202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 1

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 + + + + +

 APPLIANCE STANDARDS AND RULEMAKING FEDERAL

 ADVISORY COMMITTEE

 + + + + +

 COMMERCIAL HVAC, WATER HEATING AND

 REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATION 

 WORKING GROUP MEETING

 + + + + +

 THURSDAY

 SEPTEMBER 12, 2013

 + + + + +

 The Working Group met in the

Forrestal Building, Room GH-019, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C., at

8:30 a.m., Neil Eisner, Facilitator,

presiding. 

PRESENT

NEIL EISNER, Facilitator

CHARLES ADAMS, A.O. SMITH 

KARIM AMRANE, AHRI 

VIKTOR ANDERSON, Structural Concepts

TIMOTHY BALLO, Earthjustice

JEFF BAUMAN, National Refrigeration and Air 

 Conditioning

MARY DANE, Traulsen

PAUL DOPPEL, Mitsubishi Electric

BRIAN FERRIOL, Underwriters Laboratories

MARK FLY, AAON

GEOFFREY HALLEY, ABMA

CHARLES HON, True Manufacturing

JILL HOOTMAN, Trane

JOHN HURST, Lennox 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 2

TOM JOHNSON, Daikin McQuay

JEFF KLEISS, Lochinvar

MICHAEL KOJAK, Underwriters Laboratories 

KAREN MEYERS, Rheem Manufacturing

PETE MOLVIE, Cleaver-Brooks

MASSOUD NESHAN, Southern CaseArts

HARVEY SACHS, ACEEE

JOE SANDERS, Traulsen*

RON SHEBIK, Hussmann*

FRANK STANONIK, AHRI

PHILLIP STEPHENS, HTP, Inc.

RUSTY THARP, Goodman Manufacturing

BILL TRITSIS, AHRI

ALSO PRESENT

ASHLEY ARMSTRONG, U.S. Department of Energy

LAURA BARHYDT, U.S. Department of Energy

JOHN CYMBALSKY, U.S. Department of Energy

JEREMIAH FREEMAN

MICHAEL RIVEST, Navigant 

*Present via teleconference
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 3

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

General Discussion Testing Programs 5

General Discussion on Motors 63

General Discussion on Verification and

 Certification 67
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 4

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

2 8:33 a.m.

3 MR. EISNER: All right, everybody. 

4 Our focus should be what's up on this screen. 

5 I remind you again, everybody has got to speak

6 in their playroom voice, get that voice up

7 there so that it can be heard.

8 We wanted to go back over the

9 slides this morning that we were looking at

10 last night because Karen was a key player and

11 she had to leave a little early, so she's had

12 a chance, I think, to look at the screen. 

13 Karen, do you have any comments

14 you want to start off with?

15 MS. MEYERS: Well, I guess I'd

16 rather address my comments to the breakout

17 group. I don't think this is exactly what we

18 agreed to.

19 MR. KLEISS: Yes, we left

20 everything there that was struck out, because

21 I didn't want anything taken away until you

22 got a chance to look at it.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 5

1 MS. MEYERS: So are we supporting

2 a manufacturer-funded verification testing

3 program?

4 MR. DOPPEL: That sentence was

5 removed.

6 MS. MEYERS: That was, I thought,

7 a key agreement that we had in our breakout

8 group. Have we taken that out?

9 MR. DOPPEL: The last statement

10 you made before you left was a lot different

11 from what we talked about in the breakout

12 session. So we took from that that -

13 MS. MEYERS: I'm not sure I agree

14 with that. Maybe you misinterpreted what I

15 said. I certainly didn't intend to say

16 anything different than what was in the

17 breakout session. I think I was commenting

18 more to Neil on the whole group that -- I

19 think I have to disagree with you. 

20 Maybe we can go back and reread it

21 and you can point out to me why you think I

22 said it with a contrast to my earlier
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 6

1 statements. I don't think I changed my

2 position yesterday. I thought the group had

3 come up and we were all in agreement. This

4 looks like a significant change.

5 I'm willing to talk about it with

6 the group, but I just really don't know that

7 I want to accept these changes until this

8 group has had a chance to convene and we can

9 kind of go through this and --

10 MR. EISNER: Do you want to take a

11 break now?

12 MS. MEYERS: I think it would be

13 important. I mean maybe there's something I'm

14 missing here, but it's a significant change

15 from what we agreed to in our breakout

16 session.

17 MR. EISNER: Why don't you guys

18 take five or ten minutes and go outside and

19 talk about this.

20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

21 matter went off the record at 8:36 a.m. and

22 resumed at 9:13 a.m.)
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 7

1 MR. EISNER: All right. Somebody

2 want to report?

3 MS. MEYERS: We've all agreed to

4 what's on the screen. 

5 MR. STEPHENS: It says --

6 MR. SACHS: Phil, your playground

7 voice, please. Sorry, can't hear you.

8 MR. STEPHENS: Sorry. We

9 discussed it and we all agreed on the wording

10 we have on the screen. We think this really

11 conveys the intent we had yesterday in a much

12 more pleasant choice of words.

13 (Laughter.)

14 (Pause.)

15 MR. EISNER: Okay, any comments,

16 questions? 

17 I believe we were at the point

18 yesterday where everybody agreed on other

19 sections. Does anybody want to reexamine it

20 or should we take a vote on the whole package?

21 MR. STEPHENS: I think we still

22 had a question as to the text and read.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 8

1 MR. EISNER: Okay.

2 MR. DOPPEL: I thought we had

3 stricken through that last night?

4 MS. BARHYDT: We did and then

5 there was some discussion as to whether or not

6 we should leave it because I think it was

7 Frank pointed out that they're all going to

8 hear about it anyway, so --

9 MR. STANONIK: Yes, Frank

10 Stanonik, AHRI. I was actually arguing you

11 didn't need it because it was going to come

12 up.

13 MS. BARHYDT: Oh, it was going to

14 come up anyway, okay. I got that backwards,

15 sorry.

16 MR. DOPPEL: I think that was the

17 kind of agreement that didn't need to be up

18 there.

19 MR. EISNER: Does anybody object

20 to deleting it?

21 MR. KLEISS: I think the statement

22 does have value, but if I'm the only one --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 9

1 MR. EISNER: Does anyone else --

2 MS. HOOTMAN: If it stays up

3 there, I have to vote no.

4 MR. EISNER: If it stays on the

5 screen.

6 MS. HOOTMAN: If it stays on

7 there.

8 MR. EISNER: Okay, so I'm getting

9 a sense that there are no objections? If

10 anybody objects to my thought?

11 MS. MEYERS: I actually kind of

12 liked the statement. I think it needs to be -

13 -

14 MR. HURST: Can you soften the

15 statement by saying that there's not

16 agreement. I think that maybe there's some

17 question. Would that resolve your issue,

18 Jill, if you said there's a question regarding

19 the DOE's authority?

20 MS. HOOTMAN: They do not want me

21 to vote.

22 MR. EISNER: Laura promised
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 10

1 yesterday that we would get the statutory

2 language up on the screen. Would it help to

3 look at that now in this context? 

4 MR. DOPPEL: I thought we were

5 going to get it sent to us.

6 MS. BARHYDT: Sorry, I forgot last

7 time.

8 MR. EISNER: I can discipline her

9 if you want.

10 (Laughter.)

11 MR. DOPPEL: I think the point we

12 read yesterday was that we haven't had time to

13 study that, so it's not like -- so it's like

14 an indeterminate phase so I don't think that

15 has any value at this point.

16 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim at

17 AHRI. I don't think we can debate the

18 language, the legal language.

19 MR. EISNER: I agree. I was just

20 asking whether it would help in terms of

21 whether we want to leave this in. Laura can

22 email it to everybody and maybe we can talk
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 11

1 about it later after you've had a chance to

2 look at it carefully.

3 MR. STANONIK: What would be the

4 purpose of having this formal statement? 

5 Again, and Ashley, I'll ask you, I mean in

6 your opinion, do you think it's possible that

7 the ASRAC Committee is going to discuss

8 everything that this working group has been

9 doing including the meeting yesterday and that

10 not come up?

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: It very well could

12 come up. It's open to the public. I would

13 say if the committee has a definitive position

14 on -- if there are questions, you should put

15 it on the sheet. That ensures that it will at

16 least be translated to ASRAC as the

17 committee's position. 

18 That being said, you know, public

19 participants, committee participants, some

20 media listening in right now, I'm on the

21 committee, things will come up that are not on

22 this sheet. But they don't represent the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 12

1 consensus or some type of vote of the

2 committee as a whole.

3 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik,

4 AHRI. I guess that's my point. This is not

5 a position. This is just an issue that came

6 up yesterday that is now a question.

7 MR. ADAMS: Charlie Adams. A.O.

8 Smith. Would it be helpful to change the

9 phrasing to say there is an open question on

10 whether DOE -- that is the position I hear in

11 the room. That would be an accurate

12 reflection --

13 MS. MEYERS: That's good. I can

14 go with that. 

15 Yes, Harvey?

16 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey Sachs,

17 ACEEE. I guess it puts me in an awkward

18 position. If that language is left, at best,

19 I will have to abstain because I don't believe

20 that the advocacy community believes that

21 there's doubt about the authority. 

22 MS. MEYERS: Can we say there's an
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 13

1 open question among manufacturers?

2 MR. SACHS: I hear you and I think

3 the language is improvement. I'm just -- I

4 certainly don't want it to be in the form of

5 a recommendation. As an information item,

6 fine. I'm also curious that Jill apparently

7 had a substantive problem with this and I wish

8 she'd repeat yesterday's or explain where she

9 is now.

10 MS. HOOTMAN: Our lawyers just did

11 not want me to lock ourselves into not further

12 suit ever, in the future, not on this and not

13 that I'm here not in good faith and all of

14 that. They just didn't want me to lock myself

15 in or lock in our company.

16 MR. SACHS: So if the language

17 that Charlie has suggested is theirs, an

18 information item rather than a recommendation,

19 is that acceptable?

20 MS. HOOTMAN: If it is not a

21 recommendation then --

22 MR. DOPPEL: This is Paul Doppel. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 14

1 Again, to me that statement is just not -- it

2 just does not accurately reflect what the

3 situation is because I think that everyone --

4 we're all talking about developing program

5 guidelines for a volunteer organization that

6 wants to have a verification program. And for

7 DOE to require people to participate in the

8 verification program, I don't think is an

9 issue. The funding part of it, again, those

10 of us who are currently in a voluntary program

11 are already paying, so the paying part is not

12 an issue. What is being required is that

13 those who are not in the voluntary program

14 would have to be part of one and have to pay

15 to be whatever it is to participate in that

16 voluntary program.

17 That's really what the issue is. 

18 If you're already in a voluntary program, this

19 whole issue doesn't matter because everything

20 we're setting up is just for DOE to require

21 those who are not participating to

22 participate. So it's a good thing for us who
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 15

1 are already paying. It levels the playing

2 field.

3 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman

4 from National. I just got to throw into it. 

5 I understand that people in the program you

6 have less worries, I'll say, but -- he

7 wouldn't do it, but what if Karim decides next

8 year his program is going to cost twice as

9 much as it does this year? You can decide if

10 you're going to drop out of that program. If

11 you're in it today, which is fine -- I

12 understand, we have companies that are in

13 that. That's my concern is locking into

14 something that's --

15 MR. DOPPEL: It's not going to say

16 lock into AHRI. It says a program. And

17 another program could be initiated.

18 MR. BAUMAN: People in the program

19 in the future would have the option of

20 dropping out --

21 MR. DOPPEL: They would drop out

22 of one program and then go into another.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 16

1 MR. BAUMAN: No, I'm saying you

2 decide you don't want to use it, the voluntary

3 program, anymore. You're not going to have

4 that option under this -

5 MR. DOPPEL: But what is driving

6 this is if you are listed on the DOE website,

7 the CCMS, all of us have come to agreement

8 that if you're on that list, you should be --

9 those ratings should be verified.

10 MR. BAUMAN: Absolutely.

11 MR. DOPPEL: And what we're

12 getting to is they should be verified through

13 a program. So the whole issue can DOE require

14 people to participate in a program? If you

15 participate in a program, it's going to cost

16 money, because testing is not free, but it's

17 not going to be DOE telling you to be in --

18 you're in a voluntary program, but you have to

19 be in a program. If you can find a program

20 that is the Harvey Sachs generosity

21 verification program, and testing is free,

22 then that's a good thing. But I don't think
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 17

1 you'll find that.

2 MR. EISNER: I'm not sure where

3 you're going with this. If DOE were to simply

4 to write a rule that said here are the

5 criteria for a testing program. If you engage

6 in an organization that meets this criteria,

7 and let's assume AHRI does, then when AHRI

8 does a test and verifies it we will put it on

9 List A. List B will simply be products that

10 have been certified. They have not gone

11 through any verification program because DOE

12 doesn't require a verification program. They

13 just say we'll put you on List A if you go

14 through a qualified program. Is that what

15 you're talking about? Is that what you mean?

16 MR. DOPPEL: No, no. 

17 (Simultaneous speaking.)

18 MS. MEYERS: So I think what we're

19 saying is really what the boiler and water

20 heater group put in their first sentence. So

21 we do support specific verification

22 requirements for companies not participating
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 18

1 in a voluntary recognized program. Right? Do

2 you agree with that?

3 MR. DOPPEL: Right.

4 MR. HON: The next sentence is

5 purely an editorial comment.

6 MS. MEYERS: But it's an important

7 one for our group.

8 MR. EISNER: Again, what I'm not

9 suggesting is not that anybody be required to

10 do anything. It's simply DOE will break its

11 webpage up into two pages. To get on the A

12 List, you have to meet the criteria DOE sets

13 out for a verification program. And it's not

14 requiring anybody to be in that program, but

15 if you want to be on the A List, you have to

16 go through one of those programs. I thought

17 that's where you were going because we're

18 talking about whether they had the legal

19 authority to require you to have verification

20 testing.

21 MR. MOLVIE: This is Pete Molvie

22 with Cleaver-Brooks. It's more than just
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 19

1 whether DOE has the legal authority to require

2 it. It's whether there are laboratories out

3 there that can actually fulfill verification -

4 - any verification program for larger boilers. 

5 They just don't exist.

6 MR. EISNER: I understand that

7 might be a very separate issue.

8 MR. MOLVIE: I'm just bringing it

9 up because I don't want people to forget.

10 MR. EISNER: And maybe that's

11 listed, boilers which can't be subject to any

12 kind of a program.

13 MR. DOPPEL: Right, and that's why

14 we've broken it up into different groups

15 because each group has their issues, HVAC is

16 a lot simpler at this point. CRE, dealing

17 with their situation.

18 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss,

19 Lochinvar. To the question of authority, the

20 statement that's on the screen currently, in

21 discussions yesterday, there were two lawyers

22 in the room that are versed on this subject,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 20

1 one from AHRI and a lawyer from DOE. And as

2 I heard it -

3 MR. THARP: Don't forget Tim.

4 (Laughter.)

5 MR. KLEISS: Okay, there were more

6 lawyers than I thought.

7 (Laughter.)

