202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 1

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 + + + + +

 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS PUBLIC MEETING

 ABOUT ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

 FOR ELECTRIC MOTORS

 + + + +

 TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2012

 + + + + +

 The Preliminary Analysis Meeting

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

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

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

moderator, presiding.

PRESENT

DOUG BROOKMAN, Public Solutions, Inc., 

 Moderator

LUCAS ADIN, U.S. Department of Energy

EMMANUEL AGAMLOH, Advanced Energy

KIRK ANDERSON, Underwriters Laboratories

HISHAM ARAJI, Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

TIMOTHY BALLO, Earthjustice

DALE BASSO, WEG Electric Corporation

THOMAS BISHOP, Electrical Apparatus Service 

 Association, Inc.

ALEX BOESENBERG, National Electrical

Manufacturers Association

ROB BOTELER, Nidec Motor Corporation

EDWIN BRUSH, Consultant to Copper Development 

 Association, Inc.

KITT BUTLER, Advanced Energy

HAYDEN COOK, Navigant Consulting, Inc.

ROGER DAUGHERTY, National Electrical

Manufacturers Association

DANIEL DELANEY, Regal-Beloit

ANDREW deLASKI, Appliance Standards Awareness 

 Project
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 2

TOM ECKMAN, Northwest Power and Conservation 

 Council

R. NEAL ELLIOTT, American Council for an

Energy Efficient Economy

GEORGE FLOLO, The Flolo Corporation

KEN GETTMAN, National Electrical Manufacturers

Association

WILLIAM HOYT, National Electrical

Manufacturers Association

SANAEE IYAMA, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

MICHAEL KIDO, U.S. Department of Energy

WILLIAM KOHSE, Navigant Consulting, Inc.

FRANK LADONNE, Underwriters Laboratory

PAUL LIN, Regal-Beloit

ROBERT BRUCE LUNG, Alliance to Save Energy

JOHN MALINOWSKI, Baldor Electric Company

MATT NARDOTTI, Navigant Consulting, Inc.

AL PADILLA, Underwriters Laboratories

JAMES RABA, U.S. Department of Energy 

LINDA RAYNES, Electrical Apparatus Service 

 Association, Inc.

STEVE RUFFING, Nidec Motor Corporation

TIM SCHUMANN, SEW-EURODRIVE

CLARK SILCOX, National Electrical

Manufacturers Association

CHARLIE STEPHENS, Northwest Energy Efficiency 

 Alliance

MEG WALTNER, Natural Resources Defense Council

ROBERT WILKINS, Danfoss

DOUG RAWALD, U.S. epartment of Energy General

Counsel

ATTENDING VIA WEBINAR

ERIC ANDERSEN, Pacific Northwest National 

 Laboratory

AUSTIN BONNETT, Navigant Consulting, Inc.

BRIAN BOYD, Pacific Northwest National 

 Laboratory

JOHN COCKBURN, Natural Resources Canada

HELCLO BLUM, Lawrence Berkeley National 

 Laboratory

RICK BUDZYNSKI, Motors

BIJIT KUNDU, Energy Solutions
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 3

HOWARD JORDAN, Consultant

ROBBIE McELVEEN, Baldor Electric Company 

DOUG MOORE, Kentucky Service

CHUN CHUN NI, Berkeley National Laboratory

DEREK SANDS, Platts

ZOLAIKHA STRONG, Copper Development 

 Association

GREG TOWSLEY, Grundfos
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 4

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

Welcome, Introductions, and Agenda

Review

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

Purpose of the Public Meeting, 

Rulemaking Overview, and Opening 

Statements from Participants

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

Test Procedure: Market and Technology

Assessment

 Hisham Araji and William Kohse... 24

Screening Analysis and Engineering

Analysis

 Hisham Araji and William Kohse... 104

Markups, Energy-Use Characterization,

and Life-cycle Cost and Payback Period

Analysis

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

National Impact Analysis

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

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact

Analysis

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

Closing Remarks

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

Adjourn............................... 320
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 5

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

2 (9:04 a.m.)

3 MR. RABA: Good morning, everyone,

4 and welcome, whether you are attending today's

5 public meeting in person or via the webinar.

6 This is the U.S. Department of

7 Energy's public meeting about a preliminary

8 analysis of energy conservation standards for

9 electric motors.

10 My name is Jim Raba. I am the

11 project manager for motors. I will be the

12 presiding officer.

13 Today's public meeting will

14 address the analytical framework and

15 procedural framework, models, and other tools

16 the Department of Energy will use to evaluate

17 efficiency standards for this equipment. In

18 all, the Department encourages you and other

19 interested parties to discuss the analysis and

20 submit information, data, and written

21 comments. We want to hear from you.

22 Good morning and welcome.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 6

1 MR. BROOKMAN: It is our tradition

2 to start with introductions. I will start

3 here to my immediate left. Please say your

4 name and organizational affiliation. You can

5 also get used to turning these microphones on

6 and off. And since we are doing a webinar,

7 you need to get the microphone fairly close to

8 your face. So please, name and organizational

9 affiliation.

10 MR. BISHOP: My name is Tom

11 Bishop, Thomas Bishop with the Electrical

12 Apparatus Service Association.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

14 MR. BOESENBERG: Charlie Stephens,

15 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.

16 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins with

17 Danfoss.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Hang on, Robert. 

19 Please, just in time.

20 MS. WALTNER: Meg Waltner with the

21 Natural Resources Defense Council.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Robert,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 7

1 thank you.

2 MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg,

3 National Electrical Manufacturers Association.

4 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty,

5 Baldor Electric, Member of the ABB Group. I

6 am also here as the Chairman of the Technical

7 Committee of NEMA's Motor Generator Section.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

9 MR. DELANEY: Dan Delaney with

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

11 Motor and Generator Section.

12 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski,

13 Baldor Electric, also representing ABB,

14 Incorporated. I am the Chairman of the NEMA

15 Motor and Generator Section.

16 MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler, Nidec

17 Motor Corporation, Chairman of the NEMA Energy

18 Committee.

19 MR. BASSO: Dale Basso, Weg

20 Electric Corp. I am also the Vice Chairman of

21 the Motor Generator Section of NEMA.

22 MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 8

1 Underwriters Laboratories.

2 MR. AGAMLOH: Emmanuel Agamloh,

3 Advanced Energy.

4 MR. DE LASKI: Andrew deLaski,

5 Appliance Standards Awareness Project.

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott, ACEEE.

7 MR. LUNG: Bruce Lung, Alliance to

8 Save Energy.

9 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE,

10 Office of the General Counsel.

11 MR. RABA: Jim Raba, DOE.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Why don't you just

13 stand and say your name?

14 MR. ARAJI: Sure. Hisham Araji,

15 Navigant Consulting.

16 MS. IYAMA: Sanaee Iyama, with the

17 Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Louder, please.

19 MR. KOHSE: William Kohse, with

20 Navigant Consulting.

21 MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti,

22 Navigant Consulting.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 9

1 MR. ADIN: Lucas Adin, DOE.

2 MR. RAWALD: Doug Rawald,

3 Department of Energy General Counsel.

4 MR. SILCOX: Clark Silcox, NEMA.

5 MR. RUFFING: Steve Ruffing, Nidec

6 Motor Corporation and also representing NEMA.

7 MR. BUTLER: Kitt Butler with

8 Advanced Energy.

9 MR. BRUSH: Ned Brush, consultant

10 to the Copper Development Association.

11 MS. RAYNES: Linda Raynes with

12 electrical Apparatus Service Association.

13 MR. FLOLO: George Flolo with the

14 Flolo Corporation representing EASA.

15 MR. ANDERSON: Kirk Anderson,

16 Underwriters Laboratories.

17 MR. PADILLA: Al Padilla,

18 Underwriters Laboratories.

19 MR. SCHUMANN: Tim Schumann, SEW20 EURODRIVE also here with NEMA.

21 MR. GETTMAN: Ken Gettman with

22 NEMA.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 10

1 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest

2 Power and Conservation Council.

3 MR. HOYT: Bill Hoyt with NEMA.

4 MR. LIN: Paul Lin, Regal-Beloit,

5 also a member of NEMA.

6 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo,

7 Earthjustice.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay did everyone

9 get a chance to introduce him or herself? I

10 think so. 

11 Well once again, welcome and glad

12 you are here. And welcome also to those that

13 are joining us via the web. Can you tell us

14 the names of those that are joining us via the

15 web and read them into the record?

16 MR. GRAUL: We have got Austin

17 Bonnett, Bijit Kundu, Greg Towsley, and Howard

18 Jordan.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: So far.

20 MR. GRAUL: Yes.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for

22 joining us.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 11

1 All of you received a packet of

2 information as you came in to the room today. 

3 I am going to refer to the agenda first.

4 Immediately following this agenda

5 review there is an opportunity -- well we are

6 going to have brief opening remarks about the

7 purpose of the public meeting and we will make

8 an overview and opening statements from Jim

9 Raba. Following that brief overview, there is

10 an opportunity for opening statements. 

11 Anybody that wishes to do so can make an

12 opening statement surrounding this rulemaking. 

13 Immediately following that, comments on the

14 test procedure: market and technology

15 assessment. We will take a break mid-morning

16 around about 10:45 or so.

17 When we return from the break,

18 screening analysis and engineering analysis,

19 and then markups, energy-use characterization,

20 and life-cycle cost and payback period

21 analysis.

22 We will take lunch around about
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 12

1 12:30 or so. Returning from lunch, life-cycle

2 cost and payback period analysis and national

3 impact analysis. We will take a break mid4 afternoon as we need to and where it fits

5 appropriately.

6 Following the break or whenever we

7 get there, preliminary manufacturer impact

8 analysis. We will close out the day today

9 with next steps and another opportunity for

10 public comment. Any other issues that haven't

11 been adequately covered, that would be another

12 occasion when you can raise them at the end of

13 the day.

14 We will have closing remarks from

15 Jim Raba. We plan to adjourn today around

16 about four o'clock, however we will go as

17 quickly and efficiently as we can as the day

18 proceeds.

19 Questions here at the outset on

20 the agenda? I see none.

21 I would ask for your

22 consideration, please. If you would, speak
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 13

1 one at a time. Please say your name for the

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

3 say your organizational affiliation. All of

4 you registered as you entered today. 

5 Typically, the Department will provide a

6 photocopy of the business cards of those

7 present, so we will have a record for you to

8 take home with you.

9 I am going to be queuing

10 individuals by name, as best I can. I would

11 like to encourage follow-on comment among

12 commenters. Please again say your name. 

13 Sometimes the back and forth is very useful

14 for the Department as they review this record. 

15 There will be a complete transcript of this

16 meeting available on the DOE website.

17 If you can please be concise,

18 share the airtime. There is a lot to be said

19 and I know that there is the potential for

20 some extended commentary this morning, based

21 on the petition and other events. So if you

22 can be as concise as possible, that would be
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 14

1 helpful.

2 Please keep the focus here. Turn

3 your cell phones on silent mode, if you would. 

4 Those of you who are on the webinar, if you

5 keep your phones on mute, then we will have

6 less feedback here in the room. And if you

7 wish to speak, then you can raise your hand

8 and our webmaster moderator will pass a note

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

10 comment. Please be patient and we will --

11 then when you un-mute your phone we can hear

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

13 has worked for the last couple of meetings we

14 have done this.

15 So additional questions before we

16 proceed? Then I am going to turn it back to

17 Jim Raba for an overview.

18 MR. RABA: Well thank you, Doug. 

19 And again, welcome to our public meeting about

20 energy conservation standards for electric

21 motors.

22 With the Energy Policy and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 15

1 Conservation Act, as amended, prescribes

2 energy conservation standards for certain

3 commercial and industrial electric motors, the

4 Department of Energy is considering further

5 amendments to those standards. 

6 At today's public meeting, again,

7 we will address the procedural and analytical

8 framework, models and other tools the

9 department would use to evaluate efficiency

10 standards for this equipment, present the

11 results of information gathered thus far about

12 motors, the results of the preliminary

13 analyses. The potential energy conservation

14 standards will be derived from these analyses.

15 In all, we encourage you and other

16 interested parties to discuss these analyses

17 and presentations and further submit

18 information, data and written comments. We

19 want to hear from you.

20 Throughout today's presentations,

21 our experts from Navigant Consulting and

22 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 16

1 will see slides like this. And they will

2 prompt certain issues. I mean discussion

3 slides like this. Otherwise, comments about

4 any part of the presentation are welcome

5 throughout.

6 Before we address the regulatory

7 history, steps in the standards rulemaking

8 process, all the analyses, does anybody wish

9 to make an opening statement or brief comments

10 about the preliminary analysis and the

11 potential energy conservation standards for

12 electric motors?

13 Doug?

14 MR. BROOKMAN: So now as we had

15 promised, an opportunity for opening

16 statements. Neal, first. Please say your

17 name, Neal.

18 MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott and I

19 am speaking on behalf of NEMA, motor

20 manufacturers, and the energy efficiency

21 advocates.

22 The advocates and manufacturers
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 17

1 have now had a 14-year partnership working on

2 motor standards. And this has led to many of

3 the steps that we are discussing today. In

4 particular, the Energy Independence and

5 Security Act of 2007 motor standards that went

6 into place.

7 Two years ago in this room I had

8 the opportunity again to speak on behalf of

9 the coalition and present a concept for the

10 next round of standards. Last week we

11 formally submitted and is in the packet of

12 materials that was circulated today a petition

13 seeking consensus with respect to the

14 standards. And I wanted to speak briefly in

15 terms of what the coverage of that petition is

16 and why I think this is important.

17 We have taken the approach in the

18 petition of expanding coverage to cover almost

19 all of the three phase induction motors one to

20 500 horsepower. The concept is in the

21 original Energy Policy Act was to specify

22 certain covered product. We think that it is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 18

1 much more administrable rather to approach

2 this by specifying that all motors, one to 500

3 horsepower polyphase induction should be

4 covered products and then explicitly exclude

5 those motors which we feel are inappropriate

6 for the application of the standard.

7 We recommend that the vast

8 majority of those motors be implemented at the

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

10 efficiency level. We think that level is

11 achievable by manufacturers without undue

12 burden. The expansion of coverage and the

13 raising of motors to the NEMA 12-12 level will

14 result in significant savings of energy and

15 also result in substantial cost savings to

16 motor consumers in the marketplace.

17 We are pleased to see that the

18 PTSD confirmed that indicating that almost

19 five quads of energy would be saved during the

20 study period from that proposal. 

21 We also would note that by

22 changing the approach and focusing on the fact
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 19

1 that all motors are covered except those that

2 are explicitly excluded enhances enforcement. 

3 The coalition has been very concerned about

4 enforcement issues. For many years we had

5 extensive discussion two years ago when we met

6 to initiate these proceedings with respect to

7 enforcement.

8 We think by explicitly excluding a

9 small group of motors and including coverage

10 to all other motors, that this will enhance

11 enforcement by the Department and by the folks

12 at the Homeland Security.

13 We also think that this path

14 forward will be beneficial on the long-term

15 because this has the opportunity for motor

16 manufacturers to take resources that would be

17 allocated to meeting a higher efficiency

18 target and deploy those toward building the

19 next generation of electric motor. It is the

20 feeling of the coalition that advance motor

21 designs represent the future for efficiency

22 within the motor marketplace and that it is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 20

1 appropriate for the motor community to move

2 forward with that.

3 I would note that NEMA has begun

4 to explore the standards-setting process,

5 including advance motor designs in the MG1

6 standards.

7 Finally, I did want to note that

8 while we were very pleased to see the

9 standard, our proposal ranked well and

10 similarly to what we had analyzed within the

11 PTSD. We, as the coalition, do have some

12 concerns about the CSL Level 3 analysis and

13 are concerned that we may not have captured

14 the full cost in that analysis to the industry

15 of the transition. And those members from the

16 NEMA section will be discussing that in

17 greater detail, as appropriate through the

18 proceedings today.

19 I appreciate the opportunity to

20 speak. Thank you.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Neal. 

22 And as you reference, I think all of you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 21

1 received a copy of the joint petition. That

2 was a part of the packet for today.

3 Who would like to speak next? 

4 Yes, Robert.

5 MR. WILKINS: Thank you. I'm

6 Robert Wilkins with Danfoss. 

7 I would like to start by

8 commending the work that has been done in this

9 PTSD and noted that for several types of

10 motors, there are several CSLs provided. Most

11 of the CSLs are around, near, or exceed 90

12 percent energy efficiency. And typically the

13 cost for CSL 4 and 5 rise very sharply,

14 yielding a lengthy payback period for perhaps

15 one or maybe two percent improvements in

16 energy efficiency. This reflects that for

17 these covered motors we are reaching the point

18 of diminishing returns in motor efficiency.

19 I would like to step back and call

20 attention to the EERE study entitled United

21 States Industrial Motor System Market

22 Opportunity Assessment which was revised in
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 22

1 December of 2002, ten years ago. This study

2 states that on average, manufacturing sector

3 could reduce industrial motor energy use by 11

4 to 18 percent, using mature proven efficiency

5 technologies. But it went on to say system

6 efficiency can be improved by improving the

7 match between the component size and load

8 requirements and the use of speed control,

9 instead of throttling in bypass mechanisms.

10 The report stated that while motor

11 efficiency upgrades can achieve potential

12 savings of 19.8 kilowatt hours -- billion

13 kilowatt hours per year, system efficiency

14 improvements are potentially much larger, 37

15 to 79 billion kilowatt hours per year. It

16 goes on to cite the contribution of adjustable

17 speed drives, also known as variable frequency

18 drives or VFDs.

19 Motor efficiencies have indeed

20 improved since 2002 but the points regarding

21 the system efficiency opportunities remain

22 largely valid to date. And VFDs have improved
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 23

1 dramatically in the ten years since this

2 report, just as our cell phones, PCs, and

3 other electronic technologies have

4 dramatically improved. Yet, the technology

5 remains largely underutilized in the U.S.

6 compared to other countries.

7 I have had in written comments

8 some explanation about how these devices save

9 energy and I will pass that, in the spirit of

10 brevity. But applying VFD to many motor

11 systems can realistically save 20 percent, 30

12 percent, or more of the energy and the case

13 studies abound.

14 Furthermore, applying VFDs on

15 motor systems enhances the demand response

16 capabilities for both peak load reduction and

17 momentary or transient situations on the

18 electric grid.

19 So comparing this to a possible

20 one percent or maybe two percent efficiency

21 savings by improving the covered motor

22 efficiency, there is a dramatic difference. So
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 24

1 Danfoss urges DOE to consider the motor

2 system, not just the motor. We should pursue

3 the much greater energy savings potential that

4 can be afforded by variable frequency drives

5 that continuously match motor output to the

6 actual load of the system, while enhancing

7 demand response capabilities.

8 I appreciate the opportunity to

9 speak today. Thank you.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Robert.

11 Other opening statements here at

12 the outset? No additional comments at this

13 time? Okay. Then let's proceed.

14 All of you received a packet of

15 PowerPoint slides. As Jim referenced, this

16 material will reflect the flow of presentation

17 followed by discussion.

18 First we are going to hear from

19 Hisham.

20 MR. ARAJI: Good morning everyone.

21 My name is Hisham Araji with Navigant

22 Consulting.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 25

1 So as Jim previously mentioned

2 earlier on, DOE will be presenting today some

3 of the preliminary results of the Electric

4 Motor Standards rulemaking. But before we

5 dive into that, I would like first to give

6 some statutory background on where this

7 rulemaking comes from.

8 Going all the way back to the

9 1970s and the era of the energy crises, an Act

10 of Congress called the Energy Policy and

11 Conservation Act or EPCA signed into law in

12 1975 establishing energy conservation

13 standards.

14 EPACT in 1992 directed DOE to

15 establish efficiency standards for certain

16 industrial and commercial motors. More

17 recently in 2007, another Act of Congress

18 called EISA updated those efficiency standards

19 and also established new efficiency standards

20 for motor types not previously covered, which

21 brings us to today's rulemaking.

22 DOE is required by statute to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 26

1 revisit the most recent standards for electric

2 motors, which would be those standards set by

3 EISA, and to publish a final rule determining

4 whether to amend those standards. Any amended

5 standards that DOE does establish would have

6 a compliance date no sooner than December 19,

7 2015.

8 As directed by statute, DOE will

9 determine whether to amend standards for

10 electric motors and if so, what level those

11 new standards should be set at, based on an

12 in-depth consideration of three factors: 

13 technological feasibility, economic

14 justification, and energy savings potential.

15 When determining whether a

16 standard is economically justified, DOE

17 considered seven different factors and it does

18 so in eight specific analyses. Here you can

19 see those factors and their corresponding

20 analyses. So for example, the total projected

21 energy savings is considered in the National

22 Impacts Analysis. We will be discussing each
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 27

1 of these in greater detail today.

2 So there are four main phases of a

3 standards rulemaking: framework, preliminary

4 analysis, notice of proposed rulemaking, and

5 final rule. Each stage includes a Federal

6 Register notice to place information in public

7 view. At multiple points in the process, DOE

8 invites both oral and written comments on it

9 analysis. Those comments can be in response

10 to not only the Federal Register notice but

11 also technical support documents and

12 analytical spreadsheets posted on DOE's

13 website.

14 The first phase for this

15 rulemaking, the framework document was

16 published on September 28th of 2010 and a

17 public meeting was held a few weeks later here

18 in Washington, D.C. The framework document

19 provides an overview of the rulemaking process

20 and encourages early participation by

21 interested parties.

22 Yes, do we have a comment?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 28

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Roger

2 Daugherty.

3 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty,

4 speaking on behalf of NEMA. Back at your

5 slide where you indicated current rulemaking

6 process, you do note that EPCA requires the

7 DOE to determine the rule whether to amend the

8 Energy Conservation Standard. However, you

9 don't mention there that you are given 24

10 months to do that. Is there a reason you

11 skipped mentioning that it is within 24

12 months?

13 MR. ARAJI: I think I will let GC

14 comment on this.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido.

16 MR. KIDO: I don't think there is

17 any reason why we just didn't indicate that in

18 there. There is nothing insidious about it.

19 MR. ARAJI: I will state 24

20 months. You are correct.

21 So after the framework document,

22 you go into the preliminary analysis stage,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 29

1 which is the phase we are in right now.

2 This is where DOE presents its

3 initial analytical results. Here you see the

4 different analyses that form the preliminary

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

6 greater detail today.

7 Eventually DOE may publish a

8 Federal Register notice proposing a standard,

9 called a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or NOPR

10 and hold a public meeting similar to this one

11 to receive feedback on that proposal. I say

12 "may" because DOE also has the option of

13 publishing a determination asserting that

14 these standards are not warranted. Here are

15 the NOPR analyses, which also include a round

16 of revisions to the preliminary analysis.

17 So if DOE does publish a NOPR

18 proposing amended standards, then it will move

19 on to the last phase of the rulemaking

20 process, which is the final rule. In that

21 phase, DOE once again revises its analysis and

22 incorporates feedback received during the NOPR
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 30

1 phase.

2 So let's take a look at the

3 timeline for all these steps. So here you can

4 see all the milestones that we just talked

5 about. So the notice announcing today's

6 meeting was published almost one month ago on

7 July 23rd of 2012. The next milestone DOE

8 will publish either a notice proposing new

9 standards or a determination asserting that

10 none are wanted.

11 A final rule, if needed, will be

12 published in October of 2013 and a compliance

13 date of not sooner than December of 2015. 

14 That's another comment.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger Daugherty.

16 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

17 But that gets back to my previous question. 

18 2013 is beyond 24 months and it is as much as

19 the time that you are proposing there is 12

20 months' past. And that only leaves two years

21 between the possible time of the determination

22 and having to come into compliance.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 31

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido.

2 MR. KIDO: I think the Agency will

3 take that into account when it sets whatever

4 compliance date. And clearly with respect to

5 the timelines, we have to make adjustments,

6 given the current situation.

7 So to the extent that the Agency

8 can stay within the timetables that have been

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

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

11 MR. ARAJI: So --

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew deLaski.

13 MR. DE LASKI: Just a brief

14 comment on process because I think the

15 petition, of course that we submitted to you,

16 was just received last Wednesday. We

17 understand that that is newly received, even

18 though we have been making recommendation

19 along these lines for, you know, at both the

20 framework stage and at the RFI stage for the

21 coverage.

22 But I just wanted to comment that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 32

1 in the event the Department decides to treat

2 this petition as a petition for a direct final

3 rule, that would then change this process

4 somewhat. And Michael maybe you want to

5 comment on that just so on the record that

6 process -- if the DFR process goes forward, it

7 would look a little bit different than what

8 you have just described. I just want to

9 address that.

10 MR. KIDO: That is correct. That

11 is a possibility, depending on what the

12 Department decides to. If it treats the

13 petition as a petition for direct final rule,

14 those particular timelines could change. 

15 These timelines are based on the assumption

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

17 traditional notice of proposed rulemaking

18 process is filed so there is a proposal, a

19 comment period, and then a final rule is

20 issued.

21 If a direct final rule process is

22 filed, if that is followed, then those
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 33

1 timelines could alter somewhat. It could make

2 for a more truncated timeline. It sort of

3 depends on how the agency decides to treat the

4 petition and I would imagine it would also

5 depend on the timing of certain decisions as

6 well.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you,

8 Michael. Thank you, Andrew.

9 MR. ARAJI: All right. Now that

10 we have some background on the standards

11 rulemaking, I would like to talk a little bit

12 about the test procedure final rule for

13 electric motors and some of the changes

14 recently made.

15 So in December of 2008, DOE

16 published a NOPR that proposed establishing

17 test procedures for small electric motors and

18 amending the test procedures for medium

19 electric motors. However, DOE deferred

20 amending the test procedure for medium

21 electric motors to a later date and that later

22 date was in January of 2011. That is when DOE
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 34

1 published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed

2 Rulemaking or SNOPR to address the issues that

3 were deferred by the previous NOPR.

4 For medium electric motors, that

5 SNOPR proposed four things: (1) updating the

6 referenced industry standards to more recent

7 versions; (2) clarifying the scope of coverage

8 for existing efficiency standards; (3)

9 revising or adding definitions for certain

10 terms; and (4) revising the guidance in

11 Appendix A to Subpart B of 10 CFR 431.

12 So DOE received lots of feedback

13 from interested parties and on May 4th of this

14 year, published the final rule, which

15 finalized many of the issues proposed in the

16 2011 SNOPR. However, rather than revise

17 Appendix A as initially proposed, DOE elected

18 to remove it from the CFR and will instead

19 post updated guidance on DOE's website.

20 Now this slide just gives a broad

21 overview of some of the clarifications made in

22 the most recent test procedure final rule. So
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 35

1 EISA 2007 had previously struck the definition

2 for the term electric motor. The May 2012

3 final rule went ahead and incorporated into

4 the CFR a broad definition of that term,

5 defining electric motor as a machine that

6 converts electrical power into rotational

7 mechanical power.

8 EISA 2007 also established

9 efficiency standards for these four types of

10 motors. Now, EISA did not provide definitions

11 for two of them, NEMA Design B motors and fire

12 pump motors. So the May 2012 final rule added

13 definitions for these previously undefined

14 terms and then clarified coverage for all four

15 of these categories.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger Daugherty.

17 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

18 Again on behalf of NEMA we certainly welcome

19 the clarification of the coverage and the

20 definitions of subtype I and subtype II that

21 were included. We would like to take this

22 opportunity to publicly thank DOE to listening
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 36

1 to NEMA's proposal for that structure back at

2 the framework document and NEMA written

3 comments. However, seeing as how DOE

4 sometimes technical term "tinker" with things,

5 I will note that under the definition of

6 subtype I in trying to cover IEC motors that

7 you expanded on the definition of equivalent

8 frame size to NEMA T frame with equivalent IEC

9 and also trying to interpret those frame sizes

10 that are between standard frame sizes.

11 In the definition of subtype II

12 you duplicated the same definition. So in the

13 interest of those who are manufacturing IEC

14 motors to IEC standards, there is some

15 confusion here as to whether or not an IEC say

16 180 metric frame motor is now a subtype I or

17 a subtype II because you have defined it to be

18 related through both definitions.

19 So efficiency standards are

20 certainly different and this is a present day

21 issue. This doesn't have to do with your

22 proposal in the future. So it is a present
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 37

1 day issue as to whether or not IEC motors are

2 being covered and included as subtype II's at

3 lower efficiency levels than NEMA motors are

4 required to meet that are equivalent as

5 subtype I's.

6 So, if you could offer some

7 clarification on why you structured the

8 definition of subtype I and subtype II with

9 respect to frames identical, we would

10 certainly appreciate it.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Well of

12 course these comments, you will put them in

13 writing and send them in. Correct?

14 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty,

15 yes. They will be in writing.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes and I am

17 certain the Department will address them at

18 that point.

19 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty

20 again. But as I said, this is a present

21 issue, which goes toward clarifying some of

22 the additional scope of covered products. But
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 38

1 it would certainly help that we get this

2 cleared up.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido.

4 MR. KIDO: Okay, to the extent

5 that there is an issue regarding some

6 confusion as to that particular aspect, maybe

7 the best solution for that would be to

8 articulate that in writing for the agency to

9 consider as part of a guidance document or we

10 have a process by which manufacturers and

11 associations can submit questions regarding

12 the application of our various regulations. 

13 So maybe that would be the best vehicle to

14 ensure that there is some consistent and

15 clarifying guidance provided to manufacturers

16 as well as to the rest of the public.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: And Michael, what

18 would you anticipate to be the timing for that

19 question and response sort of thing?

20 MR. KIDO: I couldn't say exactly

21 but typically in the past what the agency has

22 done is when it has come up with draft
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 39

1 guidance there is a comment period for

2 interested parties to provide some input on

3 that draft guidance but we would first have to

4 get some sort of initial question first. And

5 I can't give you a specific timeline on when

6 a response would be forthcoming. I would not

7 anticipate it taking years or anything like

8 that.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Just to be clear,

10 what I heard you do there was invite NEMA to

11 submit their questions and comments to you

12 with the hope that they would get a response

13 in a relatively short time frame.

14 MR. KIDO: That's correct and it

15 is through the -- there is a frequently asked

16 questions section of our webpage that I

17 believe that will enable you to do that.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, that's

19 helpful. Thank you.

20 MR. ARAJI: So yes, thank you for

21 bringing that issue up. So if it is an issue

22 that currently affects the manufacturers, we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 40

1 can try to address it in guidance.

2 Also as mentioned earlier in the

3 meeting, DOE is considering expanding scope of

4 coverage and if that happens, another test

5 procedure will also have to be published to

6 accommodate those new motors brought into

7 coverage and at that point also changes to the

8 test procedure could be made, based on

9 comments or issues that manufacturers raise

10 today.

11 All right, so also as I previously

12 mentioned, the final rule also updated

13 references to industry standards to more

14 recent versions. And these referenced

15 industry standards also include NEMA MG1-2009. 

16 Now DOE is aware that NEMA updated MG1 shortly

17 before the publication of the test procedure

18 final rule.

19 Now the preliminary analysis

20 results presented today cite NEMA MG1-2011,

21 which is the more recent version. And as I

22 just mentioned, we are considering expanding
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 41

1 scope of coverage to other motor types. And

2 if we do a test procedure to include those new

3 motor types, we could also update references

4 to MG1 to the more recent version as well.

5 And we will elaborate a little bit

6 more on that when we get into that discussion

7 in the next section, the market technology

8 assessment.

9 So at this point, I would like to

10 invite my colleague William Kohse up to

11 discuss the market and tech assessment.

12 MR. KOHSE: Good morning, William

13 Kohse, Navigant Consulting.

14 Okay, so again we see an overview

15 of the preliminary analysis stage and we see

16 that the market and technology assessment as

17 well as the screening analysis are the two

18 most upstream components of the preliminary

19 analysis. We will start with the discussion

20 of those. Also in this section, we will be

21 talking about the issue of scope expansion.

22 So the market and technology
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 42

1 assessment or the MTA characterizes the

2 electric motor market and industry, which

3 includes defining the scope of electric motor

4 types that are subject to energy conservation

5 standards for this rulemaking. It also

6 identifies technology options which are used

7 to improve efficiency and it also establishes

8 the equipment classes which are used

9 downstream in the analysis.

10 Screening analysis filters out

11 technology options for improving efficiency

12 that DOE will not consider in the engineering

13 analysis.

14 So here we see a diagram of the

15 relationship between the MTA screening and

16 engineering analyses. The MTA yields

17 technology options that are considered in the

18 screening analysis. The technology options

19 that aren't screened out are renamed a design

20 option and are considered in engineering

21 analysis. The MTA also yields equipment

22 classes, which feed directly into the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 43

1 engineering analysis.

2 So before we continue with that

3 discussion of technology options and equipment

4 classes, let's talk about the expansion of

5 scope of coverage. And a quick note here for

6 the sake of brevity, I am going to use the

7 phrase "scope of coverage" to mean scope of

8 motor types subject to energy conservation

9 standards for this rulemaking. And I may also

10 use the term "standards" to refer to energy

11 conservation standards. 

12 So having said that, let me go

13 over a bit of background on the topic of scope

14 expansion. The first part of this slide lists

15 the three categories of general purpose and

16 fire pump motor types that are currently

17 subject to standards as established by EISA in

18 2007. EPACT 1992's definition of electric

19 motor only included general purpose motors

20 with special and definite purpose motors

21 separately defined. EISA 2007 struck EPCA's

22 definition of electric motor and then, through
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 44

1 the May 4, 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE

2 adopted a broad definition of the term

3 electric motor which encompasses both special

4 and definite purpose motors.

5 Consistent with the amended

6 statute and DOE's recently promulgated

7 definition of the term electric motor, DOE is

8 considering requiring other motor types that

9 do not fit into one of these three categories

10 noted above to meet minimum energy

11 conservation standards. This approach could

12 include setting standards for motor types that

13 DOE has not regulated in the past, including

14 definite and special purpose electric motors.

15 In response to the September 2010

16 Framework Document, as well as the March 2011

17 RFI document, DOE received numerous comments

18 that advocated the expansion of scope of

19 coverage to include many of these special and

20 definite purpose motors.

21 Commenters also stress this

22 approach would save considerably more energy
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 45

1 than increasing the current standard

2 efficiency levels for the categories of motors

3 currently subject to standards.

4 So as a result of that, DOE looked

5 into the issue after the framework and the RFI

6 meeting and further discussed expanding the

7 scope of coverage with NEMA, industry experts,

8 energy advocacy groups, as well as motor

9 testing labs. These technical discussions

10 involved whether those motor types that are

11 not currently addressed by standards are

12 capable of being tested under the current test

13 procedures as well as any characteristics a

14 particular motor may exhibit that could impact

15 its tested efficiency.

16 DOE came up with a list of motor

17 characteristics shown on the bottom portion of

18 this slide, which it believes describe the

19 basic characteristics of a motor that should

20 be able to meet minimum efficiency standards.

21 DOE feels that this list will help

22 simplify guidelines for motor types that it
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 46

1 plans to include in the expanded scope of

2 coverage and, as previously mentioned, it

3 would also help enforcement efforts by the

4 DOE.

5 Essentially, DOE plans to expand

6 the scope of coverage to include motor types,

7 exhibiting each of the characteristics in this

8 list. Motor types that fail to exhibit each

9 of these characteristics or motor types DOE

10 believes should not be subject to conservation

11 standards or whatever justified reasons will

12 be specifically called out in any DOE-provided

13 guidance as not subject to standards.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger Daugherty.

15 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

16 In your list on the previous slide of the

17 common characteristics that are going to apply

18 to the expanded scope of coverage, down toward

19 the bottom you do indicate the correlation

20 between continuous duty of MG1, its definition

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

22 again we come to this type of frame size issue
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 47

1 -- the next line not the next slide.

2 MR. KOHSE: Oh, sorry about that.

3 MR. DAUGHERTY: -- and you don't

4 mention IEC. Just to note that that should be

5 included there.

6 MR. KOHSE: Okay, we will take

7 note of that. Okay, thank you.

8 So now that we have gone over a

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

10 the currently unregulated motor types that may

11 be subject to efficiency standards, should DOE

12 decide to move forward with scope expansion.

13 The table in this slide lists

14 motor types that are currently not subject to

15 minimum standards, but which DOE is

16 considering to include in the expanded scope

17 of coverage. Should DOE decide to include

18 these motor types in the expanded scope, they

19 will be subject to standards based on their

20 NEMA design type.

21 For example, a NEMA design B

22 integral break motor will be subject to the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 48

1 same standards as a general purpose NEMA

2 design B motor that has both the same

3 horsepower rating, pole, configuration and

4 frame enclosure.

5 So let's pause here for a minute

6 and open the floor to any comment regarding

7 the list of motor types that DOE is

8 considering to include in the expanded scope,

9 as well as any additional motor types that DOE

10 should consider including in this list.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's go back to

12 the previous slide that shows them all, the

13 list. Comments here? Roger Daugherty.

14 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

15 But from your list of things that you are

16 wanting to bring up, are you wanting to go

17 through those definitions at this time?

18 MR. KOHSE: Yes, for these motor

19 types. The definitions in the supplementary

20 handout --

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Do we have the

22 supplementary handout?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 49

1 MR. KOHSE: I believe everybody

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

3 I will have it up on the computer but it has

4 got a table that looks like this.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

6 Apparently Neal is holding up this copy. 

7 That's the way it looks apparently.

8 MR. KOHSE: Yes, it wasn't

9 included in the original package.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: So maybe you can

11 look on with your neighbor if you don't have

12 one. Because at least half of you I believe

13 have the supplementary document. Okay.

14 So Roger, definitions?

15 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

16 Are you going to display the list and we will

17 go through them or we will just go through

18 them?

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Give us a sense,

20 Roger. Do you have a lot of comments on these

21 definitions or --

22 (Laughter.)
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 50

1 MR. BROOKMAN: No. It strikes me

2 that you are doing diligence here quite a bit

3 of detail and specificity. That's good and we

4 want that either on the record now or in

5 written comments in the same level of detail. 

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

7 the best way for us to do this.

8 MR. DAUGHERTY: Maybe it is just

9 to give a few examples --

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, that would be

11 great.

12 MR. DAUGHERTY: -- and not try to

13 cover every one of them. Roger Daugherty

14 again.

15 But and I know my first comment

16 also deals with a later slide where you talk

17 about those which are to be excluded. And

18 this is a general comment on definitions as to

19 how the titles of items are labeled. And for

20 example, you and I said this is later but it

21 is a good example, you offer a definition of

22 submersible electric motor for the purpose of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 51

1 excluding that type of motor.

2 What appears to be in conflict is

3 that there is a requirement in 431.2 that if

4 those definitions are included in 431.12 of

5 covered equipment and electric motors being

6 covered equipment, then 431.2 requires any

7 electric motor that is defined in the 431.12

8 is covered equipment, it would therefore imply

9 its standards apply.

10 There is some precedence in the

11 present definitions where DOE did not define

12 NEMA Design B electric motors but instead

13 defined a NEMA Design B motor. So that

14 possibly the condition of 431.2 then did not

15 apply because there was not a definition of an

16 electric motor as a type.

17 Then there was the association

18 between the NEMA Design B motor as being

19 following those which fell into the subclass

20 subtypes I and II as then being covered by

21 standards.

22 So it is just a caution of when
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 52

1 you use the term "electric motor" as part of

2 the definition.

3 Most of the other comments deal

4 more with DOE's interpretation of maybe what

5 the common meaning of things are and

6 especially if I refer to the NEMA MG1

7 standard.

8 For example, if we go to

9 encapsulated electric motors, then NEMA would

10 like to point out that that definition which

11 DOE proposes for encapsulated electric motors

12 and attributes to MG1 1.27.2 is actually a

13 based on the NEMA definition of a machine with

14 sealed windings.

15 A definition of a machine with

16 encapsulated windings was in MG1 back at 1967

17 but that definition was replaced in later

18 years with a definition of a machine with

19 moisture-resistant windings so that today

20 there is no definition in MG1 of a machine

21 with encapsulated windings.

22 The other issue here is that in
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 53

1 using the title encapsulated electric motor,

2 it tends to imply that the motor is

3 encapsulated, not that the item that we are

4 talking about is that the windings are

5 encapsulated.

6 So it is trying to clarify those

7 kind of things and they will certainly be in

8 the written comments of those particular type

9 of things.

10 Another one that I think becomes

11 very important in many of the new scope of

12 covered products deals with a discussion in

13 PTSD and I think it is in two different

14 chapters and that has to do with component

15 sets and partial motors and that the

16 definition that DOE has proposed for component

17 set states that these parts may consist of any

18 combination of stator frame, wound stator,

19 rotator, shaft, or endshields.

20 If you take that list as a whole,

21 that list describes a complete electric motor

22 but lacking just bearings. So I don't think
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 54

1 it is the intent of DOE to classify a complete

2 motor as a component set. And so again, we

3 are looking to try to help DOE clarify exactly

4 what a component set is.

5 We suggest that if it is defined

6 as a combination of motor parts that require

7 more than the addition of two endshields to

8 create an operable motor, then that will be a

9 workable definition. And the reason we

10 propose that definition has to do with our

11 discussion of the partial motor, which is

12 defined as one that requires the addition of

13 two endshields.

14 So a component set would require

15 more than the addition of the parts that are

16 added to a partial motor to make it a complete

17 motor.

18 So those are just a couple of

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

20 a lot of detail on some of the other

21 definitions.

22 You will find a couple
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 55

1 clarifications in the petition that we propose

2 a modification of the DOE proposed definition

3 to be more in harmony. So you will also find

4 it in the petition.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Roger. 

6 Those clarifications are helpful.

7 Yes, John.

8 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski,

9 Baldor Electric. I think I am speaking on

10 behalf of NEMA in this. 

11 William you do a good job of

12 listing a lot of things here, as far as motor

13 types. You mention IEC Design N but you have

14 eliminated IEC Design H, which is the

15 equivalent to a NEMA Design C. You might

16 consider adding that to your list.

17 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

18 MR. MALINOWSKI: You refer to it

19 in the report in Chapter 2.

20 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

21 MR. MALINOWSKI: The other part

22 here that on the partial electric motor, one
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 56

1 of the things we have tried doing is adding

2 all of these motors into covered product

3 because there are companies that are trying to

4 get around energy standards by modifying their

5 motors.

6 Partial electric motor is a case

7 where we as motor manufacturers would sell

8 incomplete motors, typically a stator and a

9 rotor set to another company. And in some

10 cases, that other company would complete that

11 into a product that should be a covered motor. 

12 And we would urge the DOE to add some notes

13 where that company that is doing the

14 conversion must register the motor with DOE

15 and get their compliance certificates and such

16 in line. We think that may be a

17 misunderstanding in the marketplace.

18 And then again we liked the

19 statement that was in Appendix A regarding

20 inverter-capable motors. The DOE had a

21 statement that said a Design A or B motor is

22 not an inverter duty motor just because it is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 57

1 run on an inverter. It is still a covered

2 product under the rules.

3 So adding something back into the

4 regulation, you know, just emphasizing that. 

5 In the marketplace, people would like to see

6 inverter duty put on -- or inverter capable

7 put on there. But to have that excluded would

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

9 you will.

10 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

11 MR. MALINOWSKI: We want to

12 eliminate loopholes in the new regulations.

13 MR. KOHSE: All right.

14 MR. MALINOWSKI: Thank you.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, John.

16 MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler with

17 Nidec Motor Corporation. A couple of

18 comments. On the chart with the air-over

19 motor we note the test procedure revision is

20 not necessary. And I think the answer would

21 be that is necessary. There is no test

22 procedure for an air-over because we don't
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 58

1 know that the air supply would be.

2 The other one would be that you

3 have included in this the integral brake motor

4 and I think you will note in our petition that

5 while we considered the integral brake motor

6 for quite a while, we have had a lot of

7 discussion amongst the members of the

8 coalition. We have concluded that it is a

9 very, very small number of units and the units

10 that are sold are all predominantly very low

11 horse power. So the connected horse power is

12 a very small number. And our conclusion was

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

14 worth to go through and try and sort through

15 what the losses would be with an integral

16 brake motor with the brake attached. And it

17 would slow down the process of implementing. 

18 So we will recommend it in the petition to

19 remove that.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

21 MR. KOHSE: Roger, I will just

22 clarify right quick -- I'm sorry -- Rob.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 59

1 So air-over electric motors we

2 don't have a test procedure revision for that

3 because we don't plan to include it in the

4 expanded scope of coverage.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: I saw both Frank

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

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

8 start, since I misnamed you?

9 MR. BASSO: All right, thank you. 

10 Dale Basso. The concern was maybe that test

11 procedure heading. Does it mean -- is it one

12 sentence or is it two sentences? Test

13 procedure meaning one exists and revision

14 necessary is a second question or is it --

15 MR. KOHSE: It is one sentence. 

16 So does DOE feel that a test procedure

17 revision would be necessary for this motor

18 were it to be subject to standards?

19 MR. BASSO: So I think in that

20 case probably several would be wrong because

21 it is assuming there is a test procedure in

22 place. And in the case of, as Rob said, air-
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 60

1 over, there is no definition for the amount of

2 air on the test procedure.

3 MR. KOHSE: Right.

4 MR. BASSO: And immersible motors

5 are really nothing more than a fan-cooled

6 motor. So again, the definition of saying --

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

8 sure why. So we probably would have more

9 comments about that.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

11 Frank?

12 MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne,

13 Underwriters Laboratories.

14 While UL supports the incremental

15 scope expansion, UL agrees and supports the

16 statement of our colleague from the American

17 Council for an Energy Efficient Economy in

18 that far better clarity of intent and less

19 ambiguity should be realized through making

20 the statement that all motors except those

21 specifically excluded are intended to be

22 covered. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 61

1 As the scope and definitions

2 continue to expand, it would seem that

3 navigation and interpretation of intent

4 becomes increasingly complex.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Got you. Okay,

6 thank you. Rob and then back to Roger.

7 MR. BOTELER: I just had one

8 comment that I noticed on the document. We

9 have got to be careful with our terms because

10 we have "test procedure" as the term. And

11 several of us have had conversations amongst

12 the coalition and with DOE that we are really

13 not talking about changes to test procedures

14 as much as just to the test configuration. 

15 When we look at some of the incremental

16 product, the expanded scope of product, we are

17 never changing going away from the IEEE or the

18 CSA test procedures or test methods. All we

19 are really looking at is some minor mechanical

20 changes to the configuration, so that the

21 product can be mounted to a dynamometer and

22 tested using the existing test procedures
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 62

1 within the regulation.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Got you. So those

3 specifics would be very helpful to the

4 Department. Thank you.

5 Roger.

6 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

7 I was just going to follow up on

8 the statements with regards to the totally

9 enclosed air or the air-over machines. While

10 it is true that you have to be able to specify

11 what the air flow air, the other significant

12 problem in doing the test is many times that

13 motor is connected with a fan and that is

14 enclosed in a particular enclosure which helps

15 to control that air flow that goes over the

16 motor, according to the arrangement in the

17 application.

18 So bringing that motor in and

19 trying to put it on a dynamometer and simulate

20 all its real operating conditions is the big

21 problem, not just having air flow but it is

22 getting everything correctly.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 63

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

2 Michael Kido.

3 MR. KIDO: I just have a couple of

4 quick follow-up questions. With respect to

5 that type of air-over condition for that type

6 of motor, are there any assumptions that could

7 be applied in applying, for example, those

8 types of conditions and then factoring that in

9 to calculate what the overall efficiency of

10 the motor would be?

11 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

12 Well, certainly from the

13 standpoint of the manufacturer with his design

14 analysis programs, then he works with the

15 customer who has his particular application

16 and can calculate what the fan performance is,

17 what the load is going to be on the motor,

18 assumes that the temperature of the motor is

19 going to be controlled. And within that

20 temperature range that the [manufacturer]

21 expects, he could calculate an efficiency

22 using his AEDM.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 64

1 The real aspect is whether then

2 when the customer gets that in a prototype

3 testing situation that he verifies that he has

4 the right amount of flow, that the

5 temperatures are staying where he expected

6 them to be and everything is operating

7 correctly. So there is a good deal of follow8 up that would go. But back at the design

9 stage, yes, we calculate and try to determine

10 what the efficiency is going to be in the

11 actual application. However, there may be

12 instances where this motor that we are talking

13 about, because it may have a very high air14 flow stream over it, the power density in the

15 motor may be significantly different than it

16 would be in a NEMA Design B.

17 It may also not have to meet the

18 performance requirements of a NEMA Design B,

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

20 and what energy it takes to start the fan up. 

21 So it could dip under locked rotor torque

22 required for Design B, so it can't be a Design
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 65

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

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

3 range of these are the common characteristics

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

5 place.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Neal, I think John

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

8 Neal.

9 MR. MALINOWSKI: Yes, this is John

10 Malinowski at Baldor. What I was going to

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

12 motor and it might be totally enclosed or an

13 open motor, that motor goes in the application

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

15 tunnel fan motor. It has the fan mounted to

16 it and we supply the motor in most cases with

17 temperature-monitoring thermocouples where the

18 customer can run it in application and measure

19 the temperature rise to make sure that we are

20 in compliance there and certainly monitoring

21 power input and such, he can determine

22 efficiency in the application.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 66

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Neal, please.

2 MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott. I

3 guess, Michael, what I would say is as we

4 discussed this within our coalition, these are

5 specialty products and they are really sort of

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

7 for a particular client for a particular

8 application. They represent a minute number

9 of the motors sold out there. I think this is

10 one of those that we thought fairly clearly

11 was suitable for exclusion, simply because it

12 is not a lot of savings. Their trying to do

13 testing, trying to do certification for a

14 product that is not an off-the-shelf type

15 product just didn't make sense from a resource

16 perspective. So we had recommended in our

17 petition that we exclude this motor.

18 MR. KIDO: And just a quick follow

19 up to that, would the same rationale apply to

20 the exclusion of any of the brake motor

21 variants, integral brake motor, external brake

22 motors?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 67

1 MR. BROOKMAN: I see, Dale. 

2 Please.

3 MR. BASSO: I think brake motors

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

5 way that as manufacturers we feel we can come

6 up with a number that is close to what we are

7 looking for. Our biggest concern really comes

8 down to the verification testing. If

9 something is covered, you have to be able to

10 verify it in a third-party lab situation. And

11 brake motors, we have really struggled with it

12 because even though we think we can build a

13 premium efficient type brake motor, it comes

14 down to being able to test down to the

15 tolerances allowed, the actual efficiency of

16 that motor in a laboratory condition without

17 the brake losses being considered.

18 So it is really, it is something

19 we have tried to figure out how to address but

20 it really falls into the exclusion and becomes

21 not quite worth the effort to gain the

22 efficiency.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 68

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Neal Elliott.

2 MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott again,

3 following up on Dale Basso's comment.

4 One of the things I think that is

5 worth sort of keeping in mind here is this

6 issue of enforcement and testing. You know,

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

8 number from an energy savings standpoint. 

9 This adds to the complexity and diminishes

10 administrability of the law. And so that is

11 why we can get just the exclusion of these

12 products has been the best interest.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Did you say your

14 name is Mano?

15 MR. AGAMLOH: Emmanuel Agamloh.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Emmanuel, okay.

17 MR. AGAMLOH: Yes, I wanted to

18 come back to the air-over motors and also the

19 brake motors. I think that there are

20 assumptions that can be made and there have

21 been attempts in the past, especially for

22 small motors, single phase motors to make
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 69

1 assumptions as far as air-over motors are

2 concerned to test them based on the

3 temperature rise. It is more complicated, I

4 think, for integral motors primarily because

5 of the testing that has been used, which is

6 based on loss segregation.

7 So for regulatory purposes, it

8 would not be a repeatable process if you make

9 such assumptions. So I think it would be very

10 complicated to make assumptions for that case.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank?

12 MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne,

13 Underwriters Laboratories.

14 I think when we start talking

15 about air-over motors we are now going into

16 the realm that one of my colleagues made in

17 the opening statements that we need to start

18 thinking more in terms of system efficiencies

19 because it is really very similar to the

20 situation you encounter when you take a half

21 horsepower motor, you can test it and certify

22 that the motor is going to produce
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 70

1 efficiencies in the mid- to high 90 percent. 

2 But if it is not properly matched in size and

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

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

5 that you are going to see those kinds of

6 differences with making assumptions with air7 over motors but I think it is more of a system

8 issue than it is anything else.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

10 Final comments on these issues

11 listed in the scope of coverage because we are

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

13 MR. KOHSE: Okay, great. So that

14 takes us to the next table and this table

15 lists motor types which DOE considered

16 including in the expanded scope of coverage

17 but is no longer planning to cover them

18 because many of them present what DOE would

19 consider insurmountable testing difficulties

20 when testing with either IEEE Standard 112B or

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

22 this list, component sets and submersible
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 71

1 motors from the motors previously mentioned.

2 Another example is liquid-cooled

3 electric motors. It requires a separate and

4 external cooling means, very similar to air5 over electric motors. And DOE feels like that

6 would present insurmountable testing

7 difficulties or testing configurations, as we

8 said earlier.

9 Other motor types in this list may

10 remain not subject to standards because they

11 don't meet all the criteria listed. Back in

12 slide 25, for example, intermittent duty

13 motors, they are not continuous duty rated. 

14 Single phase motors don't operate on polyphase

15 power.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: We have comments

17 from both Dan and Roger and also Robert. So

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

19 yet, Dan. Go ahead.

20 MR. DELANEY: I'll go. Dan

21 Delaney, Regal-Beloit. I just wanted to ask

22 a question and ask for clarification on your
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 72

1 number one there on the totally enclosed air2 over. You have that obviously identified as

3 totally enclosed and the prior document we

4 just reviewed being the air-over designation

5 there. I wanted to understand from your

6 perspective if there was a difference there. 

7 It is not defined as totally enclosed air8 over.

9 MR. KOHSE: Right. So and I guess

10 that is my fault. This table is not up-to11 date with regards to that heading. It should

12 just be air-over motors. Part of this stems

13 from the decision to look at air-over motors

14 with both open frames and totally enclosed

15 frames. So by saying just air-over electric

16 motor, DOE is trying to be a little bit more

17 comprehensive in the motor types that it

18 captures that heading.

19 So this totally enclosed, those

20 words would probably drop off of this list.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert.

22 MR. WILKINS: Thank you. Robert
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 73

1 Wilkins.

2 I would urge the DOE to consider

3 adding for the sake of reducing or avoiding

4 ambiguity or misunderstanding, add hermetic

5 motors or motors for hermetic compressors to

6 this list. And the reason is that these

7 motors are integral parts of compressors. 

8 There is a rotor and a stator that is

9 inherently designed into the compressor and

10 optimized together with the compressor

11 performance. So just simply measuring the

12 motor performance is almost meaningless.

13 And furthermore, these devices are

14 ultimately applied in products that are

15 covered by the DOE, unitary air conditioning,

16 for example, chillers. So the end product is

17 covered, which obviates the need to have the

18 subsidiary components covered and it would

19 just add unnecessary work with little or no

20 benefit.

21 But I do think it would be useful

22 just to eliminate the ambiguity by making that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 74

1 explicit on this list.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger, John has a

3 follow-on. John.

4 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski,

5 Baldor. That is a good point. However, is

6 that covered under component sets?

7 MR. KOHSE: Yes, it sounds a lot

8 like a component set of a motor.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks. Robert, go

10 ahead.

11 MR. WILKINS: It's Robert again. 

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

13 in a sense it is component sets but it is such

14 a big sector that it could be --

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger?

16 MR. WILKINS: Or you might say,

17 Robert, again, component sets including

18 hermetic motors is another way of doing it.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Clarifications are

20 helpful. Roger, go ahead.

21 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

22 We certainly agree with your comment about the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 75

1 difficulty of testing liquid-cooled but that

2 is similar to the air-over situation that the

3 reason that motor is liquid-cooled is

4 generally that it is into a requirement that

5 requires a very high-power density. So you

6 are very restricted on size. And as we have

7 heard and read a lot in previous rulemakings

8 and through this PTSD, size carries a lot of

9 weight in trying to determine what efficiency

10 you can reach.

11 But it is just a point of

12 clarification. It is not only a testing

13 problem. It is again an application-related

14 power density relation problem and trying to

15 get to the same level of efficiencies that you

16 are wanting for a normal general purpose

17 design A and B motors is just not a practical

18 thing to accomplish.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

20 MR. KOHSE: Okay, great.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: We do have one more

22 additional comment. Please use the microphone
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 76

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

2 microphone and make sure it is turned on. Use

3 the microphone right there. Yes, thank you. 

4 Is it turned on? Tap it.

5 MR. RUFFING: Steve Ruffing

6 speaking on behalf of NEMA.

7 In the joint petition that Neal

8 alluded to in his opening statement, there is

9 an additional recommendation that integral

10 brake motors be included on this list of

11 excluded motors.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

13 MR. KOHSE: Okay, so well here is

14 a comment slide. We have already taken

15 comment on a lot of the exempted motor types

16 that are not included motor types. Is there

17 any additional comment, especially with

18 regards to I know you said integral brake

19 motors but any other motor types that should

20 be included in that list? Okay.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: John, please.

22 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 77

1 Baldor talking on behalf of NEMA. 

2 NEMA Design D motors seem to be

3 omitted from this.

4 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: And Jim Raba just

6 clarified over here that the list is for not

7 covered. Correct?

8 MR. KOHSE: Correct.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Just to make sure

10 that is clear.

11 Okay, final comments on this and

12 then we are going to move on.

13 MR. KOHSE: John, you are

14 suggesting that NEMA Design D motors be put on

15 this list?

16 MR. MALINOWSKI: Yes, they are not

17 covered now. They shouldn't be.

18 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger.

20 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

21 Not to counteract my colleague but if you put

22 it on an exclusion list, then you have to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 78

1 define it. And you have been pretty clear of

2 this listed characteristics that are common to

3 all this additional scope of product being

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

5 B and C.

6 So isn't it rather obvious that

7 Design D is not covered?

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew deLaski.

9 MR. DE LASKI: Just to follow on,

10 I think I agree with Roger on this. I think

11 what needs to be excluded are things that fall

12 within the scope of your definition on back to

13 slide whatever it is, slide 25.

14 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

15 MR. DE LASKI: So if you are not

16 within those bullet points, and D clearly is

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

18 exclude it.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: So John --

20 MR. DE LASKI: It just has to do

21 with structure. It is the same point. It

22 just has to do with how you structure what has
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 79

1 to be defined.

2 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

3 MR. MALINOWSKI: I understand it

4 from that aspect but --

5 MR. BROOKMAN: John.

6 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski.

7 I understand it from that aspect but we all

8 know that somebody perhaps from Europe or

9 wherever is going to be looking at this

10 legislation and looking for whether Design D

11 is covered or not. And if we can make it

12 obvious that it is not covered, it would be

13 better for enforcement.

14 MR. DE LASKI: And just to follow

15 on to that, this is Andrew again, that just

16 strikes me as belonging in the guidance

17 somewhere.

18 MR. MALINOWSKI: Somewhere.

19 MR. DE LASKI: It is a guidance

20 thing. It is not a regulation. It is

21 guidance.

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

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 80

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

2 MR. KOHSE: Right and DOE is

3 planning to provide guidance which lists all

4 these motor types that would not be covered

5 and which ones would be covered.

6 MR. DE LASKI: And I think to the

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

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

9 go to the trouble of negotiating over the

10 definition so it will expedite the process.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Provided there is

12 guidance.

13 MR. DE LASKI: Provided there is

14 guidance, yes.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good, that

16 was useful discussion there. Meg.

17 MS. WALTNER: And just to follow

18 on that point, there is a bit of inconsistency

19 between the list on slide 25 or I guess

20 redundancy we should say --

21 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

22 MS. WALTNER: -- between the list
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 81

1 on slide 25 and slide 28 now. So just

2 clarifying for example, slide 25 already

3 clarifies that it is a single speed motor and

4 then you list multi-speed on slide 28.

5 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

6 MS. WALTNER: So just

7 crystallizing that.

8 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, good. So

10 let's go.

11 MR. KOHSE: Great. Okay, so

12 moving on. Now to discuss the new test

13 procedure rulemaking, test procedure NOPR that

14 DOE is developing in parallel with this

15 standards rulemaking.

16 The new test procedure rulemaking

17 will address new definitions and any

18 additional test procedure guidance language or

19 test procedure configuration language, which

20 it believes will be necessary to test these

21 motor types.

22 Now I should mention that DOE is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 82

1 not planning to modify either the IEEE or CSA

2 C390 test methodologies themselves but is only

3 planning to issue additional guidance

4 language, configuration language, or

5 preparatory setup steps that would allow the

6 motor to either be attached to a test bench or

7 a dynamometer or to allow the motor to operate

8 as a general purpose motor so that it may be

9 tested.

10 DOE has initiated discussions with

11 various motor testing labs and industry

12 experts concerning the difficulties of testing

13 some of these motor types, as well as how to

14 get around those difficulties.

15 Discussions with these interested

16 parties indicated that many of these motor

17 types could be tested using current DOE

18 accepted test methods with minor testing

19 configuration steps.

20 For example, DOE may issue

21 guidance that would allow a testing lab to

22 machine a custom endplate and provide a deep-
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 83

1 groove radial ball bearing that would allow a

2 partial motor to operate as a general purpose

3 motor so that it may be tested.

4 Alternatively, DOE is also

5 considering the possibility of allowing the

6 original motor manufacturer to supply the

7 endplate and necessary bearing component. So

8 again, that the partial motor could be tested

9 as though it were a general purpose motor.

10 The supplementary handout

11 discusses more of these additional test

12 configuration steps that DOE is considering so

13 that all of these motor types may be tested in

14 repeatable, manageable, and consistent

15 manners, using currently accepted DOE test

16 procedures.

17 So I know we have kind of looked

18 at some of the test configuration steps but if

19 there is any additional comments on these

20 steps, specifically the test procedure

21 configuration steps.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: We have begun to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 84

1 cover that. Roger, please.

2 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

3 Rather than go into detail here, I just note

4 that that was considered in the submittal of

5 the petition and that you will find in

6 Appendix B of that petition some recommended

7 arrangements to be able to test various types

8 of these additional scope products.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

10 Additional comments related to

11 test procedure modifications that perhaps may

12 not be in that appendix that was referenced. 

13 Any additions? No? Nothing additional? 

14 Okay.

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

16 move on from the discussion of scope expansion 

17 and continue with the market and technology

18 assessment discussion picking it back up with

19 the discussion of how DOE divided covered

20 motor types into its equipment classes.

21 When DOE amends energy

22 conservation standards, it often divides
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 85

1 covered equipment into classes by statute. 

2 These classes are based on the type of energy

3 used, the capacity of the equipment, or any

4 other performance-related feature that

5 justifies different standard levels such as

6 features affecting consumer utility.

7 So DOE breaks down its scope of

8 coverage into three equipment classes by the

9 utility of the motor design. Equipment

10 classes are important because each equipment

11 class ultimately gets its own standard. DOE

12 placed electric motors into three equipment

13 class groupings or ECGs based on three NEMA

14 design types. The equipment class groupings

15 include a group that contains both NEMA Design

16 A and B motors, a second separate group for

17 NEMA Design C motors, as well as a third and

18 final group for fire pump electric motors. 

19 Within each of these groups, there are

20 equipment classes, which are based on all

21 combinations of horsepower rating, pole

22 configurations, and enclosure type. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 86

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Just pause there. 

2 Roger, go ahead.

3 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

4 The industry has quite a bit of concern about

5 this equipment class and the way it is being

6 defined. The reason is the DOE is also under

7 another rulemaking in which an NOPR was issued

8 this year concerning AEDMs.

9 And in that NOPR, it was DOE's

10 proposal, and realize this NOPR covered more

11 than electric motors. It covered all kinds of

12 other products in the application of AEDM.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you spell

14 that out for us, AEDM?

15 MR. DAUGHERTY: AEDM is the

16 alternative efficiency determination method. 

17 As it applies to electric motors, it is

18 generally a design program that the engineer

19 uses to design the motor, calculates the

20 efficiency so that he knows that when it goes

21 into production that he gets the efficiency

22 that he expects to get and that it will be in
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 87

1 compliance.

2 That AEDM is substantiated in

3 those requirements in 431.17 in 10 CFR, once

4 he has substantiated that he can use it for

5 the purpose of certification of product.

6 So the issue is that over in the

7 other rulemaking process, the DOE has proposed

8 that that AEDM must be substantiated for each

9 and every equipment class to which it is

10 applied. Now, the way DOE is proposing and

11 using the definition of equipment class in

12 this rulemaking is equivalent to what in

13 431.12 is the definition of rating, under

14 which present certification compliance

15 certificates are submitted to the Department

16 of Energy.

17 So you are introducing a new

18 identifier to an existing term that has been

19 in place since 1999 and is covered by the

20 labeling and certification requirements that

21 are spelled out in 431 and now we have this

22 significant concern of saying that an AEDM
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 88

1 that presently we can substantiate that that

2 AEDM is applicable to the complete line of

3 products from one to 500 horsepower, two,

4 four, and six-pole open and enclosed under all

5 of the subtype I types and subtype II types. 

6 The other rulemaking is proposing, I would

7 have to substantiate the AEDM down to the

8 point that I am talking about a 200 horsepower

9 two-pole open motor. It totally defeats the

10 whole purpose of the AEDM. And it is a

11 significant benefit if you were not using

12 equipment class over in this rulemaking in

13 creating a problem with the other rulemaking.

14 And we have submitted a great deal

15 of comments to the other rulemaking and our

16 concerns about this but we recommend and have

17 suggested in those comments that induction

18 motors are recognized as, [for lack of] a

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

20 substantiated against this total class of

21 induction motors, whether it is a one

22 horsepower polyphase induction motor two-pole
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 89

1 or it is a 500 horsepower. Basically, it is

2 the same technology is used in the components. 

3 They only differ in size and arrangement. So

4 the calculation of efficiency and losses is

5 not that different between the sizes.

6 So it is of our interest to try to

7 be certain that we don't create a problem in

8 this rulemaking that introduces a lot of

9 difficulty with the AEDM rulemaking going by

10 a different group within DOE, as I understand

11 it.

12 In the small electric motor

13 rulemaking, you just used the term called

14 efficiency level. You didn't use the term

15 equipment class. So I have noticed that there

16 is a lot of dissimilarities between this

17 rulemaking on what seems to be very similar to

18 what went on in the small electric motor

19 rulemaking.

20 So we want to encourage that

21 rating is presently well understood and that

22 you would not now go using that rating as the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 90

1 definition and confusing it with equipment

2 class, that you consider whatever nomenclature

3 that you wish to use, that through this

4 rulemaking it is identified that induction

5 motors are one, large, single class and that

6 somehow we can get that point over into the

7 AEDM rulemaking process.

8 So we need to request that you are

9 aware of what is going on in multiple

10 rulemakings that are going on simultaneously

11 at the present time. Thank you.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thanks

13 a lot.

14 So I want you to finish with the

15 presentation and then we will take additional

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

17 I do not believe.

18 MR. KOHSE: Okay, so here we see

19 the details of the three ECGs, as well as the

20 number of unique equipment classes in each

21 ECG. There are 514 discrete equipment

22 classes, which account for every permutation
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 91

1 of horsepower rating, pole configuration,

2 frame enclosure, and NEMA design type. Note

3 that Design C motors are only covered up to

4 200 horsepower and also lack the two-pole

5 configuration coverage. This is because NEMA

6 MG1-2011 does not define Design C motors above

7 200 horsepower or at the two-pole

8 configuration.

9 So here we see the 2011 market

10 details of the equipment class groupings by

11 units shipped per NEMA design type. DOE used

12 its own research paired with NEMA-supplied

13 data to generate these numbers. 

14 The shipment numbers include motor

15 types that DOE is planning to include in the

16 expanded scope of standards. DOE uses this

17 information to focus its attention on the

18 market segments with the highest quantity.

19 The numbers show that NEMA Design

20 B motors have, by far, the highest shipment

21 volumes with the proceeding highest numbers

22 being NEMA Design A followed by NEMA Design C
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 92

1 and finally fire pump electric motors, which

2 have the lowest shipment volume.

3 This data is also important in the

4 national impact shipments as well as the

5 manufacturer impact analyses which are all

6 discussed later in this presentation.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Pause there. 

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

9 MR. KOHSE: So after the market

10 assessment, DOE conducts a technology

11 assessment which recognizes potential

12 technology options which may improve

13 efficiency for the electric motor types

14 covered in this rulemaking. Energy efficiency

15 losses are grouped into five main categories

16 which are stator I2R losses, rotor I2R losses,

17 core losses, friction and windage losses, as

18 well as stray load losses.

19 Designers have to balance the five

20 basic losses in order to optimize the various

21 motor performance criteria. There are

22 numerous tradeoffs that have to be considered. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 93

1 Efficiency is only one parameter that has to

2 be met and reducing one loss may increase

3 another, as well as what may be desirable on

4 a four-pole motor may not be desirable on a

5 two-pole motor.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes?

7 MR. BISHOP: Tom Bishop, a minor

8 comment.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Microphone.

10 MR. BISHOP: I'm sorry. Tom

11 Bishop. One minor comment but increased

12 copper wire diameter should be increased

13 copper wire area.

14 MR. KOHSE: Okay.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes,

16 Andrew?

17 MR. DE LASKI: Andrew deLaski. We

18 seem to be shifting to a technology

19 engineering so I want to come back to the

20 shipments because it seemed like a different

21 topic.

22 So in the shipments, could you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 94

1 describe a bit more, Will, sort of how you

2 developed these estimates? You said you used

3 the Department's own methodology. So I am

4 curious what was entailed with your sources.

5 MR. KOHSE: Right. So actually

6 Lawrence Berkeley National Lab developed a lot

7 of the shipment data. So I may well have to

8 have Sanaee chime-in on this.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Get to a

10 microphone, please.

11 MS. IYAMA: Sanaee Iyama with the

12 Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.

13 So actually we worked with the

14 data that we received from the motor coalition

15 and we reviewed this data against data we

16 collected through a market research report

17 from IMS research and we combined -- so this

18 report provided shipments data across

19 different categories of AC induction motors

20 but didn't necessarily fit the scope, the

21 expanded scope that DOE considered in the

22 analysis. So we combined that IMS research
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 95

1 data with breakdowns between the different

2 categories of shipments that are considered in

3 the scope. And our estimated shipments data

4 was very close and agreed with what the

5 stakeholders had submitted. So we ended up

6 using the data provided by the motor

7 coalition.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes,

9 sufficient? Yes. Rob, please. Thank you.

10 MR. BOTELER: Yes, your numbers

11 are pretty close to what we submitted and I

12 would just ask are all of the expanded scope

13 covered in your numbers? So you are including

14 partial motors? You are including three15 quarter motors, gear motors, all of the

16 various categories?

17 MS. IYAMA: Sanaee Iyama. Yes.

18 MR. BOTELER: You are. You are

19 including them all. Because I think the IMS

20 numbers, the numbers that I saw were actually

21 a little more than ours. I think we came up

22 with 5.2 million. Their estimate was over
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 96

1 six.

2 MS. IYAMA: So again, we adjusted

3 those numbers because in the IMS research,

4 they include all the AC induction motors, no

5 matter the frame size, no matter the NEMA

6 design. So we readjusted those numbers with

7 estimates of how many AC induction motors are

8 NEMA Design B. Like how much of the total AC

9 induction motors are NEMA Design B motors, how

10 much of these are continuous duty. So we

11 disaggregated the IMS research data into

12 different categories and then we only

13 considered the ones that DOE wanted to add in

14 the expanded scope.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: And so to just to

16 confirm, what the Department is describing as

17 potentially being covered, that is what you

18 analyzed.

19 MS. IYAMA: Right. So the

20 shipment numbers that we see on this slide

21 represent the motor shipped that correspond to

22 the expanded scope that Will just described.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 97

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Great, Rob.

2 MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler again. 

3 And you did include then imbedded motors that

4 are imported into the country, imbedded in

5 other pieces of equipment.

6 MS. IYAMA: Correct.

7 MR. BOTELER: Okay.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Rob,

9 keep going, yes.

10 MR. BOTELER: One more. In the

11 final expanded scope that we submitted, which

12 is 5.2 million, we did add 56-frame polyphase

13 enclosed motors with similar operating

14 characteristics to the 140-frame. So that

15 would maybe explain why our numbers are

16 higher.

17 MS. IYAMA: Correct. And I think

18 those were estimated to about a million.

19 MR. BOTELER: Correct. Correct.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Great, thank you. 

21 Okay, that was good zeroing in there.

22 MR. KOHSE: Okay, so I just wanted
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 98

1 to add that different companies utilize

2 different approaches for minimizing motor

3 losses and DOE analyzed motor tear-downs to

4 determine which combination of the displayed

5 methods manufacturers may have used to

6 increase the efficiency of their motors and

7 took this into account in the next step, which

8 is the screening analysis.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: So let's pause

10 there. I see both Roger and Robert. Go

11 ahead, Robert.

12 MR. WILKINS: Thank you. I would

13 like -- Robert Wilkins -- just to comment on

14 this chart.

15 I don't know exactly what it leads

16 to but technology options is a little bit

17 misleading to me because it is more about

18 technology or design tradeoffs. And a couple

19 of items for example, rotor I2R losses. Yes,

20 you can increase the conductivity of the rotor

21 bar. You can switch materials. You can

22 change the air gap and enlarge or make a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 99

1 smaller air gap but these all have tradeoffs

2 to other design considerations, like the

3 speed-torque relationship and you might have

4 the most efficient motor in the world but it

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

6 where this goes but if we are going to discuss

7 it in this context, maybe we ought to have a

8 third column that illustrates the tradeoff or

9 the design compromises the design engineers

10 estimate.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

12 MR. WILKINS: Thank you.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger.

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

15 I was just going to say DOE took that into

16 account and the modeling that we did we

17 verified that modeling data with, I guess,

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

19 locked rotor current on the software-modeled

20 motors.

21 So we tried to take into account

22 the balance that all these technology options
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 100

1 have to have in order to make an operable

2 motor.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Roger.

4 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

5 On that list under core losses,

6 you state "select lamination with less watts

7 per pound." I know that you are aware of

8 submittals during the small electric motor

9 rulemaking and you refer to that in this PTSD

10 of that type of an assumption, and that DOE

11 went forward with that same assumption and

12 continued it in this PTSD. Just by choosing

13 some electrical steel that happens to have an

14 Epstein characteristic of having less watts

15 per pound at a particular flux density level

16 means that you can then successfully use that

17 in an electric motor to reduce core losses and

18 that those core losses will change by that

19 relationship given to the Epstein loss.

20 Now the data that you submitted

21 during the small electric motor rulemaking

22 that you refer to did not support that. And
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 101

1 that was test data of prototypes built using

2 different types of electrical steel that

3 reported to have very low loss per pound. It

4 didn't work out when it was put into an

5 electric motor. You didn't get what was

6 expected and it actually ended up with more

7 core loss than this electrical steel that was

8 normally used.

9 Now in this PTSD, we will be

10 submitting comments and I won't go into all

11 the detail here, but is a different kind of

12 example of a manufacturer specifying to

13 various steel lamination for material

14 manufacturers to purchase electrical steel

15 according to the same specification and then

16 built prototypes from receiving electrical

17 steel from two different manufacturers,

18 manufacturing prototypes of two different

19 ratings, multiple prototypes, not single

20 prototypes, conducted the testing based on

21 Epstein test.

22 The Epstein test would have told
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 102

1 you let's say if we identify them that steel

2 type B was better than steel type A. But when

3 it was put into an electric motor, steel type

4 A turned out to be better than steel type B. 

5 The point is that the simplified

6 analysis the DOE describes in the PTSD only

7 discusses any current loss in hysteresis loss,

8 which are those characteristics that are

9 measured in the Epstein testing. And again,

10 not to get too deep into this, but there are

11 other losses in a machine that appear in the

12 air gap and the flux level that is imposed on

13 that electrical steel, which is not accounted

14 for in Epstein testing.

15 There are also characteristics of

16 stray load loss when the machine is loaded

17 down that has an effect and is affected by the

18 type of electrical steel. So while this

19 manufacturer went out whole-heartedly, was

20 getting the same electrical steel from two

21 different suppliers, say for building up

22 inventory whatever in research, it was found
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 103

1 that even that, depending on how that steel

2 manufacturer manufactured his steel, then he 

3 got different levels of losses.

4 And what was said to be good by

5 Epstein test was not the preferred electrical

6 steel when it was put in an electric motor.

7 And that was the same information

8 that was supplied in the small electric motor

9 rulemaking where it actually compared

10 different types of electrical steel and showed

11 the same thing. You can't depend on Epstein

12 test data to make a determination as to how

13 that electrical steel is going to perform in

14 a motor.

15 So the motor industry was very

16 encouraged by reading a comment in a PTSD that

17 DOE fully intended to look into building

18 prototypes by which it could make a

19 determination that by adapting some of these

20 technology options, that it could be proven

21 out. And we certainly encourage that DOE go

22 ahead with those prototypes.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 104

1 MR. KOH SE: Thank you. I will

2 just add that we considered Epstein testing

3 but what we actually used for our software

4 model motors was a grade of electrical steel

5 that was not above the highest grade

6 electrical steel that we saw from motor tear7 down, which I believe was M36. So we didn't

8 actually end up using Epstein testing to

9 develop our software model numbers.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: In this slide 36,

11 you see the type of motor losses identified in

12 the technology options, also identified

13 additional comments on what you see in this

14 table. Because we are due for a break.

15 And we should take a break. It is

16 now almost ten minutes to eleven. We will

17 take a 15-minute break, which means we will

18 resume at five after eleven. Don't anybody go

19 anywhere yet.

20 We got a really good start on the

21 day. You must wear this badge visible inside

22 the Department of Energy. There are restrooms
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 105

1 on both ends of the hall. There is a coffee

2 shop on the ground floor. Go quickly -- 

3 sometimes they are stacked up down there --

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

5 see you back here then.

6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

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

8 resumed at 11:09 a.m.)

9 MR. BROOKMAN: So starting back

10 up, I thought the morning conversation was

11 very, very helpful and I appreciate everybody,

12 the breadth and depth of the comments and now

13 we are going to proceed with screening

14 analysis.

15 At the same time, the Department

16 has prepared, as I mentioned earlier, a

17 photocopy of business cards of the individuals

18 that are here in the room. We are going to

19 pass those around and we are going to hear

20 back from William on screening analysis.

21 MR. KOHSE: All right. Okay, so

22 in the screening analysis DOE removed
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 106

1 technology options that it will not consider

2 in the engineering analysis. DOE evaluates

3 technology options on four criteria. These

4 criteria are technological feasibility,

5 practicability to manufacture, install and

6 service, adverse impacts on equipment utility

7 or availability to consumers, whether or not

8 there are any impacts on health or safety. 

9 Technology options which fail any of these

10 criteria are screened out of the analysis.

11 So this slide discusses some of

12 the technology options that were screened out

13 for the analysis. Amorphous magnetic steels

14 are non-crystal alloys characterized by high

15 magnetic permeability and high electrical

16 resistance. Amorphous steels could

17 potentially be used to replace the standard

18 electrical steels currently used in motors so

19 that they may help reduce core losses and

20 minimize eddy current losses. However, they

21 are also thin and brittle, making it difficult

22 to cut and machine the material into shapes
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 107

1 suitable for electric motor cores.

2 While some prototypes have been

3 developed using amorphous core material, DOE

4 is unaware of any polyphase induction motors

5 that use amorphous core technology. 

6 Therefore, DOE does not believe this option is

7 likely to be technologically feasible at this

8 time.

9 The next technology is called

10 plastic bonded iron power, or PBIP, which is

11 based on an iron powder alloy that is

12 suspended in plastic and then shaped into

13 electric motor components using a centrifugal

14 mold. Potential advantages of this technique

15 include lower core loss, a reduced number of

16 production steps, and increased efficiency. 

17 However, DOE is not aware of any polyphase

18 induction electric motors that have been

19 prototyped using this technology. Therefore,

20 it does not consider this option to be

21 technologically feasible and has also screened

22 it out of the analysis at this time.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 108

1 So we will pause here for a second

2 and open the floor to any comments on PBIB or

3 amorphous steel technology in electric motors,

4 including any such efforts that are underway

5 or prototypes that may be under development.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger Daugherty.

7 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

8 We certainly agree with the exclusion of those

9 two particular types of technology as not

10 passing the screening criteria. However, at

11 this time, it is noticeable that you omitted

12 from your presentation the inclusion of cast

13 copper rotors as meeting all four screening

14 criteria.

15 And I will try to keep this brief

16 and there will be a lot of detail in the NEMA

17 comments that will be submitted. In trying to

18 examine this issue of cast copper as

19 applicable to motors with one to 500

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

21 and enclosed enclosures of what DOE has

22 estimated would need to be available for
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 109

1 approximately five million cast copper rotors

2 available for production beginning in 2016 to

3 be in compliance if efficiency standards were

4 established on that basis. So we went back

5 and tried to find how DOE could have

6 successfully screened cast copper rotors as

7 being a viable technology to meet that need. 

8 First we looked at production in

9 the United States for NEMA Design B electric

10 motors manufactured with cast copper rotors,

11 manufactured in the United States. We

12 couldn't find any. We looked and noted that

13 DOE had said that cast copper rotors were

14 being used in present products. The only

15 products that we could find were manufactured

16 outside the United States.

17 We located two manufacturers

18 making such products. Manufacturer A, in

19 looking over those products, only made four20 pole motors, only made ratings for one to 30

21 horsepower. None were Design B, they were all

22 Design A. None of those of course were being
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 110

1 made in the United States.

2 We looked at the second

3 manufacturer who has a product line

4 manufactured outside the United States and

5 while theirs covered from one to 20

6 horsepower, there were some gaps. There were

7 some missing frame sizes within those ratings

8 where there were no cast copper rotors. But

9 again, it was limited to 20 horsepower. There

10 were no eight-poles included in those

11 availability products.

12 And if you look, and this will get

13 more toward their scaling issue, but I will

14 mention it now, if you look at the change in

15 efficiency level that was obtained, if you

16 look at two-poles, it was not consistent. 

17 Half of them attained two NEMA bands, higher

18 efficiency. Half of them attained three. If

19 you looked at the four-poles, they only

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

21 again there was a dispersion of what level

22 efficiency is attained. Okay and that, as I
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 111

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

2 DOE scales things by assuming it is common

3 across all pole numbers.

4 So that is the only scope of

5 products that we could find and couldn't see

6 how someone took that very limited scope and

7 made an assumption that at the end of 2015,

8 that technology was going to be applicable to

9 the full range of product we are talking

10 about.

11 Carrying feasibility a little bit

12 further than the simplified statement that DOE

13 says that they follow, we examined two recent

14 technological feasibility studies that were

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

16 began a study in 2004 on ten horsepower four17 pole motors to make an examination as to

18 whether or not it was technically feasible

19 using manufacturing processes in the United

20 States.

21 As a result of that study, their

22 first attempt in the first ones they designed
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 112

1 had very poor results. So they worked on

2 refining the process to try to get better

3 results. At the conclusion, they did have a

4 ten horsepower four-pole motor that had a

5 slightly higher level of efficiency, the NEMA

6 premium. That study concluded basically with

7 that result. There was no sort of any

8 industry support. It was all that study. 

9 But that study did recommend that

10 they needed to investigate higher horsepower. 

11 So in 2007, they began another study looking

12 into a 75 horsepower two-pole motor. And the

13 purpose of that motor was a replacement for an

14 existing motor at Fort Bragg. So it had both

15 an application assigned to it where they could

16 test it out in real operation, as well as

17 seeing if they could get higher efficiency. 

18 At the same time, they had an available

19 replacement motor from the market cast

20 aluminum rotor that had an efficiency level of

21 95.0, I believe it was. 

22 So their design goal was they had
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 113

1 to beat that. So this group of electric motor

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

3 was really familiar with trying to cast copper

4 rotors and various other support groups tried

5 to design a 75 horsepower two-pole motor that

6 had higher efficiency than available in the

7 marketplace.

8 To say the results were

9 disappointing is putting it very mildly. The

10 efficiency that they obtained was

11 substantially lower than the cast aluminum

12 motor that they could purchase as a

13 replacement but they did go ahead and they put

14 that motor in place.

15 So the only study that I know of

16 that has looked into higher horsepower motors

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

18 the Army and it was not successful in making

19 a determination that this process is

20 technologically feasible for motors up into

21 that horsepower, let alone larger horsepower

22 ratings.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 114

1 Then you also have your second

2 requirement is the practicality to

3 manufacture, install and service. And that

4 requirement states if mass production of a

5 technology and commercial products and

6 reliable installation and servicing of the

7 technology could be achieved on a scale

8 necessary to serve the relevant market at the

9 time of the effective date of the standard,

10 then DOE will consider that technology.

11 I put it to the DOE to be able to

12 demonstrate that that technology will be

13 available for mass production on such a scale

14 in the United States to support the range of

15 products that would be impacted by that

16 technology.

17 The third is adverse impacts on

18 product utility or product availability. In

19 this case, we have heard and you can read in

20 the PTSD problems, and you heard them earlier

21 this morning, of it is not so easy to make

22 changes in motor design to achieve efficiency
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 115

1 without the impact it has on a lot of the

2 other performance requirements.

3 So when you look at a lot of this,

4 and especially into the increased scope

5 products, going to cast copper rotors could

6 make those products unavailable to the market. 

7 You have not satisfied condition three in

8 terms of utility and availability.

9 The fourth item is adverse impacts

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

11 they referred to it and have been made aware

12 of it, that one reason cast copper rotor

13 technology is not in use by manufacture in the

14 United States is you cannot purchase the cast

15 copper casting machinery. And if you do a

16 little research, you will find why that

17 manufacture withdrew that equipment from the

18 market. 

19 So you have successfully screened

20 and passed cast copper rotor technology as

21 completely technologically feasible over all

22 this product range, practical to manufacture
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 116

1 as mass manufacturing effective January first

2 -- actually December 20, 2015, should

3 standards be based on that, that it would have

4 no adverse effect on product utility or

5 product availability and it would have no

6 adverse impact on health and safety trying to

7 work with this very high molten metal

8 temperatures.

9 It is NEMA's contention and the

10 industry's contention that DOE was improper in

11 successfully screening this technology for

12 application in electric motors and that this

13 technology should be used over to the list of

14 technologies that were screened out and that

15 the PTSD should remove any engineering

16 analysis that is based upon the use of cast

17 copper technology. It cannot have

18 successfully passed screening.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

20 MR. KOHSE: We will take those

21 comments into consideration.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Are there other --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 117

1 yes, Michael Kido.

2 MR. KIDO: Just a real quick

3 clarifying question. Those two reports that

4 you cited, are those reports that NEMA can at

5 least provide the citations to so we can track

6 those down a little more easily or are those

7 things that you have in hand that can be

8 submitted for the record?

9 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

10 I would expect the Department of Energy -- or

11 the Department of the Army had some identifier

12 assigned to them, so we can try to find what

13 that identifier was to provide you a

14 reference.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. It is

16 Ed?

17 MR. BRUSH: Ned.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Ned, please say

19 your name.

20 MR. BRUSH: Ned Brush,

21 representing the Copper Development

22 Association, consultant to them.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 118

1 I am a metaler, just by

2 background, who was part of the team that

3 developed the die casting of copper. I worked

4 with Siemens, for instance, which was one of

5 the companies that Roger has just mentioned. 

6 They completely did a redesign optimized for

7 copper because as Roger indicated, there are

8 many factors there and when you change the

9 conductivity of the conductor and the

10 induction rotor, you are on a different place

11 in the torque curve, for instance. So you

12 have got to do a lot of things that are

13 different from the traditional die cast

14 aluminum rotors.

15 Siemens quite successfully has

16 entered that business and commercialized it in

17 February of 2006, I believe. So they have one

18 through 20 horsepower available, two-, four-,

19 six- and some eight-pole. They manufacture in

20 Mexico with a manufacturing cell, as well as

21 in Germany for IEC frame sizes and the frame

22 market.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 119

1 So I think it is feasible. We

2 worked with them. They have resolved a whole

3 range of the issues that we dealt with in the

4 development process. SEW-EURODRIVE has been

5 using it. There are some manufacturers of

6 die-cast rotors supplying other people,

7 including I think Danfoss as well as Grundfos

8 and so on, FAVI in France, Breuckman in

9 Germany. We have a number here in the United

10 States that have also supplied at least

11 moderate quantities but Siemens produces for

12 itself in Mexico.

13 So there is some feasibility

14 there. It is not of a scale that we are

15 talking about the five million units available

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

17 think it is technologically feasible. It has

18 been demonstrated and now it is production by

19 people like Siemens and SEW-EURODRIVE.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: So you will submit

21 those as written comments?

22 MR. BRUSH: Yes, we will.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 120

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Ned.

2 Okay, Roger.

3 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

4 Yes, as I stated in my comments,

5 we recognize that the technology was being

6 used in a very limited scope of product. But

7 the screening criteria should be based up on

8 all the electric motors that you are talking

9 about. It does not serve the industry for DOE

10 to base efficiency standards of certain

11 particular ratings in this whole grouping on

12 one type of technology, other ratings on

13 another technology, and other ratings on

14 another group of technology. Industry doesn't

15 work like that.

16 And so my comments were when you

17 look at the full scale requirement as defined

18 in the screening criteria in reference to the

19 total scope or product we are talking about,

20 then it is difficult to understand how you

21 successfully pass the screening process.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So can you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 121

1 go to slide 38? The next slide.

2 Yes. So I just want to get

3 additional and perhaps final comment on

4 technology options that were screened out. 

5 Any additional comments here before we move

6 on?

7 Let's hear from this gentleman and

8 then back to Roger. Please say your name.

9 MR. SCHUMANN: Tim Schumann with

10 SEW-EURODRIVE. 

11 With reference to the copper

12 rotors, yes we do market those globally, even

13 here in the United States. It is not on a

14 full-scale basis. Our premium efficient line

15 only offers three models. It is very limited

16 due to the cost, the expense incurred. The

17 trouble we go through to cast those copper

18 rotors is very difficult and it is not

19 something we market on a full-scale basis.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

21 Roger.

22 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 122

1 I would like to direct your

2 attention now away from cast copper rotors and

3 give you an example of a technology that I

4 know we sit here and we talk about and you

5 used in your analysis. It sounds like it has

6 been in use for a long time but maybe it needs

7 a re-screening because of the scope to which

8 you are talking about applying it. And that

9 is hand winding. Over the past 30 to 40

10 years, the emphasis on winding stators has

11 been to move to as much automated winding as

12 possible. So while certainly hand winding

13 existed before automated winding and hand

14 winding exists today in those which may not be

15 in technically mass production, whatever mass

16 production is.

17 My point is, that when you really

18 consider hand winding and you are looking at

19 slot fills in making your engineering analysis

20 that would force potentially, if the standards

21 were based upon slot fills based upon hand

22 winding and moving to hand winding, a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 123

1 reversing a 30-year trend to the industry

2 toward automation and putting it back into

3 hand winding.

4 The infrastructure that would have

5 to be created and put in place to have all

6 those hand winders available on December 20,

7 2015 and if you consider the well-known

8 adverse impacts on health and safety that are

9 related to repetitive operations because now

10 you are talking about a very significant

11 increase in manpower or womanpower, whichever

12 you wish, who are working with their hands and

13 installing these windings, so if you look at

14 it does have an adverse impact on health and

15 safety.

16 So I toss it out to DOE to really

17 consider maybe you should have examined hand

18 winding when you are talking about applying it

19 on such a scale as you are talking about in

20 looking at higher efficiency standards. Thank

21 you.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 124

1 before we move on? Yes, Rob.

2 MR. BOTELER: Yes, Rob Boteler,

3 just to pick up on the hand winding. The

4 other thing that we all know will happen if

5 that technology was necessary is we as global

6 manufacturers would be forced into low-cost

7 countries in other to meet the requirements. 

8 And pretty much all of us sitting at the table

9 are now globally positioned to do that without

10 a whole lot of difficulty.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

12 Okay, we are going to move on.

13 MR. KOHSE: Okay, so that brings

14 us to the end of the screening analysis and we

15 will move on to the engineering analysis.

16 The purpose of the engineering

17 analysis is to develop a relationship between

18 the efficiency of an electric motor and the

19 manufacturer's selling price or MSP for that

20 particular unit. Also, the engineering

21 analysis evaluates the design options that

22 improve efficiency and uses these options when
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 125

1 modeling higher efficiency motors.

2 The cost efficiency outputs of the

3 engineering analysis are then used downstream

4 for the lifecycle of costs and payback period

5 analyses, as well as the national impact and

6 manufacturer impact analyses.

7 So this slide shows some of the

8 key steps that DOE followed in the engineering

9 analysis. First, DOE identified

10 representative units for analysis within each

11 equipment class grouping which were developed

12 in the MTA. Then DOE purchased, tested, and

13 tore down models representing increased

14 efficiency levels for each representative

15 unit.

16 DOE verified nameplate and NEMA

17 design performance criteria by testing models

18 using IEEE 112-B, as well as lock rotor

19 current testing.

20 Next, DOE used a motor modeling

21 expert to create higher efficiency motor

22 designs. DOE then developed candidate
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 126

1 standard levels or CSLs, based on torn down

2 motor efficiency as well as software modeled

3 motor efficiency. The CSLs are used to

4 identify specific levels of efficiency which

5 are used in the analysis.

6 Next, DOE developed cost inputs

7 such as material prices, markups and labor

8 hours. Finally, DOE scaled the results from

9 the representative units to the unanalyzed

10 equipment classes. DOE uses scaling because

11 there are 514 permutations of horsepower

12 ratings, pole configurations, and frame types,

13 and individually assessing each combination

14 would not have been feasible.

15 So this slide shows some of the

16 NEMA design type horsepower ratings, pole

17 configurations, and frame enclosure types for

18 the representative units of each equipment

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

20 horsepower representative unit to represent

21 all motors in equipment class group one. For

22 equipment class group two, DOE used a five and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 127

1 a 50 horsepower representative unit to

2 represent all motors. Finally, DOE based the

3 analysis of equipment class group three on the

4 analysis of equipment class group one. And

5 therefore, the analysis of fire pump motors is

6 based on the same representative units that

7 were used in equipment class group one.

8 DOE chose these representative

9 units by analyzing catalogue efficiency data

10 to find horsepower ratings that were

11 sufficiently spread out among all

12 representative unit efficiencies. For

13 equipment class group one, which are NEMA

14 Design A and B motors, DOE chose a five

15 horsepower motor to represent all motor

16 permutations from one to ten horsepower. DOE

17 chose a 30 horsepower motor to represent all

18 motor permutations from 15 to 50 horsepower. 

19 And lastly, DOE chose a 75 horsepower motor to

20 represent all permutations above 60

21 horsepower.

22 Note that all of the selected
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 128

1 representative units have a TEFC enclosure as

2 well as a four-pole configuration. DOE chose

3 motors with these characteristics because they

4 are the most popular design options for the

5 motors addressed in this rulemaking.

6 So this colorful graph is a visual

7 representation of the motor horsepower ranges

8 and their representative equipment classes. 

9 Now, in addition to looking at efficiencies,

10 DOE also looked at the "D" dimensions of frame

11 designations in an effort to pick motor types

12 that were evenly dispersed throughout the

13 range of "D" dimensions.

14 The "D" dimension is the length

15 from the center of the shaft to the mounting

16 feet of the motor and determines the NEMA

17 motor frame designation.

18 The bold colors indicate the

19 actual motor horsepower rating analyzed by DOE

20 and the lighter shade regions of the same

21 color are the equipment classes that were

22 indirectly analyzed through these
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 129

1 representative units. Note that for NEMA

2 Design C motors, DOE chose a five horsepower

3 motor to represent motors from one to 20

4 horsepower and a 50 horsepower motor to

5 represent motors above 25 horsepower -- sorry

6 -- 25 horsepower and above.

7 So I will stop here for a second

8 and open the floor to any comments regarding

9 the selected representative units.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger.

11 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

12 As you are fully aware in the

13 comments on the framework document, NEMA

14 submitted a recommended group of motors as at

15 least a minimum list to look at for both

16 engineering analysis and the test analysis. 

17 Very few of those motors made it into your

18 criteria. You based everything on four-pole

19 motors.

20 In the PTSD, you discount the

21 importance of pole configuration by failing to

22 understand that based upon that pole
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 130

1 configuration there is a different

2 relationship between the amount of material

3 and the size of the rotor relative to the

4 stator, that the rotor diameter grows as the

5 pole number increases. That has a significant

6 impact on the distribution of losses between

7 the stator windings and rotor cage and the

8 stray load loss and the core losses.

9 You failed to seem to understand

10 the difference between in two-pole motors

11 there may be a greater proportion of friction

12 and windage loss related to those than there

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

14 So while the proportion of losses

15 that you seem to concentrate on trying to

16 minimize in the stator winding, in the core,

17 in the rotor cage, you don't really address

18 what happens when you go to the two-pole motor

19 and now the friction and windage becomes a

20 higher proportion of your total. And so all

21 your minimization on the ones you have

22 concentrated on may not give you the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 131

1 efficiency increase that you saw in the four2 pole. Similarly for the six- and eight-pole.

3 You failed to differentiate the

4 difference between open motors and totally

5 enclosed fan-cooled. NEMA MG1 in Part 13

6 establishes a table of the standard horsepower

7 assignments given to particular frame size in

8 open motors. There is also a corresponding

9 table for totally enclosed fan-cooled. If you

10 compare those two tables, for the same rating

11 and pole number, you will generally find that

12 there is a difference in frame size between

13 the motor of that rating in open compared to

14 enclosed. And in many cases, you will find

15 that there is a difference in frame series;

16 that what may be in a 180 frame series in one

17 for that rating is in a 210 frame series for

18 the other rating in the other configuration.

19 So the purpose of why NEMA

20 supplied the list that it supplied was to try

21 to encourage that you did examine those

22 characteristics and how things change between
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 132

1 as a pole configuration and how they change as

2 an enclosure configuration. But you failed to

3 do that in making your choice that you were

4 only going to concentrate on four-pole types

5 of machines.

6 The other is that other sides in

7 your PTSD where you talk about selecting the

8 ratings, you have a chart based upon total

9 shipments of motors in which your chart shows

10 that the five horsepower motor had the highest

11 level of shipments. You based your selection

12 of the five horsepower, according to the PTSD,

13 on that five horsepower which had the highest

14 shipment, that shipment of units. If you had

15 changed your chart so it recognized that

16 different units had different horsepower

17 levels and different energy use, then in your

18 chart the ten-horsepower motors have

19 approximately an eight percent shipment.

20 In your paragraph where you talk

21 about choosing the five horsepower, you say it

22 has a 15 percent. Well eight percent shipment
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 133

1 at ten horsepower is more energy use than 15

2 percent at five horsepower. So had you

3 examined in terms of energy use, and the whole

4 goal here is energy savings, then it questions

5 whether or not you made an appropriate choice,

6 based on only looking at shipments.

7 You contain a statement that in

8 selecting the 75 horsepower motor that you

9 looked at the largest frame size. But in your

10 chart where you identify the frame size, that

11 frame size is two frame sizes lower than the

12 largest frame series. Again, that is why NEMA

13 encouraged that one of the motors that NEMA

14 suggested was higher than 75 horsepower.

15 You also make the observation and

16 in your chart that you presented here, the

17 efficiency tended to flatten out as you got

18 into higher levels of horsepower. If you were

19 to recognize that flattening, you may have

20 recognized the difficulty of getting those

21 higher horsepower ratings up to higher

22 efficiencies. But if you base your
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 134

1 conclusions on those motors where it may be

2 easier in your analysis to arrive at the

3 higher horsepower levels and then you use that

4 as your scaling factor and say it applies all

5 the way to 500, in reality you may have

6 created a situation that is not achievable

7 with the technology under which you analyze

8 and said it was achievable.

9 So again, NEMA had a very good

10 reason and tried to explain those reasons when

11 it submitted those ratings, enclosures, and

12 pole numbers that it recommended that you

13 include. It doesn't mean you had to only

14 include those. Those were just a recommended

15 starting point. And we certainly encourage

16 that you go back and that you look at if you

17 had looked at those ones that NEMA had

18 recommended, would you have achieved the

19 efficiency gains that you observed here on the

20 five, 30 and 75 horsepower. So do those three

21 really represent for proper application of

22 your scaling criteria, do those three really
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 135

1 properly represent the total scope of product

2 that we are talking about?

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Do we have

4 additional comments on choosing representative

5 units? Anything additional? Yes, please.

6 Microphone and your name again.

7 MR. RUFFING: Steve Ruffing

8 speaking on behalf of NEMA. Is the microphone

9 working properly?

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, that's good.

11 MR. RUFFING: NEMA also has a

12 concern with the plan to base the possible

13 amended energy conservation standards for fire

14 pump motors off of the analysis of the Design

15 B equipment class. The reason being that

16 there are additional requirements for fire

17 pump motors that don't apply to standard

18 Design B motors.

19 In the National Electrical Code,

20 it specifies that fire pump motors, the

21 circuit protection for fire pump motors shall

22 be able to withstand locked rotor or overload
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 136

1 currents indefinitely and only short-circuit

2 currents should trip it and a similar

3 statement appears in the National -- NFPA 20,

4 National Fire Protection Association 20.

5 So the fallout of that is that a

6 fire pump motor is required to withstand the

7 currents, the locked rotor currents under

8 stall conditions for a significantly long

9 period of time, potentially.

10 Motor designs that are suitable

11 for that need to have lower levels of locked

12 rotor amps and those lower levels of locked

13 rotor amps then tend to be conducive to lower

14 efficient motor designs.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

16 Final comments on representative units? Okay.

17 MR. KOHSE: Great. Okay, so the

18 table we see here illustrates the four

19 efficiencies represented by the four motors

20 that DOE purchased, tested, and tore down for

21 the representative units of equipment class

22 group one. Note that DOE included in its
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 137

1 analysis unregulated motor types that it is

2 considering for inclusion in the expanded

3 scope of coverage. Therefore, some of the

4 purchased motors have efficiencies below the

5 currently allowable federal standards, which

6 are EPACT 1992 levels or also NEMA Table 12-11

7 levels.

8 For equipment class group two,

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

10 only able to purchase representative units at

11 the EPACT 1992 efficiency levels and this was

12 due to the low available product selection for

13 NEMA Design C motors, namely, Design C motors

14 that were below EPACT 1992 levels.

15 So here we see a sample bill of

16 materials for a NEMA Design B five horsepower

17 motor tear-down. DOE conducted tear-downs on

18 the purchased motors to determine design and

19 material changes that the motors exhibited as

20 they increased in efficiency. DOE measured

21 and recorded material weights and conducted

22 metallurgical analysis on the electrical steel
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 138

1 in order to determine the grade of steel used.

2 DOE uses the bill of materials to

3 develop a materials cost, an important input

4 when calculating the MSP discussed later in

5 the analysis.

6 Hardware, insulation material, and

7 bearing component costs were kept constant

8 across incrementing CSLs and the frame

9 material costs were scaled based on the stack

10 length of the motor.

11 So I will hold here and open the

12 floor to any comments regarding the approach

13 DOE used to develop the materials costs input,

14 namely, whether or not hardware, material,

15 frame material, or insulation have a heavy

16 impact on the efficiency of a motor.

17 DOE then conducted software

18 modeling to represent --

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Hang on second. 

20 Dale, go ahead.

21 MR. BASSO: This is Dale Basso.

22 A question. As you are doing the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 139

1 material analysis, I see it talks about the

2 tear-down but did you do electrical tests on

3 all of these motors to verify the

4 characteristics before evaluating the

5 materials?

6 MR. KOHSE: Could you -- you mean

7 like locked rotor current?

8 MR. BASSO: Like making sure that

9 they actually met the locked rotor, what their

10 actual efficiency was because there is a

11 tolerance allowed.

12 MR. KOHSE: We did. We performed

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

14 then we also did locked rotor current testing

15 on them to make sure that they met all of the

16 nameplate details that the motors had. So we

17 verified that they were in fact NEMA Design B

18 motors or NEMA Design C motors.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Roger

20 Daugherty.

21 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

22 I guess I was interested in
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 140

1 whether or not -- I know here you only talk

2 about materials cost. But in trying to go

3 from one CSL level to another, how did you

4 account for whether or not a change in

5 material had other costs associated with it? 

6 Because I noticed that in Figure

7 5.6 and the other figures that refer to

8 manufacturer's selling price which DOE

9 calculated, it is not necessarily the real

10 selling price, that when you went from level

11 CSL 3 to 4, which was a change in basically

12 electrical steel type and core length, and

13 corresponding stator winding and rotor cage,

14 there was a very significant increase in cost

15 from around $375 to $525. But when you

16 replace the aluminum with copper, the increase

17 in changing to that new technology, everything

18 that is encompassed in trying to cast that

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

20 So how -- do these numbers that

21 you came up with, are they just purely based

22 upon the fact that in one of the motors your
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 141

1 aluminum went from two pounds and you ended up

2 using nine pounds of copper. And you said

3 that copper was 2.7 times the cost of aluminum

4 at the time you did the study. Was that the

5 total basis of the increase in selling price

6 related to changing from aluminum cast rotor

7 to a copper cast rotor?

8 MR. KOHSE: So we did use a

9 different overhead markup when we switched

10 from aluminum rotors to copper rotors and that

11 accounts for most of that price difference.

12 We found out from a strictly

13 materials standpoint, although copper costs

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

15 aluminum. So there is a little bit of the

16 price differential is balanced out by that. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: I see John has a

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

19 Navigant.

20 MR. NARDOTTI: This is Matt

21 Nardotti. Yes, the answer is yes. We simply

22 -- it is based -- the MSP that we calculated
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 142

1 in the engineering analysis is just based on

2 the costs of the materials.

3 You know the costs that

4 manufacturers would incur to change their

5 production lines, those costs for capital

6 conversion would be accounted for in the

7 manufacturer impact analysis, which we will

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

9 that we calculate in this analysis is strictly

10 based on the material costs.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: John, follow-on. 

12 MR. MALINOWSKI: I'll wait until

13 we get into it later.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Great okay, back to

15 Roger, then.

16 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

17 But as a follow-up, though,

18 somewhere you came up with the motor costs and

19 the incremental costs to do the LCC analysis. 

20 Are you telling me that that doesn't include

21 any additional costs that would be the real

22 cost to the user of trying to get a motor that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 143

1 is of the change in technology?

2 MR. BROOKMAN: This is Matt. Go

3 ahead.

4 MR. NARDOTTI: So the LCC analysis

5 takes as inputs the outputs of the

6 engineering. So yes, just the MSPs that we

7 calculate in the engineering based on just the

8 materials cost.

9 Again, this additional cost would

10 have to be considered in the MIA.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: John.

12 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski,

13 Baldor. I expect we will cover this in more

14 detail later but even CDA will admit that to

15 use a copper rotor machine correctly, the

16 whole lamination set has to be retooled to

17 optimize the use of the efficiency of the

18 copper rotor. So we are going to have

19 complete costs of new lamination dies,

20 progressive stamping dies, retooling of our

21 winding equipment, as well as however we are

22 going to cast these rotors and those are
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 144

1 significant costs.

2 We stated before and we looked at

3 it again that to retool the line between 140

4 and 440 frame is somewhere in the 80 million

5 dollar range for two-pole, six-pole, eight6 pole. And we have gone back and looked at

7 those numbers again and those are real

8 numbers. We can break those down. We will

9 break that down in our written comments. And

10 that doesn't include the incremental

11 engineering cost to change 100,000 plus specs. 

12 We will get into that more when we get into

13 section seven. But you know, your cost

14 assumptions are grossly incorrect. When we

15 were doing interviews we said these things are

16 not scalable and you used scale and made some

17 assumptions that are grossly wrong.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

19 Have we covered this now? We have covered it,

20 yes? Okay, we are moving on.

21 MR. KOHSE: Okay. DOE then

22 conducted software modeling to represent motor
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 145

1 efficiencies that were not commercially

2 available for purchase. DOE utilized

3 different design options to increase motor

4 efficiency within higher CSLs. DOE also used

5 tear-down and motor testing data in order to

6 correlate its software to ensure an accurate

7 modeling platform.

8 This slide shows some of the

9 design options that DOE utilized in order to

10 create higher efficiency designs.

11 So I will stop here again and take

12 comment on this slide concern the design

13 options or modeling used to improve the

14 efficiency of software model motors.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Dale first, then

16 Roger.

17 MR. BASSO: This is Dale Basso. I

18 just had a question on when you talked about

19 burying the stack length. Did you have limits

20 based on motors that you had torn down of what

21 you limited, the maximum overall length of the

22 stack and the coil heads to be or did you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 146

1 allow them to expand beyond current envelopes?

2 MR. KOHSE: So we did base it on

3 some catalogue data. We looked at tear-down

4 data, you know, measured the stack length. 

5 And then we looked at the overall length of

6 the motor and came up with a ratio of stack

7 length to length of the motor. And then we

8 looked at catalogue data of I believe it was

9 the "C" dimension of motors, the overall

10 length of a motor and applied that ratio from

11 the tear-downs through that catalogue "C"

12 dimension and kind of came up with a

13 theoretical maximum stack length that we used

14 for software modeling.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay? John

16 Malinowski.

17 MR. MALINOWSKI: Yes, John

18 Malinowski, again.

19 Again, we get back into slot fill

20 issues, slot fill of 82 percent is about the

21 technological maximum for machine winding. 

22 You had some slot fills that are above 85
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 147

1 percent, which our manufacturing people,

2 showing them that, they are skeptical that you

3 could actually do that in hand winding. 

4 Certainly, it would be very difficult to do

5 that in volume production of five million

6 motors.

7 And again to Dale's point,

8 everything you did was modeling. You have not

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

10 is hypothetical.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

12 MR. BOTELER: Yes, just picking up

13 on that, we had this discussion during the

14 small motor rulemaking is the AEDM used by the

15 Department, was it one that had gone through

16 the same scrutiny as the manufacturer's go

17 through where we have submitted our 25 samples

18 to correlate our estimated computed data with

19 actual test data.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Roger?

21 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

22 I also have a question on the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 148

1 software, but that is in relationship at the

2 present time to the test data. So you have

3 purchased a variety of motors. You tested a

4 variety of motors. I am assuming that you

5 have modeled that variety in the software. In

6 making the comparison between software and

7 test, did you compare the calculated

8 efficiency to the test efficiency or the

9 calculated efficiency to the nominal

10 efficiency?

11 MR. KOHSE: So Howard Jordan did a

12 lot of our software modeling and that may be

13 a question I will have to ask him but we did

14 correlate -- you know, we did remodel the torn

15 down motors in his software. And I believe he

16 looked at tested motor efficiency when

17 comparing the two. But that is something I

18 will have to follow up with you about.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Follow-on, Roger.

20 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

21 I guess I will ask what probably

22 should have led up to that. So just bear with
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 149

1 me and I will try to keep this short.

2 But you make a comment that DOE

3 selected that they only had to purchase one

4 motor of each to test, to use that test

5 results to assist them in their analysis,

6 confirmation of the design and their software. 

7 DOE cites that the reason for that is because

8 they tested in accordance with 431.16 and that

9 they did not have to test in accordance with

10 431.17.

11 The only thing that is in 431.16

12 is testing shall be done in accordance with

13 Appendix B to Subpart B. And Appendix B to

14 Subpart B says first that efficiencies shall

15 be determined in accordance with NEMA MG1 and

16 then in accordance with IEEE 112 or CSA

17 standards. Okay, that is all that is there;

18 how to do the test and get an efficiency

19 value.

20 DOE then, through -- and this is

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

22 example as to the impact of only testing one. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 150

1 And I know that Rob has already alluded to the

2 small electric motor rulemaking and every time

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

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

5 I tried to think of a good example

6 that I could bring when I realized the most

7 perfect example I could think of is in Chapter

8 5. And in Chapter 5 for that 30 horsepower

9 four-pole motor, DOE went out and based upon

10 I assume catalogue data at the time, they were

11 looking for a motor that had a 93.6 percent

12 efficiency. They purchased that motor, it was

13 marked on the nameplate at 93.6. They did the

14 test. The test came in at 94.2 in some odd

15 figure.

16 DOE made a conclusion that that

17 motor can't be 93.6, that it was improperly

18 marked and that it was really 94.1 and,

19 therefore, they threw out the test results and

20 substituted a software model for that motor.

21 It is interesting that the reason

22 given for throwing it out, the most supporting
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 151

1 reason given was because they went to a

2 website and they found 94.1 percent on the

3 website. So despite the catalogue, despite

4 the actual marking on the motor, the website

5 ruled and was the basis for throwing it out.

6 Now if we look at the way it

7 should have progressed, at least in the

8 industry's opinion, if you followed all the

9 rules and understood NEMA MG1 and the rules

10 that are in 431, you would have gotten that

11 motor. You tested the motor in accordance

12 with 431.16. You were now faced with this

13 problem 94.2 percent versus a nameplate of

14 93.6. You go back to NEMA MG1, definition of

15 NEMA nominal efficiency that is marked on the

16 nameplate or you go to 431.12's definition. 

17 Those two differ in only one important word

18 and that is the word "large" before population

19 is missing in the DOE definition. However,

20 that definition merely says that the NEMA

21 nominal efficiency that is marked on the

22 nameplate shall not be greater than the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 152

1 average efficiency of the large population of

2 motors.

3 Okay, fine, 93.6. You tested

4 94.2. There is no indication that 93.6 is not

5 a proper marking. Your test data so far

6 supports that the average of the population

7 based upon one is above what is marked. It is

8 in conformance with the MG1 standard. It is

9 in conformance with 431.12.

10 If you go to 431.17 is the only

11 place that you have guidance to make a

12 determination as to whether or not the sample

13 passed screening criteria to make a

14 determination if it was representative of the

15 total population.

16 In 431.17, the guideline is

17 whether or not the average of the sample, in

18 this case we only have one, the average must

19 be it, that it has an efficiency value that is

20 not less than the marked efficiency, nameplate

21 efficiency, plus five percent additional

22 losses. So it is a slightly lower than
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 153

1 nameplate. Obviously, 94.2 passed that

2 criteria. 

3 The other criteria is that no

4 motor out of the sample have an efficiency

5 that is lower than that based on 15 percent

6 additional losses. Obviously, we passed that

7 requirement. That is not a problem.

8 If we were really looking at this

9 from the enforcement viewpoint and this goes

10 back to around 1994, for those of you who were

11 around in 1994, Appendix A to Subpart U uses

12 a 20 percent criteria, instead of 15. The

13 reason it uses 20 is because of a NEMA round

14 robin that was done and agreement between

15 Department of Energy and NIST and NAVLAP and

16 manufacturers that part of the NEMA minimum

17 associated with a nominal value recognizes a

18 variation in test facilities that result in

19 test.

20 So DOE took away five percent in

21 certification, assuming the manufacturer did

22 all his testing in the same facility. Added
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 154

1 in the five percent when it comes to testing

2 in some facility that the manufacturer didn't

3 test in to allow for this variation. So we

4 passed that requirement. No problem.

5 If we look at the LCL requirement

6 that is Appendix A to Subpart U, we have to

7 have a determination of our sample as

8 appropriate size. Well, you can't do that

9 when you have got a sample of one. There is

10 no standard deviation and you can't apply the

11 rule. It won't apply.

12 If you go to NEMA MG1, Table 12-10

13 the DOE refers to in the PTSD, there is an

14 associated minimum with each nominal. 

15 Associated with that value of 93.6 is a

16 minimum that is two NEMA bands below that. 

17 Well, we are talking about a statistical

18 population where nominal represents the peak

19 of the distribution. Just as likely as you

20 could have a motor that was down two NEMA

21 bands below the nominal, you could have a

22 motor that is two NEMA bands above the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 155

1 nominal. Two NEMA bands above 93.6 is 94.5. 

2 The motor as tested meets all guidance and all

3 rules the DOE has written and is in accordance

4 with the NEMA MG1 standard.

5 So now the problem is that DOE is

6 faced with a motor that they tested and

7 purchased as a NEMA Premium motor CSL 2 that

8 had an efficiency level above the one they

9 purchased for CSL 3. How can that be? Well

10 maybe the manufacturer had a good day. He had

11 all the best materials, the best processes and

12 everything and he ended up with a motor that

13 met the criteria. But the point is that

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

15 was representative of that product. So DOE

16 threw that one away and substituted a software

17 model.

18 If we look at some of the others,

19 it even becomes more interesting because DOE

20 went out and purchased an 89.5 percent

21 efficient motor for one of their other designs

22 and it tested at 88.5. DOE had no concern
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 156

1 about that, that it was a whole NEMA band

2 below what the nameplate was. But they were

3 concerned when they were a NEMA band above. 

4 So they didn't throw that one out and replace

5 it.

6 And the reason I asked about the

7 software program and what comparison was being

8 done was that in all of the charts of data

9 related to CSL levels, the efficiency that is

10 carried forward in those tables are the NEMA

11 nominal efficiency values. They are not test

12 data values. So for the motor that had the

13 tested efficiency of 88.5, DOE concluded no,

14 that is really 89.5. And this tear-down

15 analysis that they did supports 89.5, not

16 88.5. But in this other motor that tested

17 better than the nameplate data, that tear-down

18 analysis supported what that efficiency was

19 but DOE discounted it in that case.

20 There seemed to be a preference to

21 only accepting motors that had efficiency

22 lower than nominal, except for one case. And
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 157

1 there was one that was just slightly above

2 nominal and DOE accepted that one.

3 But my main concern is that I have

4 expected that the software analysis was

5 compared against the tested value for

6 confirmation of the software analysis. How

7 often that software analysis, if they were to

8 model the motor that tested 88.5 and confirmed

9 that their software calculates 88.5, how could

10 they confirm that the software then

11 corresponded to a nominal of 89.5? Why would

12 the software be known to be always calculating

13 on the low side? And if it is always

14 calculating on the low side, when you look at

15 those that tested higher than NEMA nominal,

16 why would then the software be calculating the

17 value that is on the high side?

18 So things don't jibe in the

19 tables, when you look at everything together

20 that DOE used. And the importance of course

21 is that it affects what you attribute to your

22 tear-down analysis, how you looked at
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 158

1 efficiency, how you calculated energy savings,

2 how you calculated the LCC. Everything is all

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

4 choice of testing one motor. It just leads to

5 a lot of mis-conclusions throughout the

6 analysis.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We are on

8 slide 51. Additional comments on modeling

9 high efficiency designs? Yes, please.

10 MR. RUFFING: Steve Ruffing, NEMA.

11 I just would like some

12 clarification on one of the design options

13 listed in Chapter 4 that was listed as a

14 potential option for reducing stray-load loss

15 and that is improving of motor bar insulation. 

16 And I would just like some explanation as to

17 what DOE meant regarding the nature of that. 

18 Is that some sort of coating that is applied

19 to the punch surface of the rotor lamination

20 slots prior to die casting or is that some

21 sort of heat and quench process after the die

22 casting that separates the two or what is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 159

1 exactly the nature of that as it pertains to

2 die cast rotors?

3 MR. KOHSE: I'm going to have to

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

5 top of my head.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Dan?

7 MR. DELANEY: One more comment,

8 just to Roger's point on this software

9 modeling that was conducted. 

10 Roger already alluded to some of

11 the issues obviously of using a single model

12 or a single motor to go through that analysis. 

13 One other point we wanted to make sure from

14 NEMA's perspective was that calibration of

15 these models are extremely important. And

16 using multiple models, again back to equipment

17 class groups across multiple, these models

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

19 They come about as a generation of these

20 product lines and it is a very key point of

21 the calibration of those models. And the new

22 AEDM rule, which is a note at this point, is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 160

1 putting attrition to that fact of the minimum

2 number of samples that are needed to be tested

3 but the calibration of those models are very

4 important to the lack of interpolation of what

5 they are doing here.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Roger?

7 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

8 I would just like to expand a little further

9 on what Dan was just referring to. It is one

10 thing to calibrate a software model against

11 motors that you can test. It is another thing

12 to have a calibration against motors you

13 didn't test and against technology that you

14 don't really have any information on.

15 And that is what happened in the

16 Department of Army's two studies. There were

17 expectations of performance in loss

18 characteristics that were not experienced when

19 the prototypes were built. And so while they

20 were using a program that was well calibrated

21 to cast aluminum with the expectation it was

22 going to perform similarly with cast copper,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 161

1 the end results were rather dismal because

2 there were characteristics that occurred from

3 the cast copper process that influenced losses

4 that were not expected. And those are all

5 detailed in the report but the point is that

6 until you built a prototype, you really have

7 not calibrated your program to know that what

8 you are calculating is going to be right and

9 it has not been shown so far in at least two

10 government sponsored feasibility studies.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

12 Yes, John?

13 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski,

14 Baldor. I just wanted to emphasize the amount

15 of calibration that is done. We have got two

16 full-time engineers, Roger and another, that

17 constantly upgrade our AEDM programs, our

18 motor design programs here. And we have

19 people in Europe that model and input the ABB

20 design programs. It is something that is a

21 continuous, if you want to call it a

22 continuous improvement. We want it to be as
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 162

1 accurate as possible when we design things. 

2 And you just don't buy a program

3 off the shelf, design a motor and expect it to

4 be this performance because chances are, it is

5 not. I mean to certify a program the DOE

6 expects us to build five motors of multiple

7 different designs before you will certify our

8 AEDM program. And the number of motors that

9 were designed and built by the DOE's program

10 was zero. So you would not even certify your

11 own program.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

13 We are going to try and keep

14 moving here. And shortly in ten or 15

15 minutes, we are going to pause for lunch. 

16 Let's keep going, though.

17 MR. KOHSE: Okay, great.

18 So this chart shows some

19 performance and properties of the 75

20 horsepower representative unit that was

21 purchased and software modeled. The data for

22 purchased motors are in white and the data for
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 163

1 the software modeled motor designs are in

2 yellow. Note that the software model motors

3 utilized copper rotor technology, which

4 accounts for their heavier than typical rotor

5 conductor weights.

6 Here we see the steel grades, slot

7 fills, stack lengths, and material weights

8 change as we increase inefficiencies.

9 So I am going to stop there and

10 see if there is any comment on this slide

11 before I have Hisham come back up and finish

12 the engineering section.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments here? No? 

14 We've covered it sufficiently? Okay, then to

15 Hisham.

16 Yes, John, one comment.

17 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski. 

18 It kind of comes to the question Dale brought

19 up before on end turns and the winding length,

20 does it fit into the mechanical restrictions

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

22 ten and a half inch long stack to one that is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 164

1 13 inches long, and you go from a 70 percent

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

3 one would expect the end turns to be

4 substantially larger, as well as the stack

5 going to be two and a half inches longer. It

6 is probably not going to fit in the mechanical

7 frame endplates, which would mean that part of

8 the motor would have to be redesigned, which

9 would mean that it is probably not going to

10 fit into the space where the old motor fit and

11 the end user is going to have problems with

12 it.

13 I know we are going to cover that

14 later but this is a good slide right now to

15 illustrate that.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

17 Yes, Steve?

18 MR. RUFFING: One additional

19 question, which you may not have the answer to

20 but I am just curious as to where the large

21 stator copper weight increased between the CSL

22 2 and CSL 3 levels came from considering that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 165

1 they have approximately the same stack lengths

2 and the slot fills is reported to be the same.

3 I am just wondering if there is an

4 error there somewhere or maybe the number of

5 stator slots increased significantly.

6 MR. KOHSE: Yes, so that was

7 software model. And it may be an increase in

8 stator slot size. I will talk to Howard

9 Jordan and follow up with that.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Okay,

11 Hisham.

12 MR. ARAJI: So Hisham Araji,

13 Navigant Consulting.

14 So now I am just going to talk

15 about how we developed the CSLs for the

16 engineering analysis.

17 So once DOE had physical and

18 modeled motors for the engineering analysis,

19 it developed candidate standard levels to

20 identify specific levels of efficiency for the

21 analysis. These CSL spanned a range of

22 efficiency levels from the baseline to the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 166

1 maximum technologically feasible.

2 When selecting CSLs, DOE

3 considered several criteria. First, DOE

4 selected levels that were either commercially

5 available or achievable in software modeling. 

6 Second, DOE considered the NEMA standard

7 nominal efficiency levels in MG1 Table 12-10

8 for the increments between the baseline

9 efficiency level and the max-tech efficiency. 

10 Table 12-10 is essentially a list of

11 standardized efficiency levels that

12 manufacturers use when labeling their motors.

13 Throughout the presentation today,

14 I will refer to the increment between two

15 consecutive NEMA nominal efficiencies as a

16 "NEMA band."

17 And then lastly, DOE considered

18 several benchmark efficiency levels, such as

19 NEMA "Energy Efficient" or "NEMA Premium."

20 So this slide shows the

21 efficiencies of the CSLs for the equipment

22 class group one rep units. Baseline
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 167

1 efficiency for CSL zero is based on the lowest

2 observed efficiency levels in manufacturer

3 catalogues for the motor types that DOE is

4 considering extending coverage to.

5 CSL 1 is based on NEMA MG1, Table

6 12-11, which NEMA now calls "Energy

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

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

9 CSL 4 and 5 also represent software modeled

10 motors as we have discussed before. And the

11 reason DOE used software modeling for these

12 CSLs is because there were basically no

13 commercially available motors at these

14 efficiency levels.

15 Also note that CSL 4 and 5 for the

16 30 horsepower rep unit have the same

17 efficiency and this is because a three NEMA

18 band increase over "NEMA Premium" levels was

19 not achieved in the software model for that

20 rep unit like it was for the other rep units.

21 So at this point, we have an issue

22 box seeking comment on the tentative CSLs that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 168

1 NEMA selected for its rep units.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's hear from

3 Neal first, then to Roger.

4 MR. ELLIOTT: Somewhat to Roger's

5 point earlier, the NEMA nominal efficiency

6 represents the midpoint on distribution and

7 the distribution is by definition two NEMA

8 bands.

9 So the CSL 3 being one NEMA band

10 above CSL 2 is not statistically different

11 from CSL 2. So therefore, a motor that would

12 be CSL 3 in likelihood would probably actually

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

14 make that note.

15 In all the work that we have done

16 over the last 20 years we always say if you

17 are going to raise the efficiency level, you

18 have to raise it two bands. Because if you

19 are not doing it two bands, it is not

20 statistically different than the band one band

21 down.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Roger?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 169

1 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

2 As noted on your slide, you

3 present the CSL levels purely based upon

4 incremental increase in NEMA bands. The

5 problem that can lead you into and it actually

6 did lead you into is that when you look at the

7 three NEMA Design B motors that you examined

8 across the CSL levels or look at the NEMA

9 Design C, those two motors, under each CSL

10 level as you got higher, you mixed up

11 technologies. So that you may be making one

12 of those motors of the common class using a

13 different technology under that CSL level than

14 you were the other motors.

15 And as I mentioned earlier,

16 manufacturing, and I am aware that several of

17 you visited manufacturing facilities and I am

18 aware of what goes on in manufacturing,

19 manufacturing again does not randomly select

20 what materials to pull out of inventory, send

21 through lamination presses and build, whether

22 it be hand winding in this case or machine
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 170

1 winding in another case, but now we are just

2 trying to stick with technology.

3 So I encourage that DOE, in

4 defining the CSL levels, go beyond the

5 efficiency level but also associate with those

6 levels a technology. That is what was done in

7 the small electric motor rulemaking. So that

8 when everyone sits down and says CSL 3, they

9 know it was a common group of technologies

10 that was used across that class. The same for

11 CSL 4 and 5.

12 And it is easy to do that because

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

14 5.16, besides the definition you have given to

15 the CSL levels here, from those tables you can

16 also realize that CSL 2 uses M47 for

17 electrical steel and it's an aluminum cast

18 rotor. CSL 3, the commonality would be M47

19 again in aluminum rotor. Again because you

20 have said CSL 3 uses present technology in

21 construction.

22 CSL 4 would move to the M36
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 171

1 material and aluminum cage and CSL 5 would be

2 both M36 electrical steel and the cast copper

3 rotor technology. Again, it is NEMA's

4 position that CSL should not exist if it

5 depends on cast copper because that should

6 have been screened out of the process. But I

7 am just addressing the way you presently

8 present the tables.

9 Similarly in the tables for the

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

11 at putting empty entries into the table when

12 it was not achievable. So when you look at

13 what you did for NEMA Design Cs, you redefined

14 what CSL 0 was. You took the EPACT levels

15 that in Design Bs are CSL 1 you moved them

16 down to CSL 0. That is causing confusion as

17 people talk and sit, you know, sit and talk

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

19 talking CSL 3 in Design Bs or are you talking

20 CSL 3 in Design Cs? Because they have

21 different meanings.

22 So again it is encouraged that the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 172

1 same as you can leave empty spaces, you can

2 leave any entries for CSL 0 out for Design C

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

4 common across both equipment groups, class

5 groups.

6 And then from there on for Design

7 C you can build up on what technology of

8 electrical steel and aluminum construction

9 would apply to the appropriate levels as you

10 go up from there. Again, that way you are

11 doing your analysis the way things really get

12 manufactured and the way materials get

13 utilized in the industry and not mixing things

14 up and causing a lot of confusion.

15 Well this one I designed, if you

16 happen in this particular group of motors, you

17 use M36 instead of M47 in order to achieve

18 this. And again, some emphasis has to be put

19 on real world manufacturing and what the

20 processes are. And it is not impossible to

21 structure these CSL levels with that in mind

22 to keep track of it.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 173

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Robert.

2 MR. WILKINS: Thank you, Doug.

3 I note on this chart that a move

4 from CSL 2 and I picked these moves

5 arbitrarily, but a move from CSL 2 to CSL 5

6 would result in a two percent efficiency

7 improvement in one case and a one percent

8 efficiency improvement in two other cases.

9 And I do realize that this docket

10 is about motor efficiency. I get the point. 

11 But in a larger sense, it is about improving

12 the energy efficiency of American industry in

13 a cost-effective manner. We need to be sure

14 we are doing that in reaching the broader

15 goal, as well as the micro goal.

16 So far we have discussed a

17 microeconomic analysis in motor efficiency. 

18 And that is very appropriate. We should do

19 that. But I would also urge DOE to take a

20 macro view of the analysis at the same -- in

21 parallel.

22 Now I will draw a little
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 174

1 comparison. It seems to me what we are

2 debating here is a little like trying to

3 improve the miles per gallon of an automobile. 

4 And we are talking about spending multiple

5 millions of dollars to totally redo the engine

6 design to get another tenth of a mile per

7 gallon, when we could do it as an industry

8 much more cost effectively by changing the

9 tires. I think that is what a macro analysis

10 is all about.

11 Or said another way, how can

12 American industry users of motors save energy

13 in the most cost-effective way? We can spend

14 a hundred million dollars, a figure I have

15 heard to save one or two percent. But if we

16 look at it from a macro point of view, there

17 is a better way and more cost-effective. Off

18 the shelf, variable frequency drives can save

19 20 to 30 percent.

20 Now, I know this isn't a docket

21 for variable frequency drives but the question

22 is it really cost effective to try to eke out
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 175

1 one percent motor energy efficiency might bore

2 down into the motor when if you stand back and

3 look at the bigger picture, there are much

4 larger opportunities.

5 So I would argue that this is a

6 relevant consideration in deciding the future

7 motor efficiency and would urge the DOE to

8 stand back and take a macro view before

9 deciding that we want to bore down and try to

10 eke out a half or one or even two percent.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

12 Additional comments on this series of slides,

13 developing candidate standard levels?

14 MR. ARAJI: I just had a quick

15 follow-up to Roger's suggested approach.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

17 MR. ARAJI: If we understand that

18 manufacturers often use different technology

19 options to achieve the same efficiency levels,

20 so manufacturer A might use a different

21 combination than manufacturer B. So in your

22 suggested approach if you could maybe in your
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 176

1 written comments, just recommend a set of

2 technology options for each CSL that you

3 suggest that DOE go with, we would appreciate

4 that.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger?

6 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. 

7 Well, yes, it is certainly true

8 that different manufacturers take different

9 approaches, not only the choice of materials

10 which is the only thing I have limited this

11 to, material technology, but they also take

12 different approaches to how they design their

13 frames, what diameters they use for their

14 laminations within those frames, how long they

15 make the frames, trying to stay within the

16 NEMA mounting dimensions, et cetera, and not

17 have too much overhang on them.

18 So there is so much that goes into

19 play that yes, one manufacturer may have an

20 arrangement with an electrical steel supplier

21 that he uses one particular type of electrical

22 steel and another manufacturer uses another
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 177

1 that he has adapted to all of his processes.

2 But my point was that by you

3 mixing things together, you are actually

4 imposing that kind of mixture on everyone. 

5 They are not really being free to try to

6 choose what is best for them. Anytime that

7 you have to take the viewpoint that in order

8 to get this level of efficiency, I have got to

9 deviate from all the rest of my product by

10 using this particular steel because it is the

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

12 look at well that manufacturer may choose I am

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

14 It removes that product from the market. It

15 reduces availability and utility of that

16 product and then you don't meet your screening

17 criteria.

18 So it is very important with

19 respect to your screening criteria and

20 production that you use a common technology

21 for each of these groups and you have enough

22 groups and you have already demonstrated the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 178

1 importance of certain technologies at

2 particular CSL levels that you can do that.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments on

4 this series develop CSLs? Additional

5 comments?

6 Let's go to lunch.

7 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

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

9 resumed at 1:34 p.m.)

10 

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 179

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

2 (1:34 p.m.)

3 MR. BROOKMAN: By my count, I think

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

5 resume and hear from Hisham.

6 MR. ARAJI: All right. So, picking

7 up where we left off, we just discussed how

8 DOE developed CSLs. Now we're going to get

9 into the process of developing the

10 manufacturer selling prices for the rep units.

11 All right. So, after developing

12 CSLs, DOE had to develop manufacturer selling

13 prices for rep units that we analyzed. Now,

14 the manufacturer selling price is a key output

15 of the engineering analysis, and it's used

16 later on in the downstream analyses that we'll

17 talk about today.

18 So, as Will mentioned earlier, DOE

19 had already figured out what's inside of these

20 motors by doing tear downs. This gave us the

21 material cost inputs. From these tear downs,

22 DOE was not only able to quantify how much
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 180

1 steel, copper, aluminum, and other materials

2 were inside the motors, but also labor hour

3 estimates and whether the motor was hand- or

4 machine-wound.

5 DOE determined material prices and

6 labor requirements through conversations with

7 manufacturers and industry experts and markups

8 and labor rates were derived from Census data

9 and SEC filings.

10 This chart shows the manufacturing

11 markups that DOE applied to its labor costs

12 and raw tear down costs when developing the

13 manufacturer selling price. You'll notice that

14 DOE used higher non-production markups for

15 motors over 30-horsepower. This is to account

16 for the extra profit margin manufacturers may

17 receive on larger electric motors that are

18 sold in smaller volumes.

19 So, at this point we are seeking

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

21 5-year average for copper prices, pricing

22 copper. And then current year prices for all
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 181

1 other materials. And we're requesting comment

2 on that decision to use a 5-year average for

3 copper and the current pricing for all other

4 materials.

5 Second issue is, we're seeking

6 comment on the higher non-production markup

7 for the 30- and 75-horsepower rep units.

8 And the final issue on the slide,

9 we're welcoming comment on the decision to use

10 aggregate domestic and foreign fully burdened

11 labor rate. And then balancing each of these

12 rates based on an estimate of how much of the

13 work we believe is done overseas and how much

14 is done domestically.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Maybe you could go

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

17 screen. Roger.

18 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty. My

19 question is actually on the one prior to that

20 slide. But since you went to the trouble of

21 doing the tear-down analysis and calculating

22 production cost and trying to get a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 182

1 manufacturer selling price, did you compare

2 that to the actual manufacturer selling price

3 for each of the motors that you purchased? And

4 how well did that compare?

5 MR. ARAJI: I believe it varied

6 based on model. You know, sometimes we bought

7 the motors lower than the manufacturer's

8 suggested retail price because of volume

9 discounts for certain motors. Other models

10 ended up actually being a little bit higher,

11 so it varied. But I think the general trend

12 varied.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: So, then go back to

14 the next slide -- or go forward to the next

15 slide. Comments on -- the three issues are:

16 copper's large price fluctuations, how that

17 was handled; the higher non-production markup

18 for its 30 to 75-horsepower representative

19 units; and the balancing decision they made in

20 Issue 13. Comments, please. Yes, Rob?

21 MR. BOTELER: I have a question on

22 the labor, where you say you did aggregate
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 183

1 cost of domestic and offshore. Did you look at

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

3 how did you arrive at that?

4 MR. ARAJI: This is actually

5 weighted more towards the foreign

6 manufacturing, if I recall correctly, so it

7 wasn't a 50-50 balance.

8 MR. BOTELER: Okay, so that $33.46

9 an hour includes -- are you making assumptions

10 of hand winding, moving product offshore or

11 was that just looking at today's mix?

12 MR. ARAJI: It was just based more

13 on feedback from manufacturers and their

14 estimates of how much they do abroad and how

15 much they do here. We understand some

16 manufacturers do everything here, some do most

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

18 would welcome comment on it.

19 We didn't factor in hand-winding

20 or machine-winding in this rate. That was more

21 accounted for in the labor hour estimates.

22 MR. BOTELER: Okay. I mean, my
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 184

1 personal comment, I think, is if it includes

2 a lot of offshore that it seems high to me,

3 but I'm not directly involved with that part

4 of our business, so it just seems high.

5 On Issue 12 on the markups, and

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

7 talk a whole lot about that. But, again,

8 looking at the markups, you acknowledge that

9 there's a lesser markup on the lower

10 horsepower which I think is probably true. I

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

12 as 30-horsepower, but looking at the markups

13 that you have, the percentage markups, again

14 in both cases I would tell you that they seem

15 a little bit high to us.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Dale, do you

17 want to follow on?

18 MR. BASSO: A couple of comments. I

19 think you're doing the best you can with

20 trying to aggregate everything together. And,

21 unfortunately, it is a very complex analysis.

22 When you talk about fully burdened hourly
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 185

1 rates you're going the full range from small

2 to large on that, and in many manufacturers we

3 would break that up to different cells for

4 different rates depending on the

5 sophistication, the cost of the equipment that

6 goes with it and everything. And you sort of

7 made up for that, I think, by taking a

8 different approach with the SG&A markups. And

9 assuming markup where maybe our markups aren't

10 the same but hourly rates are higher. So, in

11 aggregate it's the best you can get for an

12 estimate. It probably couldn't be applied

13 accurately to any one rating.

14 One concern I have is that, when

15 you do this analysis and you based it on both

16 a domestic and offshore rates it may lead to

17 an accurate analysis of the present state, but

18 it would certainly encourage, the analysis

19 would favor more production going offshore in

20 the end when you make a decision based on

21 this. So, it probably goes against one of the

22 rules that DOE would like to follow of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 186

1 domestic employment.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Three

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

4 We'd like to receive your comments on those.

5 Yes, Charlie Stephens.

6 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens.

7 One question looking ahead. When you go to

8 actually do the life cycle cost analysis and

9 you have to pick a motor cost from that, will

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

11 going to pick from in terms of a distribution

12 of costs going to allow for perhaps these

13 being the cost of the variation in that

14 distribution? Are you going to have a -- I

15 can't remember now how that ultimately gets

16 applied and how wide the distribution of, for

17 instance, a 30-horsepower motor cost is when

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

19 are typically done in a Monte Carlo run.

20 MR. ARAJI: So, basically, these go

21 into -- are then fed into the next analysis

22 which is the markups analysis. And Sanaee
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 187

1 Iyama from LBNL can speak more to that.

2 MS. IYAMA: Sanaee. So, what

3 happens after the engineering is that we take

4 the manufacturer's selling price which

5 incorporates the manufacturer markup, and then

6 we apply the rest of the markups that are

7 between the manufacturer and the end user. So,

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

9 next section. But very briefly, to answer your

10 question, we applied log normal distributions

11 on the distributor markups, distribution

12 channel markups.

13 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Charlie

14 Stephens. The reason I was asking this is I

15 was wondering if -- I mean, ultimately you

16 take a range of prices paid by end users when

17 you do the life cycle cost analysis.

18 MS. IYAMA: Right. And each

19 iteration is going to pick a markup that's

20 within that log normal.

21 MR. STEPHENS: Within the band, so

22 you're going to end up in that analysis with
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 188

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

2 why the price is 10 percent higher or 10

3 percent lower as you select them, but many of

4 these effects -- this part here seems as

5 important or more important in the

6 manufacturer impact analysis, then ultimately

7 when you get to start picking motor prices for

8 the life cycle cost analysis, you'll end up

9 with a distribution without reference to cause

10 of the distribution of why it's 10 percent

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

12 comes from a distribution of prices with all

13 effects included. Right? Because you could

14 arrive at the same price with a high

15 distributor markup and a low manufacturer

16 markup as you do with a high manufacturer

17 markup and a low distributor markup, and get

18 to the exact same price.

19 MS. IYAMA: Right.

20 MR. STEPHENS: But you don't

21 distinguish as to how you got to any

22 particular price.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 189

1 MS. IYAMA: Well, I mean, if you

2 look at the aggregated results you won't see

3 that. But if you look at the specific one

4 iteration in the life-cycle cost amongst the

5 10,000 iteration then you would see why.

6 MR. STEPHENS: Right. Well, you

7 would see the effect.

8 MS. IYAMA: You would see exactly

9 which markup assumption was made for each of

10 the market players in the distribution

11 channel.

12 MR. STEPHENS: Yes, I can see what

13 the assumptions, but what I'm saying is when

14 you can get to the same price in your analysis

15 with a low manufacturer markup and a high

16 distributor markup as you can with a high

17 manufacturer markup and a low distributor

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

19 You're not saying that -- 

20 MS. IYAMA: I think I'm going to

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

22 believe -- we only get a single MSP from the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 190

1 engineering, which includes the manufacturer

2 markup so there's no statistical distributions

3 over that value.

4 MR. STEPHENS: Right. Yes, I guess

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

6 band of pricing is. And as long as the

7 manufacturers are reasonably content with the

8 band of pricing that you come up with in the

9 marketplace, and they think that's

10 representative, then I don't think coming up

11 with a single MSP and then going from there

12 will be a bad thing necessarily.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, John

14 Malinowski.

15 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski,

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

17 numbers you have there for 37 and 45 percent. 

18 As Rob said, you know, talking specifically

19 would violate some antitrust things, but those

20 seem high. 

21 The last year that our company

22 reported in an annual report our earnings were
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 191

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

2 some years of the company, so I wish they were

3 this high, it would have been higher than

4 that. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

6 Additional comments on these comment boxes

7 listed?

8 MR. ARAJI: Yes, just to be clear,

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

10 other things, too.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: What are they?

12 MR. ARAJI: R&D, research and

13 development, insurance, warranty risk

14 premiums.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Speak up.

16 MR. ARAJI: Sorry. I was just

17 mentioning that non-production isn't strictly

18 profit. There's other stuff in there,

19 research.

20 MR. MALINOWSKI: I understand. I'm

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

22 of antitrust. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 192

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

2 MR. MALINOWSKI: Just trying to

3 give you an idea. Motors are not extremely

4 profitable. 

5 MR. ARAJI: Okay, any other

6 comments? All right, moving on. 

7 So, the final step in engineering

8 analysis is to scale to efficiency levels,

9 scale the efficiency levels of the

10 representative units we selected to the

11 equipment classes that were not directly

12 analyzed.

13 Efficiency Levels for Equipment

14 Class Group 1 were derived from the Design B

15 rep. units. Efficiency levels for Equipment

16 Class Group 2 were derived from Design C

17 units. And as for Equipment Class Group 3,

18 which is fire pump motors, those efficiency

19 levels are derived from the rep units for

20 Equipment Class Group 1. And as we mentioned

21 earlier, DOE did this because the shipment

22 volumes were really low for fire pump motors
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 193

1 and so were the run times.

2 So, in both approaches that DOE

3 considered for scaling, the efficiency levels

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

5 11 and 12-12. 

6 Now, the main differences between

7 the two approaches were how the higher CSLs

8 were developed. The first approach was to look

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

10 and try to develop power law equations to

11 characterize each table. Any perceived pattern

12 in these equations could then be used to model

13 similar tables for higher CSLs. 

14 The second approach simply

15 incremented each subsequent CSL by one NEMA

16 band. Ultimately, DOE decided to use the

17 second scaling approach of one NEMA band

18 improvements because it was more simple and

19 more straightforward.

20 So, this slide summarizes the

21 second scaling approach I just discussed. I

22 just want to mention that because DOE is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 194

1 considering expanding coverage to motor types

2 not previously covered, the efficiency levels

3 for CSL-0 in Equipment Class Group 1 are based

4 on the lowest efficiency values that were

5 observed in motor manufacturer catalogs for

6 the scope of motors we're intending to expand

7 coverage to.

8 The next two CSLs, CSLs 1 and 2

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

10 values, and then each subsequent CSL above

11 that goes up by one NEMA band.

12 And as we've mentioned throughout

13 the presentation today, DOE divided up

14 equipment classes into smaller subsets. On

15 this slide they're highlighted in blue, red,

16 and green. Now, the analysis of the equipment

17 classes in each highlighted portion are based

18 on a representative unit within that

19 highlighted portion. So, for instance, in the

20 red section of this chart, if a 30-horsepower

21 rep unit in Equipment Class Group 1 was only

22 able to achieve a two NEMA band improvement in
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 195

1 efficiency above "NEMA Premium," then all the

2 equipment classes based on that rep unit would

3 be assumed to have a max tech efficiency of

4 only two NEMA bands above "NEMA Premium," as

5 well.

6 So, now we reach another one of

7 DOE's issue boxes. We're basically seeking

8 comment on the scaling methodology that we've

9 elected to use to generate the efficiency

10 levels for the other equipment classes. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger?

12 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

13 The initial scaling that you tried to examine

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

15 based upon, basically, the same technology,

16 across those two. And you say you observed

17 some change. But when you move into different

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

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

20 different motors that you examine, and

21 different designs, what in your scaling method

22 in the way that you've applied it would have
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 196

1 predicted that at least 30 percent of the

2 designs could not be achieved, the efficiency

3 level you were looking for couldn't be

4 achieved? So, how could you scale from those

5 that it could be achieved into those to which

6 it could not be achieved? Your scaling method

7 seems to fall down once you move into

8 additional technology, or consideration of

9 higher technology for higher efficiency.

10 Because you're going from one

11 common relationship between CSL-1 and 2, then

12 you're trying to introduce different

13 technologies, but your own report says that

14 you couldn't obtain certain efficiency levels

15 in certain CSL classes without considering a

16 different technology for that particular

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

18 percent of the ratings in all the equipment

19 classes can't be met by using the technology

20 that you were examining for the rest. So, to

21 me it says the scaling method based upon any

22 particular set of technology is not scalable
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 197

1 across all the equipment classes, and that's

2 where you're applying it.

3 And, again, that comes back to the

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

5 six-poles, or eight-poles and what effect

6 there would be there, and you didn't examine

7 open machines, which are in different frame

8 sizes than the totally enclosed fan-cooled

9 that you actually looked at.

10 MR. ARAJI: Yes, so with that in

11 mind, we do have limited resources on how many

12 rep units we can actually directly analyze.

13 But if you guys here today have any

14 recommendations on how we can scale given the

15 fact that we do have limited resources, we can

16 only purchase a certain number of motors,

17 please submit them in written comments. This

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

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

20 to two-pole, or we need to incorporate some

21 other factors when doing that, that's the kind

22 of stuff we'd like to know.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 198

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Either one of you.

2 Go ahead, Rob. 

3 MR. BOTELER: I think we would say

4 that we really don't think scaling is the way

5 to do this sort of an exercise. It just has

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

7 variables. 

8 We have guys sitting at the table

9 that are Ph.D. electrical engineers that have

10 spent 35 years trying to do this, and they

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

12 something that I don't think DOE is going to

13 figure out a way to accurately come up with

14 this sort of an exercise.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Neal, and then

16 back to you, John. Neal. 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott. I just

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

19 that there's some underlying fundamental

20 physical theory associated with Table 12-11

21 and 12-12. And having actually dealt with this

22 now for a quarter of a century, not as long as
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 199

1 certainly some of the other gentlemen like Mr.

2 Daugherty over there, but it's fairly a

3 heuristic exercise where those things came,

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

5 market legacy that went into those tables. So,

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

7 11 and 12-12 I immediately sort of went, mmm,

8 there's not an underlying theory here. So,

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

10 MR. BROOKMAN: So, one thing in

11 your written comments or now to suggest how

12 the Department might actually do this if

13 they're not going to scale. That would be

14 helpful. Rob, keep going, then to John. 

15 MR. BOTELER: I think we have

16 recommended that. We've submitted our direct

17 petition, and I think that's what we would

18 want to fall back to. That's our

19 recommendation.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. John, you

21 have a follow on?

22 MR. MALINOWSKI: I think Rob has
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 200

1 answered what I was going to say.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Roger.

3 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

4 Just to try to answer your question about use

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

6 that much effort necessarily to do the

7 software analysis if you can get your hands on

8 the basic design that you start from to check

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

10 if you just look at some of these

11 technologies, as I said earlier that have been

12 tried to be advanced, they certainly don't fit

13 any of the scaling relationships that you're

14 trying to fit things into. It just doesn't

15 work out.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

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

18 this one? Yes.

19 MR. ARAJI: All right. Thank you.

20 At this point I'd like to invite Sanaee Iyama

21 from Lawrence Berkeley National Labs to

22 discuss the markups and energy
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 201

1 characterization analysis.

2 MR. deLASKI: Doug, this is Andrew

3 deLaski, if I could just interject.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Please, Andrew. I

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

6 MR. deLASKI: Okay. I wanted to

7 come back to a point that was raised earlier

8 when Rob and Sanaee were having the

9 interaction over the shipments, and it's just

10 a discrepancy between a point that I want to

11 highlight, that the discrepancy the Department

12 has outlined in its definition and the scope

13 of coverage that we recommend in the joint

14 petition. 

15 On page 3 of the joint petition,

16 page 2-3 we outline the motors that would

17 highly recommend treatment of groupings of

18 motors. And one of the areas where we

19 recommended that DOE cover at Table 12-12

20 efficiency levels is to cover 56 frame motors

21 that are outside the scope of the Small Motors

22 Rule, integral horsepower.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 202

1 In the DOE definition back to

2 page, whatever it was of the slide, it

3 referenced three digit frame sizes being the

4 limit.

5 MR. ELLIOTT: Slide 25.

6 MR. deLASKI: So, I think Rob in

7 that discussion -- there's a lot of motor

8 shipments here.

9 MR. BOTELER: Yes, I think agreed

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

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

12 those would bring our number up very close to

13 what IMS showed, kind of in the middle. 

14 MR. deLASKI: So, I just wanted to

15 highlight that point, and I wanted to bring it

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

17 earlier highlighted that IEC frame size on

18 that second to last bullet needed to be

19 performed in there, the point that Roger made.

20 And another point here would be

21 another -- that a three digit NEMA frame size

22 is something that needs to be either another
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 203

1 bullet to address 56 frame or to somehow

2 capture the 56 frame is outside the scope of

3 the Small Motors Rule -- 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

5 Thanks for bringing that back up. 

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

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

8 present the next sections of the preliminary

9 analysis. Is that better?

10 MR. BROOKMAN: I think you need to

11 maybe get it a little closer to your mouth,

12 like hang it on the edge of your blouse or

13 something. 

14 MS. IYAMA: Try this. And I'll

15 start with the markups analysis.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that better?

17 Speak up.

18 MS. IYAMA: So, the purpose of this

19 analysis is to determine consumer motor prices

20 for baseline efficiency motors and higher

21 efficiency motors. And this information is

22 used as an input to the life cycle cost
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 204

1 calculations.

2 So, first we characterize how

3 motors are distributed from the manufacturer

4 to the end user. Then, for each party involved

5 in the distribution channels we established

6 markups, and then we used these markups to

7 convert the manufacturer selling prices into

8 consumer price data.

9 DOE identified six main

10 distribution channels that are represented on

11 this diagram. And the different percentages

12 that you see represent the estimated shares of

13 units of motors sold through either of these

14 channels.

15 So, after doing this, we estimated

16 markups for each party involved in the

17 distribution channel so we had the original

18 equipment manufacturers, the distributors and

19 the contractors. And here we have listed the

20 different sources of data that we used. We

21 also applied a sales tax rate based on 2012

22 Sales Tax Clearinghouse data.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 205

1 So, for each of these parties

2 involved in the distribution channels we

3 established both a baseline and an incremental

4 markup. So, before I go into details of what

5 these two markups represent, I just want to

6 mention that DOE has been using this approach

7 for quite some time, so this is not something

8 new in this analysis.

9 The baseline markups relate the

10 consumer price to the cost of goods sold prior

11 to a change in efficiency. It covers all the

12 business' expenses and profit, as well as

13 direct labor costs.

14 The incremental markups relate the

15 change in consumer price to the incremental

16 increase in cost of goods sold due to

17 increased efficiency. The basis for using such

18 approach is that the purchase price of a piece

19 of equipment is not strictly proportional to

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

21 equipment is not strictly proportional to its

22 purchase price, so when the cost of goods sold
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 206

1 increases due to efficiency, only a fraction

2 of the business expenses increases. And some

3 others like direct labor costs remain

4 constant.

5 So, the incremental markups only account for

6 those business expenses that will vary with

7 the cost of goods sold, and is only applied to

8 the incremental increase in the cost of goods

9 sold.

10 So, applying this approach and

11 using the data sources that I presented on the

12 previous slides, as well as the different

13 shares of motors sold by distribution

14 channels, we calculated an average overall

15 baseline markup of 1.63, and an overall

16 incremental markup of 1.50 for all equipment

17 classes.

18 And here we have a comment box

19 about any comments you might have on any

20 alternative approaches or sources of

21 information that DOE could use to develop

22 product prices.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 207

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Rob.

2 MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler. If you

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

4 forward, right there. You made the comment

5 that on direct labor, you said that "the

6 direct labor costs remain constant." 

7 MS. IYAMA: For example, so here

8 we're assuming that if you're a distributor

9 and you're selling a baseline motor you have

10 a certain markup, and then if you're selling

11 a higher efficiency motor, for example your

12 rental -- what you pay for your building cost,

13 this will remain constant. It's not going to

14 vary with the cost of -- with the manufacturer

15 selling price of the motor.

16 MR. BOTELER: Okay.

17 MS. IYAMA: So, basically, we

18 calculate an incremental markup to translate

19 that, the fact that some business expenses

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

21 then we only used this incremental markup on

22 the incremental increase of the cost of goods
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 208

1 sold.

2 MR. BOTELER: Okay, thank you. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: You can see the

4 comment box there. Do we have comments here?

5 No? Okay.

6 MS. IYAMA: So, next I will talk

7 about the energy use characterization. The

8 purpose of the energy use characterization is

9 to develop annual energy consumption data for

10 electric motors based on field operating

11 conditions. And we do this for each efficiency

12 level considered in the engineering analysis.

13 This annual energy consumption

14 data is then used in the life cycle cost

15 calculation in order to develop the

16 electricity costs. 

17 The method used in this section

18 relied on using typical motor operating

19 profiles associated to different applications

20 in different sectors. And we considered

21 variability in the field through the use of

22 statistical distributions for inputs such as
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 209

1 operating hours and motor load. We also

2 accounted for reactive power demand as another

3 necessary input to the life cycle cost.

4 So, for electric motors the energy

5 used by the motor itself actually refers to

6 the energy losses in the motor, and the rest

7 is converted to useful mechanical shaft power. 

8 The annual energy used which combines both the

9 motor losses and mechanical power is

10 calculated through this formula on the slide,

11 so it relates to the motor capacity, motor

12 load, annual operating hours, and efficiency

13 at the considered load. And at the bottom of

14 the slide we have the formula used to

15 calculate motor losses.

16 So, the next couple of slides I'll

17 go through each of the inputs used in the

18 annual energy use calculation. I'll start with

19 the annual operating hours, then motor load,

20 then efficiency at the considered load.

21 So, before I go into the details

22 of the use of -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 210

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Sanaee, hang on.

2 Roger wants to comment here. 

3 MR. DAUGHERTY: Yes, before you

4 leave that slide, your last calculation -- 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Use the microphone.

6 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

7 The equation you have at the bottom for

8 calculating losses, I thought we cleared this

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

10 equation for calculating the losses in a motor

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

12 efficiency minus one, multiplied by the motor

13 energy that gives you the losses. 

14 MS. IYAMA: Okay.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes,

16 Frank, follow-on. Microphone, please. 

17 MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne,

18 Underwriters Laboratories. And I think we've

19 said this before, but I think it bears

20 repeating and maybe a suggestion on how to

21 proceed. But I think the first equation

22 assumes that the motor is perfectly matched to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 211

1 the load. And as soon as you depart

2 significantly from that, the efficiency drops

3 way off. 

4 I would like to see some work done

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

6 matched to load, and what is the actual

7 realized efficiency of the system?

8 MS. IYAMA: I might touch upon this

9 in the later slides.

10 MR. LADONNE: Okay.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

12 MS. IYAMA: So, before I go through

13 the actual details of how we develop the usage

14 inputs, again the annual operating hours, the

15 motor load, and the efficiency at the

16 considered load, I want to add that motor

17 field operating conditions depend on the field

18 where the motor is -- on the sector where the

19 motor is used, and on the application where

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

21 those differences we developed a model of

22 motor population and established estimates of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 212

1 the share of motors used in the commercial

2 sector, industrial sector, and agricultural

3 sector by horsepower range. We also

4 established distributions of motors by

5 application for each horsepower range, and

6 equipment class.

7 So, here on the left -- on the

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

9 example of the distribution by sectors for all

10 equipment class group, for motors within the

11 6- to 20-horsepower range, and then here we

12 have another example which is an example of

13 the distribution by application for Equipment

14 Class Group 1 motors between 6- and 20-

15 horsepower.

16 So, what DOE did is that we

17 established user inputs specific to

18 applications and sectors, and then we used

19 those types of distributions to aggregate into

20 an annual energy use -- average annual energy

21 use data.

22 So, again for each sector and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 213

1 application, DOE derived usage inputs starting

2 with annual operating hours, so here we have

3 an example of the usage inputs in terms of

4 average operating hours in the industrial

5 sector.

6 MR. BOTELER: Hey, Doug, call on

7 me.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob. Sorry, I was

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

10 ahead.

11 MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler. I just

12 wanted just to comment on this table, that in

13 our analysis that we submitted in our petition

14 for direct final rule we didn't go into this

15 level of detail, and this is great. We just

16 simply selected 4,000 hours across the board,

17 and we did that for all of the horsepowers and

18 speeds that we -- we did it with connected

19 horsepower. We calculated the connected

20 horsepower that would be impacted and then

21 stuck with 4,000 hours at 100 percent load.

22 MS. IYAMA: Right. And these values
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 214

1 are higher than the 4,000 but these are for

2 the industrial sector only. And in other

3 sectors in the commercial sector and

4 agriculture we have much lower annual

5 operating hours assumptions for the different

6 applications. But here I was just showing this

7 as an example.

8 So, we developed average values.

9 We also used statistical distributions to

10 account for variability in the field. So,

11 again that's only an example for the

12 industrial sector in the different

13 applications considered. 

14 So, we did this for the annual

15 average operating hours. We also did this for

16 load. So, we determined average motor load

17 values throughout the year by application. We

18 also established statistical distributions but

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

20 just showing the average annual motor load

21 that was used as inputs to our energy use

22 calculation.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 215

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob.

2 MR. BOTELER: And I understand

3 where you have to get to an average load, but

4 if we look at the DOE study it tells us that

5 40 percent of motors, industrial motors are

6 operated below 40 percent load. I think kind

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

8 at an average load like this it tells you a

9 pretty kind of level story that the efficiency

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

11 65-70 percent load.

12 MS. IYAMA: Right. And this table

13 here again only shows the average value, but

14 in the actual LCC calculation we used

15 statistical distributions around those values

16 so we have different bins.

17 MR. BOTELER: Okay. So, you did use

18 some below -- 

19 MS. IYAMA: And I believe half of

20 the motors are below 50 percent operating

21 load.

22 MR. BOTELER: Okay. Good, thank
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 216

1 you. 

2 MS. IYAMA: So, in order to account

3 for the fact that motors don't operate at full

4 load we established part load efficiency based

5 on the engineering test data, and here they're

6 just translated into losses versus load values

7 at the different operating load. So, basically

8 we derived a polynomial equation between

9 losses and load based on the engineering test

10 data.

11 So, using all the inputs I just

12 presented we calculated average annual energy

13 consumption by efficiency levels. And these

14 results are for -- are an average across all

15 sectors and all applications. 

16 So, here we have a slide

17 presenting DOE's request for comments. So,

18 we're interested in comments or any additional

19 sources of data that could be used to

20 establish the distribution of motors across

21 sectors by horsepower range, trying to improve

22 our estimates on this. Same for the sector-
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 217

1 specific distribution of motors across

2 applications. And we also seek any additional

3 sources of information on field data for motor

4 operating hours and load, specifically in the

5 commercial sector and agricultural sector. In

6 the industrial sector we have a pretty good

7 data set of -- plant assessment data that we

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

9 could use in the commercial and agricultural

10 sectors.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Neal.

12 MR. ELLIOTT: Not so much -- this

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

14 the record the DOE undertook a market -- or

15 undertook two market analyses to look at

16 commercial and industrial motor use in the

17 late 1990s. The intent was that those were to

18 be updated every three years. We have not seen

19 those updated in the last -- 

20 (Off microphone comment.)

21 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, but they never

22 updated. They just did the technical
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 218

1 corrections, so there is pending as part of

2 the INGAA legislation a direction to the

3 Department or to the Secretary to undertake

4 such a study. And we have approached the

5 Department, EERE about possibly undertaking

6 the study with existing authorization. 

7 And I would just note that the

8 motor community would welcome the opportunity

9 to see the Department undertake such a study

10 without necessarily direct Congressional

11 direction.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Dan, did

13 you wish to comment?

14 MR. DELANEY: Yes, Dan Delaney,

15 Regal-Beloit. I guess my biggest question,

16 when we come back we look at the industrial,

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

18 limited amount of commercial information

19 that's here. Some of the information going

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

21 these operating hours -- 

22 MS. IYAMA: So, again, these are
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 219

1 for the industrial sector.

2 MR. DELANEY: Industrial, correct. 

3 And, again, looking at the percentages that

4 seem very high to me looking at these, that

5 this is only 25 percent of the values as you

6 look back here. Noting that commercial is

7 being 75 percent, is as we roll these values

8 up -- 

9 MS. IYAMA: Right. And, again,

10 these -- this split by sector is just for the

11 6- to 20-horsepower range. In the larger

12 capacities you would see much more industrial

13 motors, and much less commercial applications.

14 MR. DELANEY: So assuming -- 

15 MS. IYAMA: So, this is just an

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

17 it kind of reverses as you go further in

18 increased motor capacities.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob.

20 MR. BOTELER: Yes, I think that's

21 part of our question. When we're only looking

22 at the 6- to 20-horsepower, the hours of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 220

1 operation that you have even in the industrial

2 arena seem very high to us. We sold high

3 horsepower motors, you know, we start talking

4 1,000-, 2,000-horsepower motors, we expect

5 them to run continuously. But in a lot of

6 cases when we sell smaller, the 1 to 5-

7 horsepower and the 6 to 20, they go into

8 applications in industry that are intermittent

9 operations that might run a couple of hours a

10 day throughout the day. So, having an average

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

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Dan, follow on. Then

13 I'm coming back to Frank.

14 MR. DELANEY: Yes, Dan Delaney,

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

16 75 percent and to drive that home, the point

17 is that the percentage of those hours, the 75

18 percent is considerably less than the values

19 that are being presented in industrial, so I

20 just wanted to make that comment. And that

21 obviously drives a huge percentage when you

22 look at those CSL levels in extrapolation of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 221

1 a determination and recommendation of those

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

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

4 as well as I would also argue that the load

5 goes the same percentage on that, the loads

6 would be even lower than those percentages on

7 the commercial end of the 75 percent.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Frank,

9 microphone. 

10 MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne,

11 Underwriters Laboratories. I just want to

12 amplify Rob's comment. In particular, the

13 numbers look a little strange to me when I

14 look at fire pump motors. I mean, by

15 definition that's a lot of hours for a fire

16 pump motor to be running. You know, you would

17 assume from these numbers there's a lot of

18 buildings burning down. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

20 MS. IYAMA: So, again, if you think

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

22 useful to know what your perception of these
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 222

1 values are, whether they're too high or too

2 low. But if you have any data that we could

3 actually use to backup your comments that

4 would be even more helpful to us. 

5 Okay. So, next I will talk about

6 the actual life cycle cost calculation and

7 payback period analysis. The purpose of this

8 analysis is to determine the LCC impacts and

9 payback period for the consumers of electric

10 motors under the considered efficiency levels. 

11 The results are expressed in terms of life

12 cycle cost difference between a particular

13 standards case and a base case.

14 The base case represents a

15 situation where we have no new or amended

16 standards. The life cycle cost includes two

17 components, the total installed cost and the

18 sum of annual operating costs discounted to a

19 particular base year. 

20 The analysis models the

21 uncertainty and variability of the inputs

22 using a Monte Carlo approach which
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 223

1 characterizes inputs as probability

2 distributions. And we implement this analysis

3 under Excel, combined with Crystal Ball which

4 allows using inputs in the form of probability

5 distributions.

6 And here we have the overall flow

7 chart for the life-cycle cost and payback

8 period analysis calculations. So, the top part

9 of the chart represents the development of the

10 total installed cost, and the bottom part

11 represents the calculation for the operating

12 cost. Both the total installed cost and the

13 lifetime operating cost go into the life-cycle

14 cost. And we calculate the payback period as

15 the total installed cost divided by the first

16 year of operating expenses.

17 And the total installed cost

18 includes the motor price and the installation

19 cost, and it also includes the shipping cost,

20 which is derived from the weight of the motor.

21 The operating expenses include the

22 electricity costs that we derived from energy
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 224

1 consumption data, also includes repair costs

2 and maintenance costs.

3 So, in gray here we have

4 represented all the inputs to the calculation,

5 in green we have the intermediate results, and

6 in yellow the final results. And in the next

7 slides I'll go through the inputs that we

8 haven't yet covered in the engineering

9 analysis, the markups analysis, and the energy

10 use characterization. And I'll start with the

11 electricity price.

12 Electricity prices are used to

13 convert the energy use data into electricity

14 costs. We considered regional electricity

15 prices by sector, and we used current and

16 projected information on energy prices from

17 the Energy Information Administration, and

18 more specifically from the Annual Energy

19 Outlook. And we also collected data on

20 reactive power prices. And on the next slide

21 I have represented the average electricity

22 prices that were used in the analysis, by
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 225

1 region and sector. And also an example of the

2 electricity price trends that were used in the

3 LCC calculations.

4 Another important input to the

5 life cycle cost are the discount rates. DOE

6 uses the discount rates to determine the

7 present value of lifetime operating expenses.

8 It derives those discount rates from

9 information on the cost of capital for

10 companies in the commercial/industrial sector

11 that use motors.

12 Next I'll go over the

13 installation, maintenance, and repair costs

14 which are also inputs to the life cycle cost

15 calculation. 

16 DOE evaluated how installation,

17 maintenance and repair costs change with

18 increased efficiency. We looked at data from

19 RS Means, Vaughens, other manufacturer

20 literature, also inputs from stakeholders and

21 experts. For installation costs, DOE assumed

22 no changes in installation costs with
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 226

1 increased efficiency. And that was based on

2 the fact that we stay within the same motor

3 frame designations.

4 For repair costs we developed a

5 model of repair costs based on Vaughens data.

6 This model basically estimated repair costs

7 based on the motor horsepower, enclosure, pole

8 configuration and efficiency level. And for

9 maintenance costs so far we didn't find any

10 information supporting any changes in

11 maintenance costs with increased efficiencies,

12 so we assumed these also remain constant

13 across efficiency levels.

14 Another thing that's not mentioned

15 here are the shipping costs. Again, these were

16 calculated directly based on the weight data

17 from the engineering analysis. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Tom. Turn on

19 your microphone, please. Tom. 

20 MR. BISHOP: Tom Bishop. The

21 question I have is where it says develop a

22 repair cost model. Is that repair -- what's
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 227

1 involved in that repair? Does that include a -

2 - is it a rewind and an overhaul, or is it þ3 MS. IYAMA: It's a rewind. The

4 basic bearing replacements were considered as

5 part of the maintenance cost.

6 MR. BISHOP: Okay. 

7 MS. IYAMA: Next -- 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Rob, please.

9 MR. BOTELER: I just have a small

10 point. On the installation cost, depending

11 upon the level of efficiency, if we were to go

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

13 in our proposal of moving from a special

14 purpose or definite purpose which has no

15 regulation today, we may find that the end

16 user has motors that are running at

17 significantly higher speeds because we have

18 the premium efficient motor, the 12-12. In

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

20 installation may require changes, it may be

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

22 require some electrical changes to the system.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 228

1 It more likely would require some changes to

2 throttling valves or veins to accommodate for

3 the higher speed in order to maintain the

4 performance of whatever operation that they're

5 doing. 

6 And it's something that I think we

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

8 quantify it because it varies dramatically

9 based on what the system is set up for today.

10 But I think the reality is that it could occur

11 that the end user would have to make some

12 pretty significant changes to his system to

13 accommodate a higher speed motor.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: So, I want to be

15 specific. You referred to the proposal and

16 that is the petition from the Motor Coalition.

17 MR. BOTELER: Yes.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 

19 MS. IYAMA: Next, another item that

20 we took into account in the life-cycle cost

21 analysis is that not all repairs are performed 

22 following industry-recommended practice, so in
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 229

1 some cases repair might affect the efficiency

2 of the motor. 

3 So, DOE assumed that one-third of

4 repairs were performed following industry5 recommended practice, and in that case we

6 didn't see any changes in the motor efficiency

7 before and after the repair.

8 We also assumed that two-thirds of

9 repairs do not follow industry-recommended

10 practices, and in that case we would see

11 efficiency drops between 0.5 and 1 percent

12 depending on the motor size.

13 In terms of average repair

14 frequency, we assumed motors would be repaired

15 on average after 32,000 hours of operation,

16 that roughly corresponds to 5, 16, and 15

17 years of operation depending on the sector.

18 And for fire pump electric motors we assumed

19 there is no repair due to the lower operating

20 hours. 

21 And here we have a slide that

22 specifies the requests for comments. So, any
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 230

1 comments on how to determine the motor repair

2 cost. Also seeking comments on additional

3 sources to estimate the frequency of motor

4 repair. Also we seek comment on data on

5 maintenance costs and installation costs.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Tom,

7 please.

8 MR. BISHOP: The question I have is

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

10 was the source for that breakdown?

11 MS. IYAMA: We used a study by the

12 Bonneville Power Administration, it's called

13 Industrial Motor Repair in the United States.

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

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

16 - it was basically a survey of 60 repair

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

18 try to estimate that breakdown.

19 MR. BISHOP: Is that citation in

20 the TSD?

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

22 TSD references in Chapter 8.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 231

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your

2 name.

3 MR. FLOLO: George Flolo with Flolo

4 Corporation representing EASA. I have a couple

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

6 Vaughens's pricing. Can you give me some sort

7 of a period of time that you obtained that

8 pricing from Vaughens. You pronounce it

9 differently, but -- 

10 MS. IYAMA: Oh, yes. We used the

11 publication from 2010, I think.

12 MR. FLOLO: Okay, because your

13 pricing that you've shown on that chart is

14 significantly lower than what the current

15 Vaughens pricing is. So, that's one.

16 MS. IYAMA: Okay.

17 MR. FLOLO: Number two, question on

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

19 units of repair, or is that service centers or

20 what is that number? And then an additional

21 question is, because you're using the word

22 repair rather than rewind, okay, do you have
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 232

1 any kind of statistics that talk about how

2 many rewinds really occur versus how many what

3 we would call repairs or reconditions that

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

5 explain maybe why I asked that.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Is a repair the same

7 as a recondition?

8 MR. FLOLO: A repair would -- we

9 would have used the term repair as the same as

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

11 use the word rewind.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

13 MS. IYAMA: So, here by repair we

14 meant rewind. And then the 32,000 hours of

15 operation for the rewind frequency was an

16 estimate we established through mostly inputs

17 from Austin Bonnett.

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

19 referring to that as -- 

20 MS. IYAMA: Okay.

21 MR. FLOLO: -- much as I was

22 referring to how many units actually get
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 233

1 rewound. And let me better explain why I'm

2 asking. It's because if you would take our

3 company along with many other EASAs especially

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

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

6 I know of other firms that have gone from four

7 winders down to one winder. And, therefore,

8 the amount of windings that are taking place

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

10 number, and that's attributable to the

11 electronics in across the line starters doing

12 a much better job of protecting the windings

13 as well as variable frequency drives. So, I

14 just want to point that out to the group that,

15 you know, the amount of motors that are

16 honestly getting rewound is getting to be a

17 much, much smaller number than what you would

18 have had in some of your databases, especially

19 since one of them takes you all the way back

20 to the 1990s.

21 MS. IYAMA: So, again for the

22 frequency of the rewind here in the LCC we're
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 234

1 looking at one motor, so that's the

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

3 information on the number of motors that are

4 being rewound each year.

5 MR. FLOLO: Right, but that would

6 be a significant issue in your energy

7 consumption, especially since you're

8 considering degrading efficiency during a

9 rewind process. And if you don't know that

10 number how do you justify its damage to the

11 environment?

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens.

13 MR. STEPHENS: Just to follow-up as

14 a question. Are you suggesting that the

15 32,000-hour number is no longer as valid as it

16 once was, perhaps?

17 MR. FLOLO: That's exactly right. I

18 think it's much higher than that between

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

20 me give you an example. My business went from

21 20 percent rewinds out of 1,000 motors a year,

22 and it's less than 6 percent currently, so
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 235

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

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

3 are bearing issues, it's environmental issues.

4 It is not winding issues.

5 MS. IYAMA: Right. So, again any

6 information or additional sources of

7 information that you could recommend to help

8 us assess or estimate the frequency of motor

9 repair would be really helpful to try to

10 readjust maybe that 32,000-hour number.

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

12 hard for either EASA or anybody to exactly

13 come up with. However, the source, if you

14 start looking at -- if you guys went out to

15 some of the large users, whether it be the

16 Fortune 500 or Fortune 1,000 that do asset

17 management to a high degree you would be able

18 to obtain that kind of information. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: I was not certain we

20 got the lexicon squared up here. You said that

21 repair means rewind from the perspective of

22 DOE.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 236

1 MR. FLOLO: Right.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: You used some other

3 words in there. Differentiate this for us.

4 MR. FLOLO: Okay. First of all,

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

6 things that can happen; it gets reconditioned

7 which is -- 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

9 MR. FLOLO: -- new bearings, clean

10 it up, do any mechanical work. If the winding

11 has failed, then we call it a rewind.

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

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

14 a rewind is also a recondition.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Gotcha.

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

17 a good point.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, okay. Thank

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

20 MS. IYAMA: Thank you.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Now we can move on.

22 MS. IYAMA: Okay, so we went
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 237

1 through the discount rates, the electricity

2 prices, the repair costs, maintenance costs,

3 installation costs, so next I'll go through

4 the lifetime.

5 DOE assumed -- DOE developed

6 mechanical lifetime in hours for each

7 horsepower range considered. And this was done

8 for all equipment classes grouped together.

9 And then in the life cycle cost calculation we

10 derived lifetimes in years using the annual

11 operating hour estimates. So, these are the

12 results for the estimated average lifetimes in

13 years for Equipment Class Group 1. So, again,

14 these are derived from the mechanical

15 lifetimes I just presented combined with the

16 different annual operating hour estimates in

17 the industrial sector here, and commercial

18 sector, and agricultural sector.

19 Another item that DOE included for

20 motor lifetime is that for motors below 75-

21 horsepower which are most often embedded in

22 larger pieces of equipment we assume that the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 238

1 motor is retired when it reached this lifetime

2 or when the equipment of which it's part of

3 reaches its lifetime, so whatever happens

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

5 pump and if the pump breaks down, then the

6 motor is assumed to also retire.

7 And on lifetime here again we have

8 a comment box, and DOE is interested in any

9 comments or additional sources of data on

10 motor lifetime that could be used to validate

11 our estimate of motor mechanical lifetime. Are

12 there any inputs on the method to estimate

13 motor lifetimes?

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Neal?

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott. Not so

16 much a comment but a question. Motors below 75

17 horse are assumed to retire. What happens to

18 motors above 75 horsepower?

19 MS. IYAMA: So, for the larger

20 horsepower motor, we assumed they were not

21 used as a component of a larger piece of

22 equipment, so they would not retire -- they
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 239

1 would follow these assumptions of mechanical

2 lifetime. It's just that for the smaller

3 motor, since there's a possibility that they

4 could be embedded in an equipment that could

5 fail before those mechanical lifetimes are

6 reached, then we account for those potential

7 shorter lifetimes.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: For the larger

9 motors it would be more direct replacement?

10 MS. IYAMA: They would just -- 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Along this -- 

12 MS. IYAMA: -- be retired after

13 these amounts of mechanical lifetimes.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Frank.

15 MR. LADONNE: Frank Ladonne,

16 Underwriters Labs. I really have nothing to

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

18 colleagues from EASA but it seems to me that

19 75 is a pretty big number. It seems to me that

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

21 horsepower motor because even with a 50

22 there's significant capital costs, and most
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 240

1 users would prefer to have the motor rebuilt

2 or rewound.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me note for the

4 record that we have several heads in the room

5 nodding up and down in assent. I thought I saw

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

7 ahead. George.

8 (Off the record comments.)

9 MR. FLOLO: I would like to point

10 out that, for example, BP has a standard that

11 at 60-horsepower, they don't even consider

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

13 item. I will say that, unless the motor is

14 pretty doggoned special, when you start

15 getting around 40-horsepower, it's pretty hard

16 for me with my labor costs to be competitive

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

18 I'm sure there are various users and various

19 EASA repair service centers that certainly

20 still could be a replacement item and not a

21 considered repair.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Dan.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 241

1 MR. DELANEY: Dan Delaney, Regal2 Beloit. Can you go back to the prior issues?

3 I got confused because the numbering is

4 different than our side. If you go back to the

5 prior questions, the last one, Issue 20, on

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

7 comment here -- a question as well as maybe a

8 comment.

9 You talk about technology options

10 that could drive motor mechanical

11 configuration. I go back to the commercial

12 world and your OEM configuration where this

13 could drive maybe possible higher repair

14 rewind for very specific OEM applications

15 where length and some other things drive more

16 efficient motors to that additional cost,

17 especially at the lower end which would

18 probably end more in the commercial end. Was

19 that the point of this comment/question on

20 this, or was it in regards to another area?

21 MS. IYAMA: So, we're mostly

22 interested in knowing whether an increase in
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 242

1 efficiency of a motor may also result in

2 higher installation costs. So, in the

3 engineering right now, we try to keep the

4 dimensions of the motor and the frame

5 designation constant, but if there is any

6 information we should consider to help us

7 quantify -- if there is an increase in

8 installation costs, then we would welcome such

9 information.

10 MR. DELANEY: I'll make a point on

11 a definite and special purpose product that is

12 not regulated today, motor starters and you

13 had essentially most of the motor starters

14 and/or switchgear that may be available for

15 some of that product, really the breaker

16 systems for that could have an issue if it is

17 at the threshold at the definite -- at the

18 standard designs what they are today. I could

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

20 I'd say mechanical configuration but certainly

21 electrical performance type of upgrades

22 necessary to accommodate higher efficiency on
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 243

1 a definite -- special purpose that came from

2 no regulation of efficiency all the way up to

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

4 large jump in efficiency.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: I see George is

6 still standing back there, so go ahead,

7 George.

8 MR. FLOLO: All right. One last

9 point, and I just want to reemphasize the

10 mechanical considerations. Even when we are

11 replacing motors for our end users, it's

12 amazing to me even with the different

13 manufacturers that we represent the difference

14 in the C dimension on these motors, so that we

15 are cognizant even in today's standards of

16 that C dimension when we're replacing a motor. 

17 I struggle with you being able to increase to

18 the next level and maintain that C dimension.

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

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

21 be able to obtain a motor that fits in his

22 machine anymore, and now that motor will
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 244

1 become a special motor.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: John, and then to

3 Charlie.

4 MR. MALINOWSKI: Yes, John

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

6 little bit on behalf of the ABB side of our

7 company in this answer.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Excuse me. What's

9 the ABB side?

10 MR. MALINOWSKI: ABB is our parent

11 company.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, that's

13 fine.

14 MR. MALINOWSKI: And they also make

15 electric motors of the IEC type that are sold

16 in North America worldwide.

17 When we look at -- to George's

18 point, when we've looked at some of these

19 motors at the higher efficiency levels, we've

20 added active material stack length and added

21 slot fill which adds end turns, so that would

22 mean that we're going to have to come up with
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 245

1 a longer frame.

2 That machine isn't going to fit

3 where the old machine perhaps was in some user

4 applications, but by your own numbers you said

5 50 percent of the business goes to OEMs, so

6 this could mean that the OEMs have to redesign

7 their machinery to fit these motors. Dan

8 talked about that a little bit on special

9 purpose and definite purpose motors, but

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

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

12 probably not going to fit.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

14 MR. MALINOWSKI: And in the case of

15 IEC motors, they're more closely tied to size

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

17 service factor, and a little bit more design.

18 Roger will probably jump in here and get me

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

20 IEC motor to raise the efficiency without

21 jumping frame sizes. And what the IEC world

22 would do is go to a larger diameter rather
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 246

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

2 a machine, maybe a packing machine for the

3 food industry that came in with IEC motors on

4 it that we're going to replace with a new

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

6 not going to fit. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Gotcha. Charlie.

8 MR. STEPHENS: Yes, I had a

9 question. Charlie Stephens. Is the data that

10 you're able to access for motor lifetime and

11 motor repair frequency, have you got enough

12 sources to see any trends in that that you

13 could actually pick out?

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

15 kind of trends exactly?

16 MR. STEPHENS: Well, there's been

17 some comment here that suggests that, because

18 of the applications, repair cycles are getting

19 longer potentially. And I guess that would

20 cause me to reiterate Neal's point, that the

21 study that we really need to get some more

22 data is probably more important than ever.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 247

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. This has

2 been very productive. Rob, keep going.

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

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

5 life expectancy. Right there. You know, I

6 don't think I could cite any studies

7 necessarily that we've seen, but as

8 manufacturers, we sell polyphase motors into

9 the agricultural world, and agriculture

10 doesn't do a real good job of maintenance. 

11 The motors that both John and I

12 sell, the vast majority of them operate

13 underwater in irrigation systems seasonally.

14 Yes, they sit in a field for seven months and

15 then they turn them on.

16 MR. ELLIOTT: And we should note

17 that he is not referring to submersible motors

18 here.

19 MR. BOTELER: No, they're not

20 submersibles; they're irrigation drives. And

21 I think we would also tell you that industrial

22 applications, industrial customers are more
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 248

1 inclined to take better care in service and

2 maintenance, and agriculture and commercial

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

4 MS. IYAMA: So, do you think the

5 agricultural numbers are too high, or the

6 industrial numbers are -- 

7 MR. BOTELER: Yes, I think the

8 agricultural are too high, and I think the

9 industrial are too low. And I'm probably okay

10 with the commercial.

11 MS. IYAMA: Okay.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

13 MR. BOTELER: Okay, John says 29

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

15 500 on industrial, I've been in industrial

16 plants where I found motors that are 40 and 50

17 years old.

18 MS. IYAMA: And, again, those are

19 average values, so you know, LCC -- 

20 MR. BOTELER: Well, that's a good

21 question. Yes.

22 MS. IYAMA: -- calculation we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 249

1 actually account for a distribution around

2 these numbers.

3 MR. BOTELER: Yes.

4 MS. IYAMA: So, you'll see motors

5 that actually operate much longer lifetimes or

6 much lower lifetimes.

7 MR. BOTELER: Right, right.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Neal, follow on. 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: I mean, I -- and

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

11 is that a 200 to 500-horsepower motor, you

12 know, you're talking about hundreds of

13 thousands of dollars of capital cost. And

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

15 repair shops because those things, you never

16 want to let them die because you've already

17 invested. The point is that a lot of this

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

19 the industrial sector, a lot of these are IEEE

20 841 motors so that they're not just a standard

21 motor, so they're a huge amount of capital

22 cost. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 250

1 And I guess the last time I looked

2 841s were running about twice what a standard

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

4 talking about a lot of investing, a lot of

5 capital investment in these things, and so

6 there's a lot of motivation to keep them

7 running.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So, any data,

9 any actual data that you have, noting that

10 this table reflects averages, that would be

11 especially helpful. Alex next, and then I'm

12 coming back to you, Dan. 

13 MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg,

14 NEMA. Speaking on behalf of myself and my own

15 personal experiences, I'll have to back up

16 what Rob said about the agricultural side of

17 things just from my personal growing up in the

18 country. And then I have a friend who is a

19 farmer right now about 30 miles from here.

20 I've never seen anybody in my

21 experience do any preventative maintenance on

22 a motor. They turn it on and expect it to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 251

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

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

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

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

5 again until the fall when they need it again.

6 And then they beat on it until it works, you

7 know. I've grabbed a motor because a starter

8 failed, and you grab the belt after pulling

9 the guard out of the way so you can start

10 spinning it and say okay, turn it on. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Gotcha.

12 MR. BOESENBERG: Yes.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Dan. 

14 MR. BASSO: Dale Basso.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Dale, thank you.

16 Dale.

17 MR. BASSO: Just a comment. I think

18 where everybody is going with this obviously

19 is the agricultural years are long, and I'm

20 sure the way you came up with it was the

21 mechanical lifetime times then the hours of

22 operation -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 252

1 MS. IYAMA: Right, so it might not

2 necessarily account for the -- 

3 MR. BASSO: And that math led you

4 down a path, and unfortunately we do build

5 different kinds of motors. We build industrial

6 motors, we build commercial motors, we build

7 farm-duty motors, so when it really comes down

8 to it, you're working with the big picture

9 numbers. And I think you just fell into a trap

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

11 nobody takes care of and last three years. And

12 yes, it still runs those hours that you

13 calculated but the mechanical lifetime is much

14 shorter for those products that don't get

15 maintenanced. So it tends to skew your whole

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

17 number to come up with I realize, but I think

18 what you'll find in talking to the farmers of

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

20 very few years with a motor in a farm before

21 they just throw it away and replace it. And

22 most of it is much smaller. You know, there's
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 253

1 not that many of the big motors out in the

2 farms.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob.

4 MR. BOTELER: Yes, just picking up

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

6 industrial motors, that market has moved

7 almost totally to cast iron, and a lot of that

8 to the cast iron 841 motor where the

9 agriculture is still a lighter duty steel

10 frame motor, so the mechanical construction is

11 not nearly as robust as the industrial.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Interesting. Okay,

13 thank you. Andrew deLaski, please.

14 MR. deLASKI: So, you would expect

15 longer lifetimes out of these -- 

16 (Off microphone comment.)

17 MR. deLASKI: Right. And do you

18 think these numbers are representative of

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

20 (Off microphone comment.)

21 MR. deLASKI: Okay.

22 MS. IYAMA: Thank you.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 254

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

2 MR. deLASKI: And I wanted to -- on

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

4 various literature sources. So, are -- what

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

6 you remember?

7 MS. IYAMA: So, we actually started

8 by lifetimes in years in the industrial

9 sector. And this was based on information we

10 got through our motor expert. And then we used

11 that combined with our annual operating hour

12 assumptions to get to estimates of mechanical

13 lifetimes. And this became sort of the

14 reference for the lifetime of the motors. And

15 then we derived the lifetimes in years in the

16 other sectors, in the commercial sector and

17 agricultural sector based on these mechanical

18 lifetimes.

19 So, again we chose that approach

20 because there is some data on lifetime in the

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

22 remember all the references but the problem
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 255

1 with the data we found in the literature is

2 that it wasn't clear if it was considering the

3 repair cycles -- it wasn't clear on the

4 definition of the lifetime, so we sort of had

5 to start from scratch to be sure that we're

6 talking about what we want to talk about,

7 which is lifetime from when the motor is sold

8 to when it's completely retired from the

9 market.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Neal.

11 MR. ELLIOTT: I mean, I think this

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

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

14 sort of looked at. The assumption -- and,

15 again, this goes back to what George and Linda

16 understand. And there's repair and there is þ17 - there's repair which they -- which I mean

18 basically you go in, you clean the motor, you

19 redo the conductors, you replace the bearings,

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

21 when repair, and that's routine, and that

22 happens I would say every three to five years
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 256

1 in an industrial application, maybe five to

2 seven years. George?

3 Anyway, so you've got that. I

4 would assume that that motor is going to go

5 through quite a number of reconditioning

6 cycles before it ultimately gets retired. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: George, follow-on.

8 George.

9 MR. FLOLO: Yes, that is quite

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

11 some service centers do it, but also a lot of

12 users do their own, and that is predictive and

13 preventive maintenance. They have -- matter of

14 fact, in some of the steel mills they have

15 crews of guys they call oilers and greasers,

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

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

18 predictive, preventive maintenance program, we

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

20 what you're really starting to deal with is

21 the mechanical bearing life aspect which is --

22 can be calculated. And I think all bearing
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 257

1 manufacturers do have that kind of data that's

2 readily available.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

4 MR. ELLIOTT: Just as a follow-up,

5 you may want to check with the ABMA, American

6 Bearing Manufacturers Association. I think

7 they do have some data, as George indicated,

8 available on bearing life. So, they may be

9 actually a very good source of information.

10 MS. IYAMA: Right. So, another -- 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: That last comment

12 was from Neal.

13 MS. IYAMA: I'm sorry.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Keep going, Sanaee.

15 MS. IYAMA: I have a question then.

16 Do you think bearing replacement would change

17 across efficiency levels?

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Who can comment on

19 that? Now, I see a bunch of manufacturers

20 shaking their heads no. 

21 MS. IYAMA: Because that's -- 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: George, go ahead.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 258

1 MR. FLOLO: Unless when we buy

2 bearings we're told those are the same

3 specifications that the motor manufacturers

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

5 have any degradation on efficiency. And then

6 when you couple with that, when a motor comes

7 in for reconditioning we're using micrometers,

8 and we're measuring the bearing journals as

9 well as the bearing housing. And when that

10 motor leaves it's to the exact OEM

11 specifications of the motor manufacturer. So,

12 there should be absolutely zero degradation as

13 a function of efficiency.

14 MS. IYAMA: Right. And I guess the

15 question was also more in terms of, does the

16 cost of a bearing replacement for a baseline

17 efficiency motor, will that significantly

18 change now if we have a higher efficiency

19 motor?

20 MR. FLOLO: No, there is no

21 relationship there at all. Efficiency, the

22 fact that it's a high -- a premium efficient
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 259

1 motor versus an EPACT, a bearing, is a

2 bearing.

3 MS. IYAMA: Okay.

4 MR. FLOLO: Makes no difference.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: And the substitution

6 is exact.

7 MR. FLOLO: Exact.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, glad we

9 clarified that. Yes? John.

10 MR. MALINOWSKI: I just wanted to

11 get back to the comment about going to look at

12 L10 bearing life. You have to remember that

13 those bearing calculations are lab

14 calculations. Under an ideal loading in a

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

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

17 industrial, commercial, or certainly

18 agricultural application and it's going to get

19 contamination in it. It's probably not going

20 to have the right lubrication cycle, could be

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

22 is like a wish list of life. It's not real
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 260

1 world.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We are now --

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

4 moving, but maybe we should take a short break

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

6 10 minutes, go quickly to the restrooms, and

7 make it back here, which means at 10 minutes

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

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

10 back here in 10 minutes.

11 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

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

13 resumed at 3:13 p.m.)

14 MR. BROOKMAN: We are going to

15 press on here, folks, and back to Sanaee.

16 MS. IYAMA: So, I'm going to

17 continue on the life cycle cost analysis. So

18 next inputs to the life cycle cost analysis

19 are the base case efficiency distributions.

20 So, as mentioned earlier, the results in the

21 LCC are expressed in terms of life cycle cost

22 difference between a standards case and a base
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 261

1 case. 

2 And the base case efficiency

3 distribution basically accounts for the fact

4 that not all motors considered in the analysis

5 are covered by the current standards, so some

6 may have efficiency below the NEMA 12-11

7 tables. Not all consumers purchase motors

8 meeting the current minimum standards, meaning

9 some may purchase motors with higher

10 efficiencies above premium. So, the life cycle

11 cost analysis recognizes that consumers

12 already purchasing motors at efficiencies

13 greater than or equal to a perspective

14 standard level will not be impacted by the

15 standard. So, again the life cycle cost

16 results are expressed in terms of life cycle

17 cost difference between a standards case and

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

19 already purchasing a motor that has an

20 efficiency equal or greater than the projected

21 standard, then you will not be impacted by

22 that standard.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 262

1 In order to establish those base

2 case efficiency distributions we used data

3 from catalog manufacturers and we looked at

4 2011 catalogs. We used this data to establish

5 the distribution -- the efficiency

6 distribution by equipment class groups and

7 horsepower range. And here we have an example

8 of the efficiency distribution for Equipment

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

10 horsepower motors -- between 1 and 5-

11 horsepower.

12 And here DOE seeks comments on the

13 estimated base case efficiency distributions

14 for all equipment class groups. And any

15 additional sources of data that could be used

16 to derive those efficiency distributions.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Dan. 

18 MR. DELANEY: If you want to go

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

20 somewhat misleading about the definite

21 purpose, special purpose is you're going to

22 find that not all that type of product is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 263

1 going to be a catalog type of product. A good

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

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

4 to see efficiency levels always provided for

5 definite and special purpose type product

6 because that is not the driving factor for

7 that type of product anyway. It is for torque

8 or for mechanical options, or other. So,

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

10 by a good percentage.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael, do you want

12 to -- 

13 MR. DELANEY: Yes, so what would be

14 an appropriate number?

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Dan, do you want to

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

17 MR. BOTELER: If you go back to our 

18 petition, our estimate is again at about 49

19 million connected horsepower is sold every

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

21 million connected horsepower. And that would

22 be covered by either 12-12 or 12-11. So, that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 264

1 leaves 31 million connected horsepower that's

2 not covered, so that's going to be special

3 purpose, definite purpose, offshore, gear

4 motors, partial motors. And I think that

5 number which is about 60 percent of the total

6 number of connected horsepower would fall

7 either into Category Zero or Category 1.

8 There's certainly some of that that is EPACT,

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

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

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

12 Yes, John. 

13 MR. MALINOWSKI: Maybe another way

14 of looking at this, what you're doing is

15 looking at what models are in a catalog. And

16 that really doesn't tell you how many of those

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

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

19 a lot of things in the catalog you might sell

20 25 of, and we've got stuff in the catalog

21 that's tens of thousands.

22 So, if we can go back to some
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 265

1 numbers, and we could probably get accurate

2 numbers out of NEMA. If we look at where we

3 were prior to enactment of EISA, premium

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

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

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

7 12-12. Since then it's probably pushing 70

8 percent.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Wow.

10 MR. MALINOWSKI: Well, that's -- 

11 MR. BOTELER: Because if you look

12 at our expanded scope of 5.2 million units,

13 that's not true.

14 MR. MALINOWSKI: That's true, but

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

16 that are mandated at 12-11 today, EPACT level

17 that customers are choosing to go above. So,

18 maybe the 70 percent is a little high, but

19 it's substantially larger than the 20s.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: These are very

21 helpful comments for the Department. 

22 MR. MALINOWSKI: And we can get an
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 266

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

2 written comments.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

4 MS. IYAMA: Thank you.

5 MR. MALINOWSKI: That's my

6 estimate, that's not agreed on by my

7 colleagues.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob, do you want to

9 add on here, or did you say it?

10 MR. BOTELER: This is Rob. We'll

11 put it into our written comments. We'll

12 discuss this.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

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

15 Okay, okay. Keep going.

16 MS. IYAMA: Okay. So, using all the

17 inputs that I presented in the previous slide

18 in the base case efficiency distributions that

19 were derived from the catalog data, these are

20 the results of the life cycle cost

21 calculation. And here as an example, I'm

22 providing the results for Representative Unit
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 267

1 1, and then on the next slide for

2 Representative Unit 3. 

3 So we have the average LCC, and

4 here we see that the average LCC savings is

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

6 negative savings. And we have similar results

7 for the 75-horsepower motor.

8 So, next I will cover the National

9 Impact Analysis.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Please, Rob.

11 (Off microphone comment.)

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

13 that's okay. 

14 MR. BOTELER: Can you go back to

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

16 doing the life cycle analysis, back to Roger's

17 comment on the formula on page 73, if that

18 formula changes would that then change all of

19 your calculations on the life cycle? You used

20 the formula for the motor losses.

21 MS. IYAMA: We used the top

22 formula.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 268

1 MR. BOTELER: The top formula.

2 MS. IYAMA: Yes. 

3 MR. BOTELER: Okay, you did not use

4 the lower formula.

5 MS. IYAMA: No.

6 MR. BOTELER: Okay. So, Roger -- 

7 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

8 Yes, I'm assuming that when they were over

9 here with the LCC analysis that they

10 calculated the actual energy use of each CSL

11 level, and then you take the difference in

12 that energy use.

13 MS. IYAMA: Right.

14 MR. DAUGHERTY: So, it's not

15 dependent upon the other relationship.

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

17 -- that's my question, thank you.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Dale. 

19 MR. BASSO: This is Dale Basso.

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

21 - with these calculations it all starts with

22 the price assumption. Correct? So, in that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 269

1 price assumption I think you stated that these

2 don't include any manufacturer impact that

3 might change other factors that could increase

4 the price. So, as we get into the discussion

5 later on manufacturers that doesn't actually

6 happen until the NOPR. Right? Where you would

7 look at manufacturer impact, and you would

8 then go back and adjust these numbers based on

9 any impact finding?

10 MS. IYAMA: Not in the LCC or in

11 the engineering analysis. It's a separate

12 analysis, but it would be taken into account

13 in any decisions.

14 MR. DAUGHERTY: Okay, so you're

15 basing decisions on this number, but you're

16 not putting all of the cost into the number?

17 Is that what I'm understanding?

18 MS. IYAMA: So, the life cycle cost

19 is one of the many analyses that DOE performs,

20 so it's considered in the decision making

21 process, but the NIA is also another

22 component, and the manufacturer impact
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 270

1 analysis is also another component.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: John.

3 MR. MALINOWSKI: Yes, John

4 Malinowski, Baldor. We've already talked about

5 the cost assumptions you've made on these

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

7 incremental cost differences between a level

8 zero motor and an EPACT without getting in

9 trouble with antitrust, in industry we've

10 talked about ranges of 15 to 20 percent. Then

11 we saw another 15 to 20 percent in ranges

12 between an EPACT and a premium. 

13 One might expect some additional

14 material to get to the level 3, and then more

15 material, copper to get to level 4 and 5.

16 We've not taken into effect any hand winding

17 additional cost. You've only added for the

18 copper, you've not added for any of the

19 additional infrastructure, new laminations

20 needed for 3, 4, or 5, new manufacturing

21 equipment.

22 It's going to skew these things
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 271

1 and make the payback longer than you have,

2 particularly by the time you get to 4 and 5.

3 The hours that you had in that chart for

4 industry and particularly commercial and

5 agricultural maybe too many hours in some

6 cases, not enough hours on maybe some of the

7 small industrial.

8 The whole life cycle cost of the

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

10 mean, everything you've got here is probably

11 understated. It's probably a lot longer on

12 these higher, particularly 4 and 5, maybe even

13 a little bit to level 3.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob.

15 MR. BOTELER: Yes, John mentioned a

16 lot of the things that happened in the factory

17 as far as material and equipment, but one of

18 the things that you need to realize and why

19 the manufacturers are -- the Coalition is

20 supporting expanded scope and staying at level

21 2 is because we have already developed the

22 electrical packages, the wound-stator
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 272

1 assemblies and we've proven those that meet

2 the level 2 efficiency.

3 When we expand the scope of

4 product what we can do is, we have the ability

5 in our engineering systems to do batch changes

6 where we change that particular component in

7 hundreds of builds and material relatively

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

9 of retesting and reconfiguring to make sure

10 that end turns, I was accused yesterday of

11 saying interns, end turns fit within the

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

13 requires us to go back and re-engineer the

14 complete electrical package, and then

15 determine will it fit in the mechanical

16 package so it adds a tremendous amount of

17 engineering for what we pointed out, what Neal

18 pointed out is pretty much a rounding error in

19 efficiency gain. And I think we need to

20 recognize that.

21 So, in your numbers here you show

22 a very significant increase when we go to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 273

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

2 similar increase when you go to level 3. And

3 that there's some significant engineering

4 costs that need to be considered.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

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

7 on.

8 MR. LIN: Paul Lin with Regal9 Beloit. Just a process question. Are you going

10 to go back and adjust your LCC based on the

11 feedback that you received today?

12 MS. IYAMA: In the NOPR we have an

13 entire -- the first phase of the NOPR stage.

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

15 consists of revising all the analysis we

16 presented here today with either the comments

17 we've received or newer data that we can come

18 across.

19 MR. LIN: Okay. I guess when you do

20 that why wouldn't you include some of the

21 capital costs that we've talked about, because

22 the concern I have, taking my Regal hat off,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 274

1 and taking the NEMA hat off is the DOE reports

2 are utilized by a lot of people as reference

3 material. And if they're not accurately

4 reflecting the costs, it could lead others

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

6 make sure that in the report that all the cost

7 analysis is done with everything in mind

8 because the people who read the report may not

9 have the benefit of sitting in this room and

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

11 particular life cycle cost analysis.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

13 MR. LIN: That's only my comment.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

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

16 to the National Impact Analysis. The National

17 Impact Analysis actually includes both the

18 shipments analysis and the National Impact

19 Analysis. And I'll start with the shipments

20 analysis.

21 The purpose of this section is to

22 estimate shipments projections both in the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 275

1 base case and in the standards case. So, we

2 used the current information on shipments and

3 projected those values assuming that shipments

4 are driven by economic growth and fixed

5 investment in equipment including motors.

6 We based that assumption on a high

7 degree of correlation found between historical

8 shipments of motors and fixed investment in

9 selected equipment. So, here on this graph we

10 have the historical shipments represented by

11 an index in blue, and in red the product fixed

12 investment in selected equipment including

13 motors.

14 This correlation was derived from

15 a linear regression represented by this

16 equation here, and it allowed calculating

17 estimates of shipments, and the predicted

18 shipments based on private fixed investment

19 projections which were based on data found in

20 the Annual Energy Outlook. So, we projected

21 the fixed investment and then we used that

22 equation to project our shipments.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 276

1 Here I'm just repeating the data

2 we saw in the market assessment, the different

3 shipments for the year 2011, so we took this

4 data and applied the equation in order to

5 project those shipments over the analysis

6 period from 2015 to 2044. 

7 The shipments analysis also

8 includes a breakdown of motor shipments across

9 equipment class groups and equipment classes.

10 So, in order to establish those breakdowns we

11 used data from different market research

12 reports, inputs from interested parties as

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

14 assessment data as proxy. And all of these

15 breakdowns are detailed in Chapter 9 of the

16 TSD.

17 And here DOE seeks any comments on

18 any additional sources of data on motor

19 shipments that could be used to validate our

20 shipments model and projections.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Any additional that

22 haven't been mentioned already data sources?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 277

1 MS. IYAMA: Okay. So, as mentioned

2 earlier the purpose of the shipments analysis

3 is to establish both a base case shipment

4 projection and a standards case shipment

5 projection. The shipment projections are

6 expressed both in terms of quantities, but

7 also in terms of efficiencies. 

8 For the base case efficiency

9 distributions, DOE assumed there would be no

10 changes in motor shipments efficiency during

11 the analysis period, so the base case

12 efficiency remains constant and equal to the

13 2011 one that I mentioned during the LCC

14 analysis.

15 So, here we request comments on

16 this decision to use constant efficiencies

17 throughout the analysis period in the base

18 case scenario. And any data that could help us

19 characterize trends in efficiency would be

20 helpful. And again, that would be in a base

21 case situation.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 278

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

2 this one would fit here, but there certainly

3 is a trend as the fellow, Robert, from Danfoss

4 mentioned. There is a trend of more and more

5 product that's in the categories that we're

6 talking about moving to variable frequency

7 drives. So, I mean, the efficiency levels are

8 going to change as they become more integral

9 to the system and benefit from the variable

10 frequency drives. But what that would be --

11 you know, we all talk about the percentage of

12 product we sell, and try and estimate the

13 number of units that are going to be used with

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

15 data on that subject, but it could have an

16 effect over the period.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

18 MS. IYAMA: So, we did this for the

19 base case situation. We do the same for the

20 standards case. For the standards case, the

21 standards case shipments projections,DOE is

22 aware that increased electric motor prices
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 279

1 could affect the repair versus replace

2 decisions and, therefore, impact shipments. 

3 However, in the absence of data to

4 quantify and estimate the impact of increased

5 motor prices on shipments, we assumed that the

6 standards case shipment projection would be

7 equal to the base case shipments.

8 Now, in terms of efficiency we

9 derived standards case efficiency

10 distributions from the base case efficiency

11 distribution and applied a roll-up scenario. 

12 And here's that a comment box. We

13 would be interested if you have any

14 information that could help us quantify the

15 impact of increased motor prices on motor

16 shipments in the different standards case.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional

18 comments.

19 MS. IYAMA: So, next we have the

20 actual National Impact Analysis. The purpose

21 of this analysis is to estimate national

22 energy savings for motor ships -- for motors
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 280

1 shipped from 2015 to 2044, as well as to

2 estimate the national economic impact on

3 electric motor users.

4 So, DOE calculates national energy

5 savings by multiplying unit lifetime energy

6 savings by the projected shipments, and

7 accumulating this projected value over the 30

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

9 calculation.

10 DOE also calculates the net

11 present value for the national economic impact

12 by accumulating the difference each year

13 between the energy bill savings and increased

14 equipment expenditures for all motors shipped

15 over that 30-year period. 

16 So, here we have the overall flow

17 chart for the calculation of the national

18 energy savings. It starts off by the shipments

19 analysis and we use the base case projections,

20 and standards case shipments projections. So,

21 in the base case we calculate the base case

22 lifetime energy consumption for motors sold
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 281

1 each year over the 30-year period analysis, we

2 convert that base case lifetime energy

3 consumption by -- into primary energy. And we

4 accumulate those values over 30 years to get

5 to the base case cumulative energy use. So, we

6 do this in the base case situation, we do this

7 in the different standards case situations,

8 and the differences gives us the national

9 energy savings.

10 Next we have a similar diagram

11 describing the calculation for the net present

12 value. Again we start off with the shipments

13 projections. We use the shipment projection to

14 calculate the lifetime energy cost of motors

15 shipped each year over the analysis period, so

16 we do this in the base case and in the

17 standards case projections.

18 We also use the shipments to

19 calculate the lifetime repair, maintenance,

20 and installation costs, total installation

21 costs for motors shipped each year over that

22 30-year period. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 282

1 We calculate the cumulative energy

2 cost savings by taking the difference between

3 the standards case and base case energy cost,

4 and we calculate the cumulative non-energy

5 cost increase by taking the difference between

6 the standards case and the base case repair,

7 maintenance, and total install costs.

8 We use a discount rate to convert

9 those time series of monetary values into a

10 present value, and the difference between the

11 non-energy cost increase and the energy cost

12 savings gives us the net present value.

13 Now, this slide summarizes all of

14 the inputs that were used into the National

15 Impact Analysis, so we've gone through all of

16 them in the previous sections, except maybe

17 for the discount rate. In the NIA we use 7

18 percent and 3 percent discount rates. This is

19 OMB guidance. 

20 Another thing I will go into

21 details in the next couple of slides are the

22 total installed cost. The total installed
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 283

1 costs are the sum of the motor price and

2 shipping cost. We didn't include the

3 installation costs because they're assumed to

4 stay constant across efficiency levels, and

5 here we're looking at results in terms of

6 difference between standards case and base

7 case.

8 So, the motor price is derived

9 from the manufacturer selling price by

10 applying markups, and the shipping cost is

11 derived from the motor weight by applying an

12 average shipping cost.

13 The engineering analysis provided

14 manufacturer selling price and weight data for

15 the represented -- for the representative

16 units only. So, in order to calculate total

17 installed costs for all equipment classes we

18 had to extrapolate on this information for the

19 representatives units, and develop estimates

20 of total installed costs for all equipment

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

22 in the next slide.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 284

1 We used similar methodologies to

2 extrapolate -- 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Sanaee?

4 MR. BOESENBERG: Yes.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Meg?

6 MS. WALTNER: Meg Waltner from

7 NRDC. A quick question on this slide. Are you

8 not using learning rates in this analysis, or

9 is that not part of this?

10 MS. IYAMA: So, we looked at

11 learning rates and it turns out that for

12 motors, the biggest drivers are the material

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

14 data to be confident to project and use a

15 learning rate so we assumed a constant price

16 in the default scenario. But as a sensitivity

17 analysis we included different learning rates.

18 So, we used a similar methodology

19 to calculate and scale manufacturer selling

20 price and weight data from the representative

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

22 just talk about the manufacturer's selling
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 285

1 price but we did the same for the weight.

2 We developed scaling relationship

3 at each CSL. So, for example, the Equipment

4 Class 1 the engineering gave us manufacturer

5 selling prices for four-pole enclosed 5-

6 horsepower motor, 30-horsepower motor, and 75-

7 horsepower motor. 

8 We used a power law regression to

9 estimate manufacturer's selling prices across

10 all horsepower ranges in that motor

11 configuration, four-pole enclosed. So, we did

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

13 Then we used an index, we

14 established an index to describe how the

15 manufacturer selling price varied by pole and

16 enclosure, and we did that through a

17 statistical analysis of manufacturer catalog

18 data of over 10,000 motor configurations.

19 So, using that database and

20 statistical analysis we derived an index for

21 each horsepower rating that allowed to scale

22 the manufacturer selling price that we had for
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 286

1 the four-pole enclosed motor across all of the

2 other pole and enclosure configurations. So,

3 this allowed DOE to estimate total installed

4 cost for all of the equipment classes.

5 And here we have a comment box on

6 this approach for extrapolating the

7 manufacturer selling price and weight data

8 from the representative units to all of the

9 equipment classes that were considered in the

10 analysis.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: So, comments related

12 to these comment boxes, methodology for

13 scaling, manufacturer selling price data, and

14 comments on scaled values for motor weights.

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

16 we've been through the methodology, the inputs

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

18 results of the National Impact Analysis

19 starting with the national energy savings.

20 Here we have the summary of the national

21 energy savings in quads for the three

22 equipment class groups, and for each of those
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 287

1 CSL levels considered in the analysis.

2 We see that due to the lower

3 shipments the savings are lower for a NEMA

4 Design C motor in comparison to the NEMA

5 Design A and B motors. And another thing that

6 I want to add is that in 2011 DOE published a

7 policy -- a Notice of Policy stating its

8 intention to add full fuel cycle as a metric

9 in the NIA, so we actually included that in

10 the preliminary analysis, so you'll find in

11 the TSD chapters results that are very similar

12 to this, but expressed in terms of full fuel

13 cycles. It's basically a multiplier that's

14 applied to those primary energy savings in

15 order to convert those savings into a full

16 fuel cycle metric.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob.

18 MR. BOTELER: Rob Boteler. I guess

19 the number that just jumps out at me on this

20 chart, I just really struggle with, and I know

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

22 to our original earlier charts, the 5-
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 288

1 horsepower example, the level of efficiency at

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

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

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

5 When I get to this chart my savings with

6 small, really small increment between level 2

7 and level 3, I'm saving almost double the

8 savings in quads? I go from 4.4 to 7.5 on

9 savings on each unit of 7/10ths down to

10 4/10ths. That just amazes me.

11 MS. IYAMA: I think it might be due

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

13 into these calculations, but one of the main

14 drivers I'd say is also the efficiency

15 distributions. That would explain the jump you

16 see.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Matt, please, find a

18 microphone. 

19 MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti from

20 Navigant. So, in other words you're saying

21 there's just a lot of motors that are already

22 at CSL 2. Right? There's a lot of motors being
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 289

1 shipped already at the NEMA premium level, so

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

3 those motors up, as well, so the shipment is

4 being affected as a driver in the energy

5 savings.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob.

7 MR. BOTELER: Yes, and in our

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

9 taking 31 million connected horsepower and

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

11 you're doing the same thing moving it to level

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

13 connected horsepower that we already have and

14 moving that to level 3. 

15 MS. IYAMA: Right.

16 MR. BOTELER: Right. So, it just

17 seems like a huge difference to me. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

19 Yes, Charlie.

20 MR. STEPHENS: I'll add on to what

21 Rob was saying. I think there is a big

22 difference between the estimates that are
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 290

1 behind this proposal in terms of how much is

2 already at what level when it comes to the

3 categories that are not covered right now,

4 which I think are substantially

5 underestimated, potentially, in the current

6 analysis. So, I think some of these things may

7 get ironed out when some of the numbers get

8 reconciled a little better, I think.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

10 Yes?

11 MS. IYAMA: Okay, so I'll continue

12 on the results of the National Impact

13 Analysis, and I'll go through the net present

14 value results. So, here I have a slide for

15 Equipment Class Group 1. So, we have the NPV

16 for the two discount rates considered, and

17 here we present the results for all horsepower

18 ranges, as well as for individual horsepower

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

20 the negative net present value results.

21 For Equipment Class Group 2

22 similar results, and here we have the negative
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 291

1 values highlighted also in red starting at CSL

2 2. And then Equipment Class Group 3 all of the

3 net present value results were negative across

4 CSLs. That's for fire pump electric motors.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: So, there's no

6 comment box here, but should anybody wish to

7 comment on these results please do so. Alex

8 Boesenberg.

9 MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg,

10 NEMA. Please refresh my memory on what the

11 difference between a positive and negative net

12 present value result is on these slides.

13 MS. IYAMA: Okay. So, the net

14 present value is the difference between your

15 cost savings and the incremental cost of

16 purchasing a new motor. It also includes the

17 incremental cost of repairing a higher

18 efficiency motor. So, the net present value

19 here is calculated as the difference between

20 the non-energy cost increase and the energy

21 cost savings. 

22 So, for example, you buy a more
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 292

1 efficient motor, you're saving on your energy

2 bills but it's a higher investment to begin

3 with. So the NPV is sort of the tradeoff

4 between the two. And it's negative when your

5 initial investment and operating lifetime

6 costs are greater than the payback.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Is it lifetime or at

8 the 30-year?

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

10 the lifetime of motors shipped over 30 years.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Thank you. Yes.

12 Charlie.

13 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens.

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

15 costs don't outweigh your initial investment,

16 but when you use the 7-percent discount rate

17 you're discounting all of your future savings

18 substantially. The near-term dollars matter

19 much more than the year 15 to 30 dollars, so

20 the numbers look a lot worse when you use the

21 7-percent discount rate, than they do if you

22 use a 3-percent.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 293

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So, then

2 moving on.

3 MS. IYAMA: Right, so moving on

4 I'll let Hisham continue with the preliminary

5 manufacturer impact analysis. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: So, let me just take

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

8 participated in the manufacturer impact

9 interviews in the past? Just a few of you,

10 okay. I think they're familiar with much of

11 this material. 

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

13 going to talk a little bit about the

14 preliminary manufacturer impact analysis right

15 now, and where it comes into the preliminary

16 analysis stage. You could see here it's a

17 little bit separate during this part of the

18 rulemaking process.

19 So, the purpose of the preliminary

20 MIA is to qualitatively and quantitatively

21 assess the impacts of amended efficiency

22 standards on manufacturers of electric motors.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 294

1 A key output of this analysis is the change in

2 industry net present value resulting from

3 amended standards.

4 DOE normally performs the MIA in

5 three phases. In the first phase, DOE creates

6 an industry profile that builds on the market

7 and technology assessment. This market profile

8 is then updated through interviews with

9 manufacturers, and this typically takes place

10 during the preliminary analysis which is the

11 phase of the rulemaking that we're in right

12 now.

13 During this time, DOE identifies

14 the key issues concerning manufacturers. In

15 Phase 2, it spans the NOPR and final analysis,

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

17 strawman industry cash flow model called the

18 "Government Regulatory Impact Model," or GRIM,

19 to forecast free cash flows in the industry.

20 It does this for the base case and the

21 standards case scenario, and calculates an

22 industry net present value which is the main
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 295

1 output of the GRIM.

2 Also in Phase 2, DOE develops an

3 interview guide that it will use to guide its

4 subsequent discussions with manufacturers

5 during the MIA interviews, which will take

6 place in Phase 3. 

7 Now, during these interviews DOE

8 speaks with a variety of different

9 manufacturers to receive feedback on the items

10 listed in the interview guide. We'll be

11 scheduling these interviews soon after this

12 meeting, and we'll start conducting the

13 interviews some time after the close of the

14 comment period.

15 I would also like to mention at

16 this point that these interviews are nearly

17 always conducted with a non-disclosure

18 agreement in place so that no proprietary

19 information could be shared publicly, but

20 rather aggregated across all the responses.

21 Following the interviews, DOE will

22 refine the GRIM and evaluate other qualitative
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 296

1 issues such as manufacturer capacity, direct

2 employment impacts, and impacts on

3 competition.

4 So, taking a step back to what was

5 done for the preliminary analysis stage,

6 during our preliminary MIA, DOE identified

7 three key issues affecting manufacturers. Now,

8 a lot of these issues were brought up

9 throughout the meeting today, but we'll repeat

10 them again here because they are important

11 when we are considering impacts to

12 manufacturers.

13 First, manufacturers indicated

14 that higher efficiency standards may drive

15 consumers to rewind older, less efficient

16 motors rather than buying new more efficient

17 motors that are more expensive. Now, as Sanaee

18 mentioned, DOE does acknowledge that this

19 increase in electric motor prices could affect

20 the "repair versus replace" decision for

21 consumers, so DOE is welcoming and seeking

22 comments on data sources that it could use to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 297

1 better estimate the impacts of this scenario

2 on shipments.

3 For the second key issue, DOE

4 identified several concerns related to

5 switching to more efficient copper rotor

6 motors. Manufacturers indicated that because

7 copper has a higher melting point than

8 aluminum it's more dangerous to fabricate.

9 Also, the higher molten temperature of copper

10 increases energy costs of manufacturers and

11 leads to quicker degradation of tooling that's

12 used in fabrication.

13 Now, manufacturers also indicated

14 that electric motors with copper rotors have

15 reduced starting performance compared to those

16 with aluminum rotors. This means higher inrush

17 current and lower locked rotor torque. So, to

18 compensate for these reduced performance

19 characteristics manufacturers often have to

20 adjust other design characteristics, such as

21 slot design to maintain NEMA performance

22 requirements just so basically they stay
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 298

1 within the bounds that NEMA prescribes for

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

3 adjustments to these other characteristics

4 could potentially negate the improvements in

5 efficiency gained from switching to copper

6 rotors.

7 Additionally, manufacturers

8 indicated that not only is copper a more

9 expensive raw material compared to aluminum,

10 but there are significant costs associated

11 with retooling their entire production lines

12 for this design option. And a lot of people

13 have brought that up today.

14 Third key issue, domestic

15 manufacturers have indicated that they may be

16 disproportionately affected by new efficiency

17 standards if DOE does not broadly enforce

18 efficiency requirements for all covered

19 motors, including those imported from foreign

20 countries.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Roger.

22 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 299

1 While under the copper rotor motors and

2 throughout most of today you've tended to

3 concentrate on only the parts of the MG1

4 standard that differentiate between design

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

6 parts of the standard that apply commonly to

7 all the design types, and those performance

8 criteria must also be met in the design.

9 One of the things that's difficult

10 in the cast copper rotor is that in order to

11 achieve sufficient starting torque with a more

12 conductive material, and you allude to this in

13 various discussions, is having to shape the

14 rotor slot so that you minimize the amount of

15 material that's active at the time of

16 starting, so you get a very high power density

17 loss in that material.

18 The MG1 standard has requirements

19 for at least being able to start twice from a

20 cold start condition, or once from a hot start

21 condition with a certain amount of inertia and

22 a certain assumed load torque. But one of the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 300

1 more difficult criteria is, is there's also a

2 specified stall time, and that's related to

3 the fact that many of these motors are

4 protected by a standard class type of

5 protective device that will keep that motor on

6 line in a stalled condition if it's unable to

7 start for a significant period of time. The

8 MG1 standard is 20 seconds, so it's also

9 important, and I didn't see that discussed in

10 the PTSD.

11 So, it's really necessary that

12 when you're making a decision of any

13 technology, so I'm not just restricting this

14 to cast copper rotors, that the entire

15 standard be considered and not just the parts

16 that differentiate between design types. But,

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

18 this evaluation if you screen out cast copper

19 rotors in the first place. Thank you.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. John, and

21 then to Steve.

22 MR. MALINOWSKI: John Malinowski,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 301

1 Baldor. On the last bullet point you have on

2 enforcement, I just wanted to clarify that one

3 of our concerns is when we talk about domestic

4 manufacturers being affected by energy

5 standards, that's beyond just motor

6 manufacturers, it's OEM manufacturers. And

7 they're affected by non-complaint motors

8 coming into the country embedded in machinery.

9 We're having that problem today. It would be

10 worse in the future if domestic manufacturers

11 try complying with whatever new laws. The

12 delta between compliant and non-compliant

13 motor would be even greater than today, and

14 that would be job losses for machinery

15 builders here that would be going overseas.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Steve,

17 yes.

18 MR. RUFFING: Steve Ruffing. We had

19 -- the conversation had again kind of gone

20 back to design changes that are necessary to

21 compensate for negative performance aspects

22 related to, let's say, copper rotors. And we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 302

1 got -- Roger then mentioned there was emphasis

2 placed on complying with the NEMA

3 specifications related to the design letter

4 specifically B. And there's one thing I wanted

5 to point out when I saw in Chapter 5 where the

6 various CSL levels, the 4 and 5 were reported

7 to be in compliance with NEMA Design B. So,

8 one of the things I noticed was some of the

9 margins that the calculated values met them by

10 were -- I guess I'd characterize those as

11 razor thin. For example, the 30-horsepower

12 four-pole Design B CSL 4 level design is

13 required to meet a level of 200 percent

14 breakdown torque to comply with NEMA Design B.

15 And the level that was reported per the design

16 calculation program was 202 percent. Now, keep

17 in mind that 200 percent is a minimum value

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

19 what that's essentially saying is that -- is

20 this what I presume to be a nominal level of

21 202 percent for the program accounts for not

22 only inaccuracies that might exist in the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 303

1 program, but then also manufacturing variation

2 from one motor to the next. And all that is

3 taken up with a 2 percent margin.

4 Similarly, on one of the 75-

5 horsepower designs, I'll just look up the

6 numbers, the NEMA Design B limit for locked

7 rotor amps is 542.5, and the CSL 5 design has

8 locked rotor amps of 541.3. So, again,

9 inaccuracies in the program plus manufacturing

10 variations would only account for one amp of

11 tolerance there, which seems a little overly

12 optimistic in my opinion.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

14 Ned.

15 MR. BRUSH: Ned Brush. I wanted to

16 comment on the copper rotor question. Roger

17 raises a number of very important points about

18 using copper rotor as opposed to the aluminum

19 die-cast rotor. I would point out that Siemens

20 did this, but it was a basic redesign for

21 North America for 60-hertz motors, and it was

22 a slot design that at approximately 3-
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 304

1 horsepower you change to the double bar

2 design, and so on to be able to control that

3 inrush, as well as achieve very respectable

4 torques, and so on. 

5 It is possible, but it does

6 require redesign. You're just in a different

7 place in the torque curve because you've

8 changed the conductivity of the conductor in

9 the rotor. 

10 I would also point out that, for

11 instance, our friends in China on copper die12 casting last year did about 80,000 rotors, a

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

14 And a number of their motor companies, for

15 example, are shipping around the world, many

16 of them to IEC standards, some to IEEE. We

17 also people working in South Korea, and in

18 Taiwan, as well as in Germany, and in France

19 and so on, so there are quite a number of

20 people that are producing motors, some to 60-

21 hertz for use in North America like Siemens,

22 and others for IEC.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 305

1 I might add that the Chinese, one

2 operation does only the die cast copper using

3 our manufacturing cell technology and so on,

4 and that 80,000 that they produced last year

5 for commercial is up from 20,000 the year

6 before. And they only started the year before

7 that, so there is growth. And many of their

8 customers are reported to be sort of looking

9 at this as a product line at a time in terms

10 of making the transition. And I believe some

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

12 time when their stamping dies were wearing

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

14 build new stamping dies, and make that

15 investment, anyway. So, they changed the

16 design, but they did make major design changes

17 to be able to stay within inrush, to be able

18 to achieve torques and so on, but it is

19 possible.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

21 Yes, John. 

22 MR. MALINOWSKI: Yes, I'd like to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 306

1 just comment that the motors that I think Ned

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

3 and the general purpose IEC motor would be a

4 Design N motor. And in a Design N, that

5 includes both what we would call NEMA Design

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

7 Design B motors, and the copper motors that

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

9 Design As. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Alex.

11 MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg,

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

13 anything that's already been said, but I want

14 to build on the topic of the feasibility of

15 increasing hand winding, and also the comments

16 on jobs or cost of retooling, and then how

17 that factors into enforcement.

18 Using the Battery Charger and

19 External Power Supplies rulemaking as an

20 example of what can happen to a particular

21 sector, and what they do about it. As has

22 already been noted, cast copper rotors, hand
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 307

1 winding, and some of the other distinct have

2 to make a lot of changes solutions will force

3 businesses to make decisions about where to

4 add that capacity. And several manufacturers

5 have already commented they probably can't do

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

7 So, what happens then is it goes

8 overseas, and politicians get interested

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

10 GRIM model has some factors in for that, but

11 beyond the strict economic factor, the

12 feasibility of carrying out a rule starts to

13 come into question. And that's why I mentioned

14 the Battery Chargers rule. 

15 I know of a bill in progress to

16 exempt an entire product class because it

17 happens to be a single U.S. manufacturer that

18 has to close down. And there was another

19 manufacturer, I was sitting right here, and he

20 was sitting over there during that rule and he

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

22 size, 12-volt charger. If you make me meet
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 308

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

2 just contract it out to China, and all those

3 U.S. jobs gone."

4 And while that -- I know there's

5 tradeoffs on jobs, et cetera, in the GRIM,

6 it's inescapable of the political climate, as

7 well, and I hope the DOE will bear that in

8 mind.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Do we

10 have other final comments as suggested here,

11 key issues related to preliminary manufacturer

12 impact analysis, because we need to keep

13 going. We're going to keep going. 

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

15 hand it over to Sanaee who will talk about the

16 NOPR analysis. 

17 MS. IYAMA: All right. So, we

18 finished the preliminary analysis. So, in the

19 NOPR we'll start off by revising the

20 preliminary analysis, and then we'll cover

21 some new analyses that are not included in the

22 preliminary analysis. And these are the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 309

1 customer subgroup analysis, the employment

2 impact analysis, the utility impact analysis,

3 the emissions analysis, the monetization of

4 emission reduction benefits, and the

5 regulatory impact analysis.

6 So, first on the revision of the

7 preliminary analysis, what we'll do is that

8 we'll consider the comments and the inputs

9 from the stakeholders while making our

10 revisions. We'll also consider any new

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

12 do this for the main analysis of the

13 preliminary stage.

14 Next, I'll go over the customer

15 subgroup analysis. The purpose of this

16 analysis is to analyze the economic impacts of

17 standards on specific groups of consumers that

18 may be significantly more impacted by a

19 standard compared to the general user

20 population. So, we'll use the same LCC

21 spreadsheet analysis, but we'll modify the

22 inputs to the specific subgroup of users that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 310

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

2 comment on any specific subgroup that would be

3 appropriate to look at in this rule.

4 Next, I'll go through the

5 employment impact analysis. The purpose of

6 this analysis is to assess the overall impact

7 of standards on national employment. And here

8 we'll be looking at indirect employment

9 impact. Hisham just covered the direct

10 employment impact. And the way to do this is

11 by using the impact of sector energy

12 technologies, the ImSET model that will help

13 us evaluate the indirect employment impacts.

14 And here, DOE welcomes feedback on its

15 proposed approach to analyze indirect

16 employment impact with ImSET.

17 Next, the utility impact analysis.

18 So, the purpose of this section is to estimate

19 the overall impacts of standards on domestic

20 electricity suppliers, and that would be done

21 through the use of a modified version of the

22 national energy modeling system model which is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 311

1 called NEMS-BT. The NEMS model is the model

2 used by the EIA to produce the projections you

3 see in the Annual Energy Outlooks. And here

4 again we have a comment box on the proposed

5 approach to use NEMS-BT to conduct the utility

6 impact analysis.

7 Next, I'll go through the

8 emissions analysis. So, in that section DOE

9 will report emission impacts resulting from

10 amended or new energy conservation standards.

11 It will also include emissions on the based

12 full fuel cycle emissions.

13 We'll report carbon dioxide

14 emission reduction, mercury and nitrogen oxide

15 for the 22 states where these emissions are

16 not capped. For the states where these

17 emissions are capped, and for sulfur dioxide

18 where we have an existing legislation capping

19 sulfur dioxide, DOE assumes that the impacts

20 of standards are minimal. And here we also

21 seek inputs on the intent to use NEMS-BT to

22 conduct the emissions analysis.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 312

1 So, after quantifying the emission

2 reduction another step is to use monetary

3 measures or conversion factors to translate

4 those emission reductions into monetized

5 values. So, here DOE intends to use the most

6 current social cost of carbon values given by

7 OMB to convert the CO2 emission reduction into

8 dollar values. And on this slide we have the

9 rates that we will be using. And we also do

10 this for NOx emission reductions. And here

11 another comment box on this approach.

12 And then I'll move on to the last

13 section of the NOPR, which is the regulatory

14 impact analysis. So, in this section the

15 purpose is to investigate the national impacts

16 of non-regulatory alternatives compared to the

17 impacts of mandatory energy conservation

18 standards.

19 Some of the non-regulatory

20 alternatives that may be considered in this

21 section include consumer rebates, tax credits,

22 manufacturer tax credits, voluntary efficiency
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 313

1 levels, early replacement programs, and bulk

2 government procurement programs. So, the way

3 we would evaluate the impact of those non4 regulatory options would be to use a similar

5 National Impact Analysis model, and estimate

6 the same outputs, the national energy saving,

7 the net present value associated to those non8 regulatory alternatives. And here we have the

9 last comment box inviting comments on any non10 regulatory alternatives that should be

11 analyzed in that section.

12 And with that, we're done. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: We've taken it to

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

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

16 Raba for closing remarks, another opportunity

17 for anybody that wishes to do so to comment,

18 issues that haven't been covered fully, other

19 things you wish to say here as we move towards

20 closure. Roger.

21 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

22 This has to deal with how to submit the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 314

1 comments. I notice that in the presentation

2 today the issues were numbered differently

3 than they are in the handout. I also note that

4 in the Executive Summary, there was a list of

5 issues to which DOE wished comments.

6 In Chapter 2, we identified at

7 least 49 places where DOE requested comments

8 or information. Obviously, some of those were

9 not presented today. There are various places

10 throughout the PTSD that warrant comment, and

11 DOE's discussion in different chapters is

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

13 matter of trying to organize comments in a

14 very short period of time, and exactly how to

15 organize those. If DOE has a recommendation

16 how to go about this, it would be very

17 appreciated. 

18 MR. KOHSE: I think just following

19 the numbers in the presentation would probably

20 be the most simple approach. 

21 MR. DAUGHERTY: The handout?

22 MR. KOHSE: Yes, the handout.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 315

1 MR. BROOKMAN: So, that was not on

2 the record. The recommendation for the record

3 is to follow the -- to make your comments

4 based on the numbers that are in the handout,

5 today's handout.

6 MR. DAUGHERTY: Roger Daugherty.

7 But then to go beyond those, because like I

8 said, in Chapter 2 there's 49 different

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

10 the Executive Summary, so we attach those as

11 another set of separate and isolated comments?

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael?

13 MR. KIDO: I was just going to

14 suggest maybe to the extent that you've got

15 specific comments related to those chapters

16 that are in the TSD, maybe you could have some

17 sort of appendix or something that says

18 comments related to Chapter 2, comments

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

20 easy for you guys to organize and it's easy

21 for us to sort of figure out what the comments

22 relate to. Would that be workable?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 316

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Alex.

2 MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg,

3 NEMA. Right now my draft is keyed to page

4 number and clause, like page 14, 4.3.2. Will

5 that work for you guys? Good, because then I

6 don't have to renumber 53 pages. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, thank you for

8 that. Okay, Andrew. 

9 MR. DELASKI: So just to kind of

10 close where we began, which is to reiterate

11 the support of the Motor Coalition for the

12 joint petition, which we think represents a

13 way to move forward expeditiously towards

14 issuing a final rule with really broad support

15 of the stakeholders, many of the stakeholders

16 represented here today. 

17 And I think a lot of the concerns

18 that you've heard today, I would say virtually

19 all the concerns you've heard today have to do

20 with levels beyond the levels that are

21 recommended by the Motor Coalition. So, I

22 think a lot of the -- whether it be copper
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 317

1 rotors, or whatever the issue might be that's

2 raising the need for additional and deeper

3 analysis, that occurs by going beyond the

4 levels recommended by the Coalition. So, part

5 of the reason for the recommendation is it

6 gives us a path forward that can be

7 accomplished within a really -- within the

8 statutory limits, which is by December 17th.

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

10 Department meets obligations otherwise to show

11 that the criteria under the statute have been

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

13 community today is that the Coalition's

14 recommendations meet those criteria, and we

15 spelled that out in the petition. 

16 So, I would just close by urging

17 the Department to move forward to adopt the

18 recommendations in the joint petition filed

19 last Wednesday. They deliver enormous savings,

20 LCC benefits that are solidly within the life

21 cycle of the products, and address the

22 concerns that have been raised today about
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 318

1 some of the other aspects of the analysis.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Andrew.

3 Yes, Alex.

4 MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg,

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

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Speaking on behalf

7 of NEMA?

8 MR. BOESENBERG: Speaking on behalf

9 of NEMA, yes, not my farmer friends or

10 anybody.

11 (Laughter.)

12 MR. BOESENBERG: To build on my

13 last statement about enforcement, and jobs,

14 and everything, perhaps it's obvious but I

15 want to restate that a rule that everyone can

16 agree on is one that logically most, if not

17 all, stakeholders will immediately then begin

18 to adhere to, versus in the case of the

19 example I mentioned, the product class that is

20 seeking total exemption from the rule that is

21 about to be published for battery chargers

22 means that all energy savings are lost in that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 319

1 product class because the exemption they're

2 pursuing is to say that DOE may not dedicate

3 funds to enforce this product class, which

4 means the whole thing is gone.

5 They didn't like CSL 3, but if

6 they would have agreed to a painful CSL 2 then

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

8 that's certainly the sort of things we want to

9 avoid in this rule.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments? No

11 additional comments. So, for my part I thank

12 you. This was a very constructive day. We

13 covered a heck of a lot of ground very

14 efficiently. And, particularly, for all of you

15 that gave a lot of really good and very useful

16 information, very, very helpful to the

17 Department. Thank you. Congratulations on

18 that. And back to Jim Raba for closing

19 remarks.

20 MR. RABA: We conclude today's

21 public meeting with expressed appreciation

22 from the Department of Energy for your
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 320

1 participation. As Doug pointed out, it's been

2 a very informative meeting, very productive.

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

4 thank our presenters Will Kohse, Hisham Araji

5 from Navigant Consulting, Sanaee Iyama from

6 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, our

7 technical crew back stage who made possible

8 the webinar portion, Jack Graul. And, of

9 course, our excellent facilitator, Doug

10 Brookman. Thank you, and safe travels. 

11 We look forward to your written

12 comments. The written comments and safe

13 travels. 

14 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

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

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 321

A

ABB 7:5,13 161:19

244:6,9,10

ability 272:4

able 45:20 62:10

67:9,14 84:7

114:11 135:22

137:10 179:22

194:22 235:17

243:17,21 246:10

299:19 304:2

305:17,17

ABMA 257:5

abound 23:13

above-entitled

105:6 178:7

260:11 320:14

abroad 183:14,17

absence 279:3

absolutely 258:12

AC 94:19 96:4,7,8

accepted 82:18

83:15 157:2

accepting 156:21

access 246:10

accommodate 40:6

228:2,13 242:22

accomplish 75:18

accomplished

317:7

account 31:3 90:22

98:7 99:16,21

140:4 180:15

206:5 211:20

214:10 216:2

228:20 239:6

249:1 252:2,10

269:12 303:10

accounted 102:13

142:6 183:21

209:2

accounts 141:11

163:4 261:3

302:21

accumulate 281:4

accumulating

280:7,12

accurate 145:6

162:1 185:17

265:1

accurately 185:13

198:13 274:3

accused 272:10

ACEEE 8:6

achievable 18:11

134:6,8 166:5

171:12

achieve 22:11

114:22 172:17

175:19 177:13

194:22 299:11

304:3 305:18

achieved 114:7

134:18 167:19

196:2,4,5,6

acknowledge 184:8

296:18

Act 15:1 17:5,21

25:9,11,17

active 244:20

299:15

actual 24:6 64:11

67:15 128:19

139:10 147:19

151:4 182:2 211:6

211:13 215:14

222:6 250:9

268:10 279:20

adapted 177:1

adapting 103:19

add 56:12 73:4,19

96:13 97:12 98:1

104:2 211:16

266:9 287:6,8

289:20 292:14

305:1 307:4

added 35:12 54:16

153:22 202:11

244:20,20 270:17

270:18

adding 34:9 55:16

56:1 57:3 73:3

addition 54:7,12,15

128:9

additional 14:15

24:12 37:22 48:9

75:22 76:9,17

78:3 81:18 82:3

83:11,19 84:8,10

84:13 90:15

104:13 121:3,5

135:4,5,16 142:21

143:9 152:21

153:6 158:8

164:18 175:12

178:4 191:6 196:8

216:18 217:2

230:2 231:20

235:6 238:9

241:16 262:15

270:13,17,19

276:18,21 279:17

317:2 319:11

Additionally 298:7

additions 84:13

address 5:14 15:7

16:6 32:9 34:2

37:17 40:1 67:19

81:17 130:17

203:1 317:21

addressed 45:11

128:5

addressing 171:7

adds 68:9 244:21

272:16

adequately 12:11

adhere 318:18

Adin 1:14 9:1,1

adjourn 4:20 12:15

adjust 269:8

273:10 297:20

adjustable 22:16

adjusted 96:2

adjustments 31:5

298:3

administrability

68:10

administrable 18:1

Administration

224:17 230:12

admit 143:14

adopt 317:17

adopted 44:2

advance 19:20 20:5

advanced 1:15,22

8:3 9:8 200:12

advantages 107:14

adverse 106:6

114:17 115:9

116:4,6 123:8,14

advocacy 45:8

advocated 44:18

advocates 16:21,22

AEDM 63:22 86:12

86:14,15 87:2,8

87:22 88:2,7,10

88:19 89:9 90:7

147:14 159:22

161:17 162:8

AEDMs 86:8

affect 229:1 279:1

296:19

affiliation 6:4,9

13:3

afforded 24:4

afternoon 12:4

Agamloh 1:15 8:2

8:2 68:15,15,17

agency 31:2,7 33:3

38:8,21

agenda 4:2 11:3,4

12:20

aggregate 181:10

182:22 184:20

185:11 212:19

aggregated 189:2

295:20

ago 17:7 19:5 22:1

30:6 210:9 215:7

agree 74:22 78:10

108:8 318:16

agreed 95:4 202:9

266:6 319:6

agreement 153:14

295:18

agrees 60:15

agricultural 212:2

217:5,9 237:18

247:9 248:5,8

250:16 251:19

254:17 259:18

271:5

agriculture 214:4

247:9 248:2 253:9

ahead 35:3 71:19

74:10,20 86:2

98:11 99:14

103:22 113:13

138:20 143:3

186:7 198:2

213:10 230:6

240:7 243:6

257:22

air 58:1 59:22 60:2

62:9,11,11,15,21

64:13 70:6 71:4

72:1,7 73:15

98:22 99:1 102:12

airtime 13:18

air-over 57:18,22

59:1 62:9 63:5

65:11 67:4 68:18

69:1,15 70:21

72:4,12,13,15

75:2

Al 2:10 9:17

Alex 1:19 7:2

250:11,13 266:14

291:7,9 306:10,11

316:1,2 318:3,4

Alliance 2:9,15

6:15 8:7

allocated 19:17

allow 82:5,7,21

83:1 146:1 154:3

186:12

allowable 137:5

allowed 67:15

139:11 275:16

285:21 286:3

allowing 83:5

allows 223:4

alloy 107:11

alloys 106:14

allude 299:12
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 322

alluded 76:8 150:1

159:10

alter 33:1

alternative 86:16

206:20

Alternatively 83:4

alternatives 312:16

312:20 313:8,10

aluminum 112:20

113:11 118:14

140:16 141:1,3,6

141:10,15 160:21

170:17,19 171:1

172:8 180:1 297:8

297:16 298:9

303:18

amazes 288:10

amazing 243:12

ambiguity 60:19

73:4,22

amend 26:4,9 28:7

amended 15:1 26:4

29:18 44:5 135:13

222:15 293:21

294:3 311:10

amending 33:18,20

amendments 15:5

amends 84:21

America 244:16

303:21 304:21

American 2:2

60:16 173:12

174:12 257:5

amorphous 106:13

106:16 107:3,5

108:3

amount 60:1 64:4

130:2 161:14

218:18 221:3

233:8,15 249:21

271:9 272:16

299:14,21

amounts 239:13

amp 303:10

amplify 221:12

amps 136:12,13

303:7,8

analyses 15:13,14

15:16 16:8 26:18

26:20 29:4,15

42:16 92:5 125:5

125:6 179:16

217:15 269:19

308:21

analysis 1:3,9 4:9

4:10,13,14,17 5:8

5:19 11:18,18,21

12:2,3,8 16:10

20:12,14 26:22

27:4,9 28:22 29:5

29:16,21 40:19

41:15,17,19 42:9

42:10,13,18,21

43:1 63:14 94:22

98:8 102:6 105:14

105:20,22 106:2

106:10,13 107:22

116:16 122:5,19

124:14,15,17,21

125:3,9,10 126:5

127:3,4,5 129:16

129:16 134:2

135:14 137:1,22

138:5 139:1 142:1

142:7,9,19 143:4

149:5 156:15,18

157:4,6,7,22

158:6 159:12

165:16,18,21

172:11 173:17,20

174:9 179:15

181:21 184:21

185:15,17,18

186:8,21,22

187:17,22 188:6,8

189:14 192:8

194:16 200:7

201:1 203:9,15,19

205:8 208:12

213:13 222:7,8,20

223:2,8 224:9,9

224:22 226:17

228:21 260:17,18

261:4,11 267:9,16

268:9 269:11,12

270:1 273:15

274:7,11,16,17,18

274:19,20 276:5,7

277:2,11,14,17

279:20,21 280:19

281:1,15 282:15

283:13 284:8,17

285:17,20 286:10

286:18 287:1,10

290:6,13 293:5,14

293:16 294:1,10

294:15 296:5

308:12,16,18,20

308:22 309:1,2,2

309:3,5,7,12,15

309:16,21 310:5,6

310:17 311:6,8,22

312:14 313:5

317:3 318:1

analytical 5:14

15:7 27:12 29:3

analyze 134:7

197:12 309:16

310:15

analyzed 20:10

96:18 98:3 128:19

128:22 179:13

192:12 313:11

analyzing 127:9

ANDERSEN 2:20

Anderson 1:15

9:15,15

Andrew 1:25 8:4

31:12 33:8 78:8

79:15 93:16,17

201:2,4 253:13

316:8 318:2

and/or 242:14

announcing 30:5

annual 190:22

208:9,13 209:8,12

209:18,19 211:14

212:20,20 213:2

214:4,14,20

216:12 222:18

224:18 237:10,16

254:11 275:20

311:3

answer 57:20

141:21 164:19

187:9 200:4 244:7

answered 200:1

232:4

anticipate 38:18

39:7

antitrust 190:19

191:22 270:9

anybody 11:11

16:8 104:18

235:12 250:20

291:6 313:17

318:10

anymore 243:22

Anytime 177:6

anyway 256:3

263:7 305:11,15

apologize 59:7

Apparatus 1:18

2:12 6:12 9:12

apparently 49:6,7

appear 102:11

appears 51:2 136:3

appendix 34:11,17

56:19 84:6,12

149:13,13 153:11

154:6 315:17

Appliance 1:25 8:5

applicable 88:2

108:19 111:8

application 18:6

38:12 62:17 63:15

64:11 65:13,18,22

66:8 86:12 112:15

116:12 134:21

211:19 212:5,13

213:1 214:17

256:1 259:18

applications

208:19 212:18

214:6,13 216:15

217:2 219:13

220:8 241:14

245:4 246:18

247:22

application-relat...

75:13

applied 63:7 73:14

87:10 146:10

158:18 180:11

185:12 186:16

187:10 195:22

204:21 206:7

276:4 279:11

287:14

applies 86:17 134:4

apply 46:17 51:9

51:15 65:4 66:19

67:4 135:17

154:10,11 172:9

187:6 299:6

applying 23:10,14

63:7 122:8 123:18

197:2 206:10

283:10,11

appreciate 20:19

24:8 37:10 105:11

176:3

appreciated 314:17

appreciation

319:21

approach 17:17

18:1,22 44:11,22

138:12 175:15,22

185:8 193:8,14,17

193:21 205:6,18

206:10 222:22

254:19 286:6

310:15 311:5

312:11 314:20

approached 218:4

approaches 98:2

176:9,12 193:2,7

206:20

appropriate 20:1

20:17 133:5 154:8

172:9 173:18

263:14 310:3

appropriately 12:5

approximately

109:1 132:19
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 323

165:1 303:22

Araji 1:16 4:8,10

4:17 8:14,14

24:20,21 28:13,19

31:11 33:9 39:20

165:12,12 175:14

175:17 179:6

182:5 183:4,12

186:20 191:8,12

191:16 192:5

197:10 200:19

293:12 308:14

320:4

arbitrarily 173:5

area 93:13 241:20

areas 201:18

arena 220:2

argue 175:5 221:4

Army 111:15,15

113:18 117:11

Army's 160:16

arrangement 62:16

89:3 176:20

arrangements 84:7

arrive 134:2 183:3

188:14

articulate 38:8

asked 39:15 156:6

232:5

asking 50:6 187:14

233:2

aspect 38:6 64:1

79:4,7 256:21

aspects 301:21

318:1

assemblies 272:1

assent 240:5

asserting 29:13

30:9

assess 235:8 293:21

310:6

assessing 126:13

assessment 4:8

11:15 21:22 41:8

41:11,16 42:1

84:18 92:10,11

217:7 276:2,14

294:7

asset 235:16

assigned 112:15

117:12

assignments 131:7

assist 149:5

associate 170:5

associated 140:5

153:17 154:14,15

198:20 208:19

298:10 313:7

association 1:18,19

1:21,23 2:4,5,12

2:14 3:17 6:12

7:3 9:10,12 51:17

117:22 136:4

257:6

associations 38:11

assume 150:10

221:17 237:22

256:4

assumed 195:3

225:21 226:12

229:3,8,14,18

237:5 238:6,17,20

277:9 279:5 283:3

284:15 299:22

assumes 63:18

210:22 311:19

assuming 59:21

111:2 148:4

153:21 185:9

207:8 219:14

268:8 275:3

assumption 32:15

100:10,11 111:7

189:9 252:16

255:14 268:22

269:1 275:6

assumptions 63:6

68:20 69:1,9,10

70:6 144:14,17

183:9 189:13

214:5 239:1

254:12 270:5

attach 315:10

attached 58:16

82:6

attained 110:17,18

110:20,22

attempt 111:22

attempts 68:21

attending 2:19 5:4

attention 21:20

91:17 122:2

attributable 233:10

attribute 157:21

attributes 52:12

attrition 160:1

AUGUST 1:6

Austin 2:21 10:16

232:17

authorization

218:6

automated 122:11

122:13

automation 123:2

automobile 174:3

availability 106:7

110:11 114:18

115:8 116:5

177:15

available 13:16

108:22 109:2

112:18 113:6

114:13 118:18

119:15 123:6

137:12 145:2

166:5 167:13

242:14 257:2,8

Avenue 1:10

average 22:2 152:1

152:6,17,18

180:21 181:2

183:2 206:14

212:20 213:4

214:8,15,16,20

215:3,8,13 216:12

216:14 220:10

224:21 229:13,15

237:12 248:19

267:3,4 283:12

averages 250:10

avoid 319:9

avoiding 73:3

aware 40:16 90:9

100:7 107:17

115:11 129:12

169:16,18 228:7

278:22

Awareness 1:25 8:5

A-F-T-E-R-N-O-...

179:1

a.m 1:10 5:2 105:7

105:8

B

B 34:11 35:11

47:21 48:2 51:12

51:13,18 56:21

64:16,18,22 65:1

75:17 78:4,5 84:6

85:16 91:20 96:8

96:9 102:2,4

109:9,21 127:14

135:15,18 137:16

139:17 149:13,13

149:13,14 169:7

171:10,10 175:21

192:14 227:21

236:12,13 287:5

298:2 299:5 302:4

302:7,12,14 303:6

306:6,7

back 13:13 14:16

21:19 25:8 28:4

30:17 36:1 48:11

52:16 57:3 61:6

64:8 68:18 71:11

78:12 84:18 93:19

105:5,9,20 109:4

121:8 123:2

134:16 142:14

144:6 146:19

151:14 153:10

158:3 159:4,16

163:11 175:2,8

181:16 182:13

197:3 198:16

199:18 201:7

202:1,16 203:5

207:3 218:16,20

219:6 220:13,15

231:5 233:19

241:2,4,11 243:6

250:12,15 255:15

259:11 260:7,10

260:15 262:19

263:17 264:22

267:14,16 269:8

272:8,13 273:10

287:21 296:4

301:20 319:18

320:7

background 25:6

33:10 43:13 47:9

118:2

backup 222:3

bad 57:8 190:12

badge 104:21

balance 92:19

99:22 183:7

balanced 141:16

balancing 181:11

182:19

Baldor 2:9 3:11 7:5

7:13 55:9 65:10

74:5 77:1 143:13

161:14 190:16

244:5 270:4 301:1

ball 83:1 223:3

Ballo 1:17 10:6,6

band 156:1,3

166:16 167:18

168:9,20,20

187:21 190:6,8

193:16,17 194:11

194:22

bands 110:17

154:16,21,22

155:1 168:8,18,19

169:4 195:4

bar 98:21 158:15

251:2 304:1

base 120:10 133:22

135:12 146:2

222:13,14,19

239:17 260:19,22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 324

261:2,18,18 262:1

262:13 266:18

275:1 277:3,8,11

277:17,20 278:19

279:7,10 280:19

280:21,21 281:2,5

281:6,16 282:3,6

283:6 294:20

based 13:20 26:11

32:15 40:8 47:19

52:13 69:2,6 85:2

85:13,20 101:20

107:11 116:3,16

120:7 122:21,21

126:1 127:2,6

129:18,22 132:8

132:11 133:6

138:9 140:21

141:22 142:1,10

143:7 145:20

150:9 152:7 153:5

167:1,5,7 169:3

170:13 181:12

182:6 183:12

185:15,20 193:4

194:3,9,17 195:2

195:15 196:21

204:21 208:10

216:4,9 226:1,5,7

226:16 228:9

254:9,17 269:8

273:10 275:6,18

275:19 311:11

315:4

baseline 165:22

166:8,22 203:20

205:3,9 206:15

207:9 258:16

bases 189:18

basic 45:19 92:20

200:8 227:4

303:20

basically 89:1

112:6 140:11

167:12 186:20

195:7,15 207:17

216:7 226:6

230:16 255:18

261:3 287:13

292:14 297:22

basing 269:15

basis 109:4 121:14

121:19 141:5

151:5 205:17

210:11

Basso 1:17 7:19,19

59:9,10,19 60:4

67:3 138:21,21

139:8 145:17,17

184:18 251:14,14

251:17 252:3

268:19,19

Basso's 68:3

batch 272:5

battery 306:18

307:14 318:21

bear 148:22 308:7

bearing 83:1,7

138:7 227:4 235:3

256:21,22 257:6,8

257:16 258:8,9,16

259:1,2,12,13

bearings 53:22

236:9 255:19

258:2

bears 210:19

beat 113:1 251:1,6

began 111:16

112:11 316:10

beginning 109:2

begun 20:3 83:22

behalf 16:19 17:8

28:4 35:18 55:10

76:6 77:1 135:8

244:6 250:14

318:6,8

believe 39:17 49:1

49:12 90:17 104:7

107:6 112:21

118:17 146:8

148:15 181:13

182:5 189:22

215:19 305:10

believes 45:18

46:10 81:20

Beloit 241:2 273:9

belonging 79:16

belt 251:8

bench 82:6

benchmark 166:18

beneficial 19:14

benefit 73:20 88:11

274:9 278:9

benefits 309:4

317:20

Berkeley 2:6,23

3:13 8:17 15:22

94:6,12 200:21

203:7 320:6

best 13:10 38:7,13

50:7 68:12 155:11

155:11 177:6

184:19 185:11

better 32:16 60:18

79:13 88:19 102:2

102:4 112:2

156:17 174:17

203:9,16 233:1,12

248:1 290:8 297:1

beyond 30:18

146:1 170:4 301:5

307:11 315:7

316:20 317:3

big 62:20 68:7

74:14 239:19

252:8 253:1

289:21

bigger 175:3

245:11 246:5

biggest 67:7 218:15

284:12

Bijit 2:25 10:17

bill 10:3 137:15

138:2 280:13

307:15

billion 22:12,15

bills 292:2

bins 215:16

Bishop 1:18 6:10

6:11,11 93:7,7,10

93:11 226:20,20

227:6 230:8,19

bit 32:7 33:11 41:5

43:13 47:9 50:2

72:16 80:18 86:4

94:1 98:16 111:11

141:15 142:8

182:10 184:15

244:6 245:8,17

271:13 293:13,17

blouse 203:12

blue 194:15 275:11

BLUM 2:23

board 213:16

Bob 147:11

Boesenberg 1:19

6:14 7:2,2 250:13

250:13 251:12

284:4 291:8,9,9

306:11,11 316:2,2

318:4,4,8,12

bold 128:18

bonded 107:10

Bonnett 2:21 10:17

232:17

Bonneville 230:12

bore 175:1,9

Boteler 1:20 7:16

7:16 57:16,16

61:7 95:10,18

97:2,2,7,10,19

124:2,2 147:12

182:21 183:8,22

198:3 199:15

202:9 207:2,2,16

208:2 213:6,11,11

215:2,17,22

219:20 227:9

228:17 247:3,19

248:7,13,20 249:3

249:7 253:4

263:17 265:11

266:10 267:14

268:1,3,6,16

271:15 278:1

287:18,18 289:7

289:16

bottom 45:17 46:19

209:13 210:7

223:10

bought 182:6

bounds 298:1

box 167:22 206:18

208:4 238:8

279:12 286:5

291:6 311:4

312:11 313:9

boxes 186:3 191:6

195:7 286:12

boy 251:3

BOYD 2:22

BP 240:10

Bragg 112:14

brake 58:3,5,16,16

66:20,21,21 67:3

67:11,13,17 68:19

76:10,18

bread 249:14

breadth 105:12

break 11:15,17

12:3,6 47:22

104:14,15,17

144:8,9 184:11

185:3 260:4

breakdown 230:10

230:18 276:8

302:14

breakdowns 95:1

276:10,15

breaker 242:15

breaks 85:7 238:5

break-down 99:18

Breuckman 119:8

brevity 23:10 43:6

BRIAN 2:22

brief 11:6,9 16:9

31:13 108:15

briefly 17:14 187:9

bring 48:16 150:3,4

150:6 202:11,12

202:15

bringing 39:21

62:18 203:5

brings 25:21

124:13
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 325

brittle 106:21

broad 34:20 35:4

44:2 316:14

broader 173:14

broadly 298:17

Brookman 1:10,13

4:3 6:1,13,18,22

7:8 8:12,18 10:8

10:19,21 16:14

20:21 24:10 28:1

28:15 30:15 31:1

31:10,12 33:7

35:16 37:11,16

38:3,17 39:9,18

46:14 48:11,21

49:5,10,19 50:1

50:10 55:5 57:15

58:20 59:5 60:10

61:5 62:2 63:1

65:6 66:1 67:1

68:1,13,16 69:11

70:9 71:16 72:21

74:2,9,15,19

75:19,21 76:12,21

77:5,9,19 78:8,19

79:5 80:1,11,15

81:9 83:22 84:9

86:1,13 90:12

92:7 93:6,9,15

94:9 95:8 96:15

97:1,8,20 98:9

99:11,13 100:3

104:10 105:9

108:6 116:19,22

117:15,18 119:20

120:1,22 121:20

123:22 124:11

129:10 135:3,10

136:15 138:19

139:19 141:17

142:11,14 143:2

143:11 144:18

145:15 146:15

147:11,20 148:19

158:7 159:6 160:6

161:11 162:12

163:13 164:16

165:10 168:2,22

173:1 175:11,16

176:5 178:3 179:3

181:15 182:13

184:16 186:2

190:13 191:5,11

191:15 192:1

195:11 198:1,15

199:10,20 200:2

200:16 201:4

203:4,10,16 207:1

208:3 210:1,5,15

211:11 213:8

215:1 217:11

218:12 219:19

220:12 221:8,19

226:18 227:8

228:14,18 230:6

231:1 232:6,12

234:12 235:19

236:2,8,12,15,18

236:21 238:14

239:8,11,14 240:3

240:22 243:5

244:2,8,12 245:13

246:7 247:1

248:12 249:8

250:8 251:11,13

251:15 253:3,12

254:1 255:10

256:7 257:3,11,14

257:18,22 259:5,8

260:2,14 262:17

263:11,15 264:11

265:9,20 266:3,8

266:13 267:10,12

268:18 270:2

271:14 273:5

274:12,14 276:21

277:22 278:17

279:17 284:3,5

286:11 287:17

288:17 289:6,18

290:9 291:5 292:7

292:11 293:1,6

298:21 300:20

301:16 303:13

305:20 306:10

308:9 313:13

315:1,12 316:1,7

318:2,6 319:10

320:10

brought 40:6

163:18 296:8

298:13

Bruce 2:9 8:7

Brush 1:21 9:9,9

117:17,20,20

119:22 303:15,15

Bs 171:15,19

BUDZYNSKI 2:25

build 67:12 162:6

169:21 172:7

252:4,5,6,6

305:14 306:14

318:12

builders 301:15

building 19:18

102:21 103:17

207:12

buildings 221:18

builds 272:7 294:6

294:16

built 101:1,16

160:19 161:6

162:9

bulk 313:1

bullet 78:16 202:18

203:1 301:1

bunch 257:19

burden 18:12

burdened 181:10

184:22

burning 221:18

burying 145:19

business 13:6

105:17 118:16

184:4 205:12

206:2,6 207:19

234:20 245:5

businesses 307:3

Butler 1:22 9:7,7

butter 249:14

buy 162:2 258:1

291:22 305:13

buying 296:16

bypass 22:9

C

C 55:15 65:2 78:4,5

85:17 91:3,6,22

129:2 137:13,13

139:18 146:9,11

169:9 172:2,7

192:16 243:14,16

243:18 267:5

287:4 298:2 299:5

cage 130:7,17

140:13 171:1

calculate 63:9,16

63:21 64:9 142:9

143:7 207:18

209:15 223:14

280:21 281:14,19

282:1,4 283:16

284:19

calculated 140:9

141:22 148:7,9

158:1,2 206:14

209:10 213:19

216:12 226:16

252:13 256:22

268:10 291:19

302:9

calculates 86:19

157:9 280:4,10

294:21

calculating 138:4

157:12,14,16

161:8 181:21

210:8,10 275:16

calculation 89:4

208:15 209:18

210:4 214:22

215:14 222:6

223:11 224:4

225:15 237:9

248:22 266:21

280:9,17 281:11

302:16

calculations 204:1

223:8 225:3

259:13,14 267:19

268:21 288:13

calibrate 160:10

calibrated 160:20

161:7

calibration 159:14

159:21 160:3,12

161:15

call 21:19 161:21

213:6 232:3

236:11 256:15

306:5

called 25:10,18

29:9 46:12 89:13

107:9 167:8

230:12 294:17

311:1

calls 167:6

Canada 2:23

candidate 125:22

165:19 175:13

capabilities 23:16

24:7

capable 45:12 57:6

capacities 219:12

219:18

capacity 85:3

209:11 296:1

307:4

capital 142:5 225:9

239:22 249:13,21

250:5 273:21

capped 311:16,17

capping 311:18

capture 203:2

captured 20:13

captures 72:18

carbon 311:13

312:6

cards 13:6 105:17

care 248:1 252:11

careful 61:9

Carlo 186:19

222:22

carried 156:10

carries 75:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 326

carrying 111:11

307:12

case 23:12 56:6

59:20,22 69:10

114:19 152:18

156:19,22 169:22

170:1 173:7

222:13,13,14

227:19 229:5,10

245:14 260:19,22

261:1,2,17,18,18

262:2,13 266:18

275:1,1 277:3,4,8

277:11,18,21

278:19,20,20,21

279:6,7,9,10,16

280:19,20,21,21

281:2,5,6,7,16,17

282:3,3,6,6 283:6

283:7 294:20,21

318:18

cases 56:10 65:16

66:6 131:14 173:8

184:14 220:6

229:1 271:6

cash 294:17,19

cast 108:12,18

109:1,6,10,13

110:8 112:19

113:3,11 115:5,12

115:14,20 116:16

118:13 121:17

122:2 140:18,19

141:6,7 143:22

159:2 160:21,22

161:3 170:17

171:2,5 253:7,8

299:10 300:14,18

305:2 306:22

casting 115:15

118:3 158:20,22

304:12

catalog 262:3 263:1

264:15,19,20

266:19 285:17

catalogs 194:5

262:4

catalogue 127:9

146:3,8,11 150:10

151:3

catalogues 167:3

categories 35:15

43:15 44:9 45:2

92:15 94:19 95:2

95:16 96:12 278:5

290:3

Category 264:7,7

264:10

cause 188:9 246:20

causing 171:16

172:14

caution 51:22

CDA 143:14

cell 14:3 23:2

118:20 267:5

305:3

cells 185:3

Census 180:8

276:13

center 128:15

centers 231:19

240:19 256:11

centrifugal 107:13

century 198:22

certain 15:2 16:2

17:22 25:15 33:5

34:9 37:17 89:7

120:10 178:1

182:9 196:14,15

197:16 207:10

235:19 299:21,22

certainly 35:18

36:20 37:10 38:1

53:7 63:12 65:1

65:20 74:22

103:21 108:8

122:12 134:15

147:4 176:7

185:18 199:1

200:12 240:19

242:19,20 259:17

264:8 278:2 319:8

certificates 56:15

87:15

certification 66:13

87:5,14,20 153:21

certify 69:21 162:5

162:7,10

cetera 176:16

308:5 315:19

CFR 34:11,18 35:4

87:3

Chairman 7:6,14

7:17,20

chance 10:9

chances 162:4

change 32:3,14

98:22 100:18

110:14 118:8

131:22 132:1

140:4,11 142:4

143:1 144:11

163:8 195:17

205:11,15 225:17

257:16 258:18

267:18 269:3

272:6 278:8 294:1

304:1

changed 132:15

304:8 305:15

changes 33:13 40:7

61:13,20 114:22

137:19 225:22

226:10 227:20,22

228:1,12 229:6

267:18 272:5

277:10 301:20

305:16 307:2

changing 18:22

61:17 140:17

141:6 174:8

channel 187:12

189:11 204:17

channels 204:5,10

204:14 205:2

206:14

Chapter 55:19

149:21 150:7,8

158:13 230:22

276:15 302:5

314:6 315:8,18,19

chapters 53:14

287:11 314:11

315:15

characteristic

100:14

characteristics

45:13,17,19 46:7

46:9,17 65:3 78:2

97:14 102:8,15

128:3 131:22

139:4 160:18

161:2 297:19,20

298:3

characterization

4:12 11:19 201:1

208:7,8 224:10

characterize

193:11 204:2

277:19 302:10

characterized

106:14

characterizes 42:1

223:1

charger 306:18

307:22

chargers 307:14

318:21

Charlie 2:15 6:14

186:5,6 187:13

234:12 244:3

246:7,9 289:19

292:12,13

chart 57:18 98:14

132:8,9,15,18

133:10,16 162:18

173:3 180:10

194:20 223:7,9

231:13 247:4

271:3 280:17

287:20 288:5

charts 156:8

287:22

check 189:21 200:8

257:5

chillers 73:16

chime-in 94:8

China 304:11

308:2

Chinese 305:1

choice 132:3 133:5

158:4 176:9

choose 71:18 177:6

177:12

choosing 100:12

132:21 135:4

265:17

chose 127:8,14,17

127:19 128:2

129:2 254:19

CHUN 3:13,13

circuit 135:21

circulated 17:12

citation 230:19

citations 117:5

cite 22:16 40:20

247:6

cited 117:4

cites 149:7

clarification 35:19

37:7 71:22 75:12

158:12

clarifications 34:21

55:1,6 74:19

clarified 35:14 77:6

259:9

clarifies 81:3

clarify 53:6 54:3

58:22 301:2

clarifying 34:7

37:21 38:15 81:2

117:3

clarity 60:18

Clark 2:14 9:4

class 85:11,13,14

86:5 87:9,11

88:12,19,20 89:15

90:2,5 91:10

125:11 126:19,21

126:22 127:3,4,7

127:13 135:15

136:21 137:8

159:17 166:22

169:12 170:10

172:4 192:14,16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 327

192:17,20 194:3

194:21 212:6,10

212:14 237:13

262:6,9,14 276:9

285:4 286:22

290:15,21 291:2

300:4 307:16

318:19 319:1,3

classes 42:8,22 43:4

84:20 85:1,2,8,10

85:20 90:20,22

126:10 128:8,21

192:11 194:14,17

195:2,10 196:15

196:19 197:1

206:17 237:8

276:9 283:17,21

284:21 286:4,9

classify 54:1

clause 316:4

clean 236:9 255:18

259:15

clear 39:9 77:10

78:1 191:8 255:2

255:3

cleared 38:2 210:8

Clearinghouse

204:22

clearly 31:4 66:10

78:16

client 66:7

climate 308:6

close 6:7 12:8 67:6

95:4,11 202:12

295:13 307:18

316:10 317:16

closely 245:15

closer 203:11

closing 4:18 12:14

313:16 319:18

closure 313:20

coalition 17:9 19:3

19:20 20:11 58:8

61:12 66:4 94:14

95:7 228:16

271:19 316:11,21

317:4

Coalition's 317:13

coating 158:18

COCKBURN 2:23

Code 135:19

coffee 105:1

cognizant 243:15

coil 145:22

cold 299:20

colleague 41:10

60:16 77:21

colleagues 69:16

239:18 266:7

collected 94:16

224:19

color 128:21

colorful 128:6

colors 128:18

column 99:8

combination 53:18

54:6 98:4 126:13

175:21

combinations

85:21

combined 94:17,22

223:3 237:15

254:11

combines 209:8

come 30:22 38:22

46:22 67:5 68:18

93:19 149:21

159:18,19 163:11

190:8 198:13

201:7 218:16

235:13 244:22

252:17 273:17

307:13 309:11

comes 25:7 67:7,13

154:1 163:18

188:12 197:3

236:5 252:7 258:6

290:2 293:15

coming 190:10

220:13 250:12

301:8 306:8

commending 21:8

comment 12:10

13:11 14:10 27:22

28:14 30:14 31:14

31:22 32:5,19

39:1 48:6 50:15

50:18 61:8 65:7

68:3 74:22 75:22

76:14,15,17 93:8

93:11 98:13

103:16 121:3

141:18 145:12

149:2 159:7

163:10,16 167:22

180:20 181:1,6,9

183:18 184:1

186:3 191:6 195:8

198:18 206:18

207:4 208:4 210:2

213:12 215:7

217:20 218:13

220:20 221:12

230:4 238:8,16

241:7,8 246:17

251:17 253:5,16

253:20 257:11,18

259:11 267:11,17

274:13 279:12

286:5,12 291:6,7

295:14 303:16

306:1 310:2 311:4

312:11 313:9,17

314:10

commentary 13:20

commented 307:5

commenters 13:12

44:21

comments 5:21

11:13 15:18 16:3

16:9 23:7 24:12

27:8,9 36:3 37:12

39:11 40:9 44:17

48:13 49:20 50:5

52:3 53:8 57:18

60:9 70:10 71:16

77:11 83:19 84:10

88:15,17 90:16

101:10 104:13

105:12 108:2,17

116:21 119:21

120:4,16 121:5

123:22 129:8,13

135:4 136:16

138:12 144:9

158:8 163:13

175:12 176:1

178:3,5 182:15,20

184:18 186:4

191:6 192:6

197:17 199:11

206:19 208:4

216:17,18 222:3

229:22 230:1,2

238:9 240:8

262:12 265:21

266:2,11 273:16

276:17 277:15

279:18 286:11,14

296:22 306:15

308:10 309:8

313:9,14 314:1,5

314:7,13 315:3,11

315:15,18,18,21

319:10,11 320:12

320:12

comment/question

241:19

commercial 15:3

25:16 114:5 212:1

214:3 217:5,9,16

218:18 219:6,13

221:7 237:17

241:11,18 248:2

248:10 252:6

254:16 259:17

271:4 305:5

commercialized

118:16

commercially

145:1 166:4

167:13

commercial/indu...

225:10

Committee 7:7,18

common 46:17

52:5 65:3 78:2

111:2 169:12

170:9 172:4

177:20 196:11

commonality

170:18

commonly 299:6

community 20:1

218:8 317:13

companies 56:3

98:1 118:5 225:10

304:14

company 2:9 3:11

56:9,10,13 190:21

191:2 233:3 244:7

244:11

compare 131:10

148:7 182:1,4

compared 23:6

103:9 131:13

157:5 297:15

298:9 309:19

312:16

comparing 23:19

148:17

comparison 148:6

156:7 174:1

195:14 287:4

compensate 297:18

301:21

competition 296:3

competitive 240:16

competitors 184:6

complete 13:15

53:21 54:1,16

56:10 88:2 143:19

272:14

completely 115:21

118:6 255:8

complex 61:4

184:21

complexity 68:9

compliance 26:6

30:12,22 31:4

56:15 65:20 87:1

87:14 109:3 302:7

compliant 301:12

complicated 69:3

69:10
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 328

comply 302:14

complying 301:11

302:2

component 22:7

53:14,16 54:2,4

54:14 70:22 74:6

74:8,13,17 83:7

138:7 238:21

269:22 270:1

272:6

components 41:18

73:18 89:2 107:13

222:17

comprehensive

72:17

compressor 73:9

73:10

compressors 73:5,7

compromises 99:9

computed 147:18

computer 49:3

concentrate 130:15

132:4 299:3

concentrated

130:22

concept 17:9,20

concern 59:10 67:7

86:4 87:22 135:12

145:12 155:22

157:3 185:14

200:9 273:1,22

concerned 19:3

20:13 69:2 156:3

concerning 82:12

86:8 294:14

concerns 20:12

88:16 297:4 301:3

316:17,19 317:22

concise 13:17,22

conclude 319:20

concluded 58:8

112:6 156:13

260:3

conclusion 58:12

112:3 150:16

conclusions 134:1

condition 51:14

63:5 67:16 115:7

299:20,21 300:6

conditioning 73:15

conditions 62:20

63:8 136:8 208:11

211:17

conducive 136:13

conduct 311:5,22

conducted 101:20

111:15 137:17,21

138:17 144:22

159:9 295:17

conducting 295:12

conductive 299:12

conductivity 98:20

118:9 304:8

conductor 118:9

163:5 304:8

conductors 255:19

conducts 92:10

confident 284:14

configuration 48:3

61:14,20 81:19

82:4,19 83:12,18

83:21 91:1,5,8

128:2 129:21

130:1 131:18

132:1,2 226:8

241:11,12 242:20

285:11

configurations

71:7 85:22 126:12

126:17 285:18

286:2

confirm 96:16

157:10

confirmation 149:6

157:6

confirmed 18:18

157:8

conflict 51:2

conformance 152:8

152:9

confused 241:3

confusing 90:1

confusion 36:15

38:6 171:16

172:14

Congratulations

319:17

Congress 25:10,17

Congressional

218:10

connected 58:11

62:13 213:18,19

263:19,21 264:1,6

289:9,13

consecutive 166:15

consensus 17:13

conservation 1:4

2:1 5:8 10:2

14:20 15:1,2,13

16:11 25:11,12

28:8 42:4 43:8,11

44:11 46:10 84:22

135:13 311:10

312:17

consider 24:1 38:9

42:12 48:10 55:16

70:19 73:2 90:2

106:1 107:20

114:10 122:18

123:7,17 240:11

242:6 309:8,10

considerably 44:22

220:18

consideration

12:22 26:12

116:21 175:6

196:8

considerations

99:2 243:10

considered 26:17

26:21 42:17,20

58:5 67:17 70:15

84:4 92:22 94:21

95:2 96:13 104:2

143:10 166:3,6,17

193:3 208:12,20

209:13,20 211:16

214:13 222:10

224:14 227:4

237:7 240:21

261:4 269:20

273:4 286:9 287:1

290:16 300:15

312:20

considering 15:4

40:3,22 44:8

47:16 48:8 83:5

83:12 137:2

164:22 167:4

194:1 196:15

234:8 255:2

296:11

consist 53:17

consistent 38:14

44:5 83:14 110:16

consists 273:15

constant 138:7

206:4 207:6,13

226:12 242:5

277:12,16 283:4

284:15

constantly 161:17

construction

170:21 172:8

253:10

constructive

319:12

consultant 1:21

3:10 9:9 117:22

Consulting 1:16,22

2:7,10,21 8:15,20

8:22 15:21 24:22

41:13 165:13

320:5

consumer 85:6

203:19 204:8

205:10,15 312:21

consumers 18:16

106:7 222:9 261:7

261:11 296:15,21

309:17

consumption 208:9

208:13 216:13

224:1 234:7

280:22 281:3

contain 133:7

contains 85:15

contamination

259:19

content 190:7

contention 116:9

116:10

context 99:7

continue 43:2 61:2

84:17 260:17

290:11 293:4

continued 100:12

continuous 46:20

71:13 96:10

161:21,22

continuously 24:5

220:5

contract 308:2

contractors 204:19

contribution 22:16

control 22:8 62:15

304:2

controlled 63:19

convened 1:9

conversation

105:10 301:19

conversations

61:11 180:6

conversion 56:14

142:6 312:3

convert 204:7

224:13 281:2

282:8 287:15

312:7

converted 209:7

converts 35:6

COOK 1:22

cooling 71:4

copper 1:21 3:16

9:10 93:12,13

108:13,18 109:1,6

109:10,13 110:8

113:3 115:5,12,15

115:20 116:17

117:21 118:3,7

121:11,17 122:2

140:16,19 141:2,3

141:7,10,13

143:15,18 160:22

161:3 163:3
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 329

164:21 171:2,5

180:1,21,22 181:3

270:15,18 297:5,7

297:9,14 298:5,8

299:1,10 300:14

300:18 301:22

303:16,18 304:11

305:2 306:7,22

316:22

copper's 182:16

copy 21:1 49:2,6

core 92:17 100:5,17

100:18 101:7

106:19 107:3,5,15

130:8,16 140:12

cores 107:1

Corp 7:20

Corporation 1:17

1:20 2:3,13 7:17

9:6,14 57:17

231:4

correct 28:20 32:10

37:13 39:14 77:7

77:8 97:6,17,19

97:19 219:2

268:22

corrections 218:1

correctly 62:22

64:7 143:15 183:6

correlate 145:6

147:18 148:14

correlation 46:19

275:7,14

correspond 96:21

corresponded

157:11

corresponding

26:19 131:8

140:13

corresponds

229:16

cost 4:12 11:20

12:2 18:15 20:14

21:13 121:16

125:2 126:6 138:3

140:2,14 141:3

142:22 143:8,9

144:11,13 174:8

174:22 179:21

181:22 183:1

185:5 186:8,9,13

186:17 187:17

188:8 189:4

203:22 205:10,16

205:22 206:7,8

207:12,14,20,22

208:14 209:3

222:6,12,16,17

223:7,10,12,12,13

223:14,15,17,19

223:19 225:5,9,14

226:22 227:5,10

228:20 230:2

237:9 241:16

249:13,22 258:16

260:17,18,21

261:11,15,17

266:20 269:16,18

270:5,7,17 271:8

274:6,11 281:14

282:2,3,5,11,11

282:22 283:2,10

283:12 286:4

291:15,15,17,20

291:21 306:16

307:6 312:6

costs 125:4 138:7,9

138:13 140:5

141:13 142:2,3,5

142:10,18,19,21

143:19 144:1

180:11,12 186:10

186:12 205:13

206:3 207:6

208:16 222:18

223:22 224:1,2,14

225:13,17,21,22

226:4,5,6,9,11,15

230:5,5 237:2,2,3

239:22 240:16

242:2,8 273:4,21

274:4 281:20,21

282:7 283:1,3,17

283:20 284:13

292:6,15 297:10

298:10

cost-effective

173:13 174:13,17

Council 2:1,2,16

6:21 10:2 60:17

Counsel 2:18 8:10

9:3

count 179:3

counteract 77:21

countries 23:6

124:7 298:20

country 97:4

250:18 301:8

couple 14:13 54:18

54:22 57:17 63:3

98:18 184:18

209:16 218:20

220:9 231:4 258:6

282:21

coupled 70:3

course 31:15 37:12

109:22 157:20

320:9

cover 17:18 36:6

50:13 70:17 84:1

143:13 164:13

201:19,20 263:20

267:8 308:20

coverage 17:15,18

18:12 19:9 31:21

34:7 35:14,19

40:4,7 41:1 43:5,7

44:19 45:7 46:2,6

46:18 47:17 59:4

70:11,16 85:8

91:5 137:3 167:4

194:1,7 201:13

covered 12:11

17:22 18:4 19:1

21:17 23:21 25:20

37:2,22 51:5,6,8

51:20 53:12 56:2

56:11 57:1 60:22

67:9 73:15,17,18

74:6 77:7,17 78:7

79:11,12 80:4,5

84:19 85:1 86:10

86:11 87:19 91:3

92:14 95:13 96:17

110:5 144:19,19

163:14 189:18

194:2 224:8 261:5

263:22 264:2

290:3 298:18

310:9 313:18

319:13

covers 205:11

CO2 312:7

create 54:8 89:7

125:21 145:10

created 123:5

134:6

creates 294:5

creating 88:13

credits 312:21,22

crew 320:7

crews 256:15

crises 25:9

criteria 71:11

92:21 106:3,4,10

108:10,14 120:7

120:18 125:17

129:18 134:22

152:13 153:2,3,12

155:13 166:3

177:17,19 299:8

300:1 317:11,14

crow 251:2

Crystal 223:3

crystallizing 81:7

Cs 171:13,20

CSA 61:18 70:21

82:1 149:16

CSL 20:12 21:13

140:3,11 155:7,9

156:9 164:21,22

165:21 167:1,5,7

167:9,15 168:9,10

168:11,12,13

169:3,8,9,13

170:4,8,11,15,16

170:18,20,22

171:1,4,14,15,16

171:18,19,20

172:2,3,21 173:4

173:5,5 176:2

178:2 193:15

194:10 196:15

220:22 221:2

268:10 285:3,12

285:12 287:1

288:22 289:2

290:19 291:1

302:6,12 303:7

319:5,6

CSLs 21:10,11

126:1,3 138:8

145:4 165:15

166:2,21 167:12

167:22 178:4

179:8,12 193:4,7

193:13 194:8,8

291:4

CSL-0 194:3

CSL-1 195:14

196:11

CSL-2 195:14

CSL-3 195:18

cue 201:5

cumulative 281:5

282:1,4

curious 94:4

164:20

current 28:5 31:6

45:1,12 82:17

99:19 102:7

106:20 125:19

139:7,14 146:1

180:22 181:3

224:15 231:14

261:5,8 275:2

290:5 297:17

312:6

currently 39:22

43:16 45:3,11

47:10,14 83:15

106:18 137:5

234:22

currents 136:1,2,7

136:7
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 330

curve 118:11 304:7

custom 82:22

customer 63:15

64:2 65:18 309:1

309:14

customers 247:22

265:17 305:8

customer's 65:14

cut 106:22

cycle 186:8 187:17

188:8 203:22

208:14 209:3

222:6,12,16 225:5

225:14 237:9

259:20 260:17,18

260:21 261:10,15

261:16 266:20

267:16,19 269:18

271:8 274:11

287:8,16 311:12

317:21

cycles 246:18 255:3

256:6 287:13

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

4:1

C390 70:21 82:2

D

D 77:2,14 78:7,16

79:10 128:10,13

128:14

Dale 1:17 7:19 59:7

59:7,7,10 67:1

68:3 138:20,21

145:15,17 163:18

184:16 251:14,15

251:16 268:18,19

Dale's 147:7

damage 234:10

Dan 7:9 71:17,19

71:20 159:6 160:9

218:12,14 220:12

220:14 240:6,22

241:1 245:7

250:12 251:13

262:17 263:15

Danfoss 2:17 6:17

21:6 24:1 119:7

278:3

dangerous 297:8

DANIEL 1:24

data 5:20 15:18

91:13 92:3 94:7

94:14,15,15,18

95:1,3,6 96:11

99:17 100:20

101:1 103:12

127:9 145:5 146:3

146:4,8 147:18,19

148:2 150:10

152:5 156:8,12,17

162:21,22 180:8

204:8,20,22

206:11 208:9,14

212:21 216:5,10

216:19 217:3,7,7

217:8 222:2 224:1

224:13,19 225:18

226:5,16 230:4,17

238:9 246:9,22

250:8,9 254:20

255:1 257:1,7

262:2,4,15 266:19

273:17 275:19

276:1,4,11,13,14

276:18,22 277:18

278:15 279:3

283:14 284:14,20

285:18 286:7,13

296:22

database 285:19

databases 233:18

date 22:22 26:6

30:13 31:4 33:21

33:22 72:11 114:9

Daugherty 1:23 7:4

7:4 28:2,3,3 30:15

30:16,16 35:16,17

35:17 37:14,14,19

37:19 46:14,15,15

47:3 48:13,14,14

49:15,15 50:8,12

50:13 62:6,6

63:11,11 74:21,21

77:20,20 84:2,2

86:3,3,15 100:4,4

108:6,7,7 117:9,9

120:3,3 121:22,22

129:11,11 139:20

139:21,21 142:16

142:16 147:21,21

148:20,20 160:7,7

169:1,1 176:6,6

181:18,18 195:12

195:12 199:2

200:3,3 210:3,6,6

268:7,7,14 269:14

298:22,22 313:21

313:21 314:21

315:6,6

day 12:8,13,17

36:20 37:1 104:21

155:10 220:10,10

256:16 287:21

319:12

DE 8:4 31:13 78:9

78:15,20 79:14,19

80:6,13 93:17

deal 52:3 64:7

88:14 256:20

313:22

deals 50:16 53:12

dealt 119:3 198:21

debating 174:2

December 22:1

26:6 30:13 33:15

116:2 123:6 317:8

decide 47:12,17

decided 193:16

decides 32:1,12

33:3

deciding 175:6,9

decision 72:13

181:2,9 182:19

185:20 269:20

277:16 296:20

300:12

decisions 33:5

269:13,15 279:2

307:3

dedicate 319:2

deep 82:22 102:10

deeper 317:2

default 284:16

defeats 88:9

Defense 2:16 6:21

deferred 33:19

34:3

define 51:11 78:1

78:17 91:6

defined 36:17

43:21 51:7,13

54:5,12 72:7 79:1

86:6 120:17

defining 35:5 42:3

78:4 170:4

definite 43:20 44:4

44:14,20 227:14

242:11,17 243:1

245:9 262:20

263:5 264:3

definition 35:1,4

36:5,7,11,12 37:8

43:18,22 44:2,7

46:20 50:21 51:15

52:2,10,13,15,17

52:18,20 53:16

54:9,10 55:2 60:1

60:6 78:12 80:10

87:11,13 90:1

151:14,16,19,20

168:7 170:14

201:12 202:1

221:15 255:4

definitions 34:9

35:10,13,20 36:18

48:17,19 49:14,21

50:18 51:4,11

54:21 61:1 81:17

degradation 258:5

258:12 297:11

degraded 215:10

degrading 234:8

degree 235:17

275:7

Delaney 1:24 7:9,9

71:20,21 159:7

218:14,14 219:2

219:14 220:14,14

241:1,1 242:10

262:18 263:13

deLASKI 1:25 8:4

31:12 78:8 93:17

201:2,3,6 202:6

202:14 253:13,14

253:17,21 254:2

316:9

deLaski's 318:5

deliver 317:19

delta 301:12

demand 23:15 24:7

209:2

demonstrate

114:12

demonstrated

119:18 177:22

density 64:14 75:5

75:14 100:15

299:16

depart 211:1

department 1:1,9

1:14 2:6,11 5:6,16

5:18 9:3 13:5,14

15:4,9 19:11 32:1

32:12 37:17 62:4

87:15 96:16

104:22 105:15

113:17 117:10,11

147:15 153:15

160:16 199:12

201:11 218:3,5,9

265:21 317:10,17

319:17,22

Department's 94:3

depend 33:5

103:11 211:17

dependent 268:15

depending 32:11

103:1 185:4

227:10 229:12,17

depends 33:3 171:5

deploy 19:18

depth 105:12

DEREK 3:14

derive 262:16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 331

derived 15:14

180:8 192:14,16

192:19 213:1

216:8 223:20,22

237:10,14 254:15

266:19 275:14

279:9 283:8,11

285:20

derives 225:8

describe 45:18 94:1

285:14

described 32:8

96:22

describes 53:21

102:6

describing 96:16

281:11

design 35:11 42:19

47:20,21 48:2

51:12,13,18 55:13

55:14,15 56:21

63:13 64:8,16,18

64:22,22 65:1,2

75:17 77:2,14

78:4,7 79:10 85:9

85:14,15,17 86:18

86:19 91:2,3,6,11

91:19,22,22 96:6

96:8,9 98:18 99:2

99:9,9 109:9,21

109:22 112:22

113:5 114:22

124:21 125:17

126:16 127:14

128:4 129:2

135:14,18 137:13

137:13,16,18

139:17,18 145:3,9

145:12 149:6

158:12 161:18,20

162:1,3 169:7,9

171:10,13,15,19

171:20 172:2,6

174:6 176:12

192:14,16 200:8

227:21,21 245:17

287:4,5 297:20,21

298:2,2,2,12

299:4,5,7,8

300:16 301:20

302:3,7,12,12,14

302:15 303:6,7,22

304:2 305:16,16

306:4,4,5,6,7,9

designation 72:4

128:17 242:5

designations

128:11 226:3

designed 66:6 73:9

111:22 162:9

172:15

designers 92:19

113:2

designs 19:21 20:5

125:22 136:10,14

145:10 155:21

158:9 162:7 163:1

195:21 196:2

242:18 303:5

desirable 93:3,4

despite 151:3,3

detail 20:17 27:1

29:6 50:3,5 54:20

84:3 101:11

108:16 143:14

213:15 273:14

283:21

detailed 161:5

276:15

details 90:19 91:10

139:16 205:4

209:21 211:13

280:8 282:21

determination

29:13 30:9,21

86:16 103:12,19

113:19 152:12,14

154:7 221:1

determine 26:9

28:7 64:9 65:21

75:9 98:4 137:18

138:1 203:19

222:8 225:6 230:1

272:15

determined 149:15

180:5 214:16

determines 128:16

determining 26:3

26:15

develop 104:9

124:17 138:3,13

178:4 179:12

193:10 206:21

208:9,15 211:13

226:21 283:19

developed 94:2,6

107:3 118:3

125:11,22 126:6

165:15,19 179:8

193:8 211:21

214:8 226:4 237:5

271:21 285:2

developing 81:14

175:13 179:9,11

180:12

development 1:21

3:16 9:10 108:5

117:21 119:4

191:13 223:9

develops 295:2

deviate 177:9

deviation 154:10

device 300:5

devices 23:8 73:13

DFR 32:6

diagram 42:14

204:11 281:10

diameter 93:12

130:4 245:22

246:5

diameters 176:13

die 118:3,13 158:20

158:21 159:2

249:16 304:11

305:2

dies 143:19,20

305:12,14

die-cast 119:6

303:19

differ 89:3 151:17

difference 23:22

72:6 130:10 131:4

131:12,15 141:11

222:12 243:13

259:4 260:22

261:17 268:11

280:12 282:2,5,10

283:6 289:17,22

291:11,14,19

differences 70:6

193:6 211:21

270:7 281:8

different 26:17

29:4 32:7 36:20

53:13 64:15 85:5

89:5,10 93:20

94:19 95:1 96:12

98:1,2 101:2,11

101:17,18 102:21

103:3,10 118:10

118:13 130:1

132:16,16,17

141:9 145:3 162:7

168:10,20 169:13

171:21 175:18,20

176:8,8,12 185:3

185:4,8 195:17,20

195:21 196:12,16

197:7 204:11,20

206:12 208:19,20

214:5,12 215:16

216:7 237:16

241:4 243:12

252:5 276:2,11

279:16 281:7

284:17 295:8

304:6 314:11,12

315:8

differential 141:16

differentiate 131:3

236:3 299:4

300:16

differently 231:9

314:2

difficult 106:21

120:20 121:18

147:4 299:9 300:1

difficulties 70:19

71:7 82:12,14

difficulty 75:1 89:9

124:10 133:20

digit 202:3,21

diligence 50:2

dimension 128:14

146:9,12 243:14

243:16,18

dimensions 128:10

128:13 176:16

242:4

diminishes 68:9

diminishing 21:18

dioxide 311:13,17

311:19

dip 64:21

direct 32:2,13,21

122:1 199:16

205:13 206:3

207:5,6 213:14

218:10 239:9

296:1 310:9

directed 25:14 26:8

direction 218:2,11

directly 42:22

184:3 192:11

197:12 226:16

disaggregated

96:11

disappointing

113:9

discount 129:20

225:5,6,8 237:1

282:8,17,18

290:16 292:16,21

discounted 156:19

222:18

discounting 292:17

discounts 182:9

discrepancy 201:10

201:11

discrete 90:21

discuss 5:19 15:16

41:11 81:12 99:6

200:22 266:12

discussed 45:6 66:4

92:6 138:4 167:10
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 332

173:16 179:7

193:21 300:9

discusses 83:11

102:7 106:11

discussing 17:3

20:16 26:22

discussion 16:2

19:5 24:17 41:6

41:19 43:3 53:12

54:11 58:7 80:16

84:16,18,19

147:13 202:7

269:4 314:11

discussions 45:9

82:10,15 295:4

299:13

dismal 161:1

dispersed 128:12

dispersion 110:21

display 49:16

displayed 98:4

disproportionately

298:16

dissimilarities

89:16

distinct 307:1

distinguish 188:21

distributed 204:3

distribution 130:6

154:19 168:6,7

186:11,14,16

187:11 188:9,10

188:12 189:10

204:5,10,17 205:2

206:13 212:9,13

216:20 217:1

249:1 261:3 262:5

262:6,8 279:11

distributions

187:10 190:2

208:22 212:4,19

214:9,18 215:15

223:2,5 260:19

262:2,13,16

266:18 277:9

279:10 288:15

distributor 187:11

188:15,17 189:16

189:17 207:8

distributors 204:18

dive 25:5

divided 84:19

194:13 223:15

divides 84:22

docket 173:9

174:20

document 27:15,18

28:21 36:2 38:9

44:16,17 49:13

61:8 72:3 129:13

documents 27:11

DOE 8:9,11 9:1

13:16 24:1 25:2

25:14,22 26:5,8

26:16 27:7 28:7

29:2,7,12,17,21

30:7 33:15,19,22

34:12,17 35:22

36:3 40:3,16

42:12 44:1,7,13

44:17 45:4,16,21

46:4,5,9 47:11,15

47:17 48:7,9

51:11 52:11 53:16

54:1,3 55:2 56:12

56:14,20 59:16

61:12 70:15,18

71:5 72:16 73:2

73:15 80:2 81:14

81:22 82:10,17,20

83:4,12,15 84:19

84:21 85:7,11

86:6 87:7,10

89:10 91:11,15,16

92:10 94:21 96:13

98:3 99:15 100:10

102:6 103:17,21

105:22 106:2

107:3,6,17 108:21

109:5,13 111:2,12

114:10,11 115:10

116:10 120:9

123:16 125:8,9,12

125:16,20,22

126:6,8,10,19,22

127:2,8,14,16,19

128:2,10,19 129:2

136:20,22 137:9,9

137:17,20 138:2

138:13,17 140:8

144:21 145:2,4,9

149:2,7,20 150:9

150:16 151:19

153:20 154:13

155:3,5,15,19,22

156:13,19 157:2

157:20 158:17

162:5 165:17

166:2,3,6,17

167:3,11 170:3

173:19 175:7

176:3 179:8,12,18

179:22 180:5,11

180:14 185:22

192:21 193:2,16

193:22 194:13

198:12 201:19

202:1 204:9 205:6

206:21 212:16

213:1 215:4

217:14 225:5,16

225:21 229:3

235:22 237:5,5,19

238:8 262:12

269:19 274:1

276:17 277:9

280:4,10 286:3

287:6 294:4,5,13

294:16 295:2,7,21

296:6,18,21 297:3

298:17 308:7

310:1,14 311:8,19

312:5 314:5,7,15

319:2

DOE's 27:12 34:19

44:6 52:4 86:9

162:9 180:20

195:7 216:17

314:11

DOE-provided

46:12

doggoned 240:14

doing 6:6 50:2 56:1

56:13 62:12 74:18

138:22 144:15

160:5 168:19

172:11 173:14

179:20 181:21

184:19 197:21

204:15 228:5

233:11 260:8

264:14 267:16

289:10,11

dollar 144:5 312:8

dollars 174:5,14

249:13 292:18,19

domestic 181:10

183:1 185:16

186:1 298:14

301:3,10 310:19

domestically

181:14

double 288:7 304:1

Doug 1:10,13 2:17

3:12 4:3 9:2

14:18 16:13 173:2

201:2 213:6 320:1

320:9

downs 179:20,21

downstream 42:9

125:3 179:16

draft 38:22 39:3

316:3

dramatic 23:22

dramatically 23:1

23:4 228:8

draw 173:22

drive 220:16

241:10,13,15

264:18 296:14

driven 275:4

driver 289:4

drivers 284:12

288:14

drives 22:17,18

24:4 174:18,21

220:21 233:13

247:20 278:7,10

278:14

driving 263:6

drop 72:20 235:1

drops 211:2 229:11

due 104:14 121:16

137:12 205:16

206:1 229:19

235:1 287:2

288:11

duplicated 36:12

duty 46:20,21

56:22 57:6 71:12

71:13 96:10 253:9

dynamometer

61:21 62:19 82:7

D.C 1:10 27:18

E

earlier 25:2 40:2

71:8 105:16

114:20 168:5

169:15 179:18

192:21 200:11

201:7 202:17

260:20 277:2

287:22

early 27:20 313:1

earnings 190:22

Earthjustice 1:17

10:7

EASA 9:14 231:4

235:12 239:18

240:19

EASAs 233:3

easier 134:2

easily 117:6 272:8

easy 114:21 170:12

315:20,20

ECG 90:21

ECGs 85:13 90:19

Eckman 2:1 10:1,1

economic 26:13

275:4 280:2,11

307:11 309:16

economically 26:16

Economy 2:2 60:17

Ed 117:16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 333

eddy 106:20

edge 203:12

EDWIN 1:21

EERE 21:20 218:5

effect 102:17 116:4

189:7 197:5

270:16 278:16

effective 114:9

116:1 174:22

effectively 174:8

effects 188:4,13

efficiencies 22:19

69:18 70:1 75:15

127:12 128:9

133:22 136:19

137:4 145:1

149:14 166:15,21

226:11 261:10,12

277:7,16

efficiency 2:15 5:17

6:15 15:9 16:20

18:10 19:17,21

21:12,16,18 22:4

22:6,11,13,21

23:20,22 25:15,18

25:19 34:8 35:9

36:19 37:3 42:7

42:11 45:2,15,20

47:11 63:9,21

64:10 65:22 67:15

67:22 75:9 86:16

86:20,21 89:4,14

92:13,14 93:1

98:6 107:16 109:3

110:15,18,22

112:5,17,20 113:6

113:10 114:22

120:10 123:20

124:18,22 125:1,2

125:14,21 126:2,3

126:4 127:9 131:1

133:17 134:19

137:11,20 138:16

139:10 143:17

145:4,10,14 148:8

148:8,9,10,16

149:18 150:12

151:15,21 152:1

152:19,20,21

153:4 155:8 156:9

156:11,13,18,21

158:1,9 165:20,22

166:7,9,9,11,18

167:1,2,14,17

168:5,17 170:5

173:6,8,10,12,17

175:1,7,19 177:8

192:8,9,13,15,18

193:3,9 194:2,4

195:1,3,9 196:2,9

196:14 201:20

203:20,21 205:11

205:17 206:1

207:11 208:11

209:12,20 210:11

210:12 211:2,7,15

215:9 216:4,13

222:10 225:18

226:1,8,13 227:11

229:1,6,11 234:8

242:1,22 243:2,4

244:19 245:20

257:17 258:5,13

258:17,18,21

260:19 261:2,6,20

262:2,5,8,13,16

263:4 266:18

272:2,19 277:8,10

277:12,19 278:7

279:8,9,10 283:4

288:1,14 291:18

293:21 296:14

298:5,16,18

312:22

efficient 2:2 60:17

67:13 99:4 121:14

136:14 155:21

166:19 167:7

227:18 241:16

258:22 292:1

296:15,16 297:5

efficiently 12:17

319:14

effort 67:21 128:11

200:6

efforts 46:3 108:4

EIA 311:2

eight 26:18 130:13

132:19,22 144:5

eight-pole 118:19

131:2

eight-poles 110:10

197:5

EISA 25:18 26:3

35:1,8,10 43:17

43:21 265:3

either 30:8 50:4

70:20 82:1,6

166:4 198:1

202:22 204:13

235:12 263:22

264:7 273:16

eke 174:22 175:10

elaborate 41:5

elected 34:17 195:9

electric 1:4,17 2:9

3:11 5:9 7:5,13,20

14:20 15:3 16:12

19:19 23:18 25:3

26:1,10 33:13,17

33:19,21 34:4

35:2,5 42:2,3

43:18,22 44:3,7

44:14 50:22 51:5

51:7,12,16 52:1,9

52:11 53:1,21

55:9,22 56:6 59:1

71:3,5 72:15

85:12,18 86:11,17

89:12,18 92:1,13

100:8,17,21 101:5

102:3 103:6,8

107:1,13,18 108:3

109:9 113:1

116:12 120:8

124:18 150:2

170:7 180:17

208:10 209:4

222:9 229:18

244:15 278:22

280:3 291:4

293:22 296:19

297:14

electrical 1:18,19

1:23 2:4,5,12,14

6:11 7:3 9:12

35:6 100:13 101:2

101:7,14,16

102:13,18,20

103:5,10,13 104:4

104:6 106:15,18

135:19 137:22

139:2 140:12

170:17 171:2

172:8 176:20,21

198:9 227:22

242:21 271:22

272:14

electricity 208:16

223:22 224:11,12

224:13,14,21

225:2 237:1

310:20

electronic 23:3

electronics 233:11

eleven 104:16,18

eliminate 57:12

73:22

eliminated 55:14

Elliott 2:2 8:6,6

16:18,18 66:2,2

68:1,2,2 168:4

198:17,17 202:5

217:12,13,21

238:15,15 247:16

249:9 255:11

257:4

embedded 237:21

238:4 239:4 301:8

emission 309:4

311:9,14 312:1,4

312:7,10

emissions 309:3

311:8,11,12,15,17

311:22

Emmanuel 1:15

8:2 68:15,16

emphasis 122:10

172:18 302:1

emphasize 161:14

emphasizing 57:4

employed 233:4

employment 186:1

296:2 309:1 310:5

310:7,8,10,13,16

empty 171:11

172:1

enable 39:17

enactment 265:3

encapsulated 52:9

52:11,16,21 53:1

53:3,5

enclosed 62:9,14

65:12 72:1,3,7,14

72:19 88:4 97:13

108:21 131:5,9,14

197:8 285:5,11

286:1

enclosure 48:4

62:14 85:22 91:2

126:17 128:1

132:2 226:7

285:16 286:2

enclosures 108:21

134:11

encompassed

140:18

encompasses 44:3

encounter 69:20

encourage 13:11

15:15 89:20

103:21 131:21

134:15 170:3

185:18

encouraged 103:16

133:13 171:22

encourages 5:18

27:20

ended 95:5 101:6

141:1 155:12

182:10

endplate 82:22

83:7

endplates 164:7

ends 105:1
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 334

endshields 53:19

54:7,13

energy 1:1,4,10,14

1:15,22 2:2,6,9,11

2:15,17,25 5:8,16

6:15 7:17 8:3,8

9:3,8 14:20,22

15:2,4,13 16:11

16:20 17:4,21

18:14,19 21:12,16

22:3 23:9,12 24:3

25:9,10,12 26:14

26:21 28:8 42:4

43:8,10 44:10,22

45:8 56:4 60:17

64:20 68:8 84:21

85:2 87:16 92:14

104:22 117:10

132:17 133:1,3,4

135:13 153:15

158:1 166:19

167:6 173:12

174:12 175:1

200:22 208:7,8,9

208:13 209:4,6,8

209:18 210:13

212:20,20 214:21

216:12 223:22

224:9,13,16,17,18

234:6 268:10,12

275:20 279:22

280:4,5,13,18,22

281:2,3,5,9,14

282:1,3,11 286:19

286:21 287:14

289:4 291:20

292:1 297:10

301:4 310:11,22

311:3,10 312:17

313:6 318:22

319:22

Energy's 5:7

energy-use 4:12

11:19

enforce 298:17

319:3

enforcement 19:2,4

19:7,11 46:3 68:6

79:13 153:9 301:2

306:17 318:13

engine 174:5

engineer 86:18

engineering 4:9

11:18 42:12,16,20

43:1 93:19 106:2

116:15 122:19

124:15,16,20

125:3,8 129:16

142:1 143:6,7

144:11 163:12

165:16,18 179:15

187:3 190:1 192:7

208:12 216:5,9

224:8 226:17

242:3 269:11

272:5,17 273:3

283:13 285:4

engineers 99:9

161:16 198:9

enhance 19:10

enhances 19:2

23:15

enhancing 24:6

enlarge 98:22

enormous 317:19

ensure 38:14 145:6

entailed 94:4

entered 13:4

118:16

entire 273:13

298:11 300:14

307:16

entitled 21:20

entries 171:11

172:2

envelopes 146:1

environment

234:11 259:15

environmental

235:3

EPACT 25:14

43:18 137:6,11,14

171:14 172:3

259:1 264:8

265:16 270:8,12

epartment 2:17

EPCA 25:11 28:6

EPCA's 43:21

Epstein 100:14,19

101:21,22 102:9

102:14 103:5,11

104:2,8

equal 261:13,20

277:12 279:7

equation 210:7,10

210:21 216:8

275:16,22 276:4

equations 193:10

193:12

equipment 5:17

15:10 42:8,21

43:3 51:5,6,8

84:20 85:1,3,8,9

85:10,12,14,20

86:5 87:9,11

88:12 89:15 90:1

90:20,21 91:10

97:5 106:6 115:17

125:11 126:10,18

126:21,22 127:3,4

127:7,13 128:8,21

135:15 136:21

137:8 143:21

159:16 166:21

172:4 185:5

192:11,13,15,17

192:20 194:3,14

194:16,21 195:2

195:10 196:18

197:1 204:18

205:19,21 206:16

212:6,10,13 237:8

237:13,22 238:2

238:22 239:4

262:6,8,14 270:21

271:17 275:5,9,12

276:9,9 280:14

283:17,20 284:21

285:3 286:4,9,22

290:15,21 291:2

equivalent 36:7,8

37:4 55:15 87:12

era 25:9

ERIC 2:20

error 165:4 272:18

especially 52:6

68:21 76:17 115:4

233:3,18 234:7

241:17 250:11

essentially 46:5

166:10 242:13

302:19

establish 25:15

26:5 216:20 262:1

262:4 276:10

277:3

established 25:19

35:8 43:17 109:4

204:5 205:3

211:22 212:4,17

214:18 216:4

232:16 285:14

establishes 42:7

131:6

establishing 25:12

33:16

estimate 95:22

99:10 181:12

183:17 185:12

230:3,18 232:16

235:8 238:11,12

263:18 266:6

274:22 278:12

279:4,21 280:2

285:9 286:3 297:1

310:18 313:5

estimated 95:3

97:18 108:22

147:18 204:12,15

226:6 237:12

262:13

estimates 94:2 96:7

180:3 183:14,21

211:22 216:22

237:11,16 254:12

275:17 283:19

289:22

et 176:16 308:5

315:19

EURODRIVE 9:20

Europe 79:8

161:19

evaluate 5:16 15:9

295:22 310:13

313:3

evaluated 225:16

evaluates 106:2

124:21

evaluating 139:4

evaluation 300:18

evenly 128:12

event 32:1

events 13:21

Eventually 29:7

everybody 49:1

105:11 251:18

exact 188:18

258:10 259:6,7

266:1,1

exactly 38:20 54:3

98:15 99:5 159:1

189:8 234:17

235:12 243:20

246:15 314:14

examination

111:17

examine 108:18

131:21 195:13,20

197:4,6

examined 111:13

123:17 133:3

169:7

examining 196:20

example 26:20

47:21 50:20,21

52:8 63:7 71:2,12

73:16 81:2 82:20

98:19 101:12

122:3 149:22

150:5,7 207:7,11

212:9,12,12 213:3

214:7,11 219:16

225:1 234:20

240:10 262:7

266:21 285:3
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 335

288:1 291:22

302:11 304:15

306:20 318:19

examples 50:9

54:19

exceed 21:11

Excel 223:3

excellent 320:9

exclude 18:4 66:17

78:18

excluded 19:2

50:17 57:7 60:21

76:11 78:11

excluding 19:8

51:1

exclusion 66:11,20

67:20 68:11 77:22

108:8

Excuse 244:8

Executive 314:4

315:10

exempt 307:16

exempted 76:15

exemption 318:20

319:1

exercise 198:5,14

199:3

exhibit 45:14 46:8

exhibited 137:19

exhibiting 46:7

exist 171:4 302:22

existed 122:13

existing 34:8 61:22

87:18 112:14

218:6 311:18

exists 59:13 122:14

expand 46:5 61:2

146:1 160:8 194:6

272:3

expanded 36:7

46:1,18 47:16,18

48:8 59:4 61:16

70:16 91:16 94:21

95:12 96:14,22

97:11 137:2

265:12 271:20

expanding 17:18

40:3,22 45:6

194:1

expansion 18:12

41:21 43:4,14

44:18 47:12 60:15

84:16

expect 117:10

143:13 162:3

164:3 220:4

250:22 253:14

270:13

expectancy 247:5

expectation 160:21

expectations

160:17

expected 64:5

101:6 157:4 161:4

expects 63:21

86:22 162:6

expedite 80:10

expeditiously

316:13

expenditures

280:14

expense 121:16

expenses 205:12

206:2,6 207:19

223:16,21 225:7

expensive 296:17

298:9

experience 250:21

experienced 160:18

experiences 250:15

expert 125:21

254:10

experts 15:21 45:7

82:12 180:7

225:21

explain 97:15

134:10 232:5

233:1 288:15

explanation 23:8

158:16

explicit 74:1

explicitly 18:4 19:2

19:8

explore 20:4

expressed 222:11

260:21 261:16

277:6 287:12

319:21

extended 13:20

extending 167:4

extensive 19:5

extent 31:7 38:4

80:7 315:14

external 66:21 71:4

306:19

extra 180:16

extrapolate 283:18

284:2

extrapolating

286:6

extrapolation

220:22

extremely 159:15

192:3

eyes 150:4

F

fabricate 297:8

fabrication 297:12

face 6:8

faced 151:12 155:6

facilitator 320:9

facilities 153:18

169:17

facility 153:22

154:2

fact 18:22 139:17

140:22 160:1

197:15 207:19

216:3 226:2

256:10,14 258:22

261:3 300:3

factor 134:4 183:19

245:17 263:6

307:11

factoring 63:8

factors 26:12,17,19

118:8 197:21

269:3 306:17

307:10 312:3

factory 271:16

fail 46:8 106:9

239:5

failed 130:9 131:3

132:2 236:11

251:8

failing 129:21

fair 271:9

fairly 6:7 66:10

199:2

fall 78:11 196:7

199:18 220:15

251:5 264:6

fallout 136:5

falls 65:2 67:20

264:10

familiar 113:3

293:10

fan 62:13 63:16

64:19,19,20 65:15

65:15

fan-cooled 60:5

131:5,9 197:8

far 10:19 15:11

55:12 60:18 69:1

91:20 152:5

155:14 161:9

173:16 226:9

268:20 271:17

farm 252:20

farmer 250:19

318:9

farmers 252:18

farms 253:2

farm-duty 252:7

252:10

fault 72:10

FAVI 119:8

favor 185:19

feasibility 26:13

106:4 111:11,14

119:13 161:10

306:14 307:12

feasible 107:7,21

111:18 113:20

115:21 119:1,17

126:14 166:1

feature 85:4

features 85:6

February 118:17

fed 186:21

federal 27:5,10

29:8 137:5

feed 42:22

feedback 14:6

29:11,22 34:12

183:13 273:11

295:9 310:14

feel 18:5 59:16 67:5

197:19

feeling 19:20

feels 45:21 71:5

feet 128:16

fell 51:19 252:9

fellow 278:3

field 208:10,21

211:5,17,17

214:10 217:3

247:14

figure 67:19 140:6

150:15 174:14

198:13 315:21

figured 179:19

figures 140:7

filed 32:18,22

317:18

filings 180:9

fill 146:19,20 164:2

164:2 244:21

fills 122:19,21

146:22 163:7

165:2

filters 42:10

final 26:3 27:5

29:20 30:11 32:2

32:13,19,21 33:12

34:14,22 35:3,12

40:12,18 44:1

70:10 77:11 85:18

97:11 121:3

136:16 178:3

181:8 192:7

213:14 224:6

294:15,16 308:10

316:14 319:10
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 336

finalized 34:15

finally 20:7 92:1

126:8 127:2

find 54:22 55:3

84:5 109:5,12,15

111:5 115:16

117:12 127:10

131:11,14 226:9

227:15 230:17

252:18 262:22

284:13 287:10

288:17

finding 269:9

fine 152:3 244:13

finish 90:14 163:11

finished 200:17

308:18

fire 35:11 43:16

85:18 92:1 127:5

135:13,16,20,21

136:4,6 192:18,22

221:14,15 229:18

291:4

firms 233:6

first 11:3 16:16

24:18 25:5 27:14

39:3,4 43:14

50:15 65:4 109:8

111:22,22 116:1

125:9 145:15

149:14 166:3

168:3 180:20

193:8 204:2

210:21 223:15

236:4 238:4

273:13 294:5

296:13 300:19

309:6

fit 44:9 94:20

163:20 164:6,10

164:10 200:12,14

245:2,7,12 246:6

272:11,15 278:2

fits 12:4 243:21

five 18:19 92:15,19

104:18 109:1

119:15 126:19,22

127:14 129:2

132:10,12,13,21

133:2 134:20

137:16 147:5

152:21 153:20

154:1 162:6

255:22 256:1

fixed 275:4,8,11,18

275:21

flatten 133:17

flattening 133:19

Flolo 2:3,3 9:13,13

9:14 231:3,3,3,12

231:17 232:8,18

232:21 234:5,17

235:11 236:1,4,9

236:13,16 240:9

243:8 256:9 258:1

258:20 259:4,7

floor 48:6 105:2

108:2 129:8

138:12

flow 24:16 62:11,15

62:21 64:4,14

223:6 280:16

294:17

flows 294:19

fluctuations 182:16

flux 100:15 102:12

focus 14:2 91:17

focusing 18:22

folks 19:11 260:15

follow 62:7 64:7

66:18 78:9 79:14

80:17 111:13

148:18 165:9

184:17 185:22

199:21 220:12

229:9 239:1 249:8

315:3

followed 24:17

32:22 91:22 125:8

151:8

following 11:4,9,13

12:6 51:19 68:3

228:22 229:4

295:21 314:18

follow-on 13:11

65:7 74:3 141:18

142:11 148:19

210:16 256:7

follow-up 63:4

142:17 175:15

234:13 257:4

food 246:3

force 122:20

243:19 307:2

forced 124:6

forecast 294:19

foreign 181:10

183:5 298:19

form 29:4 223:4

formally 17:11

formula 209:10,14

267:17,18,20,22

268:1,4

Fort 112:14

forth 13:13

forthcoming 39:6

Fortune 235:16,16

forward 19:14 20:2

32:6 47:12 100:11

156:10 182:14

207:3,3,4 316:13

317:6,17 320:11

found 102:22

141:12 151:2

248:16 255:1

275:7,19

four 12:16 27:2

34:5 35:9,14 88:4

106:3 108:13,20

109:19 111:16

118:18 131:1

136:18,19 220:11

233:4,6

fourth 115:9

four-pole 93:4

112:4 128:2

129:18 130:13

132:4 150:9

197:19 285:5,11

286:1 302:12

four-poles 110:19

fraction 206:1

frame 36:8,8,9,10

36:16 39:13 46:22

48:4 53:18 91:2

96:5 110:7 118:21

118:21 126:12,17

128:10,17 131:7

131:12,15,16,17

133:9,10,11,11,12

138:8,15 144:4

163:21 164:7

197:7 201:20

202:3,17,21 203:1

203:2 226:3 242:4

245:1,21 253:10

272:12

frames 37:9 72:14

72:15 176:13,14

176:15

framework 5:14,15

15:8 27:3,15,18

28:21 31:20 36:2

44:16 45:5 129:13

France 119:8

304:18

Frank 2:8 7:22

59:5 60:11,12

69:11,12 210:16

210:17 220:13

221:8,10 239:14

239:15

Frank's 215:7

free 177:5 294:19

frequency 22:17

24:4 174:18,21

229:14 230:3

232:15 233:13,22

235:8 246:11

278:6,10

frequently 39:15

friction 92:17

130:11,19

friend 250:18

friends 304:11

318:9

fuel 287:8,12,16

311:12

full 20:14 111:9

120:17 185:1

216:3 287:8,12,15

311:12

fully 103:17 129:12

181:10 184:22

313:18

full-scale 121:14,19

full-time 161:16

function 258:13

fundamental

198:19

funded 113:17

funds 319:3

further 15:4,17

45:6 111:12 160:8

219:17

furthermore 23:14

73:13

future 19:21 36:22

175:6 292:17

301:10

G

gain 67:21 272:19

gained 298:5

gains 134:19

gallon 174:3,7

gap 98:22 99:1

102:12

gaps 110:6

gathered 15:11

GC 28:13

gear 95:15 264:3

general 2:17 8:10

9:3 43:15,19 48:1

50:18 75:16 82:8

83:2,9 182:11

306:3 309:19

generally 75:4

86:18 131:11

generate 91:13

195:9

generation 19:19

159:19

Generator 7:7,11

7:15,21
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 337

gentleman 121:7

gentlemen 199:1

George 2:3 9:13

231:3 240:7 243:5

243:7 255:15

256:2,7,8 257:7

257:22

George's 244:17

Germany 118:21

119:9 304:18

getting 62:22

102:20 133:20

233:16,16 240:15

246:18 270:8

Gettman 2:4 9:21

9:21

give 25:5 39:5

49:19 50:9 122:3

130:22 192:3

231:6 234:20

given 28:9 31:6

100:19 131:7

150:22 151:1

170:14 197:14

312:6

gives 34:20 210:13

281:8 282:12

317:6

glad 10:11 259:8

global 124:5

globally 121:12

124:9

go 12:16 28:22 29:5

43:12 48:11,16

49:17,17 52:8

54:19 58:14 64:8

71:19,20 74:9,20

80:9 81:10 84:3

86:2 89:22 98:10

99:14 101:10

103:21 104:18

105:2 113:13

121:1,17 130:18

134:16 138:20

140:2 143:2

147:16 151:14,16

152:10 154:12

159:12 163:21

164:1 170:4

172:10 176:3

178:6 181:15

182:13,14 186:7

186:18,20 195:18

198:2 205:4 207:3

209:17,21 211:12

213:9,14 219:17

220:7 223:13

224:7 225:12

227:11 230:6

231:5 237:3 240:6

241:2,4,11 243:6

245:22 246:1

251:3 255:18

256:4 257:22

260:6 262:18

263:17 264:22

265:17 267:14

269:8 272:8,13,22

273:2,10 280:8

282:20 287:21

288:8,12 290:13

309:14 310:4

311:7 314:16

315:7

goal 112:22 133:4

173:15,15

goes 22:16 32:6

37:21 62:15 64:19

65:13 86:20 99:6

153:9 169:18

176:18 185:6,21

194:11 221:5

245:5 255:15

307:7

going 11:3,6 13:9

14:16 24:18 25:8

43:6 46:17 49:16

61:17 62:7 63:17

63:19 64:10 65:7

65:10 69:15,22

70:5 77:12 79:9

89:9 90:9,10 92:8

97:9 99:6,15

103:13 105:13,18

105:19 111:8

115:5 124:12

132:4 143:18,22

159:3 160:22

161:8 162:13,15

162:16 163:9

164:5,6,9,11,13

165:14 168:17

177:13 179:4,8

184:6 185:1,19

186:11,12,14

187:8,19,22

189:20 190:11

196:10 198:12

199:13,14 200:1

201:5 207:13

218:19 243:19

244:5,22 245:2,12

246:1,4,6 247:2

251:18 256:4

257:14 259:11,15

259:18,19 260:14

260:16 262:21

263:1,3,3 264:2

266:15 270:22

273:9 278:8,13

283:21 289:2

293:13 301:15

308:1,13,13,13

313:15 315:13

317:3

good 5:3,22 24:20

41:12 50:3,21

55:11 64:7 74:5

80:15 81:9 97:21

103:4 104:20

134:9 135:10

150:5 155:10

164:14 215:22

217:6 236:17,19

247:10 248:20

257:9 263:1,10

316:5 319:15

goods 205:10,16,22

206:7,8 207:20,22

Gotcha 236:15

246:7 251:11

gotten 151:10

government 161:10

294:18 313:2

grab 251:8

grabbed 251:7

grade 104:4,5

138:1

grades 163:6

graph 128:6 275:9

Graul 10:16,20

320:8

gray 224:3

grease 259:21

greasers 256:15

great 50:11 70:13

75:20 81:11 84:15

88:14 97:1,20

136:17 142:14

162:17 213:15

greater 20:17 24:3

27:1 29:6 130:11

151:22 261:13,20

292:6 301:13

green 194:16 224:5

Greg 3:18 10:17

grid 23:18

GRIM 294:18

295:1,22 307:10

308:5

groove 83:1

grossly 144:14,17

ground 105:2

319:13

group 7:5 19:9

85:15,16,18 89:10

113:1 120:14

126:19,21,22

127:3,4,7,13

129:14 136:22

137:8 166:22

170:9 172:16

192:14,16,17,20

194:3,21 212:10

212:14 233:14

237:13 262:9

290:15,21 291:2

grouped 92:15

237:8

grouping 120:11

125:11

groupings 85:13,14

91:10 201:17

groups 45:8 85:19

113:4 159:17

172:4,5 177:21,22

262:6,14 276:9

286:22 309:17

growing 250:17

grows 130:4

growth 275:4 305:7

Grundfos 3:18

119:7

guard 251:9

guess 58:13 66:3

72:9 80:19 99:17

139:22 148:21

190:4,16 218:15

239:17 246:19

250:1 258:14

273:19 287:18

302:10

guidance 34:10,19

38:9,15 39:1,3

40:1 46:13 79:16

79:19,21 80:3,12

80:14 81:18 82:3

82:21 152:11

155:2 282:19

guide 295:3,3,10

guideline 152:16

guidelines 45:22

gut 199:9

guys 197:13 198:8

235:14 249:18

256:15 315:20

316:5

H

H 55:14

half 49:12 69:20

110:17,18 163:22

164:5 175:10

215:19 260:5

hall 105:1
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 338

hand 14:7 117:7

122:9,12,13,18,21

122:22 123:3,6,17

124:3 147:3

169:22 180:3

183:10 270:16

306:15,22 308:15

handled 182:17

handout 48:20,22

83:10 314:3,21,22

315:4,5

hands 123:12 200:7

hand-winding

183:19

hang 6:18 138:19

203:12 210:1

happen 124:4

172:16 236:6

269:6 306:20

happened 160:15

271:16

happens 40:4

100:13 130:18

187:3 238:3,17

255:22 307:7,17

hard 235:12 240:15

252:16

hardware 138:6,14

harmony 55:3

hat 273:22 274:1

HAYDEN 1:22

head 159:5

heading 59:11

72:11,18

heads 145:22 240:4

257:20

health 106:8

115:10 116:6

123:8,14

hear 5:21 14:11

15:19 24:18

105:19 121:7

168:2 179:5

heard 39:10 71:18

75:7 114:19,20

174:15 316:18,19

hearing 317:12

heat 158:21

heavier 163:4

heavy 138:15

heck 319:13

HELCLO 2:23

held 27:17

help 38:1 45:21

46:3 54:3 106:19

235:7 242:6

277:18 279:14

310:12

helpful 14:1 39:19

55:6 62:3 74:20

105:11 199:14

222:4 235:9

250:11 265:21

277:20 319:16

helps 62:14

hermetic 73:4,5

74:18

hertz 304:21

hesitant 171:10

heuristic 199:3

Hey 213:6

Hi 203:6

high 64:13 70:1

106:14,15 116:7

157:17 158:9

184:2,4,15 188:14

188:16 189:15,16

190:20 191:3

219:4 220:2,2,11

222:1 235:17

248:5,8,14 258:22

265:18 275:6

299:16

higher 19:17 97:16

110:17 112:5,10

112:17 113:6,16

123:20 125:1,21

130:20 133:14,18

133:21,21 134:3

145:4,10 157:15

169:10 180:14

181:6 182:10,17

185:10 188:2,11

191:3 193:7,13

196:9,9 203:20

207:11 214:1

227:17 228:3,13

234:18 241:13

242:2,22 244:19

258:18 261:9

271:12 291:17

292:2 296:14

297:7,9,16

highest 91:18,20,21

104:5 132:10,13

highlight 201:11

202:15

highlighted 194:15

194:17,19 202:17

291:1

highly 201:17

high-power 75:5

Hisham 1:16 4:8,10

4:17 8:14 24:19

24:21 163:11,15

165:11,12 179:5

189:21 293:4

310:9 320:4

historical 275:7,10

history 16:7

hit 315:9

hold 29:10 138:11

holding 49:6

home 13:8 220:16

Homeland 19:12

honest 256:19

honestly 233:16

hope 39:12 308:7

horse 58:11,11

238:17

horsepower 17:20

18:3 48:3 69:21

85:21 88:3,8,22

89:1 91:1,4,7

108:20 109:21

110:6,9 111:16

112:4,10,12 113:5

113:16,21,21

118:18 126:11,16

126:20 127:1,10

127:15,16,17,18

127:19,21 128:7

128:19 129:2,4,4

129:5,6 131:6

132:10,12,13,16

132:21 133:1,2,8

133:14,18,21

134:3,20 137:16

150:8 162:20

167:16 184:10

201:22 212:3,5,15

213:19,20 216:21

220:3,7 226:7

237:7,21 238:18

238:20 239:21

262:7,10,11

263:19,21 264:1,6

285:6,7,10,21

288:1 289:9,13

290:17,18 303:5

304:1

horsepowers

213:17

hot 299:20

hour 180:2 183:9

183:21 237:11,16

254:11 260:5

hourly 184:22

185:10

hours 22:12,13,15

126:8 209:1,12,19

211:14 213:2,4,16

213:21 214:5,15

217:4 218:21

219:22 220:9,11

220:17 221:3,15

229:15,20 232:14

237:6 251:21

252:12 271:3,5,6

housing 258:9

Howard 3:10 10:17

148:11 165:8

Hoyt 2:5 10:3,3

huge 220:21 221:3

249:21 289:8,17

hundred 174:14

hundreds 249:12

272:7

hypothetical

147:10

hysteresis 102:7

I

idea 192:3 198:18

ideal 259:14

identical 37:9

identified 72:2 90:4

104:11,12 125:9

204:9 296:6 297:4

306:8 314:6

identifier 87:18

117:11,13

identifies 42:6

294:13

identify 102:1

126:4 133:10

165:20

IEC 36:6,8,13,14

36:15 37:1 46:21

47:4 55:13,14

118:21 202:17

244:15 245:15,20

245:21 246:3

304:16,22 306:2,3

IEEE 61:17 70:20

82:1 125:18

139:13 149:16

249:19 304:16

II 35:20 36:11,17

37:8 51:20 88:5

II's 37:2

illustrate 164:15

illustrates 99:8

136:18

illustration 219:16

imagine 33:4

imbedded 97:3,4

immediate 6:3

immediately 11:4

11:13 199:7

318:17

immersed 213:9

immersible 60:4

impact 4:14,16

12:3,7 45:14 92:4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 339

92:5 115:1 116:6

123:14 125:5,6

130:6 138:16

142:7 149:22

188:6 267:9 269:2

269:7,9,22 274:16

274:17,18 279:2,4

279:15,20 280:2

280:11 282:15

286:18 290:12

293:5,8,14 294:18

308:12 309:2,2,5

310:5,6,9,10,11

310:16,17 311:6

312:14 313:3,5

impacted 114:15

213:20 261:14,21

309:18

impacts 26:22

106:6,8 114:17

115:9 123:8 222:8

293:21 296:2,2,11

297:1 309:16

310:13,19 311:9

311:19 312:15,17

implement 223:2

implemented 18:8

implementing

58:17

imply 51:8 53:2

importance 129:21

157:20 178:1

important 17:16

53:11 85:10 92:3

138:3 151:17

159:15 160:4

177:18 188:5,5

225:4 246:22

296:10 300:9

303:17

imported 97:4

298:19

imposed 102:12

imposing 177:4

impossible 172:20

improper 116:10

improperly 150:17

improve 42:7 92:12

124:22 145:13

174:3 216:21

improved 22:6,20

22:22 23:4

improvement

161:22 173:7,8

194:22

improvements

21:15 22:14

193:18 298:4

improving 22:6

23:21 42:11

158:15 173:11

IMS 94:17,22

95:19 96:3,11

202:13

ImSET 310:12,16

inaccuracies

302:22 303:9

inappropriate 18:5

inch 163:22

inches 164:1,5

inclined 248:1

include 29:15

40:15 41:2 44:12

44:19 46:1,6

47:16,17 48:8

59:3 85:15 91:14

91:15 96:4 97:3

107:15 134:13,14

142:20 144:10

223:21 227:1

269:2 273:20

283:2 311:11

312:21

included 35:21

37:2 43:19 47:5

49:9 51:4 58:3

76:10,16,20

110:10 136:22

188:13 237:19

284:17 287:9

308:21

includes 27:5 42:3

183:9 184:1 190:1

222:16 223:18,19

224:1 274:17

276:8 291:16

306:5

including 19:9 20:5

44:13 48:10 70:16

74:17 95:13,14,19

108:4 119:7 275:5

275:12 298:19

inclusion 108:12

137:2

incomplete 56:8

inconsistency

80:18

incorporate 197:20

incorporated 7:14

35:3

incorporates 29:22

187:5

incorrect 144:14

increase 93:2 98:6

98:20 123:11

131:1 140:14,16

141:5 145:3 163:8

165:7 167:18

169:4 205:16

206:8 207:22

241:22 242:7

243:17 269:3

272:22 273:2

282:5,11 291:20

296:19

increased 93:11,12

107:16 115:4

125:13 137:20

164:21 165:5

205:17 219:18

225:18 226:1,11

278:22 279:4,15

280:13

increases 130:5

206:1,2 297:10

increasing 45:1

306:15

increasingly 61:4

increment 166:14

288:6

incremental 60:14

61:15 142:19

144:10 169:4

205:3,14,15 206:5

206:8,16 207:18

207:21,22 270:7

291:15,17

incremented

193:15

incrementing

138:8

increments 166:8

incur 142:4

incurred 121:16

indefinitely 136:1

Independence 1:10

17:4

index 275:11

285:13,14,20

indicate 28:17

46:19 128:18

indicated 28:5

82:16 118:7 257:7

296:13 297:6,13

298:8,15

indicating 18:18

indication 152:4

indirect 310:8,13

310:15

indirectly 128:22

individual 290:18

individually 126:13

individuals 13:10

105:17

induction 17:19

18:3 88:17,21,22

90:4 94:19 96:4,7

96:9 107:4,18

118:10

industrial 15:3

21:21 22:3 25:16

212:2 213:4 214:2

214:12 215:5

217:6,16 218:16

219:1,2,12 220:1

220:19 230:13

237:17 247:21,22

248:6,9,15,15

249:19 252:5

253:6,11 254:8

256:1 259:17

271:7

industry 20:14

34:6 40:13,15

42:2 45:7 82:11

86:4 103:15 112:8

113:2 120:9,14

123:1 172:13

173:12 174:7,12

180:7 220:8 229:4

246:3 270:9 271:4

294:2,6,17,19,22

industry's 116:10

151:8

industry-recom...

228:22 229:9

inefficiencies 163:8

inertia 299:21

inescapable 308:6

influenced 161:3

information 5:20

11:2 15:11,18

27:6 91:17 103:7

160:14 203:21

206:21 217:3

218:18,19 224:16

224:17 225:9

226:10 234:3

235:6,7,18 242:6

242:9 254:9 257:9

275:2 279:14

283:18 295:19

309:11 314:8

319:16

informative 320:2

infrastructure

123:4 270:19

INGAA 218:2

inherently 73:9

initial 29:3 39:4

195:13 292:5,15

initially 34:17

initiate 19:6

initiated 82:10

input 39:2 65:21
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 340

138:3,13 161:19

203:22 209:3

225:4

inputs 126:6 143:5

179:21 208:22

209:17 211:14

212:17 213:1,3

214:21 216:11

222:21 223:1,4

224:4,7 225:14,20

232:16 238:12

260:18 266:17

276:12 282:14

286:16 309:8,22

311:21

inrush 297:16

304:3 305:17

inside 104:21

179:19 180:2

insidious 28:18

install 106:5 114:3

282:7

installation 114:6

223:18 225:13,16

225:21,22 227:10

227:20 230:5

237:3 242:2,8

281:20,20 283:3

installed 222:17

223:10,12,15,17

282:22,22 283:17

283:20 286:3

installing 123:13

instance 118:4,11

186:17 194:19

304:11

instances 64:12

instant 199:6

insulation 138:6,15

158:15

insurance 191:13

insurmountable

70:19 71:6

integral 47:22 58:3

58:5,15 66:21

69:4 73:7 76:9,18

201:22 278:8

intended 60:21

103:17

intending 194:6

intends 312:5

intent 54:1 60:18

61:3 217:17

311:21

intention 287:8

interaction 201:9

interest 36:13

68:12 89:6

interested 5:19

15:16 27:21 34:13

39:2 82:15 139:22

216:18 238:8

241:22 276:12

279:13 307:8

interesting 150:21

155:19 253:12

interject 201:3

intermediate 224:5

intermittent 71:12

220:8

interns 272:11

interpolation 160:4

interpret 36:9

interpretation 52:4

61:3

interview 295:3,10

interviews 144:15

293:9 294:8 295:5

295:7,11,13,16,21

introduce 10:9

196:12

introduces 89:8

introducing 87:17

introductions 4:2

6:2

inventory 102:22

169:20

inverter 56:22 57:1

57:6,6

inverter-capable

56:20

invested 249:17

investigate 112:10

312:15

investing 250:4

investment 250:5

275:5,8,12,18,21

292:2,5,15 305:15

invite 39:10 41:10

200:20

invites 27:8

inviting 313:9

involved 45:10

184:3 204:4,16

205:2 227:1

in-depth 26:12

iron 107:10,11

253:7,8

ironed 290:7

irrigation 247:13

247:20

isolated 315:11

issue 36:21 37:1,21

38:5 39:21,21

41:21 45:5 46:22

47:9 52:22 68:6

70:8 82:3,20 87:6

108:18 110:13

111:1 167:21

181:5,8 182:20

184:5 195:7 234:6

241:5,6 242:16

255:12 297:3

298:14 317:1

issued 32:20 86:7

issues 12:10 16:2

19:4 34:2,15 40:9

70:10 119:3

146:20 159:11

180:20 182:15

198:6 235:3,3,4

241:2 294:14

296:1,7,8 308:11

313:18 314:2,5

issuing 316:14

item 53:3 115:9

228:19 237:19

240:13,20

items 50:19 98:19

295:9

iteration 187:19

189:4,5

Iyama 2:6 4:13,15

8:16,16 94:11,11

95:17,17 96:2,19

97:6,17 187:1,2

187:18 188:19

189:1,8,20 200:20

203:6,6,14,18

207:7,17 208:6

210:14 211:8,12

213:22 215:12,19

216:2 218:22

219:9,15 221:20

227:3,7 228:19

230:11,21 231:10

231:16 232:13,20

233:21 235:5

236:20,22 238:19

239:10,12 241:21

246:14 248:4,11

248:18,22 249:4

252:1 253:22

254:7 257:10,13

257:15,21 258:14

259:3 260:16

266:4,16 267:21

268:2,5,13 269:10

269:18 273:12

274:15 277:1

278:18 279:19

284:10 286:15

288:11 289:15

290:11 291:13

292:9 293:3

308:17 320:5

I's 37:5

I2R 92:16,16 98:19

J

Jack 320:8

JAMES 2:11

January 33:22

116:1

jibe 157:18

Jim 4:6,19 5:10

8:11 11:8 12:15

14:17 24:15 25:1

77:5 313:15

319:18

jiving 255:13

job 55:11 233:12

247:10 301:14

307:9

jobs 306:16 308:3,5

318:13

John 2:9,23 7:12

55:7,8 57:15 65:6

65:9 74:2,3,4

76:21,22 77:13

78:19 79:5,6

141:17 142:11

143:11,12 146:15

146:17 161:12,13

163:16,17 190:13

190:15 198:16

199:14,20 240:6

244:2,4 247:11

248:13 259:9

264:12 270:2,3

271:15 300:20,22

305:21

joining 10:13,14,22

joint 21:1 76:7

201:13,15 316:12

317:18

Jordan 3:10 10:18

148:11 165:9

journals 258:8

judgment 199:4

July 30:7

jump 243:4 245:18

288:15 319:7

jumping 245:21

jumps 287:19

justification 26:14

justified 26:16

46:11

justifies 85:5

justify 234:10

K

keep 14:2,5 92:8

97:9 108:15 149:1

162:13,16 172:22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 341

199:14 242:3

247:2 250:6

257:14 260:3,9

266:15 300:5

302:16 308:12,13

keeping 68:5

Ken 2:4 9:21

Kentucky 3:12

kept 138:7

key 125:8 159:20

179:14 254:5

294:1,14 296:7

297:3 298:14

308:11

keyed 316:3

Kido 2:6 8:9,9

28:15,16 31:1,2

32:10 38:3,4,20

39:14 63:2,3

66:18 117:1,2

315:13

kilowatt 22:12,13

22:15

kind 53:7 83:17

101:11 146:12

163:18 177:4

189:18 197:18,21

198:11 202:13

215:6,9 219:16,17

232:1 235:18

246:15 253:5

257:1 301:19

316:9

kinds 70:5 86:11

252:5

Kirk 1:15 9:15

Kitt 1:22 9:7

know 13:19 31:19

50:15 57:4 58:1

68:6 70:3,4 76:18

79:8 80:7 83:17

98:15 99:5 100:7

113:15 122:4

124:4 140:1 142:3

144:13 146:4

147:9 148:14

150:1 155:14

159:4 161:7

164:13 170:9

171:17 174:20

182:6 184:11

188:1 190:18

197:22 220:3

221:16,22 227:19

228:7 233:6,15

234:9 242:19

246:14 247:5

248:19 249:12

251:7 252:22

278:1,11 287:20

307:9,15 308:4

317:9

knowing 64:19

241:22

known 22:17

157:12

knows 86:20

KOH 104:1

Kohse 2:7 4:8,10

8:19,19 41:10,12

41:13 47:2,6

48:18 49:1,8

55:17,20 57:10,13

58:21 59:15 60:3

70:13 72:9 74:7

75:20 76:13 77:4

77:8,13,18 78:14

79:2 80:2,21 81:5

81:8,11 84:15

90:18 92:9 93:14

94:5 97:22 99:14

105:21 116:20

124:13 136:17

139:6,12 141:8

144:21 146:2

148:11 159:3

162:17 165:6

314:18,22 320:4

Korea 304:17

Kundu 2:25 10:17

L

lab 67:10 82:21

94:6,12 203:7

259:13

labeled 50:19

labeling 87:20

166:12

labor 126:7 180:2,6

180:8,11 181:11

182:22 183:2,21

205:13 206:3

207:5,6 240:16

Laboratories 1:15

2:10 8:1 9:16,18

60:13 69:13

210:18 221:11

laboratory 2:6,8,21

2:22,24 3:13 8:17

15:22 67:16 320:6

labs 45:9 82:11

200:21 239:16

lack 32:16 88:18

91:4 160:4

lacking 53:22

Ladonne 2:8 7:22

7:22 60:12,12

69:12,12 210:17

210:17 211:10

221:10,10 239:15

239:15

lamination 100:6

101:13 143:16,19

158:19 169:21

laminations 176:14

270:19

language 81:18,19

82:4,4

large 90:5 151:18

152:1 164:20

182:16 185:2

235:15 243:4

245:11 264:9

largely 22:22 23:5

larger 22:14

113:21 164:4

173:11 175:4

180:17 219:11

237:22 238:19,21

239:8 245:22

265:19

largest 133:9,12

LASKI 8:4 31:13

78:9,15,20 79:14

79:19 80:6,13

93:17

lastly 127:19

166:17

late 217:17 230:15

Laughter 49:22

318:11

law 25:11 68:10

193:10 285:8

Lawrence 2:6,23

8:17 15:22 94:6

94:12 200:21

203:7 320:6

laws 301:11

LBNL 187:1

LCC 142:19 143:4

158:2 215:14

222:8 225:3

233:22 248:19

260:21 267:3,4

268:9 269:10

273:10 277:13

309:20 317:20

LCL 154:5

lead 169:5,6 185:16

274:4

leads 98:15 158:4

297:11

learning 284:8,11

284:15,17

leave 172:1,2 210:4

leaves 30:20 258:10

264:1

led 17:2 148:22

252:3

left 6:3 179:4,7

212:7,8

legacy 199:5

legislation 79:10

218:2 311:18

length 128:14

138:10 140:12

145:19,21 146:4,5

146:7,7,10,13

163:19 241:15

244:20

lengths 163:7 165:1

lengthy 21:14

lesser 184:9

letter 302:3

let's 24:13 30:2

43:4 47:9 48:5,11

65:14 81:10 84:15

98:9 102:1 121:7

141:18 162:16

168:2 178:6 243:3

260:9 301:22

level 18:10,10,13

20:12 26:10 50:5

75:15 89:14

100:15 102:12

110:15,21 112:5

112:20 132:11

140:3,10 155:8

166:9 168:17

169:10,13 170:5

177:8 196:3

208:12 213:15

215:9 221:2 226:8

227:11,12 243:18

261:14 265:4,16

268:11 270:7,14

270:15 271:13,20

272:2,12 273:1,2

288:1,2,2,6,7

289:1,10,11,14

290:2 302:12,13

302:15,20

levels 37:3 45:2

85:5 103:3 125:14

126:1,4 132:17

133:18 134:3

136:11,12 137:6,7

137:11,14 156:9

164:22 165:19,20

165:22 166:4,7,11

166:18 167:2,14

167:18 169:3,8

170:4,6,15 171:14

172:9,21 175:13

175:19 178:2
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 342

192:8,9,13,15,19

193:3,9 194:2

195:10,18 196:14

201:20 216:13

220:22 222:10

226:13 244:19

257:17 263:4

278:7 283:4 287:1

302:6 313:1

316:20,20 317:4

lexicon 235:20

life 186:8 187:17

188:8 203:22

208:14 209:3

222:6,11,16 225:5

225:14 237:9

247:5 256:21

257:8 259:12,22

260:17,18,21

261:10,15,16

266:20 267:16,19

269:18 271:8

274:11 317:20

lifecycle 125:4

lifetime 223:13

225:7 237:4,6,20

238:1,3,7,10,11

239:2 246:10

251:21 252:13

254:14,20 255:4,7

280:5,22 281:2,14

281:19 292:5,7,10

lifetimes 237:10,12

237:15 238:13

239:5,7,13 249:5

249:6 253:15

254:8,13,15,18

life-cycle 4:12

11:20 12:1 189:4

223:7,13 228:20

lighter 128:20

253:9

liked 56:18

likelihood 168:12

limit 202:4 303:6

limited 110:9 111:6

120:6 121:15

145:21 176:10

197:11,15 218:18

limits 145:19 317:8

Lin 2:8 10:4,4

273:8,8,19 274:13

Linda 2:12 9:11

249:10 255:15

line 46:21 47:1

56:16 88:2 110:3

121:14 144:3

233:11 300:6

305:9

linear 275:15

lines 31:19 142:5

159:20 298:11

liquid-cooled 71:2

75:1,3

list 45:16,21 46:8

46:16 48:7,10,13

48:15 49:16 53:20

53:21 55:16 70:22

71:9 72:20 73:6

74:1 76:10,20

77:6,15,22 80:19

80:22 81:4 100:5

116:13 129:15

131:20 166:10

259:22 314:4

listed 70:11 71:11

78:2 158:13,13

191:7 204:19

295:10

listening 35:22

listing 55:12

lists 43:14 47:13

70:15 80:3

literature 225:20

254:4,21 255:1

little 32:7 33:11

41:5 72:16 73:19

95:21 98:16

111:11 115:16

117:6 141:15

160:8 173:22

174:2 182:10

184:15 190:16

203:11 221:13

244:6 245:8,17

253:19 265:18

271:13 290:8

293:13,17 303:11

304:13

load 22:7 23:16

24:6 63:17 70:3

92:18 102:16

130:8 209:1,12,13

209:19,20 211:1,6

211:15,16 213:21

214:16,16,20

215:3,6,8,11,21

216:4,4,6,7,9

217:4 221:4

299:22

loaded 102:16

loading 259:14

loads 221:5

located 109:17

location 65:14

lock 125:18

locked 64:21 99:19

135:22 136:7,11

136:12 139:7,9,14

297:17 303:6,8

log 187:10,20

logically 318:16

long 122:6 136:8

163:22 164:1

176:14 190:6

198:22 251:19

256:16

longer 70:17 164:5

234:15 245:1

246:1,19 249:5

253:15 271:1,11

long-term 19:14

look 30:2 32:7 47:9

49:11 61:15 72:13

103:17 110:12,14

110:16 115:3

120:17 123:13

129:15 134:16

151:6 154:5

155:18 157:14,19

169:6,8 171:12

174:16 175:3

177:12 183:1

189:2,3 190:5

193:8 200:10

215:4 217:15

218:16 219:6

220:22 221:13,14

244:17 248:3

251:4 259:11

265:2,11 269:7

270:6 292:20

303:5 310:1,3

320:11

looked 45:4 83:17

109:8,12 110:2,19

110:20 113:16

128:10 133:9

134:17 144:2,6

146:3,5,8 148:16

157:22 195:14

197:9 225:18

227:12 244:18

250:1 255:14

262:3 284:10

looking 54:3 61:19

67:7 79:9,10

109:19 112:11

122:18 123:20

128:9 133:6

150:11 153:8

183:11 184:8,12

186:7 196:3

197:18 219:3,4,21

234:1 235:14

255:13 264:14,15

265:15 266:14

283:5 305:8 310:8

looks 49:4,7

loophole 57:8

loopholes 57:12

loss 69:6 93:2

100:19 101:3,7

102:7,7,16 107:15

130:8,12 158:14

160:17 299:17

307:9

losses 58:15 67:17

89:4 92:15,16,16

92:17,17,18,20

98:3,19 100:5,17

100:18 102:11

103:3 104:11

106:19,20 130:6,8

130:14 152:22

153:6 161:3 209:6

209:9,15 210:8,10

210:13 216:6,9

267:20 301:14

lost 318:22

lot 13:18 49:20

54:20 55:12 58:6

66:6,12 74:7 75:7

75:8 76:15 89:8

89:16 90:13 94:6

108:16 115:1,3

118:12 124:10

148:12 158:5

172:14 184:2,7

199:4,4 202:7

215:10 220:5

221:15,17 249:14

249:17,19 250:4,4

250:6 253:7

256:11 264:19

266:14 271:11,16

272:8 274:2

288:12,21,22

292:20 296:8

298:12 307:2

316:17,22 319:13

319:15

lots 34:12

Louder 8:18

low 58:10 101:3

137:12 157:13,14

184:11 188:15,17

189:15,17 192:22

222:2 248:9

253:19 263:3,9

265:5

lower 37:3 107:15

113:11 133:11

136:11,12,13

152:22 153:5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 343

156:22 182:7

184:9 188:3,11

214:4 221:6

229:19 231:14

241:17 249:6

268:4 287:2,3

297:17

lowest 92:2 167:1

194:4

low-cost 124:6

lubrication 259:20

Lucas 1:14 9:1

lunch 11:22 12:1

162:15 178:6

Lung 2:9 8:7,7

L10 259:12,21

M

machine 35:5

52:13,15,18,20

82:22 102:11,16

106:22 143:15

146:21 169:22

243:22 245:2,3

246:2,2

machinery 115:15

245:7 301:8,14

machines 62:9

132:5 197:7

machine-winding

183:20

machine-wound

180:4

macro 173:20

174:9,16 175:8

magnetic 106:13

106:15

main 27:2 92:15

157:3 193:6 200:9

204:9 288:13

294:22 309:12

maintain 228:3

243:18 297:21

maintenance 224:2

225:13,17 226:9

226:11 227:5

230:5 237:2

247:10 248:2

250:21 256:13,18

281:19 282:7

maintenanced

252:15

major 305:16

majority 18:8

247:12

making 31:18

60:19 70:6 73:22

106:21 109:18

113:18 122:19

132:3 139:8 148:6

169:11 183:9

269:20 300:12

305:10 309:9

Malinowski 2:9

7:12,12 55:8,8,18

55:21 57:11,14

65:9,10 74:4,4

76:22,22 77:16

79:3,6,6,18,22

142:12 143:12,12

146:16,17,18

161:13,13 163:17

163:17 190:14,15

190:15 191:20

192:2 199:22

244:4,5,10,14

245:14 259:10

264:13 265:10,14

265:22 266:5

270:3,4 300:22,22

305:22

manageable 83:14

management

235:17

manager 5:11

mandated 265:16

mandatory 312:17

manner 173:13

manners 83:15

Mano 68:14

manpower 123:11

manufacture 106:5

114:3 115:13,17

115:22 118:19

manufactured

103:2 109:10,11

109:15 110:4

172:12

manufacturer 4:16

12:7 63:13,20

83:6 92:5 101:12

102:19 103:2

109:18 110:3

125:6 142:7

153:21 154:2

155:10 167:2

175:20,21 176:19

176:22 177:12

179:10,12,14

180:13 182:1,2

187:5,7 188:6,15

188:16 189:15,17

190:1 194:5 204:3

204:7 207:14

225:19 258:11

269:2,7,22 283:9

283:14 284:19

285:4,15,17,22

286:7,13 293:5,8

293:14 296:1

307:17,19,21

308:11 312:22

manufacturers

1:19,23 2:4,5,14

7:3 16:20,22

18:11 19:16 38:10

38:15 39:22 40:9

56:7 67:5 98:5

101:14,17 109:17

119:5 124:6 142:4

153:16 166:12

175:18 176:8

180:7,16 183:13

183:16 185:2

190:7 204:18

243:13 247:8

257:1,6,19 258:3

262:3 269:5

271:19 293:22

294:9,14 295:4,9

296:7,12,13 297:6

297:10,13,19

298:7,15 301:4,6

301:6,10 307:4

manufacturer's

124:19 140:8

147:16 182:7

187:4 284:22

285:9

manufacturing

22:2 36:13 101:18

111:19 116:1

118:20 147:1

169:16,17,18,19

172:19 180:10

183:6 270:20

303:1,9 305:3

March 44:16

margin 180:16

303:3

margins 302:9

marked 150:13,18

151:15,21 152:7

152:20

market 4:7 11:14

21:21 41:7,11,16

41:22 42:2 84:17

91:9,18 92:9

94:16 112:19

114:8 115:6,18

118:22 121:12,19

177:14 189:10

199:5 217:14,15

253:6 255:9 276:2

276:11 294:6,7

marketplace 18:16

19:22 56:17 57:5

113:7 190:9

marking 151:4

152:5

markup 141:9

181:6 182:17

184:9 185:9 187:5

187:19 188:15,16

188:17,17 189:9

189:15,16,17,18

190:2 205:4

206:15,16 207:10

207:18,21

markups 4:12

11:19 126:7 180:7

180:11,14 184:5,8

184:12,13 185:8,9

186:22 187:6,11

187:12 200:22

203:15 204:6,6,16

205:5,9,14 206:5

224:9 283:10

mass 114:4,13

116:1 122:15,15

match 22:7 24:5

matched 70:2

210:22 211:6

material 24:16

101:13 106:22

107:3 126:7 130:2

137:19,21 138:6,9

138:14,15 139:1

140:5 142:10

163:7 171:1

176:11 179:21

180:5 244:20

270:14,15 271:17

272:7 274:3

284:12 293:11

298:9 299:12,15

299:17

materials 17:12

98:21 137:16

138:2,3,13 139:5

140:2 141:13

142:2 143:8

155:11 169:20

172:12 176:9

180:1 181:1,4

math 252:3

Matt 2:10 8:21

141:20 143:2

288:17,19

matter 96:5,5

105:7 159:18

178:8 256:10,13

260:12 292:18

314:13 320:15

mature 22:4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 344

max 195:3

maximum 145:21

146:13,21 166:1

max-tech 166:9

McELVEEN 3:11

mean 16:2 43:7

59:11 134:13

139:6 162:5 164:7

164:9 183:22

187:15 189:1

198:18 205:20

212:8 221:14,21

244:22 245:6

249:9 255:11,17

255:20 271:10

278:7 288:12

meaning 52:5

59:13 261:8

meaningless 73:12

meanings 171:21

means 71:4 100:16

104:17 225:19

235:21 260:7

297:16 318:22

319:4

meant 158:17

232:14

measure 65:18

measured 102:9

137:20 146:4

measures 312:3

measuring 73:11

258:8

mechanical 35:7

61:19 163:20

164:6 209:7,9

236:10 237:6,14

238:11 239:1,5,13

241:10 242:20

243:10 251:21

252:13 253:10

254:12,17 256:21

263:8 272:15

mechanisms 22:9

medium 33:18,20

34:4

meet 37:4 44:10

45:20 64:17 71:11

109:7 124:7

177:16 272:1

302:13 307:22

317:9,14

meeting 1:3,9 4:4

5:5,7,13 11:7

13:16 14:19 15:6

19:17 27:17 29:10

30:6 40:3 45:6

108:13 261:8

295:12 296:9

319:21 320:2

meetings 14:13

meets 155:2 317:10

Meg 2:16 6:20

80:16 284:5,6

melting 297:7

member 7:5,10

10:5

members 20:15

58:7

memory 291:10

mention 28:9 47:4

55:13 81:22

110:14 193:22

205:6 295:15

mentioned 25:1

40:2,12,22 46:2

71:1 105:16 118:5

169:15 179:18

192:20 194:12

218:17 226:14

260:20 271:15

276:22 277:1,13

278:4 296:18

302:1 307:13

318:19

mentioning 28:11

191:17

mercury 311:14

merely 151:20

met 19:5 93:2

139:9,15 155:13

196:19 299:8

302:9,18 317:12

metal 116:7

metaler 118:1

metallurgical

137:22

method 86:16

195:21 196:6,21

208:17 238:12

methodologies 82:2

284:1

methodology 94:3

195:8 284:18

286:12,16

methods 61:18

82:18 98:5

metric 36:16 287:8

287:16

Mexico 118:20

119:12

MG-1 193:4

MG1 18:9 20:5

40:16 41:4 46:20

52:6,12,16,20

131:5 149:15

151:9,14 152:8

154:12 155:4

166:7 167:5,7

299:3,18 300:8

MG1-2009 40:15

MG1-2011 40:20

91:6

MIA 143:10 293:20

294:4 295:5 296:6

Michael 2:6 8:9

28:15 31:1 32:4

33:8 38:3,17 63:2

65:11 66:3 117:1

263:11 315:12

micro 173:15

microeconomic

173:17

micrometers 258:7

microphone 6:7

75:22 76:2,3 93:9

94:10 135:6,8

210:5,16 217:20

221:9 226:19

253:16,20 267:11

288:18

microphones 6:5

mid 12:3 70:1

middle 202:13

midpoint 168:6

mid-morning

11:15

mildly 113:9

mile 174:6

miles 174:3 250:19

milestone 30:7

milestones 30:4

million 95:22 97:12

97:18 109:1

119:15 144:4

147:5 174:14

263:19,21 264:1

265:12 289:9,12

millions 174:5

mills 256:14

mind 50:6 68:5

172:21 197:11

274:7 302:17

308:8

minimal 311:20

minimization

130:21

minimize 106:20

130:16 299:14

minimizing 98:2

minimum 44:10

45:20 47:15

129:15 153:16

154:14,16 160:1

261:8 302:17

minor 61:19 82:18

93:7,11

minus 210:12

minute 48:5 66:8

215:7

minutes 104:16

162:15 260:6,7,10

misleading 98:17

262:20

misnamed 59:8

missing 110:7

151:19 202:10

misunderstanding

56:17 73:4

mis-conclusions

158:5

mix 183:11

mixed 169:10

195:19

mixing 172:13

177:3

mixture 177:4

mmm 199:7

mode 14:3

model 104:4,9

145:14 150:20

155:17 157:8

159:11 160:10

161:19 163:2

165:7 167:19

182:6 193:12

211:21 226:5,6,22

276:20 294:17,18

307:10 310:12,22

311:1,1 313:5

modeled 126:2

148:5 162:21

163:1 165:18

167:9

modeling 99:16,17

125:1,20 138:18

144:22 145:7,13

146:14 147:8

148:12 158:8

159:9 166:5

167:11 310:22

models 5:15 15:8

121:15 125:13,17

159:15,16,17,21

160:3 182:9

222:20 264:15

moderate 119:11

moderator 1:11,14

14:8

modification 55:2

modifications

84:11

modified 310:21

modify 82:1 309:21

modifying 56:4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 345

moisture-resistant

52:19

mold 107:14

molten 116:7 297:9

momentary 23:17

monetary 282:9

312:2

monetization 309:3

monetized 312:4

monitoring 65:20

Monte 186:19

222:22

month 30:6

months 28:10,12

28:20 30:18,20

247:14

MOORE 3:12

morning 5:3,22

13:20 24:20 41:12

105:10 114:21

motivation 250:6

motor 1:20 2:13

7:7,11,15,17,21

9:6 16:19 17:2,5

18:16 19:15,19,20

19:22 20:1,5

21:18,21 22:3,10

22:19 23:10,15,21

24:1,2,5 25:4,20

35:2,5 36:16 41:1

41:3 42:2,3 43:8

43:16,19,22 44:3

44:7,8,12 45:8,10

45:14,16,19,22

46:6,8,9 47:10,14

47:18,22 48:2,7,9

48:18 50:22 51:1

51:7,13,16,18

52:1 53:1,2,21

54:2,6,8,11,16,17

55:12,22 56:6,7

56:11,14,21,22

57:17,19 58:3,5

58:16 59:17 60:6

62:13,16,18 63:6

63:10,17,18 64:12

64:15 65:12,13,13

65:15,16 66:17,20

66:21 67:13,16

69:21,22 70:15

71:9 72:16,17

73:12 74:8 75:3

76:15,16,19 80:4

81:3,21 82:6,7,8

82:11,13,16 83:2

83:3,6,8,9,13

84:20 85:9 86:19

88:9,22 89:12,18

91:14 92:13,21

93:4,5 94:14 95:6

96:21 98:2,3 99:4

100:2,8,17,21

101:5 102:3 103:6

103:8,14,15 104:6

104:11 107:1,13

112:4,12,13,14,19

113:1,5,12,14

114:22 124:18

125:20,21 126:2,3

127:15,15,17,18

127:19 128:7,11

128:16,17,19

129:3,4 130:18

131:13 132:10

133:8 136:6,10,14

137:1,17 138:10

138:16 140:19

142:18,22 144:22

145:3,5 146:6,7

146:10 147:14

148:16 149:4

150:2,9,11,12,17

150:20 151:4,11

151:11 153:4

154:20,22 155:2,6

155:7,12,14,21

156:12,16 157:8

158:4,15 159:12

161:18 162:3

163:1 164:8,10

167:3 168:11,13

170:7 173:10,17

175:1,2,7 180:3

186:9,17 188:7

194:1,5 202:7

203:19 207:9,11

207:15 208:18

209:1,5,6,9,11,11

209:15,19 210:10

210:12,22 211:15

211:16,18,19,20

211:22 214:16,20

217:3,16 218:8

219:18 221:16

223:18,20 226:2,7

227:18 228:13,16

229:2,6,12 230:1

230:3,13 234:1

235:8 236:5

237:20 238:1,4,6

238:10,11,13,20

239:3,21 240:1,12

240:13 241:10

242:1,4,12,13

243:16,21,22

244:1 245:10,11

245:20 246:5,10

246:11 247:4

249:11,21 250:3

250:22 251:7

252:10,20 253:8

253:10 254:10

255:7,18 256:4,19

258:3,6,10,11,17

258:19 259:1,16

261:19 267:7,20

270:8 276:8,18

277:10 278:22

279:5,15,15,22

280:3 283:1,8,11

285:6,6,7,10,18

286:1,14 287:4

291:16,18 292:1

296:19 300:5

301:5,13 303:2

304:14 306:3,4

316:11,21

motors 1:4 2:25 5:9

5:11 14:21 15:3

15:12 16:12 17:19

18:2,5,8,13 19:1,9

19:10 21:10,17

25:16 26:2,10

33:13,17,19,21

34:4 35:10,11,12

36:6,14 37:1,3

40:6 43:19,20

44:4,14,20 45:2

51:5,12 52:9,11

53:15 56:2,5,8,20

59:1 60:4,20 66:9

66:22 67:3,4,11

68:18,19,22,22

69:1,4,15 70:7,21

71:1,1,3,5,13,14

72:12,13 73:5,5,7

74:18 75:17 76:10

76:11,19 77:2,14

85:12,16,17,18

86:11,17 88:18,21

90:5 91:3,6,20

92:1 94:19 95:14

95:15,15 96:4,7,9

96:9 97:3,13 98:6

99:20 104:4

106:18 107:4,18

108:3,19 109:10

109:20 111:17

113:16,20 116:12

120:8 125:1

126:21 127:2,5,14

128:3,5 129:2,3,5

129:14,17,19

130:10 131:4,8

132:9,18 133:13

134:1 135:14,17

135:18,20,21

136:19 137:4,13

137:13,18,19

139:3,16,18,18

140:22 145:14,20

146:9 147:6 148:3

148:4,15 152:2

156:21 160:11,12

162:6,8,22 163:2

165:18 166:12

167:10,13 169:7,9

169:12,14 172:16

174:12 179:20

180:2,15,17 182:3

182:7,9 192:3,18

192:22 194:6

195:20 197:16

201:16,18,20,21

203:3,20,21 204:3

204:13 206:13

208:10 209:4

211:5 212:1,4,10

212:14 215:5,5,20

216:3,20 217:1

219:13 220:3,4

221:14 222:10

225:11 227:16

229:14,18 233:15

234:3,21 237:20

238:16,18 239:9

241:16 243:11,14

244:15,19 245:7,9

245:15 246:3

247:8,11,17

248:16 249:4,20

252:5,6,6,7 253:1

253:6 254:14

261:4,7,9,12

262:9,10 264:4,4

265:4 270:6 275:5

275:8,13 279:22

280:14,22 281:14

281:21 284:12

287:5 288:21,22

289:3 291:4

292:10 293:22

296:16,17 297:6

297:14 298:19

299:1 300:3 301:7

303:21 304:20

306:1,2,7,7

mounted 61:21

65:15

mounting 128:15

176:16

mouth 203:11

move 20:1 29:18

47:12 70:12 77:12

84:16 121:5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 346

122:11 124:1,12

124:15 170:22

173:3,5 195:17

196:7 200:17

227:21 236:21

272:12 274:15

312:12 313:19

316:13 317:17

moved 171:15

253:6

moves 173:4

moving 70:12

81:12 122:22

144:20 162:14

183:10 192:6

227:13 260:4

278:6 289:10,11

289:12,14 293:2,3

MSP 124:19 138:4

141:22 142:8

189:22 190:11

MSPs 143:6

MTA 42:1,15,16,21

125:12

multiple 27:7 90:9

101:19 159:16,17

162:6 174:4

multiplied 210:12

multiplier 287:13

multiplying 280:5

multi-speed 81:4

mute 14:5

M36 104:7 170:22

171:2 172:17

M47 170:16,18

172:17

N

N 55:13 306:4,4

name 5:10 6:4,8,10

8:13 13:1,10,12

16:17 24:21 68:14

117:19 121:8

135:6 231:2 273:6

nameplate 125:16

139:16 150:13

151:13,16,22

152:20 153:1

156:2,17

names 10:14

Nardotti 2:10 8:21

8:21 141:20,21

143:4 288:19,19

national 1:19,23

2:4,5,14,20,22,23

3:13 4:14 7:3

12:2 15:22 26:21

92:4 94:6,12

125:5 135:19

136:3,4 200:21

267:8 274:16,16

274:18 279:20,21

280:2,4,11,17

281:8 282:14

286:18,19,20

290:12 310:7,22

312:15 313:5,6

320:6

Natural 2:16,23

6:21

nature 158:17

159:1

Navigant 1:16,22

2:7,10,21 8:15,20

8:22 15:21 24:21

41:13 141:19

165:13 288:20

320:5

navigation 61:3

NAVLAP 153:15

Neal 2:2 8:6 16:16

16:17,18 20:21

49:6 59:6 65:6,8

66:1,2 68:1,2 76:7

168:3 198:15,16

198:17 217:11,13

238:14,15 249:8

255:10 257:12

272:17

Neal's 246:20

253:5

near 21:11

nearly 253:11

295:16

near-term 292:18

necessarily 94:20

140:9 190:12

200:6 218:10

247:7 252:2

necessary 57:20,21

59:14,17 60:7

81:20 83:7 114:8

124:5 209:3

242:22 300:11

301:20

Ned 9:9 117:17,18

117:20 120:1

303:14,15 306:1

need 6:7 12:4 13:2

54:19 69:17 73:17

78:17 90:8 108:22

109:7 136:11

173:13 197:20

203:10 246:21

251:5 260:3

271:18 272:19

273:4 300:17

308:12 317:2

needed 30:11

112:10 160:2

202:18 270:20

needs 78:11 122:6

202:22 271:9

negate 298:4

negative 267:6

290:20,22 291:3

291:11 292:4

301:21

negotiating 80:9

neighbor 49:11

NEMA 7:10,14,17

7:21 9:4,6,20,22

10:3,5 16:19 18:9

18:9,13 20:3,16

28:4 35:11,18

36:2,8 37:3 39:10

40:15,16,20 45:7

47:20,21 48:1

51:12,13,18 52:6

52:9,13 55:10,15

64:16,18 76:6

77:1,2,14 85:13

85:15,17 91:2,5

91:11,19,22,22

96:5,8,9 108:16

109:9 110:17

112:5 117:4

125:16 126:16

127:13 128:16

129:1,13 131:5,19

133:12,13 134:9

134:17 135:8,11

137:6,13,16

139:13,17,18

149:15 151:9,14

151:15,20 153:13

153:16 154:12,16

154:20,22 155:1,4

155:7 156:1,3,10

157:15 158:10

166:6,15,16,19,19

167:5,6,7,8,17,18

168:1,5,7,9 169:4

169:7,8 171:10,13

176:16 193:15,17

194:11,22 195:1,4

195:4 202:21

250:14 261:6

265:2 274:1

278:14 287:3,4

289:1 291:10

297:21 298:1

302:2,7,14 303:6

306:5,6,12 316:3

318:5,7,9

NEMA's 7:7 36:1

116:9 159:14

171:3

NEMA-supplied

91:12

NEMS 311:1

NEMS-BT 311:1,5

311:21

net 280:10 281:11

282:12 290:13,20

291:3,11,13,18

294:2,22 313:7

never 61:17 217:21

249:15 250:20

new 25:19 26:11

30:8 40:6 41:2

53:11 57:12 81:12

81:16,17 87:17

140:17 143:19

159:21 205:8

222:15 236:9

240:17 246:4

270:19,20 291:16

296:16 298:16

301:11 305:13,14

308:21 309:10

311:10

newer 273:17

newly 31:17

NFPA 136:3

NI 3:13

NIA 269:21 282:17

287:9

Nidec 1:20 2:13

7:16 9:5 57:17

nine 141:2

NIST 153:15

nitrogen 311:14

nodding 240:5

249:10

nomenclature 90:2

nominal 148:9

151:15,21 153:17

154:14,18,21

155:1 156:11,22

157:2,11,15 166:7

166:15 168:5

302:18,20

nominally 168:13

non 313:3,7,9

non-complaint

301:7

non-compliant

301:12

non-crystal 106:14

non-disclosure

295:17

non-energy 282:4

282:11 291:20

non-production
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 347

180:14 181:6

182:17 191:9,17

non-regulatory

312:16,19

NOPR 29:9,15,17

29:22 33:16 34:3

81:13 86:7,9,10

269:6 273:12,13

294:15 308:1,16

308:19 312:13

Norm 240:6

normal 75:16

187:10,20

normally 101:8

294:4

North 244:16

303:21 304:21

Northwest 2:1,15

2:20,22 6:15 10:1

note 14:8 18:21

20:3,7 28:6 36:5

43:5 47:4,7 57:19

58:4 84:3 91:2

127:22 129:1

136:22 159:22

163:2 167:15

168:14 173:3

218:7 240:3

247:16 314:3

noted 21:9 44:10

109:12 169:2

306:22

notes 56:12

notice 27:4,6,10

29:8,9 30:5,8

32:17 34:1 180:13

287:7 314:1

noticeable 108:11

noticed 61:8 89:15

140:6 302:8

noting 219:6 250:9

NOx 312:10

NPV 290:15 292:3

NRDC 284:7

number 58:9,12

66:8 67:6 68:8

72:1 90:20 107:15

119:9 130:5

131:11 160:2

162:8 165:4

197:16 202:12

231:17,20 233:10

233:17 234:3,10

234:15,19 235:10

239:19 252:17

256:5 263:14

264:5,6 266:1

269:15,16 278:13

287:19 289:8

303:17 304:14,19

316:4

numbered 314:2

numbering 241:3

numbers 91:13,14

91:19,21 95:10,13

95:20,20 96:3,6

96:20 97:15 104:9

111:3 134:12

140:20 144:7,8

190:17 221:13,17

221:21 245:4

248:5,6 249:2

252:9 253:18

265:1,2 269:8

272:21 290:7

292:20 303:6

314:19 315:4

numerous 44:17

92:22

O

obligations 317:10

observation 133:15

observed 134:19

167:2 194:5

195:16

obtain 196:14

235:18 243:21

obtained 110:15

113:10 231:7

obviates 73:17

obvious 78:6 79:12

318:14

obviously 72:2

153:1,6 159:11

220:21 251:18

256:10 314:8

occasion 12:12

occur 228:10 232:2

232:4

occurred 161:2

occurs 317:3

October 30:12

odd 150:14

OEM 241:12,14

258:10 301:6

OEMs 245:5,6

offer 37:6 50:21

offers 121:15

Office 8:10

officer 5:12

offshore 183:1,10

184:2 185:16,19

264:3

off-the-shelf 66:14

Oh 47:2 141:18

231:10

oilers 256:15

okay 10:8,21 24:13

33:7 37:11 38:4

39:18 41:14 47:6

47:7 49:13 50:10

55:17,20 57:10

58:20 60:10 61:5

63:1 68:16 70:9

70:12,13 75:19,20

76:12,13,20 77:4

77:11,18 78:14

79:2 80:1,15,21

81:5,8,9,11 84:9

84:14,15 90:18

92:8 93:14 95:8

97:7,21,22 99:11

105:21 110:22

116:19 120:2,22

121:20 124:11,12

124:13 136:15,16

136:17 142:14

144:18,20,21

146:15 147:20

149:17 152:3

158:7 160:6

161:11 162:12,17

163:14 164:16

165:10,10 168:22

171:18 173:1

175:11 183:8,22

184:16 187:13

190:13 191:15

192:1,5 196:17

198:15 200:2,16

201:6 203:4

207:16 208:2,5

210:14 211:10,11

215:17,22 221:19

222:5 227:6

228:18 231:12,16

231:22 232:12,20

236:4,18,19,22

240:22 245:13

248:9,11,13 250:8

251:10 253:12,21

254:1 257:3 259:3

259:8 260:2

264:11 266:13,15

266:15,16 267:13

268:3,6,16 269:14

273:5,19 274:12

274:15 277:1

278:17 286:15

289:18 290:9,11

291:13 293:1,10

303:13 305:20

316:8

old 164:10 245:3

248:17

older 296:15

OMB 282:19 312:7

omitted 77:3

108:11

once 10:11 29:21

87:3 165:17 196:7

234:16 299:20

ones 80:5 96:13

111:22 130:21

134:17

one-horse 245:10

one-offs 66:6

one-third 229:3

231:18

one-third/two-thi...

230:9

open 48:6 65:13

72:14 88:4,9

108:2,20 129:8

131:4,8,13 138:11

197:7

opening 4:5 11:6,8

11:10,12 16:9,15

24:11 69:17 76:8

operable 54:8

100:1

operate 71:14 82:7

83:2 216:3 247:12

249:5

operated 215:6

operating 62:20

64:6 97:13 208:10

208:18 209:1,12

209:19 211:14,17

213:2,4 214:5,15

215:20 216:7

217:4 218:21

222:18 223:11,13

223:16,21 225:7

229:19 237:11,16

254:11 292:5

operation 112:16

220:1 228:4

229:15,17 232:15

251:22 305:2

operations 123:9

220:9

opinion 151:8

303:12

opportunities

22:21 175:4

opportunity 11:5

11:10 12:9 16:15

17:8 19:15 20:19

21:22 24:8 35:22

218:8 313:16

opposed 303:18

optimistic 303:12

optimize 92:20
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 348

optimized 73:10

118:6

option 29:12 42:20

107:6,20 158:14

298:12

options 42:6,11,17

42:18 43:3 92:12

98:16 99:22

103:20 104:12

106:1,3,9,12

121:4 124:21,22

128:4 145:3,9,13

158:12 175:19

176:2 241:9 263:8

313:4

oral 27:8

order 92:20 100:1

138:1 145:5,9

172:17 177:7

208:15 211:20

216:2 228:3 250:3

262:1 276:4,10

283:16 287:15

299:10

organizational 6:4

6:8 13:3

organize 314:13,15

315:20

original 17:21 49:9

83:6 204:17

287:22

ought 99:7

our's 241:6

outline 201:16

outlined 201:12

Outlook 224:19

275:20

Outlooks 311:3

output 24:5 179:14

294:1 295:1

outputs 125:2

143:5 313:6

outset 12:19 24:12

outside 80:8 109:16

110:4 201:21

203:2

outweigh 292:15

overall 63:9 145:21

146:5,9 206:14,15

223:6 280:16

310:6,19

overhang 176:17

overhaul 227:2

overhead 141:9

overload 135:22

overly 303:11

overseas 181:13

301:15 307:8

overview 4:5 11:8,9

14:17 27:19 34:21

41:14

over-lubed 259:21

oxide 311:14

o'clock 12:16

P

Pacific 2:20,22

package 49:9

272:14,16

packages 271:22

packet 11:1 17:11

21:2 24:14

packing 246:2

Padilla 2:10 9:17

9:17

page 201:15,16

202:2,16 247:3,4

267:17 316:3,4

pages 316:6

paid 187:16

painful 319:6

paired 91:12

paragraph 132:20

parallel 81:14

173:21

parameter 93:1

parent 244:10

part 16:4 21:2 38:9

43:14 52:1 55:21

72:12 118:2 131:5

153:16 164:7

184:3 188:4 200:9

216:4 218:1

219:21 223:8,10

227:5 230:21

238:2 255:12

284:9 293:17

317:4 319:11

partial 53:15 54:11

54:16 55:22 56:6

83:2,8 95:14

264:4

Participants 4:5

participated 293:8

participation 27:20

320:1

particular 17:4

32:14 38:6 45:14

53:8 62:14 63:15

64:19 66:7,7

100:15 108:9

120:11 124:20

131:7 172:16

176:21 177:10

178:2 188:22

196:16,22 221:12

222:12,19 272:6

274:11 306:20

particularly 271:2

271:4,12 319:14

parties 5:19 15:16

27:21 34:13 39:2

82:16 205:1

276:12

partnership 17:1

parts 53:17 54:6,15

73:7 299:3,6

300:15

party 204:4,16

part-time 233:5

pass 14:8 23:9

105:19 120:21

passed 115:20

116:18 152:13

153:1,6 154:4

passing 108:10

path 19:13 245:19

252:4 317:6

patient 14:10

pattern 193:11

Paul 2:8 10:4 273:8

pause 48:5 86:1

92:7 98:9 108:1

162:15

pay 207:12

payback 4:12

11:20 12:2 21:14

125:4 222:7,9

223:7,14 271:1

292:6

PBIB 108:2

PBIP 107:10

PCs 23:2

peak 23:16 154:18

peek 186:3

pending 218:1

people 57:5 119:6

119:19 147:1

161:19 171:17

274:2,8 298:12

304:17,20

perceived 193:11

percent 21:12,15

22:4 23:11,12,20

23:20 70:1,4

132:19,22,22

133:2 146:20

147:1 150:11

151:2,13 152:21

153:5,12,20 154:1

155:20 164:1,2

173:6,7 174:15,19

175:1,10 188:2,3

188:10,11 190:17

191:1 196:1,18

213:21 215:5,6,11

215:20 219:5,7

220:16,18 221:7

229:11 234:21,22

245:5 263:2,9

264:5,9 265:5,8

265:18 270:10,11

282:18,18 288:3,4

288:4 302:13,16

302:17,21 303:3

percentage 184:13

220:17,21 221:5

263:2,10 278:11

percentages 204:11

219:3 221:6

perception 221:22

perfect 150:7

perfectly 210:22

perform 103:13

160:22

performance 63:16

64:18 73:11,12

92:21 115:2

125:17 160:17

162:4,19 228:4

242:21 297:15,18

297:21 299:7

301:21

performance-rel...

85:4

performed 139:12

202:19 228:21

229:4

performs 269:19

294:4

period 4:12 11:20

12:2 18:20 21:14

32:19 39:1 125:4

136:9 222:7,9

223:8,14 231:7

276:6 277:11,17

278:16 280:15

281:1,15,22

295:14 300:7

314:14

permeability

106:15

permutation 90:22

permutations

126:11 127:16,18

127:20

person 5:5

personal 184:1

250:15,17

perspective 66:16

72:6 159:14 234:2

235:21 261:13

pertains 159:1

petition 13:21

17:12,15,18 21:1
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 349

31:15 32:2,2,13

32:13 33:4 55:1,4

58:4,18 66:17

76:7 84:5,6

199:17 201:14,15

213:13 228:16

263:18 316:12

317:15,18

phase 17:19 27:14

29:1,19,21 30:1

68:22 71:14

273:13 294:5,11

294:15 295:2,6

phases 27:2 294:5

phone 14:11

phones 14:3,5 23:2

photocopy 13:6

105:17

phrase 43:7

physical 165:17

198:20

Ph.D 198:9

pick 124:3 128:11

186:9,11 187:19

246:13

picked 173:4

picking 84:18

147:12 179:6

188:7 253:4

picture 175:3 252:8

piece 205:18,20

238:21

pieces 97:5 237:22

place 17:6 27:6

59:22 65:5 87:19

113:14 118:10

123:5 152:11

233:8 294:9 295:6

295:18 300:19

304:7

placed 85:12 302:2

places 314:7,9

315:9

plan 12:15 59:3

135:12

planning 70:17

80:3 82:1,3 91:15

plans 46:1,5

plant 217:7 276:13

308:1

plants 248:16

plastic 107:10,12

platform 145:7

Platts 3:14

play 176:19

players 189:10

please 6:3,8,19

8:18 12:22 13:1

13:12,17 14:2,10

16:16 66:1 67:2

75:22 76:21 84:1

94:10 95:9 117:18

121:8 135:5 158:9

182:20 197:17

201:4 210:16

226:19 227:8

230:7 231:1 240:6

253:13 267:10

273:6 288:17

291:7,10

pleased 18:17 20:8

plus 144:11 152:21

236:12,13 303:9

point 21:17 37:18

40:7 41:9 52:10

74:5 75:11 78:21

80:18 88:8 90:6

102:5 122:17

134:15 147:7

155:13 159:8,13

159:20,22 161:5

167:21 168:5

173:10 174:16

177:2 180:19

197:4 200:20

201:7,10 202:15

202:19,20 217:13

220:16 221:2,3

227:10 233:14

236:17 240:9

241:19 242:10

243:9 244:18

246:20 249:17

256:17 295:16

297:7 301:1 302:5

303:19 304:10

pointed 272:17,18

320:1

points 22:20 27:7

78:16 303:17

pole 48:3 85:21

91:1 109:20 111:3

111:17 126:12,16

129:21,22 130:5

131:2,11 132:1

134:12 144:6

226:7 285:15

286:2

policy 14:22 17:21

25:10 287:7,7

political 308:6

politicians 307:8

poll 293:7

polynomial 216:8

polyphase 18:3

71:14 88:22 97:12

107:4,17 247:8

poor 112:1

popular 128:4

population 151:18

152:1,6,15 154:18

211:22 309:20

portion 45:17

194:17,19 320:8

position 171:4

positioned 124:9

positive 267:5

291:11

possibility 32:11

83:5 239:3

possible 13:22

23:19 30:21

122:12 135:12

162:1 241:13

304:5 305:19

320:7

possibly 51:14

218:5

post 34:19

posted 27:12

potential 13:19

15:13 16:11 22:11

24:3 26:14 92:11

107:14 158:14

239:6

potentially 22:14

96:17 106:17

122:20 136:9

246:19 290:5

298:4

pound 100:7,15

101:3

pounds 141:1,2

powder 107:11

power 2:1 10:2

35:6,7 58:11,11

64:14 65:21 71:15

75:14 107:10

193:10 209:2,7,9

224:20 230:12

285:8 299:16

306:19

PowerPoint 24:15

practicability

106:5

practical 75:17

115:22

practicality 114:2

practice 228:22

229:5

practices 229:10

precedence 51:10

predicted 196:1

275:17

predictive 256:12

256:18

predominantly

58:10

prefer 240:1

preference 156:20

preferred 103:5

preliminary 1:3,9

4:16 5:7 12:7

15:12 16:10 25:3

27:3 28:22 29:4

29:16 40:19 41:15

41:18 203:8

287:10 293:4,14

293:15,19 294:10

296:5,6 308:11,18

308:20,22 309:7

309:13

premium 18:9

67:13 112:6

121:14 155:7

166:19 167:8,18

195:1,4 227:18

258:22 261:10

265:3 270:12

289:1

premiums 191:14

preparatory 82:5

prepared 105:16

prescribes 15:1

298:1

present 1:12 13:7

15:10 17:9 36:20

36:22 37:20 51:11

70:18 71:6 87:14

90:11 109:14

148:2 169:3

170:20 171:8

185:17 203:8

225:7 280:11

281:11 282:10,12

286:17 290:13,17

290:20 291:3,12

291:14,18 294:2

294:22 313:7

presentation 16:4

24:16 90:15 92:6

108:12 166:13

194:13 314:1,19

presentations

15:17,20

presented 40:20

133:16 206:11

216:12 220:19

237:15 266:17

273:16 314:9

presenters 320:4

presenting 25:2

216:17

presently 88:1

89:21 171:7
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 350

presents 29:2

presiding 1:11 5:12

press 260:15

presses 169:21

pressing 260:9

presume 302:20

pretty 78:1 95:11

124:8 215:9 217:6

228:12 239:19

240:14,15 243:3

260:8 272:18

preventative

250:21

preventive 256:13

256:18

previous 30:17

34:3 46:16 48:12

75:7 206:12

266:17 282:16

previously 25:1,20

35:1,13 40:11

46:2 71:1 194:2

price 124:19 140:8

140:10 141:5,11

141:16 179:14

180:13 182:1,2,8

182:16 187:4

188:2,14,18,22

189:14 204:8

205:10,15,18,20

205:22 207:15

223:18 224:11

225:2 268:22

269:1,4 283:1,8,9

283:14 284:15,20

285:1,15,22 286:7

286:13

prices 126:7 179:10

179:13 180:5,21

180:22 187:16

188:1,7,12 203:19

204:7 206:22

224:12,15,16,20

224:22 237:2

278:22 279:5,15

285:5,9 296:19

pricing 180:21

181:3 190:6,8

231:6,8,13,15

primarily 69:4

primary 281:3

287:14

prior 72:3 158:20

181:19 205:10

241:2,5 265:3

private 275:18

probability 223:1,4

probably 59:20

60:8 72:20 148:21

164:6,9 168:12

184:10 185:12,21

239:20 241:18

245:12,18 246:22

248:9 259:19

265:1,5,7 271:10

271:11 307:5

314:19

problem 62:12,21

75:13,14 88:13

89:7 151:13 153:7

154:4 155:5 169:5

254:22 301:9

problems 114:20

164:11 235:2

procedural 5:15

15:7

procedure 4:7

11:14 33:12,20

34:22 40:5,8,17

41:2 44:1 57:19

57:22 59:2,11,13

59:16,21 60:2

61:10 81:13,13,16

81:18,19 83:20

84:11

procedures 33:17

33:18 45:13 61:13

61:18,22 83:16

proceed 14:16

24:13 105:13

210:21

proceeding 91:21

proceedings 19:6

20:18

proceeds 12:18

process 16:8 20:4

27:7,19 28:6

29:20 31:14 32:3

32:6,6,18,21

38:10 58:17 69:8

80:10 87:7 90:7

112:2 113:19

119:4 120:21

158:21 161:3

171:6 179:9 234:9

269:21 273:9

293:18

processes 111:19

155:11 172:20

177:1

procurement 313:2

produce 69:22

311:2

produced 305:4

produces 119:11

producing 304:20

product 17:22 56:2

56:11 57:2 61:16

61:16,21 66:14,15

73:16 78:3 87:5

110:3 111:9

114:18,18 115:22

116:4,5 120:6,19

135:1 137:12

155:15 159:20

177:9,14,16

183:10 206:22

242:11,15 262:22

263:1,5,7 272:4

275:11 278:5,12

305:9 307:16

318:19 319:1,3

production 86:21

107:16 109:2,8

114:4,13 119:18

122:15,16 142:5

147:5 177:20

181:22 185:19

265:6 298:11

productive 247:2

320:2

products 18:4

37:22 53:12 66:5

68:12 73:14 84:8

86:12 88:3 109:14

109:15,18,19

110:11 111:5

114:5,15 115:5,6

252:14 317:21

profile 294:6,7

profiles 208:19

profit 180:16 191:9

191:18 205:12

profitable 192:4

program 86:18

156:7 160:20

161:7 162:2,5,8,9

162:11 256:18

302:16,21 303:1,9

programs 63:14

161:17,18,20

313:1,2

progress 307:15

progressed 151:7

progressive 143:20

project 1:25 5:11

8:5 275:22 276:5

284:14

projected 26:20

224:16 261:20

275:3,20 280:6,7

projection 277:4,5

279:6 281:13

projections 274:22

275:19 276:20

277:5 280:19,20

281:13,17 311:2

projections,DOE

278:21

promised 16:15

prompt 16:2

promulgated 44:6

pronounce 231:8

proper 134:21

152:5 256:17

properly 70:2

135:1,9

properties 162:19

proportion 130:11

130:14,20

proportional

205:19,21

proposal 18:20

20:9 29:11 32:18

36:1,22 86:10

227:13 228:15

289:8 290:1

propose 54:10 55:1

proposed 27:4 29:9

32:17 33:16 34:1

34:5,15,17 53:16

55:2 87:7 310:15

311:4

proposes 52:11

proposing 29:8,18

30:8,19 87:10

88:6

proprietary 295:18

protected 300:4

protecting 233:12

protection 135:21

136:4

protective 300:5

prototype 64:2

161:6

prototyped 107:19

prototypes 101:1

101:16,18,19,20

103:18,22 107:2

108:5 160:19

proven 22:4 103:20

272:1

provide 13:5 35:10

39:2 80:3 82:22

117:5,13

provided 21:10

38:15 80:11,13

94:18 95:6 263:4

283:13

provides 27:19

providing 266:22

proxy 276:14

PTSD 18:18 20:11

21:9 53:13 75:8

100:9,12 101:9
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 351

102:6 103:16

114:20 116:15

129:20 132:7,12

154:13 300:10

314:10

public 1:3,13 4:4

5:5,7,13 11:7

12:10 14:19 15:6

27:6,17 29:10

38:16 319:21

publication 40:17

231:11

publicly 35:22

295:19

publish 26:3 29:7

29:17 30:8

published 27:16

30:6,12 33:16

34:1,14 40:5

230:14 287:6

318:21

publishing 29:13

pull 169:20

pulling 251:8 289:2

pull-up 99:18

pump 35:12 43:16

85:18 92:1 127:5

135:14,17,20,21

136:6 192:18,22

221:14,16 229:18

238:5,5 291:4

punch 158:19

purchase 101:14

113:12 115:14

137:10 145:2

149:3 197:16

205:18,22 258:4

261:7,9

purchased 125:12

136:20 137:4,18

148:3 150:12

155:7,9,20 162:21

162:22 182:3

purchasing 261:12

261:19 291:16

purely 140:21

169:3

purpose 4:4 11:7

43:15,19,20 44:4

44:14,20 48:1

50:22 75:16 82:8

83:2,9 87:5 88:10

112:13 124:16

131:19 203:18

208:8 222:7

227:14,14 242:11

243:1 245:9,9

262:21,21 263:5

264:3,3 274:21

277:2 279:20

293:19 306:3

309:15 310:5,18

312:15

purposes 69:7

pursue 24:2

pursuing 319:2

pushing 265:7

put 37:12 57:6,7

62:19 74:12 77:14

77:21 101:4 102:3

103:6 113:13

114:11 123:5

172:18 259:16

266:1,11

putting 113:9

123:2 160:1

171:11 269:16

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-...

5:1

p.m 178:8,9 179:2

260:12,13 320:15

Q

quads 18:19 286:21

288:8

qualitative 295:22

qualitatively

293:20

quantify 179:22

228:8 242:7 279:4

279:14

quantifying 312:1

quantitatively

293:20

quantities 119:11

277:6

quantity 91:18

quarter 95:15

198:22

quench 158:21

question 30:17

38:19 39:4 59:14

71:22 117:3

138:22 145:18

147:22 148:13

163:18 164:19

174:21 181:19

182:21 186:7

187:10 200:4

218:15 219:21

226:21 230:8

231:17,21 234:14

238:16 241:7

246:9 248:21

257:15 258:15

268:17 273:9

284:7 303:16

307:13

questions 12:19

14:15 38:11 39:11

39:16 63:4 133:4

231:5 241:5

queue 14:9

queuing 13:9

quick 43:5 58:22

63:4 66:18 117:2

175:14 284:7

293:7

quicker 297:11

quickly 12:17

105:2 260:6

quite 50:2 58:6

67:21 86:4 118:15

184:11 205:7

210:9 256:5,9

304:19

R

R 2:2

Raba 2:11 4:6,19

5:3,10 8:11,11

11:9 12:15 14:17

14:18 77:5 313:16

319:18,20

radial 83:1

raise 12:12 14:7

40:9 168:17,18

245:20

raised 201:7

317:22

raises 303:17

raising 18:13 317:2

randomly 169:19

range 63:20 65:3

111:9 114:14

115:22 119:3

128:13 144:5

165:21 185:1

186:10 187:16

188:1 212:3,5,11

216:21 219:11

237:7 262:7

ranges 128:7

270:10,11 285:10

290:18,19

ranked 20:9

rate 181:11 183:20

204:21 282:8,17

284:15 292:16,21

rated 71:13

rates 180:8 181:12

183:2 185:1,4,10

185:16 225:5,6,8

237:1 282:18

284:8,11,17

290:16 312:9

rating 48:3 85:21

87:13 89:21,22

91:1 128:19

131:10,13,17,18

185:13 196:17

285:21

ratings 101:19

109:20 110:7

113:22 120:11,12

120:13 126:12,16

127:10 132:8

133:21 134:11

196:18

ratio 146:6,10

rationale 66:19

raw 180:12 298:9

Rawald 2:17 9:2,2

Raynes 2:12 9:11

9:11

razor 302:11

reach 75:10 195:6

reached 238:1

239:6

reaches 238:3

reaching 21:17

173:14

reactive 209:2

224:20

read 10:15 75:7

114:19 274:8

readily 257:2

reading 103:16

readjust 235:10

readjusted 96:6

real 62:20 64:1

112:16 117:2

140:9 142:21

144:7 172:19

247:10 259:22

278:14

realistically 23:11

reality 134:5

228:10

realize 86:10

170:16 173:9

252:17 271:18

realized 60:19

150:6 211:7

really 60:5 61:12

61:19 66:5 67:7

67:11,18,20 68:7

69:19 104:20

113:3 122:17

123:16 130:17

134:21,22 150:18

153:8 156:14

160:14 161:6

172:11 174:22

177:5 184:11
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 352

192:22 198:4

202:11 227:19

232:2 235:9

239:16 242:15

246:21 252:7

256:20 264:16,17

287:20 288:6

300:11 316:14

317:7 319:15

realm 69:16

reason 28:10,17

54:9 73:6 75:3

86:6 115:12

134:10 135:15

149:7 150:21

151:1 153:13

156:6 167:11

187:14 258:4

317:5

reasonably 190:7

reasons 46:11

134:10

rebates 312:21

rebuilt 240:1

recall 183:6

receive 29:11

180:17 186:4

295:9

received 11:1 21:1

24:14 29:22 31:16

31:17 34:12 44:17

94:14 273:11,17

receiving 101:16

recognize 120:5

133:19 272:20

recognized 88:18

132:15 133:20

recognizes 92:11

153:17 261:11

recommend 18:7

58:18 88:16 112:9

176:1 201:13,17

235:7

recommendation

31:18 76:9 199:19

221:1 314:15

315:2 317:5

recommendations

197:14 317:14,18

recommended

66:16 84:6 129:14

134:12,14,18

199:16 201:19

229:5 316:21

317:4

reconciled 290:8

recondition 232:7

232:10 236:14

reconditioned

236:6

reconditioning

256:5 258:7

reconditions 232:3

reconfiguring

272:9

record 10:15 13:2,7

13:14 32:5 50:4

105:7 117:8 178:8

191:1 217:14

240:4,8 260:12

315:2,2 320:15

recorded 137:21

red 194:15,20

275:11 291:1

redefined 171:13

redesign 118:6

245:6 303:20

304:6

redesigned 164:8

redo 174:5 255:19

reduce 22:3 100:17

106:19

reduced 107:15

297:15,18

reduces 177:15

reducing 73:3 93:2

158:14

reduction 23:16

309:4 311:14

312:2,7

reductions 312:4

312:10

redundancy 80:20

reemphasize 243:9

refer 11:3 43:10

52:6 55:18 100:9

100:22 140:7

166:14

reference 20:22

117:14 120:18

121:11 188:9

254:14 274:2

referenced 24:15

34:6 40:14 84:12

202:3

references 40:13

41:3 230:22

254:22

referred 115:11

228:15

referring 160:9

232:19,22 247:17

refers 154:13 209:5

refine 295:22

refining 112:2

reflect 24:16

reflecting 274:4

reflects 21:16

250:10

refresh 291:10

Regal 241:1 273:8

273:22

Regal-Beloit 1:24

2:8 7:10 10:4

71:21 218:15

220:15

regarding 22:20

38:5,11 48:6

56:19 129:8

138:12 158:17

regards 62:8 72:11

76:18 241:20

region 225:1

regional 224:14

regions 128:20

register 27:6,10

29:8 56:14

registered 13:4

regression 199:6

275:15 285:8

regulated 44:13

242:12

regulation 57:4

62:1 79:20 227:15

243:2

regulations 38:12

57:12

regulatory 16:6

69:7 294:18 309:5

312:13 313:4,8,10

reiterate 246:20

300:17 316:10

relate 205:9,14

315:22

related 36:18 84:10

123:9 130:12

141:6 156:9 158:3

286:11 297:4

300:2 301:22

302:3 308:11

315:15,18,19

relates 209:11

relation 75:14

relationship 42:15

99:3 100:19

124:17 130:2

148:1 196:11

258:21 268:15

285:2

relationships

200:13

relative 130:3

relatively 39:13

272:7

relevant 114:8

175:6

reliable 114:6

relied 208:18

rely 239:17

remain 22:21 71:10

206:3 207:6,13

226:12

remains 23:5

277:12

remarks 4:18 11:6

12:14 313:16

319:19

remember 186:15

254:6,22 259:12

remodel 148:14

remove 34:18

58:19 116:15

removed 105:22

removes 177:14

renamed 42:19

rental 207:12

renumber 316:6

rep 166:22 167:16

167:20,20 168:1

179:10,13 181:7

192:15,19 194:21

195:2 197:12

repair 224:1

225:13,17 226:4,5

226:6,22,22 227:1

229:1,7,13,19

230:1,4,13,16

231:19,22 232:6,8

232:9,13 235:9,21

236:5 237:2

240:19,21 241:13

246:11,18 249:15

255:3,16,17,21

279:1 281:19

282:6 296:20

repaired 229:14

240:12

repairing 291:17

repairs 228:21

229:4,9 232:3

234:19

repeat 296:9

306:12

repeatable 69:8

83:14

repeating 210:20

276:1

repetitive 123:9

replace 106:17

140:16 156:4

246:4 252:21

255:19 279:1

296:20

replaced 52:17

replacement
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 353

112:13,19 113:13

239:9 240:20

257:16 258:16

313:1

replacements

227:4

replacing 243:11

243:16

report 22:10 23:2

55:19 94:16,18

161:5 190:22

196:13 274:6,8

311:9,13

reported 101:3

165:2 190:22

302:6,15 305:8

reports 117:3,4

274:1 276:12

represent 19:21

66:8 96:21 126:20

127:2,15,17,20

129:3,5 134:21

135:1 138:18

144:22 167:9

204:12 205:5

243:13

representation

128:7

representative

125:10,14 126:9

126:18,20 127:1,6

127:8,12 128:1,8

129:1,9 135:4

136:16,21 137:10

152:14 155:15

162:20 182:18

190:10 192:10

194:18 253:18

266:22 267:2

283:15 284:20

286:8

representatives

283:19

represented 136:19

204:10 224:4,21

275:10,15 283:15

316:16

representing 7:13

9:6,14 117:21

125:13 231:4

represents 154:18

168:6 222:14

223:9,11 316:12

request 90:8

216:17 277:15

requested 314:7

requesting 181:1

requests 229:22

require 54:6,14

227:20,22 228:1

304:6

required 25:22

37:4 64:22 136:6

302:13

requirement 51:3

75:4 114:2,4

120:17 153:7

154:4,5

requirements 22:8

64:18 87:3,20

115:2 124:7

135:16 180:6

297:22 298:18

299:18

requires 28:6 51:6

54:12 71:3 75:5

272:13

requiring 44:8

research 91:12

94:16,17,22 96:3

96:11 102:22

115:16 191:12,19

276:11

resistance 106:16

resolved 119:2

resource 66:15

resources 2:16,23

6:21 19:16 197:11

197:15 200:5

respect 17:13 19:6

31:4 37:9 63:4

177:19

respectable 304:3

response 23:15

24:7 27:9 38:19

39:6,12 44:15

responses 295:20

rest 38:16 177:9

187:6 196:20

209:6

restate 318:15

restricted 75:6

restricting 300:13

restrictions 163:20

restrooms 104:22

260:6

result 18:14,15

45:4 111:21 112:7

153:18 173:6

242:1 291:12

resulting 294:2

311:9

results 15:11,12

25:3 29:3 40:20

112:1,3 113:8

126:8 149:5

150:19 161:1

189:2 216:14

222:11 224:5,6

237:12 260:20

261:16 266:20,22

267:6 283:5

286:18 287:11

290:12,14,17,20

290:22 291:3,7

resume 104:18

105:4 179:5 260:8

resumed 105:8

178:9 260:13

retail 182:8

retesting 272:9

retire 238:6,17,22

retired 238:1

239:12 255:8

256:6

retool 144:3

retooled 143:16

retooling 143:20

298:11 306:16

return 11:17

Returning 12:1

returns 21:18

reverses 219:17

reversing 123:1

review 4:2 11:5

13:14 271:9

reviewed 72:4

94:15

revise 34:16

revised 21:22

revises 29:21

revising 34:9,10

273:15 308:19

revision 57:19 59:2

59:13,17 309:6

revisions 29:16

309:10

revisit 26:1

rewind 227:2,3

231:22 232:10,11

232:14,15 233:22

234:9 235:21

236:11,14 241:14

296:15

rewinds 232:2

233:9 234:21

rewound 233:1,16

234:4 240:2

re-engineer 272:13

re-screening 122:7

RFI 31:20 44:17

45:5

RICK 2:25

right 29:1 33:9

40:11 57:13 58:22

59:9 60:3 64:4

72:9 76:3 79:22

80:2 94:5 96:19

105:21 161:8

164:14 179:6,11

187:18 188:13,19

189:6 190:4 192:6

200:19 207:4

212:8 213:22

215:12 218:20

219:9 233:5 234:5

234:17 235:5

236:1 242:3 243:8

245:19 247:5

249:7,7 250:19

252:1 253:17

257:10 258:14

259:20 267:15

268:13 269:6

288:22 289:15,16

290:3 293:3,12,14

294:11 307:19

308:17 316:3

rise 21:13 65:19

69:3

risk 191:13

road 274:5

Rob 1:20 7:16

57:16 58:22 59:22

61:6 95:9 97:1,2,8

124:1,2 150:1

182:20 190:18

198:2 199:14,22

201:8 202:6 207:1

207:2 213:8,9,11

215:1 219:19

227:8 240:6 247:2

250:16 253:3

263:16,16 266:8

266:10 267:10

271:14 277:22

287:17,18 289:6

289:21

ROBBIE 3:11

Robert 2:9,17 6:16

6:18,22 21:4,6

24:10 71:17 72:21

72:22 74:9,11,17

98:10,11,13 173:1

278:3

robin 153:14

robust 253:11

Rob's 221:12

Roger 1:23 7:4

28:1,3 30:15,16

35:16,17 37:14,19

46:14,15 48:13,14

49:14,15,20 50:13

55:5 58:21 61:6

62:5,6 63:11
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 354

74:21 77:19,20

78:10 84:1,2 86:2

86:3 92:8 98:10

99:13 100:3,4

108:6,7 117:9

118:5,7 120:2,3

121:8,21,22

129:10,11 139:19

139:21 142:15,16

145:16 147:20,21

148:19,20 159:10

160:6,7 161:16

168:3,22 169:1

176:5,6 181:17,18

195:11,12 200:2,3

202:19 210:2,6

245:18 268:6,7

298:21,22 302:1

303:16 313:20,21

315:6

Roger's 159:8

168:4 175:15

267:16

roll 219:7

rolling 150:3

roll-up 279:11

room 1:9 11:2 14:6

14:12 17:7 105:18

240:4 274:9 293:7

rotational 35:6

rotator 53:19

rotor 56:9 64:21

73:8 92:16 98:19

98:20 99:19

112:20 115:12,20

118:10 125:18

130:3,4,7,17

135:22 136:7,12

136:13 139:7,9,14

140:13,19 141:6,7

143:15,18 158:19

163:3,4 170:18,19

171:3 297:5,17

299:1,10,14 303:7

303:8,16,18,19

304:9

rotors 108:13

109:1,6,10,13

110:8 113:4 115:5

118:14 119:6

121:12,18 122:2

141:10,10 143:22

159:2 297:14,16

298:6 300:14,19

301:22 304:12

306:22 317:1

roughly 229:16

round 17:10 29:15

153:13

rounding 272:18

routine 255:21

RS 225:19

Ruffing 2:13 9:5,5

76:5,5 135:7,7,11

158:10,10 164:18

301:18,18

rule 26:3 27:5 28:7

29:20 30:11 32:3

32:13,19,21 33:12

34:14,22 35:3,12

40:12,18 44:1

154:11 159:22

201:22 203:3

213:14 294:16

307:12,14,20

310:3 316:14

318:15,20 319:9

ruled 151:5

rulemaking 4:5

11:12 16:7 25:4,7

25:21 27:3,4,15

27:19 28:5 29:9

29:19 32:17 33:11

34:2 42:5 43:9

81:13,15,16 86:7

87:7,12 88:6,12

88:13,15 89:8,9

89:13,17,19 90:4

90:7 92:14 100:9

100:21 103:9

128:5 147:14

150:2 170:7

293:18 294:11

306:19

rulemakings 75:7

90:10

rules 57:2 151:9,9

155:3 185:22

run 57:1 65:18

186:19 193:1

220:5,9

running 221:16

227:16 250:2,7

runs 186:18 252:12

R&D 191:12

S

safe 320:10,12

safety 106:8 115:10

116:6 123:8,15

sake 43:6 73:3

sales 204:21,22

sample 137:15

152:12,17 153:4

154:7,9 155:14

samples 147:17

160:2

Sanaee 2:6 4:13,15

8:16 94:8,11

95:17 186:22

187:2 200:20

201:8 203:6 210:1

257:14 260:15

284:3 296:17

308:15 320:5

SANDS 3:14

satisfied 115:7

save 2:9 8:8 23:8

23:11 44:22

174:12,15,18

saved 18:19 319:7

saving 288:7 292:1

313:6

savings 18:14,15

22:12 23:21 24:3

26:14,21 66:12

68:8 133:4 158:1

267:4,6 279:22

280:5,6,13,18

281:9 282:2,12

286:19,21 287:3

287:14,15 288:5,8

288:9 289:5

291:15,21 292:17

317:19 318:22

saw 59:5 74:12

95:20 104:6 131:1

199:6 240:5

270:11 276:2

302:5

saying 60:6 72:15

87:22 189:13,19

272:11 288:20

289:21 292:14

302:19

says 60:7 111:13

149:14 151:20

170:8 196:13,17

196:21 226:21

248:13 315:17

scalable 144:16

196:22

scale 111:1 114:7

114:13 119:14

120:17 123:19

144:16 192:8,9

196:4 197:14,19

198:11 199:13

207:20 284:19

285:21

scaled 126:8 138:9

286:14

scales 111:2

scaling 110:13

126:10 134:4,22

193:3,17,21 195:8

195:13,21 196:6

196:21 198:4

200:13 285:2

286:13

scenario 277:18

279:11 284:16

294:21 297:1

scheduling 295:11

Schumann 2:13

9:19,19 121:9,9

scope 34:7 37:22

40:3 41:1,21 42:3

43:5,7,7,13 44:18

45:7 46:1,6,18

47:12,16,18 48:8

53:11 59:4 60:15

61:1,16 70:11,16

78:3,12 80:8 84:8

84:16 85:7 91:16

94:20,21 95:3,12

96:14,22 97:11

111:4,6 115:4

120:6,19 122:7

135:1 137:3 194:6

201:12,21 203:2

265:12 271:20

272:3

scratch 255:5

screen 181:17

300:18

screened 42:19

106:10,12 107:21

109:6 115:19

116:14 121:4

171:6

screening 4:9 11:18

41:17 42:10,15,18

98:8 105:13,20,22

108:10,13 116:11

116:18 120:7,18

120:21 124:14

152:13 177:16,19

scrutiny 147:16

SE 104:1

sealed 52:14

seals 255:20

seasonally 247:13

SEC 180:9

second 59:14 85:16

108:1 110:2 114:1

129:7 138:19

166:6 181:5

193:14,17,21

202:18 297:3

318:5

seconds 300:8

Secretary 218:3

section 7:7,11,15

7:21 20:16 39:16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 355

41:7,20 144:13

163:12 187:9

194:20 208:17

274:21 310:18

311:8 312:13,14

312:21 313:11

sections 203:8

282:16

sector 22:2 74:14

211:18 212:2,2,3

212:22 213:5

214:2,3,12 216:22

217:5,5,6 219:1

219:10 224:15

225:1,10 229:17

237:17,18,18

249:19 254:9,16

254:17 306:21

310:11

sectors 208:20

212:9,18 214:3

216:15,21 217:10

254:16

Security 17:5 19:12

see 12:20 16:1

18:17 20:8 26:19

29:3 30:4 41:14

41:15 42:14 57:5

67:1 70:5,21

90:18 91:9 96:20

98:10 104:11,13

105:5 111:5

136:18 137:15

139:1 141:17

163:6,10 189:2,5

189:7,8,12 204:12

208:3 211:4 218:9

219:12 229:6,10

242:19 243:5

246:12 249:4

256:19 257:19

258:4 260:9 263:4

267:4 287:2

288:16 290:19

293:16 300:9

311:3

seeing 36:3 112:17

seek 217:2 230:4

311:21

seeking 17:13

167:22 180:19

181:5 195:7 230:2

296:21 318:20

seeks 262:12

276:17

seen 217:18 247:7

250:20

segments 91:18

segregation 69:6

select 100:6 169:19

186:18 188:3

selected 127:22

129:9 149:3 166:4

168:1 192:10

213:16 275:9,12

selecting 132:7

133:8 166:2

selection 132:11

137:12

sell 56:7 220:6

247:8,12 264:19

278:12

selling 124:19

140:8,10 141:5

179:10,12,14

180:13 182:1,2

187:4 204:7

205:20 207:9,10

207:15 283:9,14

284:19,22 285:5,9

285:15,22 286:7

286:13

send 37:13 169:20

sense 49:19 66:15

74:13 173:11

249:10

sensitivity 284:16

sentence 59:12,15

sentences 59:12

separate 71:3

85:16 269:11

293:17 315:11

separately 43:21

separates 158:22

September 27:16

44:15

series 131:15,16,17

133:12 175:12

178:4 282:9

serve 114:8 120:9

service 1:18 2:12

3:12 6:12 9:12

106:6 114:3

231:19 240:19

245:17 248:1

256:11

servicing 114:6

set 26:2,11 31:9

53:17 54:2,4,14

56:9 74:8 143:16

176:1 196:22

217:7 228:9

315:11

sets 31:3 53:15

70:22 74:6,13,17

setting 44:12

setup 82:5

seven 26:17 144:13

247:14 256:2

SEW 9:19

SEW-EURODRI...

2:13 119:4,19

121:10

SG&A 185:8

shade 128:20

shaft 53:19 128:15

209:7

shaking 257:20

shape 299:13

shaped 107:12

shapes 106:22

share 13:18 212:1

shared 295:19

shares 204:12

206:13

sharp 105:4

sharply 21:13

shelf 162:3 174:18

shifting 93:18

shipment 91:14,20

92:2 94:7 96:20

132:14,14,19,22

192:21 277:3,4,5

279:6 281:13

289:3

shipments 92:4

93:20,22 94:18

95:2,3 132:9,11

133:6 201:9 202:8

274:18,19,22

275:2,3,8,10,17

275:18,22 276:3,5

276:7,8,19,20

277:2,10 278:21

279:2,5,7,16

280:6,18,20

281:12,18 287:3

297:2

shipped 91:11

96:21 280:1,14

281:15,21 289:1

292:10

shipping 223:19

226:15 283:2,10

283:12 304:15

ships 279:22

shop 105:2

shops 230:17

249:15

short 39:13 149:1

260:4 314:14

shorter 239:7

252:14

shortly 40:16

162:14

short-circuit 136:1

show 91:19 272:21

317:10

showed 103:10

202:13

showing 147:2

214:6,19,20

shown 45:17 137:9

161:9 231:13

shows 48:12 125:7

126:15 132:9

145:8 162:18

166:20 180:10

215:13

shut 308:1

side 157:13,14,17

241:4 244:6,9

250:16

sides 132:6

Siemens 118:4,15

119:11,19 303:19

304:21

signed 25:11

significant 18:14

62:11 87:22 88:11

123:10 130:5

140:14 144:1

228:12 234:6

235:1 239:22

272:22 273:3

298:10 300:7

significantly 64:15

136:8 165:5 211:2

227:17 231:14

258:17 309:18

Silcox 2:14 9:4,4

silent 14:3

similar 29:10 69:19

71:4 75:2 89:17

97:13 136:2

193:13 267:6

273:2 281:10

284:1,18 287:11

290:22 313:4

similarly 20:10

131:2 160:22

171:9 303:4

simple 193:18

314:20

simplified 102:5

111:12

simplify 45:22

simply 66:11 73:11

141:21 193:14

213:16

simulate 62:19

simultaneously

90:10

single 68:22 71:14

81:3 90:5 101:19
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 356

159:11,12 189:22

190:11 307:17

sit 122:4 171:17,17

247:14

sits 170:8

sitting 124:8 198:8

255:12 274:9

307:19,20

situation 31:6 64:3

67:10 69:20 75:2

134:6 222:15

277:21 278:19

281:6

situations 23:17

281:7

six 96:1 118:19

131:2 204:9

six-pole 88:4

130:13 144:5

six-poles 108:20

110:20 197:5

size 22:7 36:8 46:22

70:2 75:6,8 89:3

96:5 130:3 131:7

131:12 133:9,10

133:11 154:8

165:8 202:17,21

229:12 245:15

307:22

sizes 36:9,10 89:5

110:7 118:21

133:11 197:8

202:3 245:21

skeptical 147:2

190:16

skew 252:15

270:22

skipped 28:11

slide 28:5 34:20

43:14 45:18 46:16

47:1,13 48:12

50:16 71:12 76:14

78:13,13 80:19

81:1,1,2,4 96:20

104:10 106:11

121:1,1 125:7

126:15 137:9

145:8,12 158:8

163:10 164:14

166:20 169:2

179:4 181:8,16,16

181:20 182:14,15

193:20 194:15

202:2,5 207:3

209:10,14 210:4

214:19 216:16

224:20 229:21

254:3 266:17

267:1,15 282:13

283:22 284:7

286:17 290:14

312:8 313:14

slides 16:1,3 24:15

175:12 206:12

209:16 211:9

224:7 282:21

291:12

slightly 112:5

152:22 157:1

slot 122:19,21

146:19,20,22

163:6 164:2,2

165:2,8 244:21

297:21 299:14

303:22

slots 158:20 165:5

slow 58:17

small 19:9 33:17

58:9,12 68:22

89:12,18 100:8,21

103:8 147:14

150:2 170:7 185:1

201:21 203:3

227:9 245:10

271:7 288:6,6

smaller 99:1

180:18 194:14

220:6 233:9,17

239:2 252:22

SNOPR 34:2,5,16

social 312:6

software 104:3,9

126:2 138:17

144:22 145:6,14

146:14 148:1,5,6

148:12,15 149:6

150:20 155:16

156:7 157:4,6,7,9

157:10,12,16

159:8 160:10

162:21 163:1,2

165:7 166:5 167:9

167:11,19 200:7

software-modeled

99:19

sold 58:10 66:9

119:16 180:18

204:13 205:10,16

205:22 206:7,9,13

207:20 208:1

220:2 244:15

255:7 263:19

264:17 280:22

solid 278:14

solidly 317:20

solution 38:7

solutions 1:13 2:25

307:2

somebody 79:8

somewhat 32:4

33:1 168:4 262:20

soon 211:1 295:11

sooner 26:6 30:13

sophistication

185:5

sorry 47:2 58:22

59:6 93:10 99:14

129:5 139:13

191:16 201:5

213:8,9 236:16

257:13 265:4

294:16

sort 33:2 38:19

39:4 58:14 66:5

68:5 94:1 112:7

158:18,21 185:6

198:5,14 199:7

231:6 254:13

255:4,14 292:3

305:8 315:17,21

319:8

sounds 74:7 122:5

source 230:10

235:13 257:9

sources 94:4

204:20 206:11,20

216:19 217:3

230:3 235:6 238:9

246:12 254:4,5

262:15 276:18,22

296:22

South 304:17

space 164:10

245:16

spaces 172:1

spanned 165:21

spans 294:15

speak 12:22 13:2

14:7 17:8,14

20:20 21:3 24:9

187:1 191:15,21

203:17 244:5

speaking 16:19

28:4 55:9 76:6

135:8 250:14

318:6,8

speaks 295:8

special 43:20 44:3

44:14,19 227:13

240:14 242:11

243:1 244:1 245:8

262:21 263:5

264:2

specialty 66:5

specific 26:18 39:5

126:4 165:20

189:3 212:17

217:1 228:15

241:14 309:17,22

310:2 315:15

specifically 46:12

60:21 83:20

190:18 217:4

224:18 302:4

specification

101:15

specifications

258:3,11 302:3

specificity 50:3

specifics 62:3

specified 300:2

specifies 135:20

229:22

specify 17:21 62:10

specifying 18:2

101:12

specs 144:11

speed 22:8,17 81:3

228:3,13

speeds 213:18

227:17

speed-torque 99:3

spell 86:13

spelled 87:21

317:15

spend 174:13

spending 174:4

spent 198:10

spinning 251:10

spirit 23:9

split 219:10

sponsored 161:10

spread 127:11

spreadsheet 309:21

spreadsheets 27:12

squared 235:20

stab 263:16

stack 138:9 145:19

145:22 146:4,6,13

163:7,22 164:4

165:1 244:20

stacked 105:3

stage 27:5 28:22

31:20,20 41:15

64:9 273:13

293:16 296:5

309:13 320:7

stages 294:16

stakeholders 95:5

225:20 309:9

316:15,15 318:17

stall 136:8 300:2

stalled 300:6

stamping 143:20

305:12,14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 357

stand 8:13 76:1

175:2,8

standard 18:6 20:9

26:16 28:8 29:8

36:10 45:1 52:7

70:20 85:5,11

106:17 114:9

126:1 131:6

135:17 152:8

154:10 155:4

165:19 166:6

175:13 240:10

242:18 249:20

250:2 261:14,15

261:21,22 299:4,6

299:18 300:4,8,15

309:19

standardized

166:11

standards 1:4,25

5:8,17 8:5 14:20

15:2,5,10,14 16:7

16:11 17:2,5,10

17:14 20:6 25:4

25:13,15,18,19

26:1,2,4,5,9,11

27:3 29:14,18

30:9 33:10 34:6,8

35:9 36:14,19

40:13,15 42:5

43:9,10,11,17

44:11,12 45:3,11

45:20 46:11,13

47:11,15,19 48:1

51:9,21 56:4

59:18 71:10 81:15

84:22 91:16 109:3

116:3 120:10

122:20 123:20

135:13 137:5

149:17 222:13,16

243:15 260:22

261:5,8,17 275:1

277:4 278:20,20

278:21 279:6,9,16

280:20 281:7,17

282:3,6 283:6

293:22 294:3,21

296:14 298:17

301:5 304:16

309:17 310:7,19

311:10,20 312:18

standards-setting

20:4

standing 243:6

standpoint 63:13

68:8 141:13

start 6:2,2 21:7

41:19 59:8 64:20

69:14,17 99:5

104:20 172:3

188:7 200:8

203:15 209:18

220:3 224:10

235:14 240:14

251:9 255:5

274:19 281:12

295:12 299:19,20

299:20 300:7

308:19

started 254:7 305:6

starter 251:7

starters 233:11

242:12,13

starting 105:9

134:15 213:1

256:20 286:19

291:1 297:15

299:11,16

starts 268:21

280:18 307:12

state 28:19 100:6

185:17

stated 22:10 120:4

144:2 269:1

statement 11:12

16:9 56:19,21

60:16,20 76:8

111:12 133:7

136:3 318:5,13

statements 4:5 11:8

11:10 16:16 24:11

62:8 69:17

states 21:21 22:2

53:17 109:9,11,16

110:1,4 111:20

114:4,14 115:14

119:10 121:13

230:13 311:15,16

stating 287:7

statistical 154:17

190:2 208:22

214:9,18 215:15

285:17,20

statistically 168:10

168:20

statistics 232:1

stator 53:18,18

56:8 73:8 92:16

130:4,7,16 140:13

164:21 165:5,8

stators 122:10

statute 25:22 26:8

31:9 44:6 85:1

317:11

statutory 25:6

317:8

stay 31:8 176:15

226:2 283:4

297:22 305:17

staying 64:5 271:20

steel 100:13 101:2

101:7,13,14,17

102:1,2,3,4,13,18

102:20 103:1,2,6

103:10,13 104:4,6

108:3 137:22

138:1 140:12

163:6 170:17

171:2 172:8

176:20,22 177:10

180:1 253:9

256:14

steels 106:13,16,18

stems 72:12

step 21:19 98:7

192:7 296:4 312:2

Stephens 2:15 6:14

186:5,6,6 187:13

187:14,21 188:20

189:6,12 190:4

234:12,13 246:8,9

246:16 289:20

292:13,13

steps 12:9 16:7

17:3 30:3 82:5,19

83:12,18,20,21

107:16 125:8

273:14

Steve 2:13 9:5 76:5

135:7 158:10

164:17 300:21

301:16,18

stick 170:2

stop 129:7 145:11

163:9

story 215:9

straightforward

193:19

strange 221:13

strawman 294:17

stray 92:18 102:16

130:8

stray-load 158:14

stream 64:14

stress 44:21

strict 307:11

strictly 141:12

142:9 191:9,17

205:19,21

strikes 50:1 79:16

STRONG 3:16

struck 35:1 43:21

structure 36:1

78:21,22 172:21

structured 37:7

struggle 243:17

287:20

struggled 67:11

stuck 213:21

studies 23:13

111:14 160:16

161:10 247:6

study 18:20 21:20

22:1 111:16,21

112:6,8,9,11

113:15,17 141:4

215:4 218:4,6,9

230:11 246:21

271:9

stuff 191:18 197:18

197:22 249:18

264:20

subclass 51:19

subgroup 309:1,15

309:22 310:2

subject 42:4 43:8

43:17 45:3 46:10

46:13 47:11,14,19

47:22 59:18 71:10

278:15 314:12

submersible 50:22

70:22 247:17

submersibles

247:20

submit 5:20 15:17

38:11 39:11

119:20 197:17

313:14,22

submittal 84:4

submittals 100:8

submitted 17:11

31:15 87:15 88:14

95:5,11 97:11

100:20 108:17

117:8 129:14

134:11 147:17

199:16 213:13

submitting 101:10

Subpart 34:11

149:13,14 153:11

154:6

subsequent 193:15

194:10 295:4

subsets 194:14

subsidiary 73:18

substantial 18:15

substantially

113:11 164:4

265:19 290:4

292:18

substantiate 88:1,7

substantiated 87:2

87:4,8 88:20

substituted 150:20
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 358

155:16

substitution 259:5

subtype 35:20,20

36:6,11,16,17

37:2,5,8,8 88:5,5

subtypes 51:20

successful 113:18

successfully 100:16

109:6 115:19

116:11,18 118:15

120:21

sufficient 95:9

299:11

sufficiently 127:11

163:14

suggest 54:5 176:3

199:11 315:14

suggested 88:17

133:14 175:15,22

182:8 308:10

suggesting 77:14

234:14

suggestion 210:20

suggests 246:17

suitable 66:11

107:1 136:10

sulfur 311:17,19

sum 222:18 283:1

summarizes 193:20

282:13

summary 286:20

314:4 315:10

Supplemental 34:1

supplementary

48:19,22 49:13

83:10

supplied 103:8

119:10 131:20,20

supplier 176:20

suppliers 102:21

310:20

Supplies 306:19

supply 58:1 65:11

65:16 83:6

supplying 119:6

support 27:11

100:22 112:8

113:4 114:14

316:11,14

supported 156:18

supporting 150:22

226:10 271:20

supports 60:14,15

152:6 156:15

sure 8:14 60:8

65:19 76:1,2 77:9

115:10 139:8,15

159:13 173:13

240:18 251:20

255:5 272:9 274:6

surface 158:19

surrounding 11:12

survey 230:16

suspended 107:12

SW 1:10

switch 98:21

switched 141:9

switchgear 242:14

switching 297:5

298:5

system 21:21 22:5

22:13,21 24:2,6

69:18 70:7 211:7

227:22 228:9,12

278:9 310:22

systems 23:11,15

242:16 247:13

272:5

S-E-S-S-I-O-N

179:1

S1 46:21

T

T 36:8

table 47:13 49:4

70:14,14 72:10

104:14 124:8

131:6,9 136:18

137:6 154:12

166:7,10 167:5,8

171:11 193:11

198:8,20 201:19

213:9,12 215:12

243:3 250:10

262:19

tables 131:10

156:10 157:19

170:13,15 171:8,9

193:4,13 199:5

261:7

Taiwan 304:18

take 11:15,22 12:3

13:8 19:16 30:2

31:3 35:21 47:6

53:20 69:20 90:15

90:16 99:21

104:15,17 116:20

145:11 173:19

175:8 176:8,11

177:7 186:3 187:3

187:16 200:5

233:2 248:1

259:16 260:4

263:16 268:11

293:6 295:5

taken 17:17 76:14

269:12 270:16

303:3 313:13

takes 64:20 70:14

143:5 233:19

252:11 294:9

talk 33:11 43:4

50:16 122:4 132:7

132:20 140:1

165:8,14 171:17

171:17 179:17

184:7,22 187:8

208:6 222:5 232:1

241:9 255:6

278:11 284:22

293:13 301:3

308:15

talked 30:4 145:18

245:8 270:4,10

273:21 287:21

talking 41:21 53:4

61:13 64:12 69:14

77:1 88:8 111:9

119:15 120:8,19

122:8 123:10,18

123:19 135:2

154:17 171:18,19

171:19 174:4

190:18 220:3

239:20 243:20

249:12 250:4

252:18,19 255:6

278:6 306:2,6

talks 139:1

Tap 76:4

target 19:18

tax 204:21,22

312:21,22

team 118:2

tear 104:6 179:20

179:21 180:12

tear-down 137:17

139:2 145:5 146:3

156:14,17 157:22

181:21

tear-downs 98:3

137:17 146:11

tech 41:11 195:3

technical 7:6 27:11

36:4 45:9 217:22

320:7

technically 111:18

122:15

technique 107:14

technological 26:13

106:4 111:14

146:21

technologically

107:7,21 113:20

115:21 119:17

166:1

technologies 22:5

23:3 116:14

169:11 170:9

178:1 196:13

200:11 310:12

technology 4:7

11:14 23:4 41:7

41:16,22 42:6,11

42:17,18 43:3

84:17 89:2 92:10

92:12 93:18 98:16

98:18 99:22

103:20 104:12

106:1,3,9,12

107:5,9,19 108:3

108:9 109:7 111:8

114:5,7,10,12,16

115:13,20 116:11

116:13,17 120:5

120:12,13,14

121:4 122:3 124:5

134:7 140:17

143:1 160:13

163:3 169:13

170:2,6,20 171:3

172:7 175:18

176:2,11 177:20

195:15,18,19

196:8,9,16,19,22

241:9 294:7

300:13 305:3

TEFC 128:1

tell 10:13 184:14

247:21 264:16

telling 142:20

tells 215:4,8

temperature 63:18

63:20 65:19 69:3

297:9

temperatures 64:5

116:8

temperature-mo...

65:17

ten 22:1 23:1

104:16 111:16

112:4 127:16

133:1 162:14

163:22

tend 136:13

tended 133:17

299:2

tends 53:2 252:15

tens 264:21

tentative 167:22

tenth 174:6

ten-horsepower

132:18

term 35:2,4 36:4

43:10 44:2,7 52:1
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 359

61:10 87:18 89:13

89:14 232:9

terms 17:15 34:10

35:14 61:9 69:18

115:8 133:3

186:11 213:3

222:11 229:13

258:15 260:21

261:16 277:6,7

279:8 283:5

287:12 290:1

305:9

test 4:7 11:14 33:12

33:17,18,20 34:22

40:4,8,17 41:2

44:1 45:12 57:19

57:21 59:2,10,12

59:16,21 60:2

61:10,13,14,18,18

61:22 62:12 67:14

69:2,21 81:12,13

81:16,18,19,20

82:2,6,18 83:11

83:15,18,20 84:7

84:11 101:1,21,22

103:5,12 112:16

129:16 147:19

148:2,7,8 149:4,4

149:9,18 150:14

150:14,19 152:5

153:18,19 154:3

156:11 160:11,13

216:5,9

tested 45:12,15

61:22 82:9,17

83:3,8,13 125:12

136:20 148:3,16

149:8 151:11

152:3 155:2,6,22

156:13,16 157:5,8

157:15 160:2

testing 45:9 64:3

66:13 67:8 68:6

69:5 70:19,20

71:6,7 75:1,12

82:11,12,18,21

101:20 102:9,14

104:2,8 125:17,19

139:14 145:5

149:12,22 153:22

154:1 158:4

tests 139:2,13

thank 6:13,22 7:1,8

14:18 20:20,21

21:5 24:9,10

31:10 33:7,8

35:22 39:19,20

47:7 49:5 55:5

57:14 58:20 59:9

60:10 61:6 62:4

63:1 70:9 72:22

75:19 76:3,12

84:9 90:11,12

93:15 95:9 97:8

97:20 98:12 99:12

100:3 104:1

116:19 117:15

120:1 121:20

123:20 124:11

136:15 139:19

144:18 161:11

162:12 164:16

173:2 175:11

186:2 191:5

199:20 200:16,19

203:4 208:2

210:15 215:22

218:12 221:8,19

228:18 236:18,19

236:20 244:12

247:1 251:15

253:13,22 264:11

266:4,13 268:17

268:18 273:5

274:14 278:17

289:18 290:9

292:11 300:19,20

301:16 303:13

305:20 306:10

308:9,14 316:7

318:2 319:11,17

320:3,3,4,10

Thanks 10:21

57:15 74:9 90:12

203:5 266:14

theirs 110:5

theoretical 146:13

theory 198:20

199:8

thermocouples

65:17

thin 106:21 302:11

thing 38:19 57:8

75:18 79:20

103:11 124:4

149:11 160:10,11

176:10 190:12

199:10 226:14

262:19 282:20

287:5 289:11

302:4 319:4

things 34:5 36:4

48:15 52:5 53:7,9

55:12 56:1 68:4

78:11 111:2 117:7

118:12 131:22

144:15 157:18

162:1 172:11,13

177:3 190:19

191:10 199:3

200:14 236:6

241:15 249:15

250:5,17 255:20

264:19 265:15

270:22 271:16,18

288:12 290:6

299:9 302:8

313:19 319:8

think 10:10 17:16

17:22 18:10 19:8

19:13 20:22 28:13

28:16 31:2,14

53:10,13,22 54:19

55:9 56:16 57:20

58:4 59:19 65:6

66:9 67:3,12 68:4

68:19 69:4,9,14

70:4,7 73:21

78:10,10 80:6

95:19,21 97:17

119:1,7,17 150:5

150:7 174:9 179:3

182:11 184:1,10

184:19 185:7

189:20 190:9,10

198:3,4,12 199:15

199:17,22 202:6,9

202:16 203:10

210:18,19,21

215:6 219:20

221:20 228:6,10

230:14 231:11

234:18 247:6,21

248:4,7,8 251:17

252:9,17 253:18

255:11 256:22

257:6,16 260:3,9

263:9 264:4,9,17

269:1 272:19

288:11 289:21

290:4,6,8 293:10

306:1 314:18

316:12,17,22

317:12

thinking 69:18

third 85:17 99:8

114:17 298:14

third-party 67:10

Thomas 1:18 6:11

thought 66:10

105:10 210:8

240:5 268:20

thousands 249:13

264:21

three 17:19 26:12

43:15 44:9 85:8

85:12,13 90:19

95:14 110:18

115:7 121:15

127:3 134:20,22

167:17 169:7

180:20 182:15

186:2 202:3,21

217:18 233:4

252:11 255:22

286:21 294:5

296:7

three-phase 265:6

threshold 242:17

threw 150:19

155:16

throttling 22:9

228:2

throw 156:4 252:21

throwing 150:22

151:5

throw-away 240:12

tick 74:12

tied 245:15

ties 158:3

Tim 2:13 9:19 10:6

121:9

time 6:19 13:1,2

24:13 30:19,21

39:13 48:17 59:6

90:11 105:15

107:8,22 108:11

112:18 114:9

119:16 122:6

136:9 141:4 148:2

150:2,10 205:7

231:7 250:1 271:2

282:9 294:13

295:13 299:15

300:2,7 305:9,12

314:14

timeline 30:3 33:2

39:5

timelines 31:5

32:14,15 33:1

times 62:12 141:3

193:1 251:21

timetables 31:8

timing 33:5 38:18

TIMOTHY 1:17

tinker 36:4

tires 174:9

title 53:1

titles 50:19

today 11:2 12:8,15

13:4 17:3,12

20:18 21:2 24:9

25:2 27:1 29:6

40:10,20 52:19

122:14 166:13
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 360

179:17 194:13

197:13 227:15

228:9 242:12,18

265:16 273:11,16

296:9 298:13

299:2 301:9,13

314:2,9 316:16,18

316:19 317:13,22

today's 5:4,13 15:6

15:20 25:21 30:5

183:11 243:15

263:20 315:5

319:20

told 101:22 258:2

tolerance 139:11

303:11

tolerances 67:15

Tom 2:1 6:10 10:1

93:7,10 226:18,19

226:20 230:6

tooling 297:11

tools 5:15 15:8

top 159:5 223:8

267:21 268:1

topic 43:13 93:21

306:14

tore 125:13 136:20

torn 126:1 145:20

148:14

torque 64:21 99:18

99:18 118:11

263:7 297:17

299:11,22 302:14

304:7

torques 304:4

305:18

toss 123:16

total 26:20 88:20

96:8 120:19

130:20 132:8

135:1 141:5

152:15 222:17

223:10,12,15,17

264:5 281:20

282:7,22,22

283:16,20 286:3

318:20

totally 62:8 65:12

72:1,3,7,14,19

88:9 131:4,9

174:5 197:8 253:7

touch 211:8

tougher 245:19

Towsley 3:18 10:17

track 117:5 172:22

tradeoff 99:8 292:3

tradeoffs 92:22

98:18 99:1 308:5

tradition 6:1

traditional 32:17

118:13

transcript 13:15

transient 23:17

transition 20:15

305:10

translate 207:18

312:3

translated 216:6

trap 252:9

travels 320:10,13

treat 32:1 33:3

treatment 201:17

treats 32:12

tremendous 272:16

trend 123:1 182:11

278:3,4

trends 225:2

246:12,15 277:19

tried 56:1 67:19

99:21 109:5 113:4

134:10 147:9

149:21 150:5

195:13 200:12

trip 136:2

trouble 58:13 80:9

121:17 181:20

270:9

true 62:10 176:7

184:10 256:10

265:13,14

truncated 33:2

try 31:9 40:1 50:12

54:3 58:14 64:9

89:6 108:15 112:2

117:12 131:20

149:1 162:13

174:22 175:9

177:5 193:10

200:4 203:14

230:18 235:9

242:3 263:16

278:12 301:11

306:12

trying 36:6,9 53:6

56:3 62:19 66:12

66:13 72:16 75:9

75:14 108:17

113:3 116:6

130:15 140:2,18

142:22 170:2

174:2 176:15

181:22 184:20

192:2 196:12

198:10 200:14

216:21 264:18

314:13

TSD 230:20,22

276:16 287:11

315:16

TUESDAY 1:6

tunnel 65:15

turn 14:2,16

226:18 247:15

250:22 251:3,10

313:15

turned 76:2,4

102:4

turning 6:5

turns 163:19 164:3

244:21 272:10,11

284:11

twice 250:2 299:19

two 17:7 19:5 21:15

23:20 30:20 35:11

41:17 53:13 54:7

54:13 59:12 88:3

101:17,18 102:20

108:9,20 109:17

110:17 111:13

117:3 118:18

126:22 131:10

133:11 137:8

141:1 148:17

151:17 154:16,20

154:22 155:1

158:22 160:16

161:9,15 164:5

166:14 168:7,18

168:19 169:9

173:6,8 174:15

175:10 183:2

193:7 194:8,22

195:4,16 205:5

217:15 222:16

231:17 233:4

236:5 290:16

292:4

two-pole 88:9,22

91:4,7 93:5

112:12 113:5

130:10,18 144:5

197:20

two-poles 110:16

197:4

two-thirds 229:8

231:18

type 46:21,22 47:20

51:1,16 53:8 63:5

63:5 66:14 67:13

85:2,22 91:2,11

100:10 102:2,2,3

102:4,18 104:11

120:12 126:16

140:12 176:21

242:21 244:15

262:22 263:1,5,7

300:4

types 21:9 25:20

35:9 41:1,3 42:4

43:8,16 44:8,12

45:10,22 46:6,8,9

47:10,14,18 48:7

48:9,19 55:13

63:8 70:15 71:9

72:17 76:15,16,19

80:4 81:21 82:13

82:17 83:13 84:7

84:20 85:14 88:5

88:5 91:15 92:13

101:2 103:10

108:9 126:12,17

128:11 132:4

137:1 167:3 194:1

212:19 299:5,7

300:16

typical 163:4

208:18

typically 13:5

21:12 38:21 56:8

186:19 294:9

U

U 153:11 154:6

UL 60:14,15

ultimately 73:14

85:11 186:15

187:15 188:6

193:16 256:6

unable 300:6

unanalyzed 126:9

unavailable 115:6

unaware 107:4

uncertainty 222:21

undefined 35:13

underestimated

290:5

underlying 198:19

199:8

understand 31:17

72:5 79:3,7 89:10

120:20 129:22

130:9 175:17

183:15 191:20

215:2 255:16

understanding

269:17 274:10

understated 271:11

understood 89:21

151:9

undertake 218:3,9

undertaking 218:5

undertook 217:14

217:15

underutilized 23:5

underwater 247:13
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 361

underway 108:4

Underwriters 1:15

2:8,10 8:1 9:16,18

60:13 69:13

210:18 221:11

239:16

under-lubed

259:21

undue 18:11

unfortunately

184:21 252:4

unique 90:20

unit 124:20 125:15

126:20 127:1,12

162:20 167:16,20

194:18,21 195:2

266:22 267:2

280:5 288:9

unitary 73:15

United 21:20 109:9

109:11,16 110:1,4

111:19 114:14

115:14 119:9

121:13 230:13

units 58:9,9 91:11

119:15 125:10

126:9,18 127:6,9

128:1 129:1,9

132:14,16 135:5

136:16,21 137:10

166:22 167:20

168:1 179:10,13

181:7 182:19

192:10,15,17,19

197:12 204:13

231:19 232:22

264:17 265:12

278:13 283:16,19

284:21 286:8

unnecessary 73:19

unregulated 47:10

137:1

un-mute 14:11

update 41:3

updated 25:18

34:19 40:12,16

217:18,19,22

294:8

updating 34:5

upgrade 161:17

upgrades 22:11

242:21

upstream 41:18

up-to 72:10

urge 56:12 73:2

173:19 175:7

urges 24:1

urging 317:16

usage 211:13 213:1

213:3

use 5:16 15:9 22:3

22:8 43:6,10 52:1

75:22 76:1,2 87:4

89:14 90:3 100:16

107:5 115:13

116:16 122:6

132:17 133:1,3

134:3 141:8,14

143:15,17 149:4

166:12 172:17

175:18,20 176:13

177:20 181:2,9

193:16 195:9

200:4 206:21

208:7,8,21 209:18

209:22 210:5

212:20,21 214:21

215:17 217:9,16

222:3 224:10,13

225:11 232:11

251:2 268:3,10,12

277:16 280:19

281:5,13,18 282:8

282:17 284:14

292:16,20,22

295:3 296:22

304:21 309:20

310:21 311:5,21

312:2,5 313:4

useful 13:13 73:21

80:16 209:7

221:22 319:15

user 142:22 164:11

187:7 204:4

212:17 227:16

228:11 243:19

245:3 309:19

users 174:12

187:16 235:15

240:1,18 243:11

256:12 280:3

309:22

uses 86:19 91:16

124:22 126:10

138:2 153:11,13

170:16,20 176:21

176:22 225:6

utility 85:6,9 106:6

114:18 115:8

116:4 177:15

309:2 310:17

311:5

utilize 98:1

utilized 145:2,9

163:3 172:13

274:2

U.S 1:1,9,14 2:6,11

2:17 5:6 23:5

111:15,15 113:2

113:17 276:13

306:8 307:6,9,17

307:21 308:3

V

valid 22:22 234:15

validate 238:10

276:19

value 149:19

152:19 153:17

154:15 157:5,17

190:3 215:13

225:7 240:17

280:7,11 281:12

282:10,12 290:14

290:20 291:3,12

291:14,18 294:2

294:22 302:17,18

313:7

values 156:11,12

194:4,9,10 213:22

214:8,17 215:15

216:6 219:5,7

220:18 222:1

248:19 275:3

281:4 282:9

286:14 291:1

302:9 312:5,6,8

valves 228:2

variability 208:21

214:10 222:21

variable 22:17 24:4

174:18,21 233:13

278:6,9

variables 198:7

variants 66:21

variation 153:18

154:3 186:13

303:1

variations 303:10

varied 182:5,11,12

285:15

varies 228:8

variety 148:3,4,5

295:8

various 38:12

82:11 84:7 92:20

95:16 101:13

113:4 240:18,18

254:4 299:13

302:6 314:9

vary 206:6 207:14

vast 18:7 247:12

Vaughens 225:19

226:5 231:8,15

Vaughens's 231:6

vehicle 38:13

veins 228:2

verification 67:8

verified 99:17

125:16 139:17

verifies 64:3

verify 67:10 139:3

version 40:21 41:4

310:21

versions 34:7 40:14

versus 151:13

216:6 232:2 259:1

279:1 288:2

296:20 318:18

VFD 23:10

VFDs 22:18,22

23:14

viable 109:7

Vice 7:20

view 27:7 173:20

174:16 175:8

viewpoint 153:9

177:7

violate 190:19

virtually 316:18

visible 104:21

visited 169:17

visual 128:6

volume 92:2 147:5

182:8

volumes 91:21

180:18 192:22

voluntary 312:22

W

wait 142:12

Waltner 2:16 6:20

6:20 80:17,22

81:6 284:6,6

want 5:21 15:19

20:7 32:4,8 50:4

57:11 89:20 90:14

92:8 93:19 121:2

161:21,22 168:13

175:9 184:17

193:22 199:18

201:10 205:5

211:16 221:11

228:14 233:14

243:9 249:16

255:6 257:5

262:18 263:11,15

263:16 266:8

274:5 287:6

306:13 310:1

318:15 319:8

wanted 17:14 30:10

31:22 68:17 71:21

72:5 96:13 97:22

159:13 161:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 362

198:18 201:6

202:14,15 213:12

220:20 221:2

241:6 254:2

259:10 301:2

302:4 303:15

wanting 48:16,16

75:16

wants 210:2

warrant 314:10

warranted 29:14

warranty 191:13

Washington 1:10

27:18

wasn't 49:8 183:7

232:18 255:2,3

watts 100:6,14

way 14:12 25:8

49:7 50:7 67:4,5

74:18 86:5 87:10

134:5 151:6 158:3

171:7 172:10,11

172:12 174:11,13

174:17 177:11

195:22 198:4,13

200:5 211:3

233:19 243:2

251:9,20 264:13

310:10 313:2

315:19 316:13

wear 104:21

wearing 305:12

web 10:13,15

webinar 2:19 5:5

6:6 14:4 320:8

webmaster 14:8

webpage 39:16

website 13:16

27:13 34:19 151:2

151:3,4

Wednesday 31:16

317:19

week 17:10

weeks 27:17

Weg 1:17 7:19

weight 75:9 164:21

223:20 226:16

283:11,14 284:20

285:1 286:7

weighted 183:5

weights 137:21

163:5,7 286:14

welcome 4:2 5:4,22

10:11,12 14:19

16:4 35:18 183:18

218:8 242:8

welcomes 310:1,14

welcoming 181:9

296:21

well-known 123:7

went 17:5 22:5 35:3

89:18 100:11

102:19 105:7

109:4 140:10,19

141:1 150:9 151:1

155:20 178:8

181:20 199:5,7

234:20 235:14

236:22 260:12

320:15

we'll 105:4 179:16

260:8 266:1,10,11

295:10,12 296:9

308:19,20 309:7,8

309:10,11,11,20

309:21 310:8

311:13

we're 179:4,8 181:1

181:5,9 184:6,6

194:6 195:7

197:18 200:17

207:8 216:18

219:21 233:22

234:2 241:21

243:16 244:22

246:4 250:3 255:5

258:2,7,8 260:8

265:15,15 278:5

283:5 289:8,8

294:11 301:9

306:6 307:21

308:13 313:12

we've 163:14

194:12 195:8

199:16 210:18

244:18,19 247:7

260:3 264:18,20

270:4,9,16 272:1

273:17,21 282:15

286:16 287:21

306:8 313:13

whichever 123:11

white 162:22

whole-heartedly

102:19

wide 186:16 190:5

Wilkins 2:17 6:16

6:16 21:5,6 72:22

73:1 74:11,16

98:12,13 99:12

173:2

William 2:5,7 4:8

4:10 8:19 41:10

41:12 55:11

105:20

windage 92:17

130:12,19

winder 233:5,7

winders 123:6

233:5,7

winding 122:9,10

122:11,12,13,14

122:18,22,22

123:3,18 124:3

130:16 140:13

143:21 146:21

147:3 163:19

169:22 170:1

183:10 235:4

236:10 270:16

306:15 307:1

windings 52:14,16

52:19,21 53:4

123:13 130:7

233:8,12

wire 93:12,13

wish 14:7 16:8 90:3

123:12 191:2

218:13 259:22

291:6 313:19

wished 314:5

wishes 11:11

313:17

withdrew 115:17

withstand 135:22

136:6

womanpower

123:11

wondering 165:3

187:15

word 32:16 88:19

151:17,18 199:6

231:21 232:11

words 72:20 236:3

288:20

work 21:8 73:19

101:4 116:7

120:15 168:15

181:13 200:15

211:4 236:10

251:1 316:5

workable 54:9

315:22

worked 14:13

94:13 112:1 118:3

119:2 249:18

working 17:1

123:12 135:9

252:8 304:17

works 63:14 147:9

251:6

world 99:4 172:19

241:12 245:21

247:9 252:19

260:1 263:20

304:15

worldwide 244:16

worse 292:20

301:10

worth 58:14 67:21

68:5 199:9

wouldn't 65:4

273:20

wound 53:18

wound-stator

271:22

Wow 265:9

writing 37:13,15

38:8

written 5:20 15:18

23:7 27:8 36:2

50:5 53:8 119:21

144:9 155:3 176:1

197:17 199:11

266:2,11 320:11

320:12

wrong 59:20

144:17 259:21

270:6 274:5

Y

year 22:13,15

34:14 86:8 159:18

180:22 190:21

214:17 222:19

223:16 234:4,21

263:20 276:3

280:12 281:1,15

281:21 292:19

304:12,13 305:4,5

305:6

yearly 119:16

years 17:7 19:4,5

22:1 23:1 30:20

39:7 52:18 122:10

168:16 191:2

198:10 210:9

217:18 229:17

237:10,13 248:14

248:14,17 251:19

252:11,20 254:8

254:15 255:22

256:2 280:8 281:4

292:10

yellow 163:2 224:6

yesterday 272:10

yielding 21:14

yields 42:16,21

Z

zero 162:10 167:1

258:12 264:7,10

270:8

zeroing 97:21

ZOLAIKHA 3:16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 363

Þ

þ 227:2 255:16

$

$33.46 183:8

$375 140:15

$50 140:19

$525 140:15

0

0 171:14,16 172:2

285:12

0.5 229:11

1

1 34:5 167:5 171:15

172:3 192:14,20

193:4 194:3,8,21

212:14 220:6

229:11 237:13

262:9,9,10 264:7

265:6 267:1 285:4

285:12,12 290:15

319:7

1,000 220:4 234:21

235:16

1.27.2 52:12

1.50 206:16

1.63 206:15

1:34 178:9 179:2

10 34:11 87:3 188:2

188:2,10,11 260:6

260:7,10

10,000 186:18

189:5 285:18

10:45 11:16

10:48 105:7

100 213:21

100,000 144:11

1000 1:10

104 4:10

11 22:3 186:3 193:5

199:7

11:05 105:4

11:09 105:8

112 149:16

112B 70:20

112-B 125:18

139:13

12 30:19 184:5

186:3 193:4 199:6

12-volt 307:22

12-10 154:12 166:7

166:10

12-11 137:6 167:6

193:9 194:9

198:20 261:6

263:22 265:4,16

12-12 18:9,13 167:8

193:5,9 194:9

198:21 199:7

201:19 227:18

243:3 263:22

265:4,7

12:30 12:1

12:34 178:8

13 131:5 164:1

182:20 186:3

14 4:6 191:1 316:4

14-year 17:1

140 144:3

140-frame 97:14

15 127:18 132:22

133:1 153:5,12

162:14 229:16

270:10,11 292:19

15-minute 104:17

16 229:16

17th 317:8

18 22:4 263:20

289:12

180 36:16 131:16

187 4:13

19 26:6

19.8 22:12

1967 52:16

1970s 25:9

1975 25:12

1990s 217:17

233:20

1992 25:14 137:6

137:11,14

1992's 43:18

1994 153:10,11

1999 87:19

2

2 34:7 55:19 155:7

164:22 167:7

168:10,11,13

170:16 173:4,5

192:16 193:4

194:8 196:11

271:21 272:2

285:12,12 288:2,6

288:22 289:10

290:21 291:2

294:15 295:2

303:3 314:6 315:8

315:18 319:6,7

2,000-horsepower

220:4

2-3 201:16

2.7 141:3

20 23:11 70:3 110:5

110:9 116:2

118:18 123:6

129:3 136:3,4

153:12,13 168:16

174:19 212:14

220:7 234:21

241:5 265:5

270:10,11 300:8

20s 265:5,19

20,000 304:13

305:5

20-horsepower

212:11 219:11,22

200 88:8 91:4,7

248:14 249:11

302:13,17

2002 22:1,20

2004 111:16

2006 118:17

2007 17:5 25:17

35:1,8 43:18,21

112:11

2008 33:15

2010 27:16 44:15

231:11

2011 33:22 34:16

44:16 91:9 262:4

276:3 277:13

287:6

2012 1:6 30:7 35:2

35:12 44:1 204:21

2013 30:12,18

2015 26:7 30:13

111:7 116:2 123:7

276:6 280:1

2016 109:2

202 302:16,21

203 4:15

2044 276:6 280:1

21 1:6

210 131:17

22 241:6 311:15

23 260:3

23rd 30:7

24 4:8 28:9,11,19

30:18

25 71:12 78:13

80:19 81:1,2

129:5,6 147:17

202:5,16 219:5

264:20

28 81:1,4

28th 27:16

29 248:13,14

293 4:17

3

3 20:12 34:8 140:11

155:9 164:22

168:9,12 170:8,18

170:20 171:18,19

171:20 192:17

201:15 221:2

227:12 267:2,5

270:14,20 271:13

273:2 282:18

285:12 288:2,7

289:2,12,14

290:19 291:2

295:6 303:22

315:19 319:5

3-percent 292:22

3:00 260:8

3:01 260:12

3:13 260:13

30 23:11 70:4

109:20 122:9

126:19 127:17

134:20 150:8

167:16 174:19

181:7 182:18

196:1,17 250:19

280:7 281:4

292:10,19

30-horsepower

180:15 184:12

186:17 194:20

285:6 288:3

302:11

30-year 123:1

280:15 281:1,22

292:8

31 264:1 289:9

319 4:19

32,000 229:15

232:14

32,000-hour

234:15 235:10

320 4:20

34 90:16 315:9

35 198:10 315:9

36 104:10

37 22:14 190:17

38 121:1

4

4 21:13 34:10 44:1

140:11 158:13

167:9,15 170:11

170:22 195:18

270:15,20 271:2

271:12 273:1

285:12 302:6,12

4th 34:13

4,000 213:16,21

214:1

4.3.2 316:4

4.4 288:8

4/10ths 288:4,10

4:21 320:15
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 364

40 122:9 215:5,6

239:20 248:16

40-horsepower

240:15

431 34:11 87:21

151:10

431.12 51:4,7 87:13

152:9

431.12's 151:16

431.16 149:8,11

151:12

431.17 87:3 149:10

152:10,16

431.2 51:3,6,14

440 144:4

45 190:17

49 263:18 314:7

315:8

5

5 4:3 21:13 149:21

150:8,8 167:9,15

170:11 171:1

173:5 195:19

220:6 229:16

262:9,10 263:2

270:15,20 271:2

271:12 285:5,12

287:22 302:5,6

303:7

5,000 220:11

5-year 180:21

181:2

5-1/2 263:2,9

5.13 170:13

5.16 170:14

5.2 95:22 97:12

265:12

5.5 170:13

5.6 140:7

5.9 170:13

5/10ths 288:3

50 127:1,18 129:4

215:20 239:20,21

245:5 248:16

50-50 183:2,7

500 17:20 18:2 88:3

89:1 108:19 134:5

235:16 248:15

500-horse 245:11

265:6

500-horsepower

249:11

51 158:8

514 90:21 126:11

53 316:6

541.3 303:8

542.5 303:7

56 179:4 201:20

202:10,11 203:1,2

56-frame 97:12

57 181:166 6 212:11,14 219:11

219:22 220:7

234:22

60 127:20 230:16

264:5 304:20

60-hertz 303:21

60-horsepower

240:11

65-70 215:11 7 7 282:17

7-percent 292:16

292:21

7.5 288:8

7/10ths 288:2,9

70 164:1 265:7,18

73 267:17

75 112:12 113:5

126:19 127:19

133:8,14 134:20

162:19 219:7

220:16,17 221:7

237:20 238:16,18

239:19 240:17

285:6 288:4 303:4

75-horsepower

181:7 182:18

267:7

79 22:15

8

8 230:22

8E-089 1:9

80 144:4

80,000 304:12

305:4

82 146:20

83 164:2

841 249:20 253:8

841s 250:2

85 146:22 164:2

88.5 155:22 156:13

156:16 157:8,9

89.5 155:20 156:14

156:15 157:11 9

9 276:15

9:00 1:10

9:04 5:2

90 21:11 70:1 191:1

90s 230:14,15

233:4

91 254:3

92 247:4

93.6 150:11,13,17

151:14 152:3,4

154:15 155:1

94.1 150:18 151:2

94.2 150:14 151:13

152:4 153:1

94.5 155:1

95.0 112:21
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

C E R T I F I C A T E

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript 

In the matter of: 

Before: 

Date: 

Place: 

was duly recorded and accurately transcribed under 

my direction; further, that said transcript is a 

true and accurate record of the proceedings. 

 

 ----------------------- Court Reporter 

365

Energy Conservation Standards

for Electric Motors

US DOE

08-21-12

Washington, DC