 239:9 TSD 26:13,21 27:2

third 45:17 121:14 92:19,20 93:10 192:4 245:13,15 touch 173:11 27:14 37:2,5 42:5

152:21 222:4 time 11:4,6 13:16 Tom's 108:9 trade 90:12 53:5 66:3 67:15

285:5,5 13:21 18:18 21:2 tone 98:20 tradeoffs 197:6 119:17 120:11

third-party 153:7 32:16 40:11 42:17 tool 152:21 165:18 tradition 4:20 125:20 126:5

THOMAS 2:6 57:6 61:20 62:14 tooling 94:7,10 train 167:6 128:4 130:13,20

thought 48:21 72:4 93:7 110:12,19 185:14 240:11 transcript 11:14 149:6 153:11

81:16 211:6 113:3 159:21 249:18 30:15 43:4 117:17 172:4 224:3 226:5

thousand 112:22 160:15 161:5 tools 278:4 130:14 168:6 258:20 281:7,13

235:14 254:18 174:9 197:14 top 47:12 170:18 275:19 276:11 282:9 284:3,11,22

thousands 237:14 201:2 202:6 174:3 188:17 277:3 293:18 285:6

threat 172:20 233:19 246:5 202:3 207:10 traveled 268:2 TSL 209:18,18

three 31:20 32:18 261:18 292:11 239:2 248:21 tremendous 172:20 212:13 214:22

41:4 42:8 45:10 timeframe 177:17 249:2 trend 154:19 226:16 227:12

52:6 60:7 78:12 191:5 topic 46:20 177:18 TSLs 205:12,15,22

96:21 97:14,14 times 46:16 115:11 topics 4:11 trial 3:13 10:5 206:3 210:18

98:3,4 99:18,20 203:11 215:18 tore 61:13 105:16 205:5,9,11 206:10 214:21 251:19

100:12,18 115:4 241:14 torn 66:15 206:21,22 251:15 254:13

119:7 120:1,2 title 50:17 113:12 torque 34:13 35:12 tried 17:8 79:11 TSL4 241:3,14

123:15 170:19 134:20 37:13,15,17 38:4 94:22 137:11 TSL5 212:15

185:9 187:5 titled 35:21 54:6 40:20 52:17 53:12 199:3 237:11 214:21 241:9

189:20,21 221:14 113:10,13 53:14 63:22 64:6 267:3 TSL6 208:4 241:16

222:18 241:14 today 4:7 8:19 64:18 65:9 71:18 trip 267:6 TSL7 215:8 217:11

247:2,4 248:6,8 10:20,22 11:14 71:20 72:11,11,12 tripping 267:6 241:20

248:14 255:21 12:2,15 13:13 73:6 87:1,1 193:1 tri-voltage 274:3 TSL8 208:12,19

256:21 15:9 16:4 17:8 203:18 204:3 Trombley 2:17 6:6 turn 11:22,22 18:3

three-digit 56:21 19:11,21 20:7 232:18 259:20 6:6 18:18 50:17 73:7

three-frame 187:5 22:3 25:9 40:6 260:3 267:10 TROMBLEY-M... 205:3 216:11

three-horsepower 41:18 49:2 56:13 268:22 2:18 7:12,13 242:16 291:7,18

263:17 75:14 92:14 torques 40:14 259:10,11 260:18 turning 196:6

three-phase 35:14 100:16 110:6 total 26:4,4 27:14 trouble 20:5 turns 71:13

37:20 139:7 147:17 149:7 27:18,21,22 28:6 true 74:10 121:8,14 two 22:16 23:9 27:2

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 331 

28:20 30:7 41:3 uncertain 242:14 122:16 126:9 140:21 141:3,14 115:12,15,17

43:7 45:14 52:6 uncertainties unusable 84:9 141:19 142:21 120:9,12,14,14,17

53:10 56:2 59:21 226:12 unusual 135:21 165:10 195:11 120:18 121:7,13

60:7 63:7 67:4 uncertainty 179:11 274:2 196:3 198:6 121:19 122:11

77:7 89:17 100:11 180:6 215:6 240:5 updates 151:19 266:21 275:21 123:8 125:8,16

107:22 112:14,22 242:11 255:10 upper 52:5 69:5 users 126:22 127:9,17,22

115:4 121:11 unchanged 155:3 82:21 227:8 141:11,11,13 128:18 129:5,18

132:4,22 147:3 188:21 234:12 158:21 159:21 130:11 131:6,8,11

151:9 156:14 underneath 167:7 ups 9:20 160:1 178:10 131:13,16,20,21

165:11 173:21 understand 21:5 usage 161:2,4 192:4 197:22 131:22 132:2,2,3

179:6,10 201:9 21:11 56:8 70:11 199:10 201:14 254:6 132:4,5,12,17

202:5,8 206:3 76:4 106:15 111:9 use 3:9 9:20 25:12 user's 267:12 134:9,14,19 135:5