8 MR. KLEISS: In the dialogue

9 between the two of them, verbal and nonverbal,

10 what I heard and saw yesterday was an

11 agreement that there were two separate

12 opinions on this that they did or they did not

13 and that there was a pre-existing law or

14 supporting cases that either of them could

15 use. He said that I have cases I could use to

16 support this and I saw Laura and he said Laura

17 would have cases that she could cite to

18 support their authority to do this and she was

19 nodding vigorously.

20 (Laughter.)

21 MR. KLEISS: So there is an open

22 question about whether or not DOE has that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 21

1 authority. There were lawyers in the room

2 that were supporting the two different

3 opinions and said that they had information to

4 support that. I believe that the statement on

5 the screen is reflecting exactly what we heard

6 from expert testimony in this meeting.

7 (Laughter.)

8 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. My

9 colleague, Mr. Ballo, Esquire, is shy.

10 (Laughter.)

11 MR. SACHS: He really explicitly

12 stated his opinion that there is authority and

13 if this were an appeals court rather than

14 expert witnesses, the vote would be 2 to 1.

15 (Laughter.)

16 MR. SACHS: I'm pulling your chain

17 a bit, but I have no problems with leaving it

18 if it's acceptable to everyone else.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can I ask more of

20 a fundamental question? This document, is

21 this supposed to represent -- this is for you. 

22 So is this supposed to represent the opinion
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 22

1 of the entire working group or is this

2 supposed to represent the positions of the

3 breakout groups? Because I think it matters,

4 especially -- it matters substantially to the

5 Department.

6 MR. EISNER: Where it is located

7 now, it's supposed to be the whole working

8 group.

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's not going

10 to fly.

11 MR. EISNER: That's why it was

12 pulled out, I thought. So it reflected -

13 MS. BARHYDT: Oh, just the legal

14 authority.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: What about the

16 working group sections, is that just the

17 breakout sections? So that's not the

18 Department's position, that's not the working

19 group's position. 

20 MR. EISNER: Well, again, it's not

21 clear to the reader of this whether the

22 Government was in any of those working group
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 23

1 sessions.

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: I was going to be

3 reading it and make clear that the Government

4 was not.

5 MR. EISNER: Okay.

6 MR. HON: I will not vote for this

7 unless it spells out that these are three

8 separate groups that did not review each

9 other's work.

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: And the Department

11 did not. I think it should say that.

12 MS. BARHYDT: You all were in the

13 groups. I mean, I think these represent the

14 views of those manufacturers in those areas.

15 MR. STEPHENS: Some of those

16 manufacturers.

17 MS. BARHYDT: Right, because some

18 of you overlap and weren't able to be --

19 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim from

20 AHRI. This is how the ground rules were

21 established at the beginning that we will be

22 then coming back to ASRAC with I guess with
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 24

1 recommendations on separate working groups

2 instead of the whole group?

3 MR. EISNER: No, we're not

4 finished. We've had three working groups come

5 back and report their positions as subgroups

6 and what I would envision is we were all going

7 to be discussing each of those three and

8 reaching agreement. We may say no, we can't

9 agree with what you want to do in this

10 subgroup, but we do agree with this other

11 thing here. If you can accept this language,

12 we can agree to that part. 

13 MS. BARHYDT: So I guess what I

14 had understood yesterday was that this section

15 isn't going to be handed out, published, or

16 anything, that it has some talking points that

17 -- so that we have a summary of where the

18 groups are, but that it's not a -- it's not

19 going to be commemorated as this is our

20 position. It is a status update of where

21 things currently stand for manufacturers in

22 three different groups. Is that --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 25

1 MR. EISNER: Yes. From my

2 perspective, that's what I heard, that's what

3 I understood. If the group agrees to it, we

4 can say the subgroup reports that here's where

5 they are. The question is still going to be

6 resolved --

7 MS. BARHYDT: The legal authority.

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sorry to get off

9 track.

10 MR. EISNER: We have very

11 different opinions on that right now from what

12 I'm hearing. 

13 MS. BARHYDT: And the legal

14 authority, we would only be okay with it if it

15 says explicitly that DOE believes it has the

16 authority to require participation. However,

17 other parties --

18 MR. EISNER: And somebody

19 suggested it say some manufacturers or no

20 manufacturers.

21 MR. BALLO: Would it be more

22 accurate to describe it as some manufacturers
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 26

1 wish to reserve the right to object to DOE's

2 authority because it's not that they

3 necessarily -- I get the sense it's not

4 necessarily that you are convinced of that

5 right now absolutely and forever, but if

6 you're not happy with the outcome of this, you

7 would potentially want to challenge DOE's

8 authority. 

9 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel from

10 Mitsubishi. I think there's really two issues

11 within this and one is I think that everyone 

12 agrees again that DOE has the authority to

13 require participation in a program. The issue

14 is who pays for it?

15 MS. BARHYDT: Right, that's the

16 "manufacturer-funded."

17 MR. DOPPEL: Yes, but see, that

18 makes it look like we say you can't have a

19 program. You can require us to participate in

20 a program. The issue is who pays for it. 

21 That's the issue. It's not --

22 MS. BARHYDT: I thought you said
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 27

1 that part of the idea was that if you were in

2 a program like AHRI's, then you're not

3 required to participate in a different

4 program, but that if you are not in a program

5 like AHRI's, DOE would require you to

6 participate in another program which we would

7 have to have authority to require you to

8 participate in another program in order to

9 impose that requirement. 

10 So if there's a question in your

11 mind as to whether or not we have the

12 authority to require participation in a

13 program, I mean it's not like you can say

14 well, you have authority here and don't have

15 authority there.

16 MR. DOPPEL: But just like I was

17 saying before, if you require participation in

18 a verification program, there's going to be

19 funding associated with it anyway.

20 MR. EISNER: I'm not sure I

21 understand.

22 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, so I think I
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 28

1 understand now. You're saying that if you

2 participate in a program like AHRI's, DOE

3 wouldn't require you to participate in another

4 program, but this other program DOE would be

5 requiring you to participate in would be a DOE

6 paid for program?

7 MR. DOPPEL: No, no. 

8 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

9 MR. DOPPEL: If you're in any kind

10 of a program, I mean if I go to UL and say

11 hey, I want to be in a program, but you have

12 to pay for the testing, they're going to tell

13 me to take a hike. Okay, so by the very

14 nature of you saying you have to participate

15 in a verification program implies that there

16 are going to be costs associated with that.

17 MS. BARHYDT: I'm with you there.

18 MR. DOPPEL: It's there. Okay. 

19 So what I'm saying is this whole sentence

20 doesn't make any sense because we're all

21 saying everybody should be -- if you're going

22 to be on the CCMS list, you should be
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 29

1 verified. And it costs money to be verified.

2 MS. MEYERS: Maybe we should say

3 that.

4 MS. BARHYDT: But I thought that

5 there were --

6 MR. DOPPEL: Well, okay, if you're

7 going to enter into the program, maybe you

8 haven't had your products verified yet. But

9 you're still required to list them. See,

10 there's a sequencing there. So they may say

11 I'm certifying my products, but I'm not

12 verified yet.

13 MS. MEYERS: So is DOE required to

14 publish all ratings, whether they're verified

15 or not? You didn't use to, so -- I mean the

16 question is we still go back to this website

17 that's giving us all heartburn. So could it

18 be -- could the Department take a position

19 that if you want to be on the CCMs website,

20 you have to have verified ratings.

21 MR. BALLO: I don't think the

22 Department can take that position. I'm
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 30

1 totally happy to have two separate databases

2 if that makes you all comfortable.

3 (Simultaneous speaking.)

4 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I

5 have a question. If there's a verification

6 program required, then there's no two separate

7 lists because everybody is verified.

8 MR. DOPPEL: Well, again, it's the

9 sequencing of that. Again, to put your

10 products into commerce, you have to be on the

11 list.

12 MR. HON: That's correct.

13 MR. DOPPEL: You have to certify. 

14 So DOE needs to decide whether you can be on

15 that certified list without being verified.

16 MR. HON: That's what we're

17 discussing right now.

18 MS. HOOTMAN: And if the

19 requirements of each of those verification

20 programs, if they're uniquely different and

21 requiring over and above testing for DOE, then

22 it's actually saying you're going to spend for
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 31

1 your own verification program and in addition. 

2 Because if the requirements of the DOE

3 verification is different, it could require

4 over and above in addition.

5 MR. STANONIK: If you agree with

6 what Paul just said, you better pull back your

7 recommendation on certification. You just

8 reopened the whole certification regulation

9 because --

10 MS. HOOTMAN: Certification?

11 MR. STANONIK: The requirements

12 are, you want to change it, you can talk to

13 these people. The requirements are you have

14 to certify your product before it can be

15 introduced in commerce. It is your

16 responsibility as a manufacturer to have

17 testing done to determine that rating and that

18 can be done anywhere, all right? And once you

19 do that and once you give them that

20 certification report, it goes on the list. It

21 is certified.

22 Now if you're saying it isn't
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 32

1 certified, it's verified, you've just reopened

2 the certification - 

3 MR. DOPPEL: That's not --

4 MR. STANONIK: That's what you

5 said. Yes, it was.

6 (Simultaneous speaking.)

7 MR. EISNER: Let's speak one at a

8 time. Have pity on the court reporter.

9 (Laughter.)

10 MR. DOPPEL: That's the B List.

11 MR. STANONIK: You just said list.

12 MR. DOPPEL: It's the B List.

13 MR. EISNER: Let's see if we have

14 agreement. The agreement is you don't get on

15 the list until you're certified. Can DOE have

16 two lists of certified products, those that

17 are verified independently and those that are

18 not?

19 MS. BARHYDT: Only if we have a

20 DOE-approved verification program.

21 MR. EISNER: And that can be a

22 voluntary thing. DOE can say if you are
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 33

1 certified by a verified -- by a program that

2 meets the following standards, we can put you

3 on a separate list to say you were certified

4 and verified.

5 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, we could do

6 that.

7 MR. THARP: And then we'll let the

8 market drive everybody to be on the A List.

9 MS. BARHYDT: And I'm saying yes,

10 we could do that legally. We have not made a

11 policy decision on that.

12 MR. EISNER: Now does anybody

13 question the legal authority to do that

14 because they're not requiring anybody to pay

15 for anything?

16 MR. HON: I have a question. 

17 We're also discussing mandatory verification. 

18 MR. EISNER: Pull back. Pull

19 back. I'm just trying to clarify what there

20 is agreement to. Do we have agreement with

21 everybody in the room that DOE could say if

22 you voluntarily get verification through a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 34

1 program that meets our standards that are set

2 out here, we will put you on a separate list

3 saying you've been certified and verified. 

4 You don't have to, but you won't get from the

5 certified list to the certified and verified

6 list without doing it. All voluntary, nobody

7 has to incur any additional cost.

8 MS. DANE: Would that eliminate

9 the verification on the back side?

10 MR. EISNER: I'm not sure what you

11 mean back side?

12 MS. DANE: Well, if you belong to

13 it, my question is where does the verification

14 come in? I thought we had already closed out

15 certification.

16 MR. EISNER: We closed out

17 certification. Nothing changes. You still

18 get on the certified list. If you want to get

19 on the verified list, you have to go through

20 a program that meets the standards that we

21 would all agree to in this room.

22 MS. BARHYDT: And Mary, we're not
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 35

1 agreeing to this as a policy matter. We're

2 agreeing as to whether or not DOE could

3 legally do this. 

4 MS. DANE: If we're voting on

5 whether you could legally do it or not.

6 MR. EISNER: And we're not --

7 we're not eliminating the possibility that we

8 will require it of this group or recommend

9 requiring verification for everyone and then

10 the next issue would be who pays for that

11 verification? I'm not saying we couldn't go

12 that way, I'm just trying to figure out where

13 there is consensus as to an approach.

14 So does anybody object to the

15 separate listing through use of voluntary

16 programs meeting DOE standards?

17 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I

18 do object to that because we have customers

19 who can't hardly figure out one list much less

20 two lists. I don't know how else to say that.

21 (Simultaneous speaking.)

22 MS. HOOTMAN: Charlie, I don't
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 36

1 disagree. We have customers who can't spell

2 DOE.

3 (Laughter.)

4 MR. EISNER: Remember, there's a

5 court reporter taking all of this down.

6 (Laughter.)

7 MR. HON: The problem is -- I just

8 disagree with it because any time you have two

9 separate lists, somebody will go in and

10 they'll look at the list and say I looked at

11 this list and you weren't on it. And it could

12 be the A List. They looked at the B List and

13 we weren't on it, so therefore they wouldn't

14 buy from us. And in a market which is driven

15 quite often by energy efficiency which I live

16 in, that can be a real problem.

17 I will object to any double list,

18 unless we go through a process where there's

19 a verification requirement involved so that

20 everyone will be a verified -- eventually move

21 everything over to the verified list.

22 MS. BARHYDT: Again, my
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 37

1 understanding of what we're talking about is

2 just whether or not we have authority to --

3 whether or not everybody agrees that there's

4 authority for it, not agreeing to that

5 approach. I would be --

6 MR. EISNER: You may have policy

7 reasons for why you oppose it. As a legal

8 matter, the question is do you see any problem

9 with that?

10 MR. HON: The DOE has to give

11 their opinion of that. That's their opinion. 

12 And if they believe they have the right to do

13 that, they have a right to do that unless they

14 decide otherwise. I'm not going to dispute

15 their interpretation on this one. But I have

16 a basic objection to a double list for

17 different reasons.

18 MR. EISNER: Understood.

19 MS. DANE: And I would say no for

20 the same reason, plus I'd like to see the

21 language before I vote whether or not --

22 MR. EISNER: We're just trying to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 38

1 clarify where people are right now. We're not

2 trying to vote on a recommendation.

3 (Simultaneous speaking.)

4 MS. DANE: I would feel better. 

5 I'm very visual.

6 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel,

7 Mitsubishi. There's so many other little

8 things that are associated with this that --

9 I mean this just muddles everything and if

10 it's just dropped, then we'll have all the

11 groups are wanting to do what their

12 verification programs look like and then we

13 can get back together and piece together what

14 all that means. But a lot of the stuff that

15 we're talking about is how to participate in

16 a verification program which has nothing to do

17 with what this statement says which is DOE

18 having authority. So again this just muddles

19 everything and should be gone.

20 MR. EISNER: You're saying the

21 statement on legal authority muddles it.

22 MR. DOPPEL: Yes, this should be
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 39

1 gone.

2 MR. EISNER: Other thoughts?

3 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman

4 from National. I think it goes back to

5 Ashley's point, is this something that we want

6 ASRAC to know that I'll say the working group

7 has been struggling with or has had questions

8 about and what she said if we think that's an

9 important issue to notify them about, we'll

10 call it that, then we should -- there should

11 be a statement in here included on that. I

12 agree with the concern, Paul, but we had

13 enough debate about this. I think it should

14 somehow, be noted through the report back to

15 ASRAC that this group has been having some

16 struggle with this issue.

17 MR. DOPPEL: But again, I think

18 from when we walked in this morning to where

19 we are now, we're seeing this whole issue in

20 a different light, hopefully. And so it's

21 what was put on the board yesterday is not

22 really relevant to where our discussion is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 40

1 today.

2 MR. BAUMAN: Is everybody in here

3 agreed that DOE has the authority to make

4 manufacturers pay for a program? And I'm

5 seeing heads going no, which is fine, but that

6 to me is what we're struggling with.

7 MR. DOPPEL: But that's not really

8 the issue. If you are required to be in a

9 program, you're going to pay for it anyway.

10 MR. BAUMAN: No, what we started

11 out with --

12 MR. DOPPEL: You cannot be in a

13 verification program and not pay for it.

14 MR. BAUMAN: Okay, again it goes

15 back to the idea of whether you need it. 

16 Every product and one of the things we talked

17 about does every product category need a

18 verification program? If these guys say --

19 MR. DOPPEL: That's for your group

20 to decide.

21 MR. BAUMAN: Okay.

22 MR. DOPPEL: You guys have to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 41

1 decide what to do on that, on what

2 verification means for your group. 

3 MR. BAUMAN: Understood. And

4 that's what I'm trying to leave that open for

5 the groups to decide about. I'm not -- I'll

6 drop it. I understand your objection. I

7 think it's -- but I don't think the idea of

8 just dropping this off of our list of concerns

9 or items back to ASRAC is a good move. But I

10 will abstain or vote no if we take it off.

11 MR. EISNER: Frank, did you want

12 to -

13 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik,

14 AHRI. Again, I thought you're discussing

15 whether or not some statement of this nature

16 would be written down and I guess verbally

17 presented or something to ASRAC. And it keeps

18 quickly evolving into discussions of what

19 programs might be or what programs might

20 require. If you really think something there,

21 I would suggest first of all saying a question

22 was raised whether DOE has authority to
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 42

1 require participation in manufacturer-funded

2 verification programs. That is a statement of

3 fact. It was raised, okay?

4 It could then say the working

5 group recognizes it cannot answer that

6 question and wishes to continue to pursue its

7 negotiations on verification. Have I said

8 anything untrue?

9 MR. EISNER: Comments?

10 MS. MEYERS: Can you say that one

11 more time, Frank?

12 MR. STANONIK: A question was

13 raised on whether DOE has authority to require

14 participation in a manufacturer-funded

15 verification -- and I would say testing

16 program, but you can say whatever you want. 

17 We're the working group. 

18 The working group recognizes it

19 cannot answer that question. And therefore

20 wishes to continue its negotiations on a

21 verification program, verification regulation,

22 whichever is the way.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 43

1 MR. EISNER: And Laura, you want

2 to add to that, the sentence that you actually

3 raised? DOE believes it does have authority.

4 Does anybody have a problem with

5 adding that?

6 MR. STANONIK: They're all

7 statements of fact.

8 MR. EISNER: Does anybody have

9 questions or comments about this?

10 MR. KLEISS: How about the group

11 recognizes that it cannot definitively answer

12 this question.

13 MR. STANONIK: There's only an

14 answer, a definite answer. It doesn't matter. 

15 There's only an answer, yes or no.

16 MR. KLEISS: That's fine.

17 MR. EISNER: Other comments?

18 MR. DOPPEL: I'm trying to

19 formulate --

20 MR. AMRANE: I think it's fine. I

21 think we're reflecting what the discussion

22 happened in this committee. It's just the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 44

1 facts, that's it.

2 MR. EISNER: Paul?

3 MR. DOPPEL: Okay, I think what

4 we're saying also as far as continue working

5 to develop a framework for a verification

6 program that needs to be expanded a little bit

7 more because -- to include something about

8 what you were just saying about requiring

9 manufacturers who are not in a program.

10 MR. STANONIK: That's in all the

11 subgroup --

12 MR. DOPPEL: I know, but we need

13 to have something in there that says that it's

14 related to people who are not in a voluntary

15 program.

16 MS. BARHYDT: But I guess what

17 conceptually doesn't make sense to me about

18 that, Paul, is that at that point we're saying

19 you have to be in this one or that one, so

20 we're still requiring being in one. It's not

21 really voluntary. It's just you're picking

22 and choosing which one and so --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 45

1 MS. HOOTMAN: Or to what extent

2 you are in any event. There may be is a

3 choice or levels, all of that kind of stuff. 

4 Maybe there is --

5 MS. BARHYDT: That makes sense,

6 but I still, what I'm hearing and say is you

7 have to be in one or the other in some way,

8 that there's no opt out. MR. BAUMAN: If it's

9 manufacturer-funded. DOE could make their own

10 and fund their own verification program.

11 MS. BARHYDT: We already knew

12 that.

13 MR. BAUMAN: To me, that still

14 seems to be the question. We ask whether you

15 can have a verification program and

16 manufacturers don't fund. Yes, DOE can get

17 this huge budget and pay for themselves. And

18 there's some people we've heard in our

19 industry that think that's how it should be

20 handled. DOE pays for everything and that's -

21 - we have different positions, but I think

22 that's the question is who pays for the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 46

1 verification program? Even if you can have

2 one. I think if we have one, it's who pays

3 for it? Can you afford the manufacturers to

4 pay for it or not?

5 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik,

6 AHRI. This item was -- the essence of this

7 item is does this working group want to

8 officially tell ASRAC about this issue that

9 came up? All the other stuff you're talking

10 about in terms of where each subgroup has

11 gotten with their negotiations on

12 verification, that's addressed in all that

13 other information and you either need to

14 decide do you want to tell ASRAC about this

15 issue or not? And you keep going back to

16 what's the verification program going to be? 

17 What is it going to require? What's the

18 regulation? That's not -- this sentence is

19 not about that. This sentence is are you

20 going to tell ASRAC that we had this 

21 -- spent hours yesterday discussing whether or

22 not the question of legal authority. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 47

1 MS. MEYERS: I would agree with

2 this sentence if you took out "but wishes to

3 continue developing a framework for a

4 verification program" because I think all the

5 groups feel differently about that, and each

6 group has discussed this in breakout, in their

7 own breakout sessions and those views are

8 reflected above. 

9 I don't know, you know --

10 MS. BARHYDT: Wait, Karen. So are

11 you saying that your group is not certain that

12 it wishes to --

13 MS. MEYERS: That's not what I'm

14 saying. I think that is what I said, but

15 that's not what I meant.

16 (Laughter.)

17 MS. MEYERS: Let me see if I can

18 rephrase that. I think you're right. I did

19 say that, but I was thinking something else.

20 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel,

21 Mitsubishi. I think if we said "but as

22 indicated each group is continuing developing
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 48

1 a framework for verification program."

2 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

3 HTP. I think we discussed yesterday and we

4 realize that this conversation is outside the

5 scope of the working group, the things we're

6 supposed to be deciding. I think if the

7 company you represent has these feelings

8 strongly, it's up to you individually to make

9 that decision to pursue whatever actions you

10 deem necessary outside of this group, but this

11 group has other things that we need to focus

12 on.

13 MR. KLEISS: What's your

14 suggestion?

15 MS. BARHYDT: Phillip's suggestion

16 we move on to motors.

17 (Laughter.)

18 (Simultaneous speaking.)

19 MR. STEPHENS: I think the boilers

20 and water heaters have other things we need to

21 discuss also.

22 MS. MEYERS: So I like the way
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 49

1 it's currently been modified.

2 MR. EISNER: From my position, if

3 more than two people believe that -- if

4 multiple people believe that DOE has the legal

5 authority to require a manufacturer-funded

6 program, and another significant percentage of

7 people believe DOE does not have that

8 authority, I don't know what you would be

9 negotiating. If DOE wants a funded program,

10 a manufacturer-funded program, and others in

11 the room want that, why would they continue in

12 negotiations knowing that neither side has the

13 votes to get approval to what they want?

14 MR. THARP: Because we don't know

15 what the verification program requirements

16 are.

17 MR. EISNER: If they don't have

18 the legal authority, would you compromise to

19 give them something that you don't think they

20 have any legal authority over?

21 MR. THARP: We're not questioning

22 -- we would be negotiating a program that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 50

1 would either be DOE mandated or DOE approved

2 and I think the difference is in either case

3 we would like the verification program to be

4 the same.

5 MR. EISNER: But you're asking DOE

6 to give up its complete position. If it

7 believes that it has and should use the

8 authority to have a manufacturer-funded

9 program, they may do it in ways were they can

10 give a little here and a little there, but it

11 has to be a manufacturer-funded program. How

12 can they effectively negotiate knowing they're

13 not going to get anything of what they want? 

14 Don't we have to resolve the legal authority

15 issue to everybody's satisfaction?

16 MR. BAUMAN: I think the question

17 is the funding. You can still develop a

18 verification program.

19 MR. EISNER: You can, but if DOE's

20 going in position we can't do it if it's DOE21 funded, therefore, there's nothing for us to

22 negotiate.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 51

1 MR. ADAMS: Charlie Adams, A.O.

2 Smith. I've not heard that said. Granted, I

3 haven't been here the whole time, but DOE has

4 a program today that they are funding

5 themselves.

6 MS. BARHYDT: Not on the scale of

7 what we've discussed.

8 MR. ADAMS: But there is a program

9 that is being funded.

10 MR. EISNER: And the point is what

11 is the reason for further negotiation if that

12 is the most they can have.

13 MR. BAUMAN: From CRE, I think

14 we're in the position that DOE has the

15 authority, but if somebody came back and

16 successfully sued or somehow beat her, I think

17 the part that we're proposing would be funded

18 by the Department at a minimum cost to the

19 Department. It could still be -- as it came

20 to that, we don't think it would. But I think

21 the recommendations that we're putting out,

22 even if it ultimately after legal issues were
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 52

1 worked out became funded by the Department, I

2 think we'd still want to present to have the

3 Department to consider that for them to run

4 and that and fund themselves.

5 MS. MEYERS: Would the Department

6 be able to have an optional verification

7 program for manufacturers to participate in? 

8 So if we went through this process of

9 developing this framework, but it wouldn't be

10 mandated, it would be optional.

11 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, so that was

12 Neil's question earlier and I said yes, we

13 have authority to do that. Whether or not the

14 Department would do that is a policy question

15 we haven't discussed.

16 MS. MEYERS: So I think that's why

17 I continue to think these discussions are

18 important because there's a lot -- we've

19 gotten -- we've moved the ball down the line,

20 so let's keep going and these are other -- you

21 know, if it's definitively decided that DOE

22 does have the authority, but the working group
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 53

1 thinks that the requirements need to be

2 optional, I think we could have that

3 discussion. If it's definitively decided that

4 DOE doesn't have the authority, then maybe the

5 optional requirements can continue to be put

6 into the statute which then goes back to this

7 list, here's optional -- you know, it almost

8 becomes a marketing tool. I don't know.

9 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim. I

10 don't think that DOE is going to be different

11 if we determine DOE has the authority or not. 

12 I think they believe they have the authority,

13 so I think it's going to move that way. I

14 think the reason the question was asked

15 yesterday is really to ask if DOE did its

16 homework and look at it seriously because it's

17 going to be eventually challenging in the

18 future and that's all. I don't think we can

19 answer the question. I think eventually if

20 DOE moves ahead with it, we're going to find

21 out if somebody sued DOE, whether they really

22 have the authority or not. That's all.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 54

1 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss,

2 Lochinvar. In my mind, there are two very

3 distinct, separate issues. One is whether or

4 not DOE has the authority to have a

5 manufacturer-funded verification testing

6 program. The other one is if there is a

7 manufacturer-funded verification testing

8 program, or if there's any verification

9 program, what is the minimum requirement? And

10 that is what we are, I think, a part of

11 negotiating and discussing. I'm very much

12 interested in being a part of developing what

13 is that minimum standard that should be met in

14 order to be accepted by DOE as a verification? 

15 MR. EISNER: I understand that. 

16 All I am suggesting is that you're saying to

17 people in this room that you'll negotiate on

18 that, but you don't think they have a legal

19 authority to do it. So the question will be

20 whether people will think there's going to be

21 reasonable give and take that warrants time to

22 develop the kinds of things you get through
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 55

1 negotiations. That's all. And I'm talking

2 about both sides. If DOE believes it needs a

3 manufacturer-funded program, then they may not

4 be able to negotiate effectively.

5 MR. FLY: Mark Fly with AAON. 

6 Laura, if -- you said this is a policy

7 decision, so there is some possibility that

8 DOE will make the policy decision even though

9 it believes it has the authority to mandate a

10 manufacturer-funded program that they could

11 also do the two lists for the voluntary

12 program.

13 MS. BARHYDT: That is a

14 possibility.

15 MR. FLY: I mean those are really

16 the two choices I see that are being laid out

17 on the table. Either we have an optional

18 program in which case we would like that

19 listed in two lists so that you could see who

20 was participating in the optional program and

21 who was not. Or we have a mandatory program

22 that everybody is on there and we have one
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 56

1 list. And the decision between those two

2 happens in two places. There's a legal

3 authority and there's a DOE policy and it

4 could go either way in either place.

5 MS. BARHYDT: Very well said.

6 MR. FLY: But neither one of them

7 precludes us from having -- needing to develop

8 a minimum set of requirements for a

9 verification program.

10 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. I would say

11 though that I think whether it's required or

12 not has a huge impact on what that program --

13 at least my guess is that everybody in this

14 room may have different views if it's

15 voluntary what those requirements should be

16 versus if it's mandatory what those

17 requirements should be. And so to the extent

18 that that has an impact on the negotiation, I

19 think it would behoove everyone to figure out

20 which we were doing early on.

21 MR. KOJAK: Couldn't we do both?

22 MS. BARHYDT: I'm just thinking of
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 57

1 the nightmare number of details.

2 (Laughter.)

3 And doing it twice?

4 MR. FLY: It's still minimum

5 requirements.

6 MS. BARHYDT: If it's voluntary,

7 then it's minimum requirements for a --

8 basically I think it was Karen who said it,

9 basically for marketing. I mean DOE gets

10 useful information out of it, but it's not the

11 same level of certainty that we would get from

12 a mandatory program. And so it's kind of like

13 what's in it for us then if it's just a low

14 bar?

15 MR. EISNER: Okay, I think it's

16 time, unless somebody has got some wording

17 changes they would like to see, I think it's

18 time to take a vote on this.

19 Are there any objections to this

20 language being presented by Ashley this

21 afternoon to the ASRAC group?

22 MR. HON: I would like to clarify
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 58

1 that each one of these is a separate group,

2 not voted on as a whole.

3 MR. EISNER: Let's go back up to

4 the group descriptions. That's a good point. 

5 Why don't we say the subgroup, start off with

6 something like on CRE and say this for each,

7 the subgroup looking at this issue

8 preliminarily -- I'm sorry, say that again?

9 (Off the record comments.)

10 MR. EISNER: The following are

11 reports from the subgroups looking at their

12 specific area as they develop their ideas to

13 present to the full working group. Is that

14 sufficient?

15 MR. HON: Yes, because that

16 doesn't say that we're supporting any of these

17 others.

18 MR. EISNER: And it also makes

19 clear it's not final even apart from the

20 subgroup that you still have more work to do.

21 MR. HON: Yes, I can deal with

22 that.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 59

1 MR. EISNER: Okay, any objections

2 to that language?

3 (No response.)

4 Any abstentions?

5 MS. DANE: We deleted that then,

6 right? We deleted the legal authority

7 statement?

8 MR. EISNER: No, the legal

9 authority statement is still in.

10 (Simultaneous speaking.)

11 MR. EISNER: Everybody take a look

12 at that and let's take another look.

13 MR. STEPHENS: I would say was

14 raised by some manufacturer's whether DOE has

15 authority.

16 MR. STANONIK: What difference

17 does that make?

18 MS. DANE: Because it seems to be

19 in a particular market segment.

20 MS. BARHYDT: Well, I would say to

21 the extent that the advocates --

22 MS. DANE: And it's basically been
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 60

1 raised by one group that already has

2 certification program. The rest of us don't

3 already have a certification program we belong

4 to.

5 MR. BAUMAN: I didn't raise it,

6 but I'm interested in it.

7 MR. HURST: I'm interested, too. 

8 I don't think it's an issue. My concern is

9 not so much in here. I said it yesterday, I

10 don't want to go through another regional

11 standards where we get something out of left

12 field and then it gets caught up in court. So

13 if we can get a definitive legal opinion, I

14 don't really care who it comes from as long as

15 it's a good one.

16 (Laughter.)

17 Like I said yesterday, my opinion

18 doesn't really matter, but I would -- I would

19 much rather resolve this early than have it

20 come at us out of left field two years from

21 now. So if there's a concern there's a

22 concern. My opinion doesn't matter, but let's
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 61

1 resolve it and move on.

2 MR. SACHS: Could someone who's

3 advocating the language edition by some

4 manufacturers try once again to help me

5 understand it? I'm agnostic. I'm really

6 trying to understand why it's important to add

7 those words.

8 MR. HURST: Because some

9 manufacturers haven't raised it, I guess. I

10 didn't advocate adding it, but I think what

11 I'm hearing is somebody saying I don't have an

12 issue with it, so don't lump me into that all

13 manufacturers because it's only some.

14 MR. EISNER: How about the

15 questions was raised -- that's not

16 grammatically correct, but we can fix that. 

17 The question was raised by some. Would that

18 be better? Or some members?

19 MR. BAUMAN: I don't think it

20 would be members because it was raised by

21 other groups, but it was also raised, as I

22 think I've said in some of the phone
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 62

1 conversations we've had even on CRE --

2 MR. EISNER: By some affected

3 interests?

4 MR. BAUMAN: Sure. It would be a

5 member outside this group.

6 MR. SACHS: What about just raised

7 by some?

8 MR. HURST: Or just raised.

9 (Simultaneous speaking.)

10 MR. EISNER: I sense that some

11 don't want to be associated --

12 MR. KOJAK: But it could have just

13 been from one person. If a question was

14 raised, it could have been one person

15 questioning it.

16 MR. HURST: How about by some, but

17 not by others?

18 (Laughter.)

19 (Simultaneous speaking.)

20 MR. EISNER: Everybody ready? Are

21 there any objections? Any objections to the

22 whole package now with this language on legal
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 63

1 authority?

2 MR. SACHS: Do we get a break if

3 we vote yes?

4 MR. EISNER: No.

5 (Laughter.)

6 MR. EISNER: Does anybody abstain? 

7 One abstention. Going once, going twice. 

8 Okay.

9 (Applause.)

10 All right, it's ten after ten. 

11 Why don't we take ten minutes off and come

12 back and talk about motors.

13 (Whereupon, the above-entitled

14 matter went off the record at 10:09 a.m. and

15 resumed at 11:02 a.m.)

16 MR. EISNER: Anybody want to hear

17 what the motors group agreed to?

18 MS. DANE: They agreed.

19 MR. EISNER: They agreed, sort of. 

20 Does anybody want to hear the details about

21 that? Yes? No?

22 MS. MEYERS: Yes.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 64

1 MR. EISNER: Ashley, do you want

2 to summarize that?

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure, I can

4 summarize. So what we discussed was that DOE

5 has gone through the spreadsheet that AHRI

6 provided to NEMA and we've done the scaling on

7 all of those and generally we found that the

8 scaling works. There were five motor types

9 that didn't have efficiency values in them, so

10 we couldn't do it on those.

11 There are two outliers for which

12 the scaling works, but the motors wouldn't be

13 compliant. Those two products would be

14 through redesigned, but for the majority of

15 them it's closed or they passed with no

16 issues. 

17 So what we've agreed to do is

18 tomorrow we're going to circulate that

19 spreadsheet to the commercial HVAC

20 manufacturers so they can take a look at it

21 because we weren't aware that they didn't have

22 the original spreadsheet even though they
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 65

1 provided data into that spreadsheet, they

2 didn't have the finalized version, so we're

3 going to send that back to them with our

4 scaling of it. And then we also agreed that

5 if they wanted to look at their products or

6 they wanted to see if those five motors that

7 don't have efficiency data, they get the

8 efficiency data or if there's other motors you

9 want us to look at, you can contact Mike

10 directly and he can do that for you in your

11 scaling. And then we would like some feedback

12 from the HVAC manufacturers either we can live

13 with this or this works, we're done and DOE

14 will work on the language to circulate to

15 everyone after that. So we're pretty close.

16 MR. EISNER: Any questions?

17 MS. BARHYDT: What's the time

18 frame? When is everything happening?

19 MR. EISNER: What's everything?

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I'll send out,

21 I'll put something in the email or Jeremiah

22 will put something in the email, but we'll
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 66

1 need a pretty quick response. If you need

2 Mike to look at more specific motors or --

3 contact him this week, tomorrow, Friday,

4 something like that because Laura brings up a

5 good point. That rule, a cert rule and AEDM

6 rule are on a fast pace here. So assuming

7 ASRAC approves the package that we've sent to

8 them, we will need this language to be worked

9 out pretty shortly.

10 MR. EISNER: And you might mention

11 the confidentiality.

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, and Mike

13 offered that if anyone wants to share their

14 manufacturer-specific data, you can do it

15 under an MDA specific with him. So that way

16 you wouldn't have to go through the process of

17 scrubbing it. It could show these are my

18 motors, these are -- it stays with him. DOE

19 won't see it. And he can do the scaling for

20 you and send it back.

21 MR. EISNER: Any more questions?

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Just to take a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 67

1 couple of the people out of the process, so

2 hopefully speed this up and wrap it up pretty

3 quickly.

4 MR. EISNER: We have an hour and a

5 half until we break for lunch, so I think we

6 should talk about -- I think we've covered all

7 the issues that we talked about covering this

8 morning. That leaves us time, if we want, to

9 go into verification. The full group now can

10 start looking at some of these issues, talking

11 about them, maybe giving some feedback on

12 them. Is that a way everybody would like to

13 proceed or does somebody have alternative

14 suggestions?

15 (No response.)

16 Does that mean we have consensus

17 about getting a report from the first one and

18 starting to talk about it? How's furthest

19 along? 

20 MR. BAUMAN: Can I ask a question

21 for the CRE group? Are we ready to discuss

22 that with the whole working group or do we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 68

1 want to talk about that before we present out

2 latest draft? 

3 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with

4 AHRI. Again, I think there's a proposal. We

5 can discuss it, but again, as far as saying we

6 have contentions --

7 MR. BAUMAN: Do we want to discuss

8 that as the full working group or do we want

9 to keep that to the CRE group for now? I

10 think that's the question that you're --

11 MR. EISNER: How to proceed. 

12 Because again, people talked this morning

13 about where are we. Right now, it's just

14 subgroup saying here's what we think we'd like

15 to do. We have to start thinking about things

16 like -- just to see where it's necessary among

17 the three subgroups. We have to think about

18 whether people are going to say I have a

19 problem with that because I think it then may

20 affect what I'm going to do because somebody

21 will say well, why can't you meet that same

22 standard? So we need to be talking about
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 69

1 justification for distinctions, that sort of

2 thing.

3 MS. DANE: I think there's some

4 advantages, Jeff, to talking about it now. 

5 Number one, there's two people who have not

6 been involved in the past who are in the room. 

7 And on top of that, like Neil points out, if

8 we're going to have any problem bringing what

9 affects directly only CRE back to the group

10 and the other group feels that it's going to

11 affect them, I'd like to know if we're going

12 to run across trouble now than before we get

13 it all set to what works best for our industry

14 in particular so that we know that going into

15 go back and talk to the rest of our

16 manufacturers.

17 I think the copy that you cleaned

18 up last night is good enough to show to the

19 group.

20 MR. EISNER: You're emailing

21 something to show the group?

22 MR. BAUMAN: Can I send that email
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 70

1 to you, Jeremiah? It will take me a couple of

2 minutes if somebody else wants to go.

3 (Pause.)

4 MS. HOOTMAN: HVAC hasn't really

5 been working on theirs because we were working

6 on the motors. We have what we were for the

7 last time when we met.

8 MR. EISNER: Assuming we have time

9 today, would you want consent discussion of

10 that later on?

11 MS. HOOTMAN: Sure, we can get

12 further along.

13 MR. EISNER: Let's concentrate on

14 what we got right now.

15 MR. AMRANE: While we're waiting

16 for Jeff, I have a question for DOE. This is

17 Karim with AHRI. We've been talking about

18 verification and I understand from DOE the

19 expectation is just not just verifying product

20 at the minimum standard, but verifying

21 everything. I guess each group is coming up

22 with ways to address if you fail a test, let's
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 71

1 say. And maybe in some cases there's going to

2 be additional tests or whatever it is. But is

3 DOE going to look at the failure, let's say in

4 the verification program as a way to trigger

5 an enforcement or is enforcement only linked

6 to the federal minimum standard?

7 MS. BARHYDT: So there are a

8 variety of different violations laid out in

9 the statute, but typically we bring what we

10 call two different types of cases. One are

11 certification cases and one are standards

12 cases. So certification cases where you

13 certified a value that isn't an appropriate

14 value or you didn't certify at all or

15 something like that. So those are

16 certification cases. So we might bring up a

17 case as a certification case if we thought

18 that the manufacturer had knowingly

19 misrepresented what the value was. So there

20 could be enforcement for that. 

21 MR. EISNER: So in other words,

22 they meet the minimum standard, but not the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 72

1 standard they sold it at.

2 MS. BARHYDT: Right. Whereas a

3 standards violation is a failure to meet the

4 minimum standard.

5 MR. THARP: So on the

6 certification cases, do you get FTC involved?

7 MS. BARHYDT: Not for commercial

8 stuff.

9 MR. THARP: But you would for

10 residential products basically?

11 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

12 MR. BAUMAN: Is there a tolerance

13 that you -- I apologize if I missed this

14 before. If you're -- I'll say going to call

15 a problem or an issue that maybe meets the

16 standard, but does not meet what the

17 manufacturer's certified value was, I asked

18 the question when we were talking of this

19 earlier because we were talking extensively

20 about what the tolerance is when you -- is

21 there a tolerance you use on that or is it

22 just --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 73

1 MS. BARHYDT: So we looked at the

2 certification statistics that are in there

3 because that's what the manufacturer was

4 supposed to have used when they certified the

5 product, so the tolerance is based on the

6 statistics in the regulations. It's not a

7 flat number. 

8 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim again

9 with AHRI. So you're not using the

10 enforcement statistics.

11 MS. BARHYDT: No, for

12 certification cases we're looking at what was

13 the certified -- the value they were supposed

14 to have certified. It's not a -- did it meet

15 the standard or not. It's was their number an

16 appropriate number based on the actual test

17 data. And I don't want to say that we will

18 never bring a case where we do verification

19 testing. And so I'm kind of hedging because

20 we haven't actually had this scenario arise,

21 so I'm kind of wavering a little bit. But the

22 only cases we have brought that way, were
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 74

1 cases where we looked at the manufacturers'

2 own test data and you apply the certification

3 statistics and they could not have certified

4 it at that number. There was no reason why

5 they should have ever certified it at the

6 number that they certified it at. It wasn't

7 just that our test data came out different. 

8 It's that their test data came out different. 

9 MR. STANONIK: But I think the

10 question was, okay, let's say I sent you some

11 information that said this product is rated at

12 -you know, let's say, 92 percent and I had run

13 the test and I only came up with 90 percent. 

14 Is there some level at which you would, you

15 know, it would trigger to you and you would

16 say, it looks like the rating is inaccurate? 

17 I think that was the question, right?

18 MS. BARHYDT: Well, so on a single

19 sample where you'll have one test, you can't

20 apply the certification statistics. If it was

21 determined using an AEDM we came up with

22 tolerances. I think that if we do a single
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 75

1 verification test and it comes out way off,

2 we're going to be looking at their test data

3 and we're going to be looking at what's going

4 on way beyond just that one rating.

5 MR. STANONIK: So way off, let's

6 just say it's going to be kind of case-by-case

7 basis at the moment.

8 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, I mean a lot of

9 it is based on -- when we see a situation like

10 that we ask for their test data and you know,

11 it's kind of dependent on the facts. If their

12 data shows that they had very consistent test

13 data, then maybe there's not an issue, but it

14 just depends.

15 MR. BAUMAN: Thanks, Laura. I

16 think we're kind of, we were getting back to

17 kind of basic and the reason Karim and I were

18 talking about I was somewhat surprised that

19 people particularly on the HVAC side, the C

20 side which my company has some products in

21 there, I'm going to add this list and your

22 listing, the manufacturer lists the model,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 76

1 we're using the SEER 12 and it tested and when

2 it tested on a verification we're -- even with

3 that verification program. If there was an

4 enforcement action because -- okay, they

5 actually tested a SEER 11, so you weren't --

6 what you claimed you were here, but the

7 standard is 10. So all well and good, you

8 rerate that one unit, but then that's it,

9 nothing else happens.

10 MR. AMRANE: That's not what she's

11 saying.

12 MR. BAUMAN: I thought that's what

13 - you're basically claiming a better

14 efficiency, you're claiming an efficiency,

15 you're comparing that to everybody else that's

16 on that list, whatever that multiple list is. 

17 You're actually here, but you're above the

18 federal minimum standard. But you claim

19 something that you weren't. Is there any

20 enforcement action against that other than

21 relisting or rewriting that product?

22 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, that's a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 77

1 certification violation, which is subject to

2 civil penalties.

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Could be.

4 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim, AHRI. 

5 I just bring into question because within

6 those working groups coming up with -- how you

7 would fail a test and that failure is linked

8 to, could be linked to those certification

9 requirements that you have in place. So I

10 think we need to have some guidance from DOE

11 as to what would be acceptable. I mean is

12 five percent that we agreed to is acceptable

13 or is it less or what would trigger failure

14 within those?

15 MS. HOOTMAN: And what would

16 trigger those civil penalties in certification

17 and/or the standard.

18 MS. BARHYDT: We're not opposed to

19 a flat number and I think that that very well

20 may be part of a specific number.

21 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: We don't have one
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 78

1 right now.

2 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, right now,

3 there's not one.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's the best

5 way to say it. Right now we have no specific

6 tolerance there.

7 MR. STANONIK: But right now, if

8 you were in that situation, you'd go back to

9 the certification information and let's say

10 look at the spread of those tests and if it

11 was -- let's say if that single test result

12 was anomalous compared to that spread, then

13 you might go forward. Might.

14 MS. BARHYDT: Usually, I know -- I

15 think people think that we just go plowing

16 ahead, but I mean we usually have a lot of

17 conversations with the manufacturer. We're

18 asking a lot of questions about what they're

19 doing. We're really getting in their business

20 more than they really like, but we're trying

21 to figure out what is going on.

22 MR. STANONIK: So in the absence
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 79

1 of a fixed criteria, you're trying to

2 understand each situation.

3 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. It isn't an

4 easy call. I can't just say that yes, we can

5 do this in this case and we don't do that.

6 (Laughter.)

7 MR. EISNER: More on this? Do we

8 need anything more from DOE? Are you happy

9 with the explanation? You had mentioned you

10 would like some guidance.

11 MR. AMRANE: Well, again, I think

12 you're going to hear from different groups of

13 what this means.

14 MS. BARHYDT: But no, obviously a

15 verification program that's being administered

16 on a much broader scale is something that

17 would be new and we are very open to the ideas

18 that you all are putting forward.

19 MR. EISNER: Are we ready to go to

20 Jeff's side?

21 MR. BAUMAN: And again, I want to

22 say some of the items on here I don't
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 80

1 necessarily agree with everything. It's again

2 a draft/working document for even with the CRE

3 group. It's just ideas that have been out

4 there for consideration and it's taken some

5 work to get to even this point, but it doesn't

6 mean that this represents a final position for

7 the group, subgroup.

8 MR. THARP: Is this being proposed

9 as something that the entire group will

10 consider for general requirements?

11 MR. BAUMAN: I would say at this

12 point it's something the CRE subgroup is

13 considering to propose to the full working

14 group. I think the idea is that we're going

15 to have a final, I'll say draft or final

16 proposal on this before the end of October is

17 what we've said that would go to the full

18 working group which would then eventually go

19 to ASRAC.

20 I think the reason for presenting

21 this here is to kind of give everybody a feel

22 for the type of thinking we're at and whether
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 81

1 there's strong objections that anything --

2 hopefully, it helps some other conversations,

3 hopefully it helps us to get feedback to say

4 hey, you shouldn't even be thinking about

5 that. 

6 MR. BAUMAN: This is a CRE

7 proposal to the whole group for what CRE will

8 go through or CRE proposal to the whole group

9 --

10 MR. THARP: For CRE only.

11 MR. EISNER: And the purpose of

12 the discussion is to see whether everybody is

13 okay with that, whether they see any conflicts

14 with what they're suggesting, whether they see

15 anything that should be higher or lower, that

16 kind of thing.

17 MR. HON: Also, it's a possible

18 model for some of the other groups that

19 haven't really started.

20 MR. EISNER: Very good point. The

21 idea is to help them and then go back,

22 perhaps, and refine the proposal as well as
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 82

1 the others to learn something that might help

2 them go back in the coming years.

3 MS. DANE: This was only our first

4 phone call and like I said, we'll go back to

5 our group. We tried to address everything

6 that was on Laura's slide in one of the last

7 slide groups we got. So even we know that

8 there's some things that need to be finished

9 in here.

10 MR. BAUMAN: And we planned it to

11 have at least some conference calls with AHRI

12 members with NAPM members and again taking

13 that effort to try to reach out to people even

14 with this level of interaction.

15 MR. EISNER: How much longer -- it

16 doesn't fit all on one page?

17 MR. BAUMAN: It's a couple of

18 pages. 

19 MR. EISNER: And again, it's my

20 suggestion, but open to other ideas, let's

21 read the whole thing, then let's go back and

22 start at the beginning and start going through
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 83

1 it. Is that okay?

2 Why don't you start with the first

3 page, time it for the slow readers.

4 (Pause.)

5 Is everybody ready to go to the

6 next page?

7 MR. BAUMAN: For clarification, we

8 talked about there's kind of two uses that we

9 have of third party in there. One is again

10 NRTL, but a third party could run the whole

11 program. I don't want to get into too much

12 detail, but as you read in third party, we're

13 also kind of going on the assumption that even

14 if it's a manufacturer-run program a third

15 party would be responsible for managing the

16 individual test. Once you have a test, the

17 third party would be responsible for

18 overseeing the selection of and the testing of

19 the product. So even in the level where it's

20 a manufacturer-run program, a third party

21 would still be involved of the individual

22 test.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 84

1 MR. SACHS: Yes, this is Harvey. 

2 Just for clarification since I am pretty

3 ignorant about 17025 and 17065, my sense is

4 that this is those requirements or does it go

5 beyond those or does it fall short in terms of

6 that third party?

7 MR. BAUMAN: I threw in the NRTL

8 as a generic failsafe and that kind of

9 addresses I believe 17065 and 17025 that they

10 have to be independent, the 65 -- my reading

11 of it. I'm not well versed on it, but enough

12 well versed to say that. And 17025 deals with

13 the competency to run the test. So I think

14 that's why they kind of use the NRTLs and I

15 think that's from some other documents and

16 discussions we've had.

17 MR. SACHS: Thank you, and I'm

18 hearing Bill shake his head agreeing. That

19 just make it authoritative.

20 MR. TRITSIS: This is Bill at

21 AHRI. I think we had this discussion before. 

22 I'm happy to see the CRE group understands the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 85

1 differences between 17025 and 17065 as they

2 relate to impartiality, particularly that

3 17065 part in any credible verification 

4 scheme.

5 MR. SACHS: Thank you. This is

6 Harvey and with respect to item 4, I've had

7 some pushback that I need to do more work to

8 convince people that the numbers presented are

9 accurate. They sound low. Some people are

10 more used to working with residential

11 products. I'm comfortable that you all have

12 considered this very carefully, but I'll

13 probably be calling on CRE folks to help me

14 make the case.

15 MS. DANE: Our friends at AHRI

16 tell us that those numbers are higher than

17 their own requirements, so I would think that

18 --

19 MR. AMRANE: It's interesting --

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 MS. DANE: You have no

22 competition. You're a monopoly.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 86

1 MR. BAUMAN: There's an issue of

2 what the penalties are for different product

3 groups. I'm not willing to try to answer your

4 question, but yes those things were absolutely

5 considered. Let's read through the rest of

6 this if we can and because we also talk about

7 what the penalties are. I think that's the

8 part of where AHRI handles that and where we

9 looked at that.

10 MR. TRITSIS: At the same time,

11 this is Bill with AHRI, we cannot have

12 continuous misinformation be presented.

13 MR. EISNER: Let's stop there. I

14 think everybody agrees. Let's go back, finish

15 reading this, and then start over and start

16 talking about it. Let's not get into who's

17 misinformed or whatever. Are we ready to go

18 on beyond the bottom of this page? There's a

19 little bit more I think.

20 (Pause.)

21 MR. BAUMAN: And I'll say, too,

22 while we're on that, the remote was something
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 87

1 that we brought up new and we know there's an

2 issue there as far as correlating a remote

3 number versus a self contained. But for some

4 products like self-contained closed door

5 models are a relatively small part of the

6 industry and doing a test on it for a self7 contained remote is very difficult, but we

8 believe, I'll say there would be some way to

9 correlate between the remote unit and test the

10 self-contain rather than testing a remote

11 unit, if that makes any sense. And it would

12 actually give you a better feel for what the

13 efficiency is.

14 MR. EISNER: If we could go back

15 to the beginning of the slides. 

16 (Simultaneous speaking.)

17 (Pause.)

18 MR. EISNER: Is everybody done

19 with this page? Is there more?

20 MR. KOJAK: There's always more.

21 (Pause.)

22 MS. DANE: Harvey, I think this
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 88

1 number eight might help you in some of the

2 convincing that you were asked to strengthen. 

3 Basically, we're innocent until proven guilty. 

4 Once you get an invalid rating or something

5 happens that brings our ratings into question,

6 there is a path to increase the requirements

7 for those that would have a problem with.

8 MR. SACHS: I have also gotten

9 feedback on this and I'd like to read the

10 response. The general sense is that the 50

11 percent for 2 years is inadequate.

12 MS. DANE: Is inadequate?

13 MR. SACHS: Is inadequate.

14 MR. EISNER: Again, group --

15 MR. SACHS: You want to wait?

16 MR. EISNER: I want everybody to

17 read it and we'll go back and try to go

18 through it one by one and get the

19 explanations, etcetera. So nothing in the

20 other box. So we're done?

21 Let's go up to the top of the

22 slide. Let's start with program management. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 89

1 Questions, concerns, anything people want to

2 explain?

3 MR. THARP: AHRI industry trade

4 association should be included as an option.

5 MR. EISNER: Do you want to

6 explain that, John? You're saying further

7 down there's something that would allow that?

8 MR. THARP: Yes.

9 MR. EISNER: Does anybody remember

10 where it was? Is there any reason you

11 wouldn't put in that first line, maybe run by

12 an already existing group approved by DOE,

13 etcetera.

14 MS. BARHYDT: Do you want us to 

15 write on this or do you not want us --

16 MR. BAUMAN: Have at it, please.

17 MS. DANE: We'll just save them

18 under a different name.

19 MS. BARHYDT: Fair enough.

20 MR. EISNER: Would you want to add

21 something to the first sentence about the

22 existing group or group approved by DOE as
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 90

1 meeting its standards or meeting or exceeding

2 its standards.

3 MR. THARP: You could just make

4 that first sentence a bullet A and then put

5 three options under that. First would be a

6 duly-approved NRTL. The second would be

7 equipment manufacturer. A third would be

8 industry trade association.

9 MR. STANONIK: The title says

10 program management and you're talking about

11 program may be run, but I keep reading that

12 and the word keeps running into my head

13 "tests." You don't need an NRTL to manage a

14 program. You may need an NRTL to do testing.

15 MR. HON: But an NRTL can be

16 involved in a manufacturer-developed program

17 such as the UL/ETL group CSA operates under

18 the Energy Star program right now. NRTL

19 actually is the one who selects the units to

20 be tested and then does the testing.

21 MR. STANONIK: Does the testing,

22 but in terms of --
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 91

1 MR. HON: But they also --

2 MR. STANONIK: -- excuse me. But

3 managing a program at Energy Star, you need to

4 be what's the certified, recognized certified

5 body. Again, that's not dictated or

6 controlled by NRTL.

7 MS. DANE: They have their own

8 programs. They have green programs. You all

9 have the green program where they manage the

10 data, where we submit our data.

11 MS. BARHYDT: Just real quick. We

12 have a request from the phone that everybody

13 speak up just a little bit more.

14 MR. STANONIK: I'm just trying to

15 understand. As I read that, you're trying to

16 address who can manage the program, but it

17 instilled into who can coordinate -- who can

18 do the testing and managing the program --

19 because NRTL does not really address

20 management of program. NRTL addresses

21 qualifications for laboratories to do testing.

22 MS. DANE: Our intention as the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 92

1 group is is that we would operate some of us

2 if we choose would operate with a green

3 program through UL or someone else as NRTLs or

4 whatever version.

5 MR. STANONIK: I'm not contesting

6 that at all. I'm just saying --

7 MS. DANE: I know what you're

8 contesting and I'm saying is that UL is

9 accredited to Guide 65 which will become ISO

10 17065. And they have the program in place and

11 the ability to be the independent verifier of

12 the data and perform the test.

13 MR. STANONIK: Okay, everything

14 you just said there does that got anything to

15 do with NRTL approval?

16 MR. FERRIOL: This is Brian with

17 UL. 

18 Sorry, Phillip, but I think we're

19 saying the same thing. I think that the issue

20 is not who or what. It's just the term NRTL

21 and I tend to agree with Frank in saying that

22 if we just put Guide 65 it might solve the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 93

1 problem because it will include the ETL, the

2 UL, the CSA program and include actually the

3 AHRI program. So if you put something like

4 17065 or Guide 65, just my opinion, I think

5 that would handle the objections.

6 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

7 HTP. That was my question when I saw this was

8 you used the word, the acronym NRTL. And that

9 comes from OSHA. So I was wondering what the

10 technical distinction between the NRTL and the

11 17065 and the Guide 65. My limited

12 understanding right now is that Guide 65 is in

13 the process of going away which will be

14 replaced by 17065.

15 MS. DANE: Next year. We have

16 three years to come up to speed.

17 MR. STEPHENS: And that's a

18 management system. That speaks nothing to the

19 laboratory. That's how any program is

20 managed, any program. It doesn't have to be

21 a test program. It could be anything, right?

22 MS. DANE: Yes.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 94

1 MR. STEPHENS: So how does an NRTL

2 relate to 17065? I don't -- I'm getting

3 caught up in the acronyms. I don't get it.

4 MR. EISNER: Would a number work

5 here as was suggested?

6 MS. DANE: I would rather have the

7 addition of a voluntary, of an industry

8 program than the reduction of NRTL.

9 MR. BAUMAN: Can I ask that we

10 don't get too tied up in the details of the

11 wording here. I think good points are being

12 raised, Frank. I think the idea that an AHRI13 type program, but if we leave that concept for

14 now in there and note that on here, and we can

15 go back and understand the recognition of

16 that. And Karim has been part of the

17 discussion. I'm sure we're going to be again

18 debating that within that group. I think it's

19 a valid concern and issue to be raised. I

20 don't think we need to -- I don't think it's

21 important, very important that we take the

22 time for this entire group to answer that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 95

1 here. 

2 I think -- I'd like to hear what

3 the concerns are. I don't know that we have

4 to take an extended amount of time to answer

5 them here. Leave that as an issue and then

6 that CRE can then go back to consider as we

7 continue to debate this issue.

8 MR. STEPHENS: My concern is is

9 that may be something that I want in the

10 boilers and water heaters group also. That's

11 my concern.

12 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik,

13 AHRI. I guess really my question was how does

14 the equipment manufacturer manage the program? 

15 That's really -- that's clearly an option. So

16 what is -- at the present time, what are you

17 envisioning how does the manufacturer, the

18 company itself manage the program?

19 MR. BAUMAN: They submit that it

20 says -- my concept is that basically they're

21 submitting an outline of their program and how

22 the program would operate to DOE and that has
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 96

1 to meet all the requirements that are called

2 out below and anything else that's required of

3 a program that might be agreed to as an

4 overall by the working group of DOE. So you'd

5 have to manage it like the third party would

6 manage it in this case. Like you could manage

7 it yourself. You have that option.

8 MR. TRITSIS: This is Bill. But

9 Jeff, is the manufacturer then going to be ISO

10 65 accredited?

11 MR. BAUMAN: No. But he's

12 responsible for his own -- he can only be

13 responsible for his own stuff. He also can't

14 go out and do somebody else's. I can't call

15 Charlie up and say hey, Charlie, I'll do all

16 your testing say at AHRI, that it's limited to

17 that equipment manufacturer, has

18 responsibility for his own. He can have

19 responsibility for his own equipment or you

20 can go to a third party. I think that's

21 important because again, trying to keep a

22 minimum or a -- an investment minimum for what
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 97

1 a group would -- for what a manufacturer would

2 have to be imposed upon and this again is a

3 lot of concern we've raised that we try to

4 keep the costs down as much as possible. The

5 manufacturer be responsible for their own

6 part. They have that option. 

7 And I think the Department has

8 expressed the idea that manufacturer-run

9 programs would be acceptable and I think

10 that's the option we want to get. I think

11 that would open the -- because the companies

12 and the organizations that want to offer a

13 third party program will give them more reason

14 to be competitive in programs that are

15 affordable and you know, reasonable, and

16 provide an additional benefit.

17 MR. FERRIOL: Brian with UL. So

18 just a clarification. So the manufacturer-run

19 option would -- there would be no third party

20 oversight or involvement, correct?

21 MR. BAUMAN: There would be third

22 party oversight on all the testing. From the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 98

1 point of testing -- you have to tell them how

2 many you're going to -- you go right to the

3 Department. You can submit your own data. I

4 don't want to get into -- my impression has

5 been the Department was not as much interested

6 in is something like we're dealing with with

7 EPA and Energy Star right now. We can't even

8 talk to EPA. We have to submit through a

9 third party agency. You guys are doing a lot

10 of effort and work to try to do that, but

11 there have been concerns, I'll say on that,

12 and not just for cost end point, but from a

13 timing standpoint and things like that. That

14 takes that out, again, where you can only do -

15 - you can be responsible for your own

16 equipment or have a third party do it. And

17 that level, the third party still is telling

18 you, hey, these are the units that you're

19 going to have to test this year and you're not

20 picking your own units what you're going to

21 test, but testing isn't spelled out under this

22 proposal, we're still at third party or
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 99

1 witnessed test by a third party and certified.

2 MR. EISNER: That's set forth

3 later in the slides.

4 MR. BAUMAN: Correct, correct.

5 MR. EISNER: Other comments,

6 questions.

7 MR. TRITSIS: Yes, I think the

8 very premise of having a management run, a

9 manufacturer-run verification program directly

10 conflicts with the requirement if you're going

11 to put 17065 as a requirement, what is the

12 purpose then of the lab, an independent lab,

13 UL or anybody to have 17065 is if the

14 manufacturer is managing the verification

15 program.

16 MR. BAUMAN: The idea there would

17 be that you don't have a bunch of called fly18 by-night organizations going out and saying

19 hey, Charlie, Jeff, or Mary, I'll do all your

20 units and I think there's a lot of companies

21 that could be jumping on board that if you are

22 going to go, if you're not responsible for
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 100

1 your own stuff, that whoever is going to be

2 responsible for it has to meet a relatively

3 high standard and to keep that other

4 organization who might be not as above board

5 as some of the other organizations that are

6 going to be offering programs that are -- they

7 should not be considered.

8 MR. EISNER: Anything else on

9 program management? Any other suggestions?

10 Does this relate well to the other

11 two subgroups in terms of what they're

12 thinking about in this area?

13 MR. STEPHENS: I think it gives us

14 more options because really having a 17065

15 requirement, those companies aren't going to

16 assume the liability for anything, just like

17 you're saying. We could very well get into a

18 position where we had a lot of fly-by-night

19 companies pop up.

20 MR. SHEBIK: Can't hear you on the

21 phone.

22 MR. STEPHENS: Yes, Phillip
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 101

1 Stephens, HTP. Having a 17065 requirement,

2 those companies are not going to accept any

3 liability for any listing. It's purely going

4 to come as an overhead to the manufacturers. 

5 And as a small manufacturer, I like this

6 option. I like how you've laid it out.

7 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with

8 AHRI. At some point, I think we will have to

9 need some opinion from DOE on all of this

10 because overall it will have an impact on the

11 credibility of DOE and whatever DOE puts

12 together. So I think it's important at some

13 point for DOE weigh in to the discussion.

14 MS. BARHYDT: DOE has said from

15 the very beginning that we were not

16 foreclosing the option of a manufacturer-run

17 program. Now how we would actually get to the

18 point where there were sufficient controls

19 that we felt like there was independence, is

20 an open question, but we are not foreclosing

21 the manufacturer --

22 MR. EISNER: You have no problem
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 102

1 with one?

2 MS. BARHYDT: No.

3 MR. EISNER: What is in the

4 substantive paragraphs --

5 MS. BARHYDT: How that ends up

6 getting built is still open, but we are --

7 MR. HON: You still have approval

8 for that. You still have the approval system.

9 MS. BARHYDT: Yes.

10 MR. HON: They can say no, it's

11 not good enough.

12 MR. BAUMAN: The other point I

13 want to raise again is we talked about this

14 and I keep stressing it, this is a

15 manufacturer-funded annual verification. This

16 does not take or replace, this does not take

17 full responsibility away from the Department

18 that you guys have to make sure that people

19 are being honest, because even if you do all

20 those levels, that doesn't mean that somebody

21 is not going to be cheating on some model that

22 wasn't tested or whatever. This is to help
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 103

1 them feel less of a burden on their need to

2 use that 3.8 million or whatever it is to --

3 it doesn't take it to zero. It takes it to

4 potentially something less where you feel like

5 you're doing okay. It's not meant -- and this

6 goes to your question a little bit, Harvey,

7 too, is that an annual manufacturer, this is

8 not meant to take complete place of other work

9 that the Department is doing to enforce to

10 make sure people are staying honest.

11 MR. EISNER: And the other thing,

12 I remind everybody to keep your attention

13 focused on, to the extent that this is

14 considered more or less than what you were

15 thinking of for your group, can it be

16 justified? Is there something unique here

17 that justifies something lesser? Is there

18 something unique in your area that would allow

19 for something less or even assuming whether

20 that's the right adjective to describe it. 

21 Let's go on to effective date and

22 Laura can correct the spelling. Let's talk
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 104

1 about that. 

2 (Pause.)

3 Any questions, any comments?

4 MS. MEYERS: So does that say that

5 everyone has to have their descriptions in or

6 their --

7 MR. SHEBIK: Can't hear on the

8 phone.

9 MS. MEYERS: Sorry. This is Karen

10 with Rheem. So the effective date means that

11 if you have to have your proposal in to DOE by

12 -- do you get 12 months after you send in your

13 proposal?

14 MS. BARHYDT: Let me kind of build

15 on Karen's question. So before you can be in

16 a program, there has to be an approved

17 program. So at one point do the regs kick in

18 for the approval process to start because it's

19 going to take time for DOE to review the

20 packages and issue an approval. 

21 And then how long after there are

22 approvals do you start actually having
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 105

1 selections and testing? I would see those as

2 two things that have to be separated from one

3 another to make sure that there are options

4 available for you to actually participate in.

5 MR. BAUMAN: Yes, can we add that? 

6 In fact it will say we have a document, we

7 might not have the details worked out here,

8 but include that as an item for -- I

9 appreciate that.

10 (Pause.)

11 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik,

12 AHRI. I'm trying to get my head around

13 effective date. So does effective date mean

14 the date by which a manufacturer must either,

15 in this example, have an approved program or

16 be enrolled in an approved program? Or is

17 that the date at which they would start to

18 conduct the program?

19 MS. DANE: I believe that's what

20 Karen just asked and we have the language up

21 there. Go back and check it.

22 Originally, I think A is based on,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 106

1 is it not, when the certification rule comes

2 into effect because verification is going to

3 be part of the final certification role,

4 right? 

5 MS. BARHYDT: Yes, two

6 rulemakings?

7 MS. DANE: Then we have to talk

8 about it like the note you made.

9 MS. BARHYDT: Because of the

10 importance of moving the certification rule

11 quickly, we were going to do verification as

12 a separate rulemaking.

13 MS. DANE: Then we'd like to go

14 back and discuss that per the note and answer

15 better the next time.

16 MR. EISNER: Anything else on

17 effective date, recognizing some clarification

18 is needed there. No other questions or

19 problems or issues? All right, number three,

20 annual verification schedule.

21 (Pause.)

22 Is everybody okay with this one?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 107

1 MR. FERRIOL: This is Brian from

2 UL. Just a clarifying question. You've got

3 in there -- (B) is the manufacturer will

4 notify DOE or the third party of the

5 availability and proposed test schedule within

6 30 days. But there's no closed loop on how

7 far down the calendar can that proposal be. 

8 So are you suggesting that on February 1st you

9 can say I'll have the unit available November

10 1st? And that's acceptable for -- I'm just

11 trying to figure out what's the span?

12 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. We

13 have several open-ended questions there

14 because we do not dictate and we cannot

15 dictate your schedule as well. We are going

16 to have to coordinate with a third party

17 tester to come in, witness test, verify the

18 test and issue a final report, all of which

19 are out of our control window. So that's a

20 problem we don't have a definitive number

21 there because we don't know how long that

22 process will take.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 108

1 MR. FERRIOL: Sure. My only

2 concern is that if everybody says well I can

3 do it in November, and I know it's not the

4 intent, I'm just trying to look at unintended

5 consequences and then everything is stacked up

6 towards the back half of the year and then

7 there might be a deadline of December 31st,

8 have everything completed, does that kind of

9 cause issues?

10 MR. STEPHENS: Philip Stephens, I

11 think out of þ they build that do loop into it

12 where they say this is when we think we can

13 have it done and then the DOE or the third

14 party comes back and says exactly what you're

15 saying, no, that's too far.

16 MS. DANE: And that's covered in

17 þ. It says that we go back after that 30 days

18 and we're told whether or not the proposed

19 schedule is acceptable. So I'm assuming that

20 between the lab and DOE that in November we

21 would definitely get a no.

22 MR. FERRIOL: Brian with UL. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 109

1 Where does the ultimate authority lie in

2 saying here's the ultimate decision? Is it a

3 negotiation or is it a DOE or the third party? 

4 I don't have an opinion. I'm just trying to

5 raise a potential unintended consequence. So

6 who at that point, if there's a disagreement,

7 who has the ultimate authority to say no, we

8 need it by March 1st.

9 MS. DANE: It would be the DOE. I

10 mean it doesn't say that. We can make it say

11 it if you would like.

12 MR. BAUMAN: No, I think you're

13 saying it because as you said, you're

14 submitting, if you go back and you -- if your

15 manufacturer program, let's just use that and

16 the manufacturer says DOE gets that lovely

17 letter that says hey, January 1st, Laura is on

18 it and January 1st she said okay, these are

19 the units you're going to have to test, you

20 have 30 days from that point to submit what

21 your proposal is for schedule and you call it

22 within that, you call it your lab and oh no,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 110

1 I'm not going to be able to get that until

2 November and so that's my proposed test

3 schedule I send to DOE and they say you're

4 crazy. And she says that's not and then we

5 negotiated Laura said we do our wonderful

6 negotiations, my perception. And then they

7 would go back and say no, well, we'll deal

8 within this standpoint. If it's something

9 that's approved by DOE on the schedule --

10 MR. FERRIOL: I don't know how

11 scalable that is. If this program is huge,

12 how many --

13 MR. BAUMAN: Yes, I think that

14 goes to the issue, too, I'll say the January

15 30th day was expressed as a desire by some

16 people to know at the beginning of the year

17 what it would be for the year so you can do

18 your budgeting and things like that. I think

19 that again, I agree with everything here. I

20 think that has a number of issues, too, where

21 not only that puts an extra burden where Laura

22 is going to be sitting home on Christmas and
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 111

1 New Year's Eve writing these letters, but I

2 think there's going to be some concerns. They

3 also don't want the manufacturer to have six

4 months or in some cases maybe in 30 days to

5 make that decision. So the timing of it is

6 definitely going to have to be worked out with

7 input. I appreciate the comment.

8 MR. EISNER: (B) goes into effect

9 by the end of February, so by the end of

10 February the tester and DOE would know that

11 the schedule is in plenty of time for

12 somebody, for the lab, for example, to say too

13 many in November, we've got to move them

14 around.

15 MR. BAUMAN: And if Laura gets

16 that letter out to you January 1st, you

17 actually have until the end of January, so

18 yes.

19 MS. MEYERS: So does this say if

20 you have a manufacturer-approved program that

21 DOE selects your model?

22 MR. BAUMAN: If you're a
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 112

1 manufacturer program, DOE would select the

2 models. If you're under a third-party

3 program, overall, a third-party DVMP, then the

4 third party would select the models.

5 MR. STEPHENS: But in the latter

6 case, the third party would copy the DOE on

7 the selections, right?

8 MS. DANE: It says "or" not "and." 

9 We were careful to put "or."

10 MR. EISNER: Laura, is this time

11 frame something you could work within?

12 MS. BARHYDT: So I have a lot of

13 comments.

14 (Laughter.)

15 MR. EISNER: Okay, anybody else?

16 (Laughter.)

17 (Simultaneous speaking.)

18 MS. BARHYDT: I was looking to see

19 what all came up from other people before I

20 jumped in.

21 MR. SANDERS: This is Joe Sanders

22 from Traulsen. The original certification or
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 113

1 verification test may not be exactly at the

2 beginning of the year, but after that they're

3 all going to be on a rolling 12 anyway, so

4 whether it's in November of 2014 and November

5 of 2015, you're going to be on a rolling 12

6 months so in the end I don't know if it makes

7 a lot of difference what month you started.

8 MR. EISNER: Other comments before

9 we put Laura on?

10 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik of

11 AHRI. I'm reading (B), to me, that says the

12 manufacturer is doing all the testing. Is

13 that the intent?

14 MR. BAUMAN: No. No. I didn't

15 think it said that, Frank.

16 MR. STANONIK: Well, let me give

17 you my logic. It says manufacturer reports

18 test results to DOE or third party, okay? So

19 that says that I'm -- I'm the manufacturer. 

20 I am giving my test results directly to DOE or

21 I'm giving it to the third party and then

22 there's something that says oh, and then
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 114

1 results will be reported to DOE within 30

2 days. That would really only imply if I

3 passed them through the third party.

4 If the point there is you -- if

5 you want results in DOE's hands by 30 days,

6 you can simply say test results to be provided

7 to DOE within 30 days. Because it says

8 manufacturer's reports, so that implies the

9 manufacturer is always doing the test because

10 they're the only one doing the initial

11 reporting.

12 MR. BAUMAN: Okay, and the actual

13 third party reports the results to DOE?

14 MR. STANONIK: Within 30 days. If

15 the third party did it, they've got the data,

16 right?

17 MS. BARHYDT: Like that?

18 MS. DANE: Yes.

19 MR. HON: I would like to change

20 one a little bit. Completion of test needs to

21 have completion of final review of test

22 because in 17025 laboratories, the third party
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 115

1 has to review the test data and they quite

2 often go more than 30 days.

3 MR. EISNER: Would the completion

4 of the final review of test data pass some

5 time limit like if the test is completed by X

6 date, the review has to be completed by Y

7 date?

8 MR. HON: You could put 30 days --

9 MS. DANE: That's kind of hard

10 because again because of the Guide 65 is the

11 guy that does the test at -- I'm going to say

12 you all because that's where our guy is, UL

13 does the test. He does his report. He sends

14 it up a level and that's where you get the

15 independent certification of the test results. 

16 I can't say how long my guy who might be

17 traveling to three or four labs is going to

18 take to do three or four people's testing and

19 then he's going to send it to Joe in

20 certification and Joe might have 50 tests

21 sitting there. So I'm hesitant to lock-in

22 that, but again, the manufacturers -- our
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 116

1 intent is not that the manufacturers will be

2 manipulating that data around. That's

3 whatever third party we're working with,

4 whether it be a group like AHRI that goes to

5 the third party or we go directly to the third

6 party ourselves.

7 MR. EISNER: But the bottom line

8 is the longer it takes the longer it takes to

9 get your product certified?

10 MS. DANE: Verified.

11 MR. EISNER: Verified, I mean.

12 MS. DANE: We're not supposed to

13 certify.

14 MR. EISNER: But do you have any

15 concerns about how long it might take if it's

16 a negative?

17 MS. BARHYDT: I'm actually very

18 sympathetic to this issue.

19 MR. EISNER: That's good. Write

20 that down that Laura said that.

21 (Laughter.)

22 MR. HON: But that's the reason we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 117

1 wanted -- I think she's worked through the

2 process enough to know how long sometimes

3 these things take.

4 MS. BARHYDT: Right.

5 MR. HON: And we don't want to put

6 in a position where we're screaming you guys

7 got to get the test results back. We're four

8 weeks behind and everybody else isn't doing

9 the same testing and we put you in sequence,

10 boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, but we can't get

11 it all done in time. Then we're scurrying

12 around trying to find new test labs.

13 MS. BARHYDT: It seems to me that

14 the reality is that if we have sufficient

15 controls on how the results are being handled

16 and who is handling them and who the labs are

17 conducting the tests, then I would rather them

18 do the checks that they need to do and ensure

19 the quality of the data rather than the speed.

20 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip, HTP. It

21 has happened previously that you do the tests

22 at a third-party lab. They think everything
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 118

1 is right. It goes to the other organization

2 that oversees the lab. They find an issue and

3 you have to repeat the test. So have you

4 thought about that or is that covered with

5 this scenario?

6 MR. HON: Yes, completion of final

7 review. That's not a final review completed. 

8 You just have to go back through another step

9 of processes.

10 MR. EISNER: Any other questions

11 or concerns on verification schedule? Let's

12 go on to base quantity of models.

13 MS. BARHYDT: Hold on, hold on.

14 (Simultaneous speaking.)

15 MS. BARHYDT: I think my main

16 observation in this section is that it's all

17 a good start, but there is a significant lack

18 of information that I think we would want to

19 see. And I don't -- and I'm hesitant to say

20 that I want to see so and so hands today and

21 so and so under this sort of a control,

22 because to me that's the kind of thing that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 119

1 would be in a program's plan and shouldn't

2 necessarily be in the regulations, but we need

3 to figure out a way how to specify what all

4 those different pieces of information are so

5 that DOE is accountable to ensuring that we

6 approve all the plans on an even footing.

7 MS. DANE: Do you have a summary

8 of that?

9 MR. HURST: You don't want to

10 dictate the process, but you want the elements

11 of a good process.

12 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. 

13 MS. DANE: There has to be some

14 kind of a list for that put together because

15 we're happy to add that if we knew what those

16 were. Like are you looking -- what type of

17 information are you looking to verify? Is it

18 some of the data from the original

19 certification or just the performance numbers?

20 MS. BARHYDT: So I'm going to talk

21 through sort of what I'm thinking as I read

22 this.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 120

1 MS. DANE: Okay.

2 MS. BARHYDT: But as I say that I

3 think it's going to come across that I want to

4 see X, Y, and Z and that's why I'm caveating

5 it. It's not that I want to see those things. 

6 These are the questions that leap to my mind.

7 MS. DANE: Okay.

8 MS. BARHYDT: So DOE or third

9 party will select all models for testing

10 during the calendar year. Why does it have to

11 be once a year? Why couldn't it be spread out

12 over the course of the year? 

13 I realize that in your particular

14 case, there's not that many models being

15 selected, so maybe that's part of what was

16 factoring in there, but maybe for other

17 programs where there's testing more, it

18 wouldn't need to be once a year. So that came

19 to me to be somewhat limiting.

20 MR. HURST: What about if you

21 choose at certain times of the year that there

22 are guidelines in terms of time to respond? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 121

1 Because you set up your production some time. 

2 It may not be running. If you ask for a --

3 I'm making this up -- but residential, if you

4 were to ask for a cooling product in the

5 middle of November, we may not be running that

6 particular product for months.

7 MS. BARHYDT: Right, and to me

8 that's the kind of thing that would make sense

9 for a program to say that for an HVAC program

10 we know manufacturers are building during this

11 time frame. That is the logical time for the

12 selection and testing to be done.

13 MR. HURST: To be made.

14 MS. BARHYDT: So those sorts of

15 considerations, manufacturer notified DOE and

16 third party of unit availability and proposed

17 test schedule within 30 days. I think further

18 down there was sort of a breakout between the

19 stock and the not stock. Thirty days to me

20 for stock seems outrageously long. If the

21 products are already in stock I don't see why

22 anyone needs 30 days. So sort of more
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 122

1 consideration of what is available versus what

2 is actually being built to me would make

3 sense. 

4 DOE or third party notifies

5 manufacturer within 30 days. That's fine. 

6 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens,

7 HTP. The 30 days for stock, keep in mind

8 we're going to be held to these regulations

9 even with the document coming up for water

10 heaters, residential and commercial water

11 heaters with the unified correlations study

12 and all that. We're going to have different,

13 whatever test method changes, everything,

14 right?

15 We're not going to be in a

16 position where we can drop everything we're

17 doing every time to meet these needs. So with

18 30 days' time, we can plan to complete jobs

19 and work in a verification unit.

20 MS. BARHYDT: So again, I'm saying

21 that those are the kinds of things that I

22 think it would be helpful to us if the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 123

1 document reflected we've considered this and

2 this is what we think. I know that there are

3 a lot of discussions going on within your

4 groups and I haven't been sitting in the room

5 in all the groups all the time, so I don't

6 know. So I'm raising issues. Maybe you've

7 thought about them already and you've

8 considered them, but I think we're going to

9 need to get more of that fleshed out on the

10 record as to how you arrived at this because

11 again, this is just my reaction and 30 days

12 seems like a really long time for something

13 that's in stock.

14 MR. SACHS: Laura, this is Harvey

15 and it will surprise Phillip, but there really

16 is going to be a transitional issue for

17 smaller water heaters that he's raised. A lot

18 of us in the room are guilty of having been

19 part of that.

20 (Laughter.)

21 MS. BARHYDT: Is that your

22 innocent look?
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 124

1 MR. STANONIK: I'm trying.

2 (Laughter.)

3 MR. SACHS: So there are going to

4 be some things which do have transitional

5 issues and AHRI is working on this correlation

6 problem that Phillip has raised, but I

7 certainly don't have his ability to know just

8 how much of an impact will have.

9 MS. BARHYDT: But that does raise

10 an interesting issue that probably everybody

11 should think about because this would apply

12 across the board is how should standard

13 changes or test procedure changes factor into

14 scheduling and verification testing cycles,

15 that kind of thing.

16 MR. STEPHENS: Regulatory burden.

17 (Laughter.)

18 MS. BARHYDT: I was thinking about

19 it from a more pragmatic perspective.

20 MR. FERRIOL: Brian with UL. I

21 just have a follow-up question to Phillip. 

22 Were you saying, Phillip, that if you have
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 125

1 units in stock and they're on the selection

2 list that you received from DOE that you need

3 more than 30 days to accommodate somebody to

4 show up and pick from stock. I didn't follow

5 you.

6 MR. STEPHENS: I'm not saying that

7 specifically. I can't speak for the other

8 manufacturers, but our lab time we have every

9 station scheduled for a month in advance.

10 MS. BARHYDT: So I read the

11 proposed test schedule, not to be a "I will

12 have completed my testing within 30 days," I

13 took that to mean that you're just reporting

14 back this is when I plan to have things tested

15 which is why 30 days to me seems like a long

16 time it say well, I've got a bunch of stuff in

17 stock, but I can't tell you when I'm going to

18 test it for 30 days.

19 MR. STEPHENS: Well, the problem

20 is we review our schedules once a month for

21 the upcoming month.

22 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 126

1 MR. STEPHENS: So at some point

2 most of the time yes, it's going to be less

3 than the 30 days, but if you hit it at the

4 wrong time, then we'll have to pull a meeting

5 up a little bit sooner to figure this out.

6 MS. DANE: We can talk about this

7 more and figure out something that would be --

8 MR. HON: These are simple

9 logistics issues.

10 MS. DANE: Right.

11 MR. BAUMAN: With your question on

12 A again, you raise the point that we did say

13 on purpose and in the discussions include the

14 idea that all models, if you're doing one,

15 two, four models, you would get that letter of

16 notice once a year for all models you have to

17 test. I think that's -- I think the idea came

18 from the AHRI program is you're notified once

19 a year of this is what you have to test, one

20 unit, so that you don't have to go through

21 multiple iterations and theoretically you

22 could if you had a lab capacity in a lab where
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 127

1 you can send all those units to a third party

2 whenever at the same time, again, trying to

3 minimize burden would help to minimize burden

4 on the manufacturer if they had that capacity

5 to be able to do that. The thought process

6 behind there, yes, it was done. And

7 similarly, I guess the January 30th date is a

8 thought, but the idea for budgeting for some

9 companies, too, and such.

10 MR. TRITSIS: Laura, Bill with

11 AHRI. In our program, at least we have the

12 ability to do -- conduct discretionary tests. 

13 Do you think that DOE would adopt something

14 like that, meaning along the -- 

15 MS. BARHYDT: In addition?

16 MR. TRITSIS: Yes, during the

17 year, you find that you want to test a product

18 that you have some information and not

19 necessarily enforcement.

20 MS. BARHYDT: Well, so in my mind

21 that falls under DOE doing a random assessment

22 test.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 128

1 MR. TRITSIS: Assessment.

2 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. I mean I don't

3 know why we would require some kind of -- why

4 would we put something in the regulation

5 governing when we would do discretionary

6 testing. To me, that's almost the opposite of

7 what would go into a regulation.

8 MR. HON: That would also have

9 issues further down with the amount of units

10 tested in a calendar year.

11 MS. BARHYDT: The results being

12 reported back probably would like more

13 information about what exactly was going to be

14 reported back to DOE. I think those were the

15 main things that kind of leapt out at me as I

16 read through that. 

17 And a lot of it, again, the

18 questions that leap to my mind are very much

19 logistical questions, but they're the kind of

20 -- to me, it's -- particularly with the

21 manufacturer-run program concept, the devil is

22 in the details on that. It's how do you
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 129

1 ensure the independence and the checks on that

2 where the manufacturer has a bigger role in

3 that. And I don't know how we do that. But

4 it seems to me it ought to be possible, but

5 I'm not exactly sure how that would work.

6 MS. MEYERS: My question is what

7 is final review of test mean? Who is the

8 final -- the tester? What does that mean? 

9 I'm just curious.

10 MS. BARHYDT: Usually, there is

11 the two-level review and so it's that final

12 person of the organization that's basically

13 signing off on the test.

14 MS. MEYERS: Okay.

15 MR. EISNER: And that's within --

16 it's manufacturer-run -- it's within the

17 manufacturer?

18 MS. BARHYDT: No, we don't allow

19 the manufacturer to do the verification.

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 MS. BARHYDT: The party running

22 the program who is actually checking the data
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 130

1 and making sure that everything was done

2 right.

3 MR. HON: 17025 clarification on

4 that which includes review.

5 MS. BARHYDT: Okay.

6 MR. EISNER: Based on what Laura

7 said, does anybody else have anything they

8 want to add?

9 MR. THARP: I guess a question I

10 have, one of the questions in my mind is the

11 results being reported to DOE, if it's a

12 third-party lab that is running the -- a third

13 party running the program and another third

14 party doing the testing, does the manufacturer

15 have the opportunity to review the data before

16 it gets reported to DOE? Because there's

17 still have been occasions where after the

18 second review at the lab, there was still

19 something incorrect somewhere and so like

20 within the AHRI program, it goes back to AHRI

21 and the manufacturer gets to review the data

22 before it's considered a pass/fail.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 131

1 (Laughter.)

2 If it's a failure, we have the

3 opportunity to look at it and say we claim a

4 test failure, right? So I want the

5 opportunity to make sure that the third party

6 has done the job correctly. And make sure I

7 agree. There are instances where yes --

8 MR. EISNER: It shouldn't go from

9 final review at the lab directly to the DOE. 

10 There should be a chance for you to go back

11 and say wait, there's a mistake here.

12 MR. THARP: As long as the

13 manufacturer has the opportunity to review

14 within that 30 days before it goes to DOE.

15 MR. KOJAK: Because if there's an

16 issue with the equipment, like a manufacturing

17 defect, that would only be if there's a

18 failure.

19 MS. DANE: Right. I think -- I'd

20 like to reserve. I mean we could put that in

21 there, but I'd like to reserve that we can

22 discuss that under invalid rating because we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 132

1 address some of our thoughts under invalid

2 rating as to how that gets addressed.

3 MR. THARP: As an example, perhaps

4 the units installed, it's run at incorrect air

5 flow or an incorrect charge and the third6 party reviewer misses it, I don't have to go

7 and report it to DOE as a failure when the

8 test was actually done incorrectly. Right?

9 So I think the manufacturer needs

10 the opportunity to review that before it gets

11 reported to DOE.

12 MS. DANE: Could we get to invalid

13 -- not skip down there. Could you hold that -

14 - reserve that until we get down to invalid

15 rating and see if that addresses your concern?

16 MR. EISNER: Just the last part

17 that Laura just typed in takes care of it.

18 MR. THARP: As long as that's in

19 there for later clarification.

20 MR. EISNER: And then just a

21 general comment, of course, we'll all have the

22 opportunity to view this document for when we
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 133

1 come back next time and review it, as long as

2 the ASRAC has considered -- correct?

3 MS. BARHYDT: So on that issue, I

4 think the Department has more of an interest

5 in having more information so that if it gets

6 signed off by the test lab as a good test

7 report and that ultimately somehow and I don't

8 know that we actually would be okay with the

9 opportunity for somebody to change the result

10 of that test, but assuming that there was some

11 way to change the result of that test, I think

12 DOE would want to have notification of that. 

13 If the test lab said it was a failure and

14 there was some discussion or contest to that,

15 DOE would want to know about it.

16 MR. THARP: I don't have an issue

17 with that. As long as we have the

18 opportunity, going back to the example, say it

19 was run at an incorrect airflow or incorrect

20 charge and incorrect speed TAB and the third

21 party, third party final reviewer is looking

22 at the data, he may not know that it was
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 134

1 supposed to be medium speed TAB when it should

2 have been low. And he approves the report

3 from what he looks at on the report, but then

4 it comes to the manufacturer and they so oh,

5 it was run on the wrong speed TAB. Well, that

6 needs to go back in the test room, run on the

7 correct speed TAB and then whatever the

8 results of that get reported to DOE and along

9 with it would be oh, by the way, there was

10 error on the first test and this is why it was

11 rerun.

12 MR. HON: There is a built-in

13 mechanism for that already in the system

14 because the manufacturers, these are

15 verification tests that the manufacturers

16 contracted, either to be witnessed tested or

17 to be done at the lab. There's no reason you

18 cannot demand a copy of the test result before

19 it is verified by the third party reviewer. 

20 You would be able to look at it at that point. 

21 So you would know the results before it was

22 verified by the third party.
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 135

1 MS. BARHYDT: Okay, so it sounds

2 like Rusty is just asking for that to be

3 explicit.

4 MR. THARP: I want it to be

5 explicit.

6 MR. HON: But you agree that that

7 is something you can do with a third party

8 doing your test data.

9 MR. THARP: So you're saying a

10 third party is doing the testing. They run

11 the root tests. I get to review the results,

12 basically in parallel with their final review

13 and if I find something, then we have the

14 opportunity to discuss what the issue is and

15 go back and rerun the test if necessary.

16 MR. BAUMAN: I think you almost

17 get into the question of if it's valid --

18 potentially may be an invalid --

19 MR. THARP: That would also be

20 true if you guys were conducting the test in

21 your own facility being witnessed because

22 let's say you have a new technician or you've
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 136

1 got equipment that's not built properly. Once

2 you see your data, you're going to know

3 there's an issue and then you want to be able

4 to tell the DOE there's an issue somewhere and

5 then go through retest either with a new piece

6 of equipment or do something different because

7 you know there's an issue either with the

8 equipment or the set up. So it's either at

9 the third party or at your lab.

10 MR. THARP: Correct, and the

11 testing at a manufacturer's own lab is still

12 something I have an issue with. I'm not

13 comfortable with it unless going to what Laura

14 said, unless there's some very, very detailed

15 clarification of how requirements and what's

16 going to happen there, do we want Laura or

17 Ashley there present?

18 MR. HON: The DOE can specify what

19 that means because the DOE can say okay, any

20 termination of a test prematurely has to be

21 reported. Any result of a product which

22 showed bad and was found to be defected,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 137

1 improperly assembled, loss of charge, has to

2 be reported to DOE, so that any time you start

3 a test, any failure, potential failure in

4 there would be reported to DOE, does that meet

5 what you would want out of the system?

6 MS. BARHYDT: That sounds like a

7 yes.

8 MR. EISNER: Can you speak up,

9 Joe?

10 MR. SANDERS: Yes, sir. Mary can

11 elaborate on this, but many of us have testing

12 programs with UL or ETL where we have a scope

13 of work covered and that scope would include

14 the ASHRAE 72 test, meaning it wouldn't make

15 possibly a lot of sense for manufacturers to

16 run tests that they haven't been approved to

17 run or qualified to run for. Mary can

18 elaborate more than me talking over the phone.

19 (Laughter.)

20 MS. DANE: I guess I'm not sure

21 where you're going with the point. I mean I

22 know that I've been saying that we're
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 138

1 approved.

2 MR. SANDERS: Excuse me. The

3 point was is there seems to be concern about

4 manufacturers not knowing how to run these

5 tests.

6 MS. DANE: Oh.

7 MR. SANDERS: And that for a lot

8 of these testing groups you all are ETL, in

9 order to run the tests in your lab they have

10 to say -- know enough. I heard somebody

11 talking about a new technician.

12 MS. DANE: Right, right.

13 MR. SANDERS: These technicians

14 are called out by names in these reports.

15 MS. DANE: Yes, they are.

16 MR. SANDERS: It's just not the

17 Charleston Lab approved. It's a so-and-so

18 person with a name that's approved, not just

19 anybody we hire off the street.

20 MS. DANE: I want to say that what

21 he might have been alluding to was labs that

22 would not be 1725 that would be trying to run
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 139

1 testing on their own and because we've already

2 said that it would have to be -- that you

3 can't do a test at a manufacturer's lab unless

4 that lab is 1725. That should answer that

5 concern.

6 MR. SANDERS: It should answer a

7 whole slew of these concerns. Maybe that's

8 what needed to be said is that these labs need

9 to be 17025 approved for the scope of the

10 product being evaluated.

11 MS. DANE: Right, and it does say

12 that Joe at the beginning and I say that quite

13 often.

14 MR. SANDERS: It wasn't up here on

15 the board here today because I've been sitting

16 here the whole time.

17 MR. BAUMAN: That was more in

18 regards to the -- if you're using a third19 party program, yes, maybe we need some more

20 details on the requirements for the third

21 party doing the testing, if you add a third

22 party to do the testing. I was thinking that
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 140

1 was kind of covering some other thing we had

2 discussed, but we can absolutely add more

3 clarification on that.

4 MS. DANE: We'll add more to

5 clarify for you, Joe, but we had already

6 discussed that and we're moving from that

7 assumption.

8 MR. SANDERS: I'm fine with that. 

9 It was the other questions that were being

10 posed by other people in the room there.

11 MS. BARHYDT: Should I make a note

12 here?

13 MR. HON: It's up above. Make

14 sure you make a note.

15 MR. EISNER: Anything further on

16 this issue?

17 MR. TRITSIS: Just a general

18 question. This is Bill from AHRI. Laura, how

19 do you envision DOE's involvement in this

20 process, and not only the identification, but

21 I guess what we have seen so far? Do you see

22 DOE following the model of EPA here? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 141

1 I hear you're making a lot of

2 decisions. You are managing, in essence, the

3 full process.

4 MS. BARHYDT: I guess I'm looking

5 at this as this is the CRE group's idea of how

6 it would work and I think I need to think some

7 more about how DOE's role would fit into this. 

8 I think that there are places where it says

9 DOE will do things that we would rather have

10 a third party where it says DOE or a third

11 party. I think we would rather it be a third

12 party, but I don't -- at this point I'm just

13 not prepared to say DOE won't provide those

14 functions.

15 MR. HON: That can be part of our

16 test plan, our own plan system. We can

17 negotiate that with DOE and say okay, who will

18 pick these units?

19 MR. KOJAK: I remember a couple

20 months back in one of our meetings when we

21 were talking about this. It was said that the

22 management, either the manufacturer or the
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 142

1 third party would actually come up with the

2 selections. But if the DOE wanted to go after

3 a certain section that they saw wasn't tested

4 for a while or they wanted to see something

5 done, then they have the ability to give that

6 input and then those would be selected within

7 a certain grouping instead of just -- you

8 won't have input all the time. You would just

9 see what was being selected.

10 MS. BARHYDT: That was definitely

11 discussed. I remember people talking about

12 that. I am much less comfortable with the

13 manufacturer making the selection themselves.

14 MR. BAUMAN: That was not the

15 intent of what we were saying.

16 MS. DANE: Right, and we just

17 didn't want to shut you out of it, so we've

18 left it as four.

19 MR. HON: There's two things going

20 on here. Number one is it allows the

21 manufacturer to avoid the cost of a 17065

22 program, but still deal with the 17025 program
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 143

1 of certification. It's just a cost savings.

2 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip, HTP. 

3 There are certain situations where even 17025

4 doesn't fit, doesn't work. There's a clause

5 where they can choose not to cover you, so

6 there's a loophole there. 

7 MR. HON: This is why CRE is

8 proposing it for our application. It doesn't

9 necessarily transcend to other applications

10 and we understand that.

11 MR. STEPHENS: What I'm

12 recommending is that you consider a clause for

13 a period of time to allow a company that

14 doesn't meet those criteria because of the new

15 market, new technology, whatever to certify

16 until you can build the experience and the

17 competence with the 17025 body and then you

18 can resume business as normal.

19 MS. DANE: I think some of our

20 internal notes talk about -- I had submitted

21 some stuff to the DOE and to some of the

22 members of CRE, or to the members of CRE,
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 144

1 talking about allowing competence to be built

2 not only just through the energy, but when we

3 take part and again, I'll use the terminology

4 of you all because that's who we're certified

5 with is under the client data test program, we

6 have a scope of standards that we have to

7 build competence to. That includes the energy

8 efficiency standards.

9 So what we want to be able to

10 allow manufacturers who are new coming into

11 the energy efficiency is that if they have --

12 if they're already certified and they're

13 adding that scope that they get some credit

14 for having been part of an industry program or

15 a supervised program for some time up to that

16 point. So while it doesn't say it in this

17 final thing, it's in the beginning of our

18 notes and if that's something you would like

19 to see more in there for something you're

20 trying to do we're happy to put that in there,

21 but this is just a generalization of what we

22 think Laura might want to see and we're happy
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 145

1 to have feedback before we go home.

2 MR. FERRIOL: This is Brian with

3 UL. Phillip, you said certification. I think

4 you meant verification.

5 MR. STEPHENS: Yes, anything to do

6 with 17025.

7 MR. FERRIOL: Right.

8 MR. STEPHENS: I forget which

9 clause it is.

10 MR. FERRIOL: So the way in the

11 past UL has run these types of programs is --

12 Mary is right. There's witness testing as a

13 starting point to build that confidence to the

14 point where it becomes client test which is a

15 little bit different. So in a case that you

16 mentioned you would have somebody who, let's

17 say, hasn't jumped through all the hoops to be

18 17025. They can be on the witness test and I

19 don't know if this is going to hold up for the

20 DOE requirements, but I'm just saying what's

21 been used in the past with regard to Energy

22 Star and NRCan and safety certification is
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 146

1 okay, there's an option still open for you for

2 witness testing where you don't have quite the

3 hoops that you have had to jump through in

4 order to meet the client test where witness is

5 not necessary. So there's that option open

6 and then you can build the competence and the

7 experience and learnings to get to that next

8 point. Does that help answer the question?

9 MR. STEPHENS: I think so.

10 MR. FERRIOL: Okay. 

11 MR. BALLO: One thing I just

12 wanted to flag to make sure you were thinking

13 about it is anything you submit to DOE, what

14 is the public access to that information? 

15 Would it go -- would DOE then put it on its

16 website or would it have to be subject to a

17 FOIA request?

18 MS. DANE: Are you asking about

19 our test results because our test results

20 would be held by our third-party lab.

21 MR. BALLO: The reports, but the

22 results would be sent to DOE and those would
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 147

1 be either made available or they could be a

2 FOIA request.

3 MR. AMRANE: Result of what? 

4 Pass/fail or the test report.

5 MR. BALLO: That's what I'm

6 asking. This is something --

7 MS. HOOTMAN: You should be saying

8 what needs to be on that report.

9 MR. HON: We have two different

10 issues I think here. Number one is what has

11 to be on the test report. Number two is will

12 all those numbers be public data published

13 because everybody in this room is eventually

14 going to -- if we do verification testing,

15 we'll be making additional reports to DOE and

16 that's a far broader scope that I think DOE

17 has to do as a -- this is the way we handle

18 it. It can't just be CRE at this level.

19 MS. DANE: Right.

20 MR. HON: I think that's a serious

21 question for everybody because we may have

22 different items that we report, but it's not
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 148

1 going -- DOE still has the responsibility

2 across the board I think.

3 MR. EISNER: Anything else on this

4 issue? Why don't we break for lunch and get

5 back here by 1 o'clock.

6 (Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the

7 meeting was adjourned)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 149

A

AAON 1:23 55:5

ability 92:11 124:7

127:12 142:5

able 23:18 52:6

55:4 110:1 127:5

134:20 136:3

144:9

ABMA 1:23

above-entitled 6:20

63:13

absence 78:22

absolutely 16:10

26:5 86:4 140:2

abstain 12:19

41:10 63:6

abstention 63:7

abstentions 59:4

accept 6:7 24:11

101:2

acceptable 13:19

21:18 77:11,12

97:9 107:10

108:19

accepted 54:14

access 146:14

accommodate

125:3

accountable 119:5

accredited 92:9

96:10

accurate 12:11

25:22 85:9

accurately 14:2

ACEEE 2:4 12:17

acronym 93:8

acronyms 94:3

action 76:4,20

actions 48:9

actual 73:16

114:12

Adams 1:18 12:7,7

51:1,1,8

add 43:2 61:6

75:21 89:20 105:5

119:15 130:8

139:21 140:2,4

adding 43:5 61:10

144:13

addition 31:1,4

94:7 127:15

additional 34:7

71:2 97:16 147:15

address 4:16 70:22

82:5 91:16,19

132:1

addressed 46:12

132:2

addresses 84:9

91:20 132:15

adjective 103:20

adjourned 148:7

administered 79:15

adopt 127:13

advance 125:9

advantages 69:4

ADVISORY 1:4

advocacy 12:20

advocate 61:10

advocates 59:21

advocating 61:3

AEDM 66:5 74:21

affect 68:20 69:11

afford 46:3

affordable 97:15

afternoon 57:21

agency 98:9

agnostic 61:5

agree 5:13 10:19

18:2 24:9,10,12

31:5 34:21 39:12

47:1 80:1 92:21

110:19 131:7

135:6

agreed 4:18 6:15

7:3,9,18 40:3

63:17,18,19 64:17

65:4 77:12 96:3

agreeing 35:1,2

37:4 84:18

agreement 5:7 6:3

8:17 9:16 16:7

20:11 24:8 32:14

32:14 33:20,20

agrees 25:3 26:12

37:3 86:14

ahead 53:20 78:16

AHRI 1:18 2:7,11

8:10 10:17 12:4

15:16 17:7,7 20:1

23:20 41:14 46:6

64:5 68:4 70:17

73:9 77:4 82:11

84:21 85:15 86:8

86:11 89:3 93:3

94:12 95:13 96:16

101:8 105:12

113:11 116:4

124:5 126:18

127:11 130:20,20

140:18

AHRI's 27:2,5 28:2

air 1:20 132:4

airflow 133:19

allow 89:7 103:18

129:18 143:13

144:10

allowing 144:1

allows 142:20

alluding 138:21

alternative 67:13

amount 95:4 128:9

AMRANE 1:18

10:16 23:19 43:20

53:9 68:3 70:15

73:8 76:10 77:4

79:11 85:19 101:7

147:3

ANDERSON 1:19

and/or 77:17

annual 102:15

103:7 106:20

anomalous 78:12

answer 42:5,19

43:11,14,14,15

53:19 86:3 94:22

95:4 106:14 139:4

139:6 146:8

anybody 7:19 8:19

9:10 18:9,14

33:12,14 35:14

43:4,8 63:6,16,20

89:9 99:13 112:15

130:7 138:19

anymore 16:3

anyway 8:8,14

27:19 40:9 113:3

apart 58:19

apologize 72:13

apparently 13:6

appeals 21:13

Applause 63:9

APPLIANCE 1:3

application 143:8

applications 143:9

apply 74:2,20

124:11

appreciate 105:9

111:7

approach 35:13

37:5

appropriate 71:13

73:16

approval 49:13

92:15 102:7,8

104:18,20

approvals 104:22

approve 119:6

approved 50:1

89:12,22 104:16

105:15,16 110:9

137:16 138:1,17

138:18 139:9

approves 66:7

134:2

area 58:12 100:12

103:18

areas 23:14

arguing 8:10

ARMSTRONG

2:15 11:11 21:19

22:9,15 23:2,10

25:8 64:3 65:20

66:12,22 77:3,22

78:4

arrived 123:10

Ashley 2:15 11:5

57:20 64:1 136:17

Ashley's 39:5

ASHRAE 137:14

asked 53:14 72:17

88:2 105:20

asking 10:20 50:5

78:18 135:2

146:18 147:6

ASRAC 11:7,16

23:22 39:6,15

41:9,17 46:8,14

46:20 57:21 66:7

80:19 133:2

assembled 137:1

assessment 127:21

128:1

associated 27:19

28:16 38:8 62:11

association 89:4

90:8

assume 17:7

100:16

assuming 66:6 70:8

103:19 108:19

133:10

assumption 83:13

140:7

attention 103:12

authoritative 84:19

authority 9:19

12:21 18:19 19:1

19:19 20:18 21:1

21:12 22:14 25:7

25:14,16 26:2,8

26:12 27:7,12,14

27:15 33:13 37:2

37:4 38:18,21

40:3 41:22 42:13

43:3 46:22 49:5,8

49:18,20 50:8,14

51:15 52:13,22

53:4,11,12,22

54:4,19 55:9 56:3

59:6,9,15 63:1

109:1,7

availability 107:5

121:16

available 105:4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 150

107:9 122:1 147:1

Avenue 1:14

avