### 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 8E

089 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 impactanalyses, 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 lockedrotor 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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-space

constrained applications.

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 82 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

### 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-space

constrained 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 allapplications. 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 forscrap 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

### 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 mark

up 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 threehorsepower 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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. FRUS TAGLIO: It's propr ietary.

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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 thatdefinition 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 samplecan differ from the represented nominal fullload efficiency by an amount of total losses equal to 15 percent of the total lossesequivalent 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 re

examines 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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. Iam 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

### 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

### 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

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

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 153 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 inthe 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 userstend 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 thatwe 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

### 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. Theproduct 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

### 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 thanaverage, 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 classesof 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 after

market. 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

### 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 tothe 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

### 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

### 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 B ROOKMAN: 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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.
FACI LITATOR 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 substan tiate 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 likeIEEE 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

### 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 atest 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### Page 295
accurate 122:6 address 20:7 183:5 195:8 196:20 175:16 178:14 A 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

### 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

### Page 297 249:20 227:15,20 238:21 basis 53:4 69:9 68:4 149:3 229:17 B atmospheric 246:15,17 93:6 114:14 230:22 B 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 65:15,18 66:8,14 198:3 199:7,11 237:4 252:5 264:3 Baldor 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 170:18 180:1 278:20 116:4 127:12 126:7,8,12 151:20 182:14 Bob 5:11 80:2,21 Ball 153:1 143:14,22 144:16 157:22 159:9 belt 164:12 81:20 108:6,7 Ballo 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

### 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 C 260:3 280:16 140:5 142:9 brought 111:7 34:8 35:11 108:11 C 2:12 26:2,3,6,7,8 breaking 199:18 145:13 146:14 282:8 290:18 178:8,11 185:18 27:7,9 28:2,3,5,11 breakpoint 53:11 147:5,22 148:18 Brussels 268:4 245:8 246:21 28:15,16 29:8,15 BRIAN 1:21 158:18 160:11 BRYAN 2:13 capacitor-start 29:17,19,22 brief 8:20 9:7,13 162:7 163:14 Budget 190:1 32:2,6 34:6,8 35:9 cafeteria 166:19 12:3,12 166:14 164:7,16,20 166:4 build 101:9 105:10 35:11 37:19 167:8,18 259:6 166:9 167:14 177:12 202:11,13 108:11,15 178:5,7 calculate 144:11 briefer 136:22 171:4 173:9 174:7 202:15,18 203:20 178:8 179:10 152:4 153:12 briefly 73:19 174:11 177:20 204:3 243:3 185:10,18,19 168:7 222:12 bring 106:2 233:11 180:11 181:13,21 building 1:12 85:19 206:9 212:2 215:4 258:15 278:4 236:8 237:11 182:11 183:8,12 147:19 166:17 246:19,21 calculated 121:17 247:3 184:4 185:3 186:6 197:21 251:2 capacity 31:15 122:22 124:13 Bringing 34:21 186:17 187:7 277:5 32:12 244:19 125:5 153:19 brings 186:3 191:13 192:15 builds 57:14 250:2 251:12,18 161:17 179:16 204:17 193:9,18 194:3 built 22:16 43:7 251:20 187:15,17,18,21 broad 272:9,12 195:1,4 196:18 45:14 56:18 capital 156:3 225:1 189:5,21 217:5 274:14 199:12 200:2 277:20 225:3,4,13,15