209:1 219:2,5 148:14 178:18 30:7 33:12 41:8 uses 31:20 38:18 138:3 139:22

221:2 223:14 195:14 199:4 43:15 45:3 48:6 109:12 179:3 140:18,18 141:16

224:4 226:11 212:6 213:5 214:8 64:12 69:21 70:22 205:11 210:10 141:22 143:22

231:10 233:12 220:5 238:4,5 71:2 85:10 91:6 222:10,14,20,20 144:2,14,16 145:1

238:17 256:18 240:10 268:9 92:2,9 94:17 223:2,18 254:1 146:10 168:16

273:20 277:10 290:10 103:8 117:2 usually 204:21 187:20 222:13

two-digit 35:7 understanding 118:16 119:1 utilities 250:16 227:14 239:8

41:19 56:18 57:9 137:15 140:7 124:12 129:1,8 254:5 249:3 257:7,8

59:1 69:4 220:12 137:7,9 138:9,15 utility 3:15 10:6 258:17 280:16,18

two-pole 42:8 understands 178:6 139:18,20 140:8 14:22 31:18 32:6 280:20 281:1,15

type 31:15 32:3 229:1 141:16,21 142:2 32:15 76:15 281:20 282:6,12

36:15 50:14,18 understated 243:6 142:12,20 144:9 250:12 251:7 282:12 283:2

84:2 124:7 237:19 undertaken 157:7 144:10 145:9 255:6 286:9 287:2,5,9

241:1 268:17 undertakes 253:11 147:8,13 148:16 U.s 19:9 20:14 values 26:22 39:8

279:8 Underwriters 1:17 149:11,13,17 50:10 151:12 47:4,11,19,19

types 33:11 34:4,10 2:10 7:21 8:1 150:9,12 156:20 173:3,18,20 181:1 54:9,21 57:10

35:19 36:13 50:12 89:15 158:22 160:9,22 181:9 182:21 98:16 107:2,22

69:22 106:3 277:6 unemployment 162:20 163:1,7,11 183:3,6 193:8 114:8 119:14

277:10,21 278:5 254:14 163:18 164:4,14 228:20 229:4 122:22 124:14

282:19 283:5 unique 206:11 170:9,22 179:6 230:19 126:3 128:18,21

290:8 237:15 188:2 189:13,17 129:9,9 130:2,21

typically 108:12 unit 61:7,11 76:16 190:11,16 198:2 V 131:1,8 132:22

135:20 217:20 78:21 96:20 198:11,19 199:19 V 120:11 128:3 133:13 134:1,2,8

244:16 184:19,21 213:22 202:5 213:17,18 130:12,19 134:11,22 138:9

T-frame 56:22 UNITED 1:1 224:17 231:17,18 valid 192:14 139:14,16 140:1,3

100:4,18 101:9 units 74:1 76:10 232:15 236:5 220:13 247:20 140:8,9 142:3,12

77:9 172:13 237:19 241:17 262:11 142:13,15,16,20 U 196:10 234:17,21 244:15 247:5 validate 284:6 150:14,21 154:1

U 116:17 235:15 269:5 248:1,6 252:7,8 validation 105:21 254:9 255:20,22

UL 79:12,16,19 unnatural 217:19 254:7 255:11 valuable 193:13 266:13,17 278:15

ultimately 205:14 unnecessarily 50:2 263:22 281:2 valuation 257:13 280:10 282:9,13

unable 256:8 unnecessary 45:15 287:5 290:7 291:2 value 46:4 54:13 286:7,8,18

unanalyzed 60:14 unregulated 59:2 useful 112:5 193:17 64:18 65:1,10,14 valuing 257:5

unavailability 224:17 useless 42:12 99:18 112:21 van 2:19 55:5,5

180:9 unsubstantiated user 127:3 140:20 113:2,19 114:11 58:19 68:3,3

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 332 

196:22,22 214:10 viability 30:11 293:19 WEQ 1:19 81:1 91:10,20

219:6,16 229:16 viable 120:18 washing 203:22 we'll 4:10 9:15,17 92:4,4 105:19

229:16 230:21,21 view 14:19 Washington 1:13 9:19 10:2,4,9,17 126:2 202:11

variability 74:18 violation 124:10 197:14 11:18 13:7,13 235:16 264:4

76:5 violations 180:18 wasn't 73:12 87:3 16:13,13 17:13 270:22

variance 74:21 virtually 159:21 269:16 18:2 54:17 95:5 worked 107:6

variant 258:14 visitor's 166:18 watts 27:15,16,20 263:11 working 8:17 19:18

variation 105:1 Visual 153:4 28:7,9 29:3,5,10 we're 8:21 9:7 16:4 33:6 91:5,16

115:21 127:20 voltage 25:22 112:8 29:12 132:17 17:21 18:4 19:8 114:13 176:2,4

131:5 132:8 272:9,12 273:3,12 133:1 276:21 22:6 31:9 49:8 198:20 227:4

141:10 145:1 274:8,10,14,16 way 9:13 15:3 58:1,4 71:3 75:11 250:10 264:3

262:18 volts 64:22 65:13 71:13 77:2 101:13 75:13 91:7 92:14 276:3

variations 115:9 272:6,8,18,22 105:21 110:5 176:6 234:16 world 105:12

132:10 volumes 85:12 111:5 129:17 243:2 248:9 192:13 239:3

varied 251:15 243:19 290:22 135:20 136:7,21 250:10 252:6,7,11 268:2 269:4

variety 149:16 291:3 137:13 144:7 252:12 262:9 worried 185:1

180:2 voluntary 258:9 150:8 155:6 162:5 265:6,7,13,20,22 worth 239:2 244:9

various 20:5 33:11 V.2.1 128:3 176:14 199:10 268:15,16,18,19 wouldn't 164:15

36:13 46:17 76:11 V.2.2 128:8 235:12 244:20 268:20 269:3,4,7 writing 293:1

104:9 134:10 V.2.4 120:11 247:18 253:1 287:12 292:5,10 written 26:16

154:21 155:6 V.6.3 130:19 261:19 262:9 we've 10:15 14:20 30:12,19 31:1

157:16 158:1 273:21 15:10,11,15 17:8 49:4 62:16,18

173:12 188:11 W ways 89:17 263:11 49:6 51:13 78:6 111:14 117:21

209:20 230:8 waiver 93:4,5 wear 166:17 83:22 84:3,4 235:20 257:19

237:17 254:13,13 walked 9:2 website 11:16 89:16 103:11 263:6 273:22

255:12 272:14 walking 166:16 15:19 36:7 52:16 106:1 283:11 287:7

277:6 want 11:10 13:1 153:3 293:20 whichever 156:19 293:13,20

vast 24:13 16:16 49:16 73:18 weeks 84:18 wide 159:19 266:19 wrong 173:6 262:9

vein 66:10 75:16 81:13 83:18 Weg 5:9 19:13 width 160:3 265:4 283:18

verbal 59:15 86:16 87:12 93:11 263:19 WILLIAM 2:7,8

verified 106:4 106:7 108:8 weigh 17:4 239:11 wind 28:14 X

133:6 110:18 136:8,22 weighed 205:14 winding 27:6 29:18 X 111:21 117:16

verify 105:9,11 141:15,21 147:9 233:21 window 187:22 118:14 119:20

106:9 180:14 181:7 weighted 156:3 wire 216:13 122:14 124:1

version 22:21 182:17 201:8 welcome 3:2 4:4,9 wish 10:13,14 11:7 126:4 129:17

26:21 27:2 46:15 216:16 229:12 18:16 49:17 99:14 176:3 280:11

46:18 130:17,20 242:16 244:8 welcomed 257:20 259:7

247:19 267:21 Y 251:2,5 261:7 welcomes 191:2 wishes 9:10 18:22

271:10 280:8 Yeadon 2:2 7:6 266:15,16 273:19 214:11 257:12 59:12 280:2

289:13 293:17 year 14:4 152:14 versions 23:2 well-defined 138:4 wonder 88:8 247:8

wanted 12:9 20:18 153:14 156:13 130:13 171:19 went 15:16 57:9,12 wondered 286:15

30:18 94:14 107:1 161:18,19 162:2,3 versus 95:12 69:17 74:1 82:16 wondering 186:9

107:15 137:3,8 162:5 177:8 198:9 107:18 160:18 88:12,19 109:5 275:3

191:21 211:6,8 198:16,17 199:10 170:22 172:13 160:20,21 195:6 words 134:20

285:9 202:6,22 234:18 197:7 202:7 267:3 270:4 215:22

wanting 247:1 250:21 268:7 232:13,16 Wenzel 2:20 6:19 work 32:22 33:6

wants 267:14 years 41:8 69:8 vertical 158:20 6:19 34:21 66:6 78:20

91:15 92:17 132:8

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 333 

144:8 156:17 1.83 151:22 12.42 25:20 78:14 79:16 81:16 230-volt 273:1

172:13 177:18 1:00 167:3,9 12.54.2 129:3,4 81:17 83:10,11 230-460 273:22

178:3 182:7 1:10 167:13 12:02 167:12 86:8,11 92:1 24 38:1

187:19 188:2 10 11:16 21:21 123.7 27:15 95:20 96:3 116:20 24M19 246:22

198:15 202:5 34:22 45:1 46:21 129.5 28:8 131:22 141:8 243 248:22

228:15,15 231:10 47:7 113:6,12,18 13 31:4 36:2 157:12 172:12 25 26:2,5 64:22

246:8 266:14,20 119:20 122:5 14 29:4 189:12 190:6 81:8 105:6,8

267:18 124:10 126:10 144.1 29:10 193:15 198:15 175:6

131:4 145:20 149 3:10 202:5 230:16 25th 13:21 14:3

Z 196:9 198:16 15 41:7 69:8 76:13 238:22 293:22

Zealand 236:4 288:3 76:17 92:17 200 187:2,3 250 3:16

zero 240:22 10-1 39:21 40:15 116:14 196:10 2002 151:13 257 27:20

54:5 150-10 114:14 2006 34:22 266:16 259 3:18 $ 10-5 40:19 52:1 115:7 2007 36:2 100:22 26,000 254:15 $1,275 158:1 100 82:12,20,21 156 28:7 153:20 27 100:1 101:8 $2 241:7 122:5,19 123:6 157 3:12 2008 117:11 125:21 273.4 29:5 $20 238:20 239:5 124:14 130:11 16 18:5 27:21 153:21 160:22 29 117:17 $3 184:15 165:19 282:1 258:20 161:12 169:3 29M15 246:18 $400 184:15 1000 1:12 17 1:10 18:5 174:15 277:19 $45 249:10 101 64:8 18 3:6 176:17 2009 1:10 26:17 293 3:19 $6 249:14 103 27:6 277:4 188 130:14 36:4 38:1 40:6

3 105 29:7 19 115:2 43:5 117:17,22 0 108 45:11 46:1,5 1987 22:20 38:4 118:5 123:17 3 37:5 41:12,13,15 0.1 130:3 64:10 40:5 46:15 69:9 130:15 154:15 42:5 223:17 241:8

07 19:19 11 9:18 21:21 260:21 261:2,7 172:13 174:15 3,000 231:13,16 089 1:12 254:18 266:13 2010 13:21 263:5 3.0 63:9

094 79:12 110 29:7 1992 33:2 40:10 2015 152:14 160:20 3.2.1 37:5 40:12

110.8 29:12 57:1 133:16 213:3 161:19 162:3 3.2.2 37:13 40:13 1

111 28:15 213:8 168:22 187:17 3.2.3 42:4 1 22:19 41:13,15 112 15:8 114:18,20 1993 32:22 2020 154:19 3.2.4 42:4 50:11 56:10 57:10

115:1 280:13,20 1994 33:22 40:6 2030 154:17,20 3.2.5 42:5 187:3 222:19

281:3 282:13,14 1996 34:1 115:7 251:21 254:13 3/32 79:13 1,800 198:3,8 285:15,19 286:11 1998 113:9 2045 160:21,22 3/4 41:15 202:22

112A 285:22 286:3 161:8,20 168:22 3:19 294:9 1-1987 50:3 120:17

114 15:8 114:20 2 187:18 188:1 30 29:11 43:5 1.0 63:8

115:2 282:21 2 26:16 31:4 41:11 205 3:14 125:21 130:15 1.1 251:19

285:15 286:13,16 41:12,13,15 223:6 208 272:8,17,22 132:8 159:2,7,10 1.15 27:19 28:7

287:1 223:16 251:22 273:3 274:1 159:16 161:17 1.25 25:18 26:9

11995 115:7 2-pole 57:11,12 208-230/460 272:6 230:16 241:21 29:1,3,10,21 12 3:4 127:10,16 2.0 63:9 130:3 213 99:21 100:4,18 267:18 1.35 26:9

224:2 226:4 2.1 215:10 101:3,8 30th 277:3 1.4 26:9

12-10 133:13 2.13 215:11 216 44:17 30-year 168:20 1.47 215:9

12-6(a) 120:16 2.4 280:19 285:18 22 3:8 117:11 312.6 29:3 1.5 41:11,13,15 128:19,22 129:3,6 2.42 151:21 221.5 27:16 33 215:2 57:12 63:9

129:14 135:10 2.49 151:21 23 161:4 35 65:13 213:10 1.75 152:1

12.12 107:3 2.9 251:19 230 64:22 65:13 36 42:10 46:2 1.8 282:7,18 285:15

12.33.1 40:17 20 28:7 77:16,17 272:8 38 65:2 287:2,9

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
Page 334 

390 248:22 5 26:12 54:21 67:15 6312(b) 50:16,17 861 153:20

175:7 188:20 64 64:18 132:22 89 65:9

4 284:2 144:19 145:2

4 3:2,3 10:19 41:14 9 5A 27:5 54:20 64.0 132:19

41:16 65:6 188:19 63:21 67:15 69:14 65 144:21 9 21:21 117:22

188:22 189:1 9.2 131:16

4-pole 62:3 64:3,3

78:13 86:21 65.0 132:21

276:18 280:18 66 133:1 144:19
 9:00 1:13

64:6,15 66:22
 281:9 284:19 145:3 9:06 4:2

88:1 95:13 97:11 5,000-hour 202:18 67 29:18 90 28:3 29:15 269:1

107:5 157:15 5,300 254:15 92 19:17

158:14 5.1 284:2 7 95 26:3,7,8 27:9

4.5 133:1 5.2.3 63:8 7 11:16 87:9 118:5 28:3,10,16

4:30 10:20 5.3.1 26:12 123:17 207:1,11 96 277:4

4:45 10:20 207:15,17 208:5 98.9 131:17

40 269:1

5.5 43:12

5.67 215:9 208:11,13,14 99.0 131:14

400 138:14 209:5,6 210:3

42 43:8,19 50:10

50 64:19 155:20

195:21 246:20 241:16

431 45:1 46:22 47:8 7-3 210:21
 

113:6,12,18
 269:1 277:19

50-year 177:16 7-7 210:15 211:1

119:20 122:5 50.5 131:13 7-8 210:17 211:2

124:10 126:10 500 57:13 138:14 7:00 136:18

145:20 288:3 52.5 131:9 70 25:20 28:4 29:17

431.12 127:5 53 65:15 29:21 159:5,12,16

135:13 288:19 56 43:11 44:2 63:20 700 128:5

431.17 116:2 100:2,21 101:9 700-motor 139:13

431.25 47:9 71 276:4

431.25(b)(3) 288:6

104:12 218:21

220:7 72 44:17 45:20 46:5

431.442 46:21 277:16

47:17 111:21 6 73 276:4

112:11 128:2 6 27:13 54:5 206:21 74.0 120:8,21

129:17 135:12 208:21 209:8 75 81:2,6

288:22 6(a) 127:17 76 65:11

431.443 280:11 6-pole 99:20 76.11 64:1

431.445 45:1 6.15 43:12 77 122:21

126:10 6.2.1 27:13 77.0 120:10 277:15

431.445(b)(3) 6.6 107:9 77.2 120:12,13,17

119:19 124:1 6:00 136:17 121:7 141:6 281:1

431.446 126:4 6092 113:10 281:16

134:6 135:1 61417 45:2 118:15 78 28:1

435.446 47:5 61418 160:14

8 44 100:3 101:2 61419 212:21

103:22 61422 288:4 8 127:11 207:12,15

47 241:21 61423 42:21 44:13 207:16 208:5,11

48 43:8,22 63:19 103:18 209:7

104:11 218:22 61431 114:21 8E 1:12

220:6 129:22 133:2
 8.3 131:11

6311 50:10
 80 269:1
 

5
 85 275:22

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

202-234-4433

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4
i' 

335 

) CERTTFI CATE 

Thls is to cerri fy chaE. che foregoing lranscript 

in the matLer of: 	 Energy ConservaLion Standards 

For Smaff EfecLric Motors 

Before:	 Doug]as Brookman 

Date:	 December t7, 2009 

Pl-ace:	 WCLDIi!ITV L UT], UU 

rFnraqFnrq Fho f rrl I 	 :nri r-nmnl af a nrocacrii ncrq of rhe 

aforementioned matter, as reported and reduced to 

I lrh6lr7 i l- i hd 

fr,,^,fr/ 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURTREPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323RHODEISLANDAVE.,N.W, 

(202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, 	 D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 20.4