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 D country 236:16 185:16 204:14 23:21,22 30:5 56:7 59:3,3 62:2,2 DAILIDA 1:21 262:7 265:19 264:18 36:11 38:4 39:20 62:8,12,22 63:3 Dain 2:3 19:3,5 couple 84:18 cross 100:3 101:1 46:15 47:16 53:13 66:20,20 67:22,22 Dale 1:19 5:9 49:14 106:19 107:7 103:21 56:17 64:22 65:13 68:21,21 70:10,10 83:2,2 104:5,6 149:9 198:21 cross-elasticity 68:20 70:5,8,11 75:3,3 78:9,9 185:4,5 191:13,15 199:1 234:22 181:20 183:11 70:12,19 71:1,8 86:17,17 87:6,21 220:3 233:9 237:9 289:21 200:14 208:7 71:10,17,19 72:12 87:21 88:4 90:15 238:1 248:17 course 17:15 210:13 218:14 84:9 86:22 174:16 90:15 97:9,9 98:1 262:1 267:22 168:19 190:9 cross-reference 178:15,22 179:13 98:1,12,12 99:15 Dan 6:6 272:20 courtesy 136:6 219:4 180:2 186:12 99:15 100:15,15 Dane 5:2 cover 4:7,11 37:7 Crystal 152:22 188:17 204:19 103:13,13 110:14 DANIEL 2:17 114:19 237:12 CS 206:1 227:1 259:19 110:14,18 111:2,6 data 4:9 13:3,5 coverage 3:7 9:16 CSCR 28:19 29:19 260:2 284:9 289:2 111:13,19 138:1,1 16:19 17:10 18:15 22:11 23:10 35:22 32:5 102:15,19 currently 109:18 139:9,9 140:10,10 27:18 61:9 63:7 39:5 167:10 289:9 103:10 109:4 109:20 188:7,9,20 140:13 142:18,18 68:7,12,19 69:1 covered 23:7,15,17 125:6 157:17 currents 40:18 143:16,16 145:15 69:13,13,15,16 23:20 24:20 39:9 170:20 171:16 curve 95:15,16,17 145:15 147:6 79:15 87:11 99:6 50:11,15,19 57:1 178:16,20 179:4 160:6 171:2 285:5 148:3,3 158:19,19 100:5,10,11,12,13 61:1,5 96:21 180:8 184:1,3 curves 77:8 285:4 159:15,15 207:6,6 102:7,11,11 106:8 103:11 148:1 206:8,12,18 207:3 customer 72:2 207:9 209:13,13 106:9,16,20 110:1 162:12 164:5 207:10 208:5,6,10 81:12 92:2,9 212:19,19 214:3,3 115:2 133:5,9 169:17 175:3,7 208:13,21 209:5 151:12 162:2 218:17,17 246:12 139:14 146:6 225:6,10 234:4 212:4 215:8 165:8 189:9 246:12 266:8,8 150:22 151:2,13 260:7 261:4 217:12,21 218:3 190:14 204:4,15 269:14,14 271:22 151:14 153:20 262:17 218:13,20 242:20 204:17 271:22 272:3 155:5 169:22 covering 33:9 244:9 282:6 283:7 customers 69:21 274:7,7 275:18,18 170:2,5 175:13 116:2 286:17 84:19,22 85:10 276:17,17 278:12 178:2,3 180:14,16 covers 37:19 CSIR 28:14 30:2 92:5 93:2 154:4 278:12 279:13,13 180:20 181:1,7,8 CR 210:14 243:1 32:5 63:20 64:16 156:2 158:9,15 280:9 281:10,10 181:9,10 189:7 create 76:12 90:9 65:7 102:17 103:9 159:3,8,11 165:15 281:14 284:1,20 191:22 193:12,14 98:3 112:15 127:4 109:4 125:6 165:22 166:3 285:1 286:5,5 219:7 220:15,17 132:13 137:11 157:17 170:20 176:21 184:7,10 288:1,1 289:12 220:17,20 221:3 140:2 193:7 269:4 171:16 178:16,20 190:3,5,8 191:3,8 day 11:19 202:8 276:22 279:11 280:4 179:4 180:7 193:20 202:12 203:7,8 280:5 292:4 293:7 created 93:15 183:22 184:2 224:16 245:1 days 11:17 163:12 293:13 128:5 219:4 206:6,12,18 207:2 263:21 264:2,14 198:12 database 128:5 253:22 266:13 208:5,8,11,14,22 264:19,19 265:14 dead 79:13 139:13 170:9 creates 292:12 209:6 212:3 215:7 269:3 270:13 deadline 229:13 date 21:3,16 62:15 creating 87:4 127:2 217:12,22 218:2 Customs 237:3 292:5,7 136:2 152:15 284:4 218:11,22 219:10 cutting 240:10 deal 127:3 236:19



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 G 272:21 gentleman 89:19 197:19 198:19 243:3,4 244:9 gained 80:11 Fuji 236:4 germane 46:20 207:7 220:11 246:3 250:9 gap 205:21 252:15 fulfilled 21:6 getting 81:10 224:17 233:22 261:19 267:16 gas 7:13 20:1 202:7 full 11:14 27:5,15 201:21 216:1 236:11 239:20 269:20 280:8 251:11 27:22 28:2,9,14 242:1 293:6 240:16,16 244:8 281:21 283:10 gather 13:17 199:7 29:5,12 49:4 gigawatts 251:19 244:21 246:3 287:22 290:11 gathered 139:14 62:11 74:7 95:12 252:1 248:8 252:5,9 291:6,8,12 292:10 gauge 242:21 109:12,20 110:6 give 13:21 16:14 263:4 267:17 292:22 Gear 2:5 7:10 112:7,10 116:12 22:3 62:14 70:6 269:20 271:4 good 4:3 22:8 79:4 gearbox 164:12 116:15 127:20 82:6 111:9 200:3 283:10 287:11,17 130:16 136:17 gearboxes 268:21 135:11 154:10 232:10 233:17 292:3 181:14 233:11 gearing 230:7 157:9 165:21 251:17 260:16 goal 89:7 91:16,20 239:3 240:13 general 6:10 10:17 187:21 226:3 271:14 292:8 91:21 242:9 248:16



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 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 H green 1:21 8:15 height 77:21 78:2 Hink 2:6 5:18,18 41:12,13,15,16 H 1:22 24:8,9 greenhouse 20:1 95:20 106:14,14 160:12 42:7,8,9 45:14 half 28:13 41:5 GRIM 222:12 held 119:1,3 125:1 160:12 161:7 51:22 52:4,6,7,10 42:9 56:1 63:13 223:8,8,20 224:22 275:20 184:5 245:15,15 53:10 54:1,6,7,10 63:18,20 68:14 grips 290:9 help 66:5 75:8 246:9 55:9,17 56:2 97:11 131:8 groping 196:8 177:5 201:4 Hiperco 246:20 57:10,13 58:22 136:11 215:18 ground 167:7 239:11 240:4 277:19 61:4 62:3 63:5,6,9 218:22 219:19,20 group 33:6 111:8 268:9,12 292:4 historical 177:8 63:13,18,20 64:2 252:1 254:18 114:13 141:4 293:14 historically 244:16 64:6,15 65:6 half-way 132:21 grouping 63:14 helpful 12:6 75:15 history 240:1 66:22 68:5,11,13 hall 167:2 groups 211:20 111:16 136:7 hit 99:16 68:14,15 69:15 hand 148:21 221:9 275:21 202:1 250:5 hold 8:18 87:22 95:13 97:7 291:8,12 grow 182:10 260:17 278:9 home 172:21 294:6 97:11,14,15 98:3 handbook 114:14 242:13 283:17 292:14 hope 9:4 20:10 22:2 98:4 99:18,21 115:7 grows 169:16 293:3 75:12 100:18 102:3 handle 237:7 240:7 242:11 Henke 2:5 7:10,10 hopefully 161:15 103:1 108:12 handled 93:22 growth 169:5,12 Hi 68:3 264:22 120:5 132:18 handy 184:20 177:10,13 high 43:21 44:1,7 hoping 62:7 138:14 151:1 Hansen 2:3 5:2,2 guarantee 235:10 54:22 57:13 60:20 Hopkins 2:6 3:10 157:15 158:14 19:4,5 guess 59:10 66:17 74:15 91:18 92:6 3:12,16 6:21,21 178:18 182:8



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 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

### 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 K industry-wide 267:6 introduce 70:21 22:4 83:7 160:8 K 2:16

225:22 insulated 24:1,2 introductions 3:3 223:21 224:1,2,4 inefficient 188:14 keep 12:4,4 75:14 insulation 18:6 4:16,20 256:18 259:7 97:2 101:17 inelastic 175:4 23:19 24:6,7,8,14 invalid 125:21 271:15 274:20 inexpensive 77:1 166:14 185:14 24:17,19,22 25:5 126:5 IV.A.1.C 38:15 192:18 280:8 infers 114:2 25:8 31:6 70:17 invest 238:20 239:5 IV.1.A.G 39:1 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 250:15 224:1,2,4 225:1 information 13:5 integer 131:8 258:2 J 1:21 Kido 2:9 6:9,9 JAMES 1:16 2:14 16:18 17:10 18:15 intend 10:21 investigation 260:12,12 261:10 33:14 68:1 86:20 intended 76:14 272:14 88:6,7 110:21 January 13:20 14:3 261:11 77:10,12 96:18 investing 249:17 36:4 43:5 113:9 kilowatt 23:17 119:17 120:1 210:4 investment 225:9 117:17 130:15 288:5,7 125:13 126:10 intentionally 235:4,13 241:20 136:3 275:20 kind 62:19 68:1 140:21 142:22 262:17 242:3,4,13 246:14 277:3 282:9 80:22 105:12 145:9 153:16 intentions 21:14 248:20 249:4,5 293:21 163:12 231:15 180:17,21 191:9 interaction 109:3 investments 95:6 JEFFREY 2:10 260:13 262:16 Jim 3:4,19 4:13,20 199:6 222:14,21 206:4,15 226:6,22 227:4,7 264:9 275:3 279:5 223:2,18 225:20 interactions 256:10 227:22 239:22 6:14 8:22 21:20 kinds 186:11 186:17,18 261:13 244:12 273:8 interagency 255:22 240:8 241:1,6,13 236:21 280:5 279:1,6 292:17 interest 99:12 243:7,15 264:18 291:19 KINGMAN 2:10 jobs 20:14 253:22 293:14 165:12 invitations 13:17 Kirk 1:17 7:22 informing 140:21 interested 13:2 invite 12:16 13:10 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 knew 67:5,6 initiated 19:18 222:15 260:13 17:9,13 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 71:2 74:14 76:2 82:16 112:6 155:5 interesting 26:10 inviting 16:4 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 208:1 127:22 136:20 232:10 260:17 201:10 involved 48:4 204:8 215:12 144:11 145:6 252:3,4 290:15 292:18 293:12 interject 162:11 181:5 240:10 163:11 167:1 inputs 153:17 internet 164:2 in-depth 15:21 JOHNSON 2:9 168:6 172:6 173:4 journey 293:5 154:22 179:3 interpellation in/product 14:12 174:1,10 175:9 223:20 224:22 126:15 IR 210:14 243:1 Jr 2:5 177:1 181:14 July 15:5 34:22 250:20 251:1 interpolating 27:17 irrelevant 142:17 183:17 184:9 254:4 interpret 68:18 isolated 67:2 INPV 240:20,21 118:5 123:17 196:9 198:11 jump 220:9 interpretation isolating 58:16 199:3 201:5 202:8 241:8,16,22 34:20 48:10 59:8 issue 19:2 20:19 inside 166:17 183:1 Justice 2:15 8:6 202:10,22 203:11 justification 69:10 146:7 21:7 31:4 89:17 203:21 204:3 insights 202:1,3 interpretations 173:10 225:1 199:9,17 233:18 210:21 216:9

239:10 288:14 236:3 239:12 264:17 289:8,13 229:22 230:7 installation 152:11 interpreted 263:14 257:2,4 280:9



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 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

### 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 M locked 37:12 40:18 277:9 280:10,17 manufacturer 3:13 manufacturing M 2:2,3 53:12,13 63:21 280:18,20 282:6 43:14 55:22 60:11 10:6 18:14 132:11 machine 203:22 64:5,17,22 65:9 283:4,6 286:2,7 69:20 95:4,11 144:8 173:20 mack 273:3 65:13 70:12,19 286:12,14,17 100:20 101:7,20 183:3 221:20 magnitude 134:11 71:1,8,15,20 287:9 102:6,7,20,21 230:20 231:16,18 219:21 240:8 72:10,11,12 86:22 losses 27:14 28:6,8 106:2 117:2 124:8 253:19,20 242:15 243:9 87:1 167:4 267:9 29:3,4,10,11 124:9 133:6 143:6 map 178:3 186:12 Mahima 2:3 7:3 logical 120:22 80:16,17,18 100:2 145:1 150:2 213:19 main 133:15 160:5 139:11 293:3 101:7 115:22 178:10 182:20 March 26:16 161:22 168:12 logistic 180:4 116:7,8,13,14,20 185:13 205:6 117:22 194:9 195:8 long 9:12 110:16 130:10 131:5,10 221:13 223:3,22 marginal 155:20 218:12 221:14,15 202:6 262:4 131:11,15,16 247:2 263:12 margins 239:18,20 221:18 222:4 264:12 132:6,15,16 138:5 266:22,22 270:12 mark 2:2 9:20 94:5 maintain 76:15 longer 68:16 82:19 200:20 213:10 277:1 135:9 145:7 79:19 156:22 156:13 193:4 219:18,19,22 manufacturers 2:4 marked 93:18 180:21 198:12 201:20 260:3 276:19 280:16 2:8 14:21 19:6 114:9 129:6 134:3 226:20 227:17 261:1,4 285:10,13 286:1 43:17 44:20 45:3 134:9,11 140:17 235:14 look 12:15 15:21 287:2 45:22 49:17 55:15 market 18:9 24:11 maintained 275:11 17:2,5,17 56:20 lost 118:10,11 58:21 61:8 75:21 41:18 66:15,18 maintaining 67:11 69:13 89:18 132:17 82:16,18 85:9,13 67:20 99:6 104:20 118:19 215:2 95:10 106:17 lot 4:7,8 71:4 72:13 90:22 91:15 93:1 109:3 124:12 238:22 139:14 185:9 172:10 176:8 93:7 94:16 99:9 152:5 169:14,16 maintenance 155:3 187:4 197:6 198:1 216:1 232:13 99:11 101:13 172:19 173:16,18 155:10,13 196:19 202:11,12 204:10 243:4 248:7 104:9 118:16 174:1,2,2 175:3 major 197:22 209:2 234:15 259:14,17 262:14 124:20 135:9 175:14 177:10,19 198:5 271:7 235:3 246:14 262:16 263:13 139:18 144:6 178:16,19,22



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 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

### 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

### 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 N 207:3,22 208:6,9 200:11,13 205:19 neglect 39:12,16 152:6 169:22 name 4:21 6:18 211:4 212:11 206:13 209:3 neglected 30:13 172:7 177:15 11:5,8 22:9 49:13 213:1,4,7,18 210:11,15,16,20 191:18 180:13 181:6,8 51:19 72:19 89:13 214:21 215:4,8,16 211:12 212:4 negligible 182:4 193:12 197:12 149:2 180:12 216:2 217:12,21 216:20,22 245:5 NEMA 5:3 8:4 19:5 204:6,13,13,21,21 182:12 186:7 218:11,13,19 250:20,22 251:3 19:15,19 22:15 213:15,20 214:1,7 221:12 259:8 219:14 221:17 254:10 258:3,12 24:7 25:4,17 228:10 230:3 285:11 290:14 224:9,12,17,18 258:14,16 26:18,22 27:3 231:8 232:4 237:2 nameplate 88:8,9 225:6,11 231:16 natural 251:10 28:4 30:3,4,12 258:11 259:15 129:7 134:3 232:16 233:1,4,16 Navigant 1:21 2:3 33:5,9,20 34:5,13 260:1,21 261:3 138:13 139:22 234:4 236:5,6,21 2:4,10,14,15,16 34:16,19,20 35:12 263:18 266:10 140:16 145:2,8 237:7 240:20 7:2,3,8 8:2 51:21 35:15,20 36:9,16 272:7 274:13 nameplates 114:9 241:6 243:5,12,12 73:21 87:13 98:18 37:3,12,14 39:14 289:1 Nardotti 2:14 3:8 244:17 247:3 275:8 39:19,21 40:5,7 NEMA's 22:18 3:13 7:1,1 22:7,8 252:9 254:8 260:6 near 34:21 40:10,16,18,19 29:16 260:22 22:9 31:10 51:16 261:1 262:13 nearest 131:7 41:6,9,10,22 42:1 NEMS 251:4 255:5 51:20,21 53:21 264:9,14 265:1 nearly 163:2 42:2,19 43:8,19 255:14,16 55:3 59:18 73:20 267:14 268:14,19 necessarily 44:6 46:13 47:14 48:8 nervous 21:2 73:21 75:18 76:9 268:21 270:5,6,8 58:8 68:22 92:10 48:10,13,16 49:8 net 168:16 187:20 78:18 79:6,21 270:8 272:5,22 142:21,22 204:6 50:3 51:6 56:16 222:12 227:3 81:17 82:8,12 273:11 274:8 204:20 213:19 56:19 57:22 58:7 253:22 257:8



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 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 O 129:5,10,13,15,19 Northwest 7:16,17 31:10 49:9,16,19 9:10 objecting 288:17 130:3,21 131:1,3 note 38:11 49:6 51:12 59:10,16 operate 156:10,12 objective 90:7 131:13,19 132:1,3 102:15 110:8 62:10 63:2 75:2 operated 25:21 observation 55:20 132:4,5,13,19,22 noted 42:22 117:16 75:10 76:7 82:1,7 112:7 272:17 78:15 279:10 134:1,18,21 135:3 128:4 134:13 86:1,16 90:11 operating 27:6,11 observations 278:9 135:9,11,17 276:18 93:10 95:8 97:3 28:15 38:7 108:14 observed 27:1 137:18 140:8,15 notice 1:5 199:16 99:13 108:21 152:13 153:14,18 29:20 55:13 102:2 140:17 141:17,21 256:17 258:21 110:17,22 111:17 156:11,13 194:7 observing 131:18 142:12,15,20 283:12 136:18 138:17 196:19 204:18 obtain 80:6 93:17 143:8,10,12,13 noticed 160:13 140:12 148:18 227:3,6,11,13,18 95:19 100:20 144:4,12,14 184:5 151:10 162:18 234:9 244:18 obtained 282:19 145:11 146:12 noting 46:16 49:3 163:14 164:21 operation 149:18 obtaining 70:14 281:17 November 16:3,4 167:10,14 171:11 150:20 151:4 96:15 non 93:19 179:7 38:1 171:20 172:1,5 156:9,18 158:6 obvious 27:5 33:18 nonstandard 45:7 NPV 215:1,9 174:6,11 177:20 159:20 160:1 46:7 269:16 non-regulatory 222:13 223:9 183:8 185:3 163:1 189:17



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 Q 141:19 162:2 145:20 212:22 ratings 23:18 36:12 252:12 260:17 QM 2:11 7:18 pure 97:12 99:5 284:3 288:4 37:1 38:6,12 39:2 263:9 264:16 quads 215:3,11 purely 124:13 quoting 45:2 39:6,17 40:4,16 265:6,13,22 279:8 qualifications purple 180:3 41:1,20 42:6 45:8 286:12 290:10 R 204:7 purpose 22:15 23:3 52:4,11 53:1,2,7,9 292:20 quantitative Raba 1:16 2:14 3:4 23:20,22 25:4,17 53:17,17,19 54:1 reason 87:10 88:21 223:14 3:19 4:3,13 6:14 30:4,8 33:20 34:5 54:2,7,8,11,15 109:14 139:11 quantity 191:16 6:14 12:13 186:17 34:14 35:13,16 55:1 56:22 57:6,6 140:2 245:6 242:12 186:18,18 187:2 36:11,16,19 38:5 57:8,11,16,17,19 267:16 quarter 41:4 42:8 291:19 293:9 39:20 41:10,22 58:8 61:5 63:8,10 reasonable 243:10 52:7 185:10 248:9 raise 10:13 19:1 42:3 44:10 46:14 63:12,16 68:15 reasonableness query 271:19 71:12,14 259:8 47:15 55:2,16 69:5 105:7,8 107:17 108:4 question 53:20 271:15 56:1,14,17 57:7 107:9 123:13 203:4 55:7 68:2 71:7 raised 83:6 121:20 58:12,21 59:5 209:20 213:8 reasoning 16:17 78:10 79:2 80:7 155:17 271:16,16 60:1 62:4 63:10 219:8 288:6,11,20 reasons 20:6 86:18 108:18 ran 198:16 63:11 66:19 69:18 289:4,9 125:17 173:8 137:16 145:16 range 52:1 61:4 69:22 70:1,15 ratio 112:4 238:6 199:8 243:11,13 171:3 175:21 130:1 172:12 71:4 83:15 85:6,7 277:9,11 247:19 184:6 186:19 215:5 258:6 85:11,14 87:3 raw 216:7 rebates 258:9 194:2 195:2 263:17 272:9,12 88:2 92:11 117:3 Raymond 2:15 8:5 recall 15:4 203:13 215:13 274:14,16 119:8 123:12 8:5 recapitulates 238:3 243:8,22 ranges 251:19 129:4,21 141:2 reach 128:12 247:9 181:15 245:3 248:19 254:14 147:10 148:12 reached 156:19 received 9:1 23:9



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 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

### 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

### 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 safe 293:5 139:1 scaled 97:4 102:20 133:17,20,22 seeking 44:20 93:1 safely 294:6 rounding 131:7 150:14 213:22 section 19:7,14,18 seeks 103:4 175:13 sale 163:22 164:4 rounds 194:4 219:22 19:20 20:2 26:12 226:5 228:1 164:10 170:14 row 249:2,3 scales 60:13 37:22 38:15 39:1 seen 50:22 107:9 sales 151:16 177:10 rows 132:4 scaling 18:6 60:21 40:17 45:1 46:21 131:18 132:3 243:19 250:16 RS 155:5 97:19 100:10 47:5,9 50:10,16 172:12 176:16 251:8 rule 13:9 15:5 16:3 101:19 105:5 50:17 57:1 111:21 184:22 sample 113:14,21 16:5,6,10 20:3 106:15 119:14 113:13 116:1 segment 225:7 116:5,11 118:8 21:16 22:11 50:18 126:19 137:7,10 119:19 123:22 271:14 122:8,10 143:20 64:11 90:1 96:8 150:17 200:20 126:4,9 127:5 segregation 286:1 236:10,21 109:10 118:4 213:16,17 219:15 128:2,3,8 129:16 selected 28:17 60:5 save 14:15 15:13 123:18 133:18 220:6,10 130:19 134:6 60:22 61:4,11 51:10 268:12 197:12 201:6 scenario 169:13,15 135:1,12,13 63:4,18 64:12,19 saved 253:3 206:22 213:15 169:18 226:15,19 199:15 280:11 65:1,10,14 66:8 savings 20:13 33:5 214:13 255:18 227:10,16 234:10 284:2 288:6 66:15 69:17 73:22 51:1 149:15 150:6 281:13 234:12 239:2,4 sectional 100:4 74:2 79:15 96:20 153:12 159:17 rulemaking 1:5 3:4 242:15 101:1 103:22 97:4 123:11 126:6 160:15,17,20 4:11 8:22 9:7 scenarios 18:9 sections 20:10 126:11 127:10,18 168:14 187:15,16 13:7 15:16,22 169:10,12 170:19 148:17 129:6 140:18 187:18 205:19 16:21 17:12,15 226:11 228:2 sector 18:14 254:2 144:15 218:19,21 206:14,20 207:12 19:8 23:8 31:12 238:17 258:19 255:17 selecting 60:16 207:17,19 208:17 36:1 37:7 49:22 schedule 166:8 sectors 169:7 68:4 118:13 209:2,3,7 210:3 51:5 56:14 57:2 scheduled 16:6 security 166:20 selection 67:9 210:15,16,20 68:9 99:2 129:21 Schirmann 2:16 see 11:3 14:13 69:10 89:2 120:4 211:1,10,13 212:4 143:2 147:2,11,16 5:11,11 80:2,3,20 17:11 21:3,16,20 141:1 218:18 215:2,10,14,21 147:21 154:18 80:21 81:19,20 24:21 31:4 40:22 sell 184:10 195:19 217:5 250:20 157:2 165:5 108:7,7 211:7,8 49:16 53:10 61:16 195:20 196:2,4 252:12 258:16 186:22 194:5 211:14,18 212:6 62:11 63:1 66:17 198:6 238:8 264:17 260:8,20 261:8 217:10,10,16 74:6 76:16 80:1 selling 60:12 95:11 saw 164:3 286:17 293:15 218:15 243:21 95:14 96:20 99:4 102:20 176:16 saying 75:4 87:17 rules 30:6,6 118:13 245:9 103:4 109:6 196:6 87:19 91:7 137:18 183:7 237:2 scope 3:7 9:16 130:16,22 138:6 sells 196:2 139:3 142:15,17 run 34:7 35:10 72:1 22:10 23:10 35:21 167:18 182:4,9 sense 11:9 14:13 143:9 147:12,15 107:18,18,20 37:1 38:13 39:5 183:2,12 202:16 106:18 108:3 147:21 159:4 108:2,10 153:6,8 39:22 40:15 52:13 206:21 215:8 113:1 251:18 207:11 238:11 159:20 160:1 53:5 54:6 56:15 216:3 219:20 269:11 270:17 239:5 243:2 163:2 171:7 67:7 90:1 182:2 226:8 230:16,18 292:15 247:15 248:5 172:11,16 186:2 259:12 260:4,20 232:11 234:19 sensitivities 157:16



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 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

### 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

### 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 T 252:10 276:20,22 stringent 125:1 119:20 279:3 125:20 157:10,20 T 2:8 90:19 99:21 277:19 278:6 strive 276:9 293:14 158:3 185:6 117:14 164:10 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 54:11,14 61:17 stuck 273:1 126:17,18 147:9 supporting 20:5 65:20 66:2 78:13 7:14 studies 26:12 28:19 148:15 278:8 263:2 264:20,21



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 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

### 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

### 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 V typically 108:12 unit 61:7,11 76:16 190:11,16 198:2 131:1,8 132:22 V 120:11 128:3 135:20 217:20 78:21 96:20 198:11,19 199:19 133:13 134:1,2,8 130:12,19 244:16 184:19,21 213:22 202:5 213:17,18 134:11,22 138:9 valid 192:14 T-frame 56:22 UNITED 1:1 224:17 231:17,18 139:14,16 140:1,3 220:13 247:20 100:4,18 101:9 units 74:1 76:10 232:15 236:5 140:8,9 142:3,12 262:11 77:9 172:13 237:19 241:17 142:13,15,16,20 U validate 284:6 196:10 234:17,21 244:15 247:5 150:14,21 154:1 U 116:17 validation 105:21 235:15 269:5 248:1,6 252:7,8 254:9 255:20,22 UL 79:12,16,19 valuable 193:13 unnatural 217:19 254:7 255:11 266:13,17 278:15 ultimately 205:14 valuation 257:13 unnecessarily 50:2 263:22 281:2 280:10 282:9,13 unable 256:8 value 46:4 54:13 unnecessary 45:15 287:5 290:7 291:2 286:7,8,18 unanalyzed 60:14 64:18 65:1,10,14 unregulated 59:2 useful 112:5 193:17 valuing 257:5 unavailability 99:18 112:21 224:17 useless 42:12 van 2:19 55:5,5 180:9 113:2,19 114:11 unsubstantiated user 127:3 140:20 58:19 68:3,3



### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 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 W 173:12 188:11 ways 89:17 263:11 49:6 51:13 78:6 111:14 117:21 waiver 93:4,5 209:20 230:8 wear 166:17 83:22 84:3,4 235:20 257:19 walked 9:2 237:17 254:13,13 website 11:16 89:16 103:11 263:6 273:22 walking 166:16 255:12 272:14 15:19 36:7 52:16 106:1 283:11 287:7 want 11:10 13:1 277:6 153:3 293:20 whichever 156:19 293:13,20 16:16 49:16 73:18 vast 24:13 weeks 84:18 wide 159:19 266:19 wrong 173:6 262:9 75:16 81:13 83:18 vein 66:10 Weg 5:9 19:13 width 160:3 265:4 283:18 86:16 87:12 93:11 verbal 59:15 263:19 WILLIAM 2:7,8 X 106:7 108:8 verified 106:4 weigh 17:4 239:11 wind 28:14 110:18 136:8,22 X 111:21 117:16 133:6 weighed 205:14 winding 27:6 29:18 141:15,21 147:9 118:14 119:20 verify 105:9,11 233:21 window 187:22 180:14 181:7 122:14 124:1 106:9 weighted 156:3 wire 216:13 182:17 201:8 126:4 129:17 version 22:21 welcome 3:2 4:4,9 wish 10:13,14 11:7 216:16 229:12 280:11 26:21 27:2 46:15 18:16 49:17 99:14 176:3 242:16 244:8 46:18 130:17,20 welcomed 257:20 259:7 Y 247:19 267:21 251:2,5 261:7 welcomes 191:2 wishes 9:10 18:22 Yeadon 2:2 7:6 271:10 280:8 266:15,16 273:19 214:11 257:12 59:12 280:2 year 14:4 152:14 289:13 293:17 versions 23:2 well-defined 138:4 wonder 88:8 247:8 153:14 156:13 wanted 12:9 20:18 130:13 171:19 went 15:16 57:9,12 wondered 286:15 161:18,19 162:2,3 30:18 94:14 107:1 versus 95:12 69:17 74:1 82:16 wondering 186:9 162:5 177:8 198:9 107:15 137:3,8 107:18 160:18 88:12,19 109:5 275:3 198:16,17 199:10 191:21 211:6,8 170:22 172:13 160:20,21 195:6 words 134:20 202:6,22 234:18 285:9 197:7 202:7 267:3 270:4 215:22 250:21 268:7 wanting 247:1 232:13,16 Wenzel 2:20 6:19 work 32:22 33:6 years 41:8 69:8 wants 267:14 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

### 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 3 37:5 41:12,13,15 108 45:11 46:1,5 1987 22:20 38:4 118:5 123:17 0.1 130:3 42:5 223:17 241:8 64:10 40:5 46:15 69:9 130:15 154:15 07 19:19 3,000 231:13,16 11 9:18 21:21 260:21 261:2,7 172:13 174:15 089 1:12 3.0 63:9 254:18 266:13 2010 13:21 263:5 094 79:12 3.2.1 37:5 40:12 110 29:7 1992 33:2 40:10 2015 152:14 160:20 3.2.2 37:13 40:13 110.8 29:12 57:1 133:16 213:3 161:19 162:3 1 3.2.3 42:4 111 28:15 213:8 168:22 187:17 1 22:19 41:13,15 3.2.4 42:4 112 15:8 114:18,20 1993 32:22 2020 154:19 50:11 56:10 57:10 3.2.5 42:5 115:1 280:13,20 1994 33:22 40:6 2030 154:17,20 187:3 222:19 3/32 79:13 281:3 282:13,14 1996 34:1 115:7 251:21 254:13 1,800 198:3,8 3/4 41:15 285:15,19 286:11 1998 113:9 2045 160:21,22 202:22 3:19 294:9 112A 285:22 286:3 161:8,20 168:22 1-1987 50:3 120:17 2 30 29:11 43:5 114 15:8 114:20 187:18 188:1 1.0 63:8 2 26:16 31:4 41:11 125:21 130:15 115:2 282:21 205 3:14 1.1 251:19 41:12,13,15 223:6 132:8 159:2,7,10 285:15 286:13,16 208 272:8,17,22 1.15 27:19 28:7 223:16 251:22 159:16 161:17 287:1 273:3 274:1 1.25 25:18 26:9 2-pole 57:11,12 230:16 241:21 11995 115:7 208-230/460 272:6 29:1,3,10,21 2.0 63:9 130:3 267:18 12 3:4 127:10,16 213 99:21 100:4,18 1.35 26:9 2.1 215:10 30th 277:3 224:2 226:4 101:3,8 1.4 26:9 2.13 215:11 30-year 168:20 12-10 133:13 216 44:17 1.47 215:9 2.4 280:19 285:18 312.6 29:3 12-6(a) 120:16 22 3:8 117:11 1.5 41:11,13,15 2.42 151:21 33 215:2 128:19,22 129:3,6 221.5 27:16 57:12 63:9 2.49 151:21 35 65:13 213:10 129:14 135:10 23 161:4 1.75 152:1 2.9 251:19 36 42:10 46:2 12.12 107:3 230 64:22 65:13 1.8 282:7,18 285:15 20 28:7 77:16,17 38 65:2 12.33.1 40:17 272:8 287:2,9


### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 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 9 21:21 117:22 63:21 67:15 69:14 65 144:21 188:22 189:1 9.2 131:16 4-pole 62:3 64:3,3 78:13 86:21 65.0 132:21 9:00 1:13 276:18 280:18 66 133:1 144:19 64:6,15 66:22 9:06 4:2 281:9 284:19 145:3 88:1 95:13 97:11 90 28:3 29:15 269:1 5,000-hour 202:18 67 29:18 107:5 157:15 92 19:17 5,300 254:15 7 158:14 95 26:3,7,8 27:9 5.1 284:2 4.5 133:1 7 11:16 87:9 118:5 28:3,10,16 5.2.3 63:8 4:30 10:20 123:17 207:1,11 96 277:4 5.3.1 26:12 4:45 10:20 207:15,17 208:5 98.9 131:17 40 269:1 5.5 43:12 208:11,13,14 99.0 131:14 5.67 215:9 400 138:14 209:5,6 210:3 42 43:8,19 50:10 50 64:19 155:20 241:16 195:21 246:20 431 45:1 46:22 47:8 7-3 210:21 113:6,12,18 269:1 277:19 7-7 210:15 211:1 50-year 177:16 119:20 122:5 7-8 210:17 211:2 50.5 131:13 124:10 126:10 7:00 136:18 500 57:13 138:14 145:20 288:3 70 25:20 28:4 29:17 52.5 131:9 431.12 127:5 29:21 159:5,12,16 53 65:15 135:13 288:19 700 128:5 56 43:11 44:2 63:20 431.17 116:2 700-motor 139:13 100:2,21 101:9 431.25 47:9 71 276:4 431.25(b)(3) 288:6 104:12 218:21 72 44:17 45:20 46:5 220:7 431.442 46:21 277:16 6 47:17 111:21 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 8 127:11 207:12,15 103:22 61422 288:4 47 241:21 207:16 208:5,11 61423 42:21 44:13 209:7 48 43:8,22 63:19 103:18 8E 1:12 104:11 218:22 61431 114:21 8.3 131:11 220:6 129:22 133:2 6311 50:10 80 269:1 5 85 275:22 

### Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

### 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 COURTREPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W, (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, www.nealrgross.com D.C. 20005-3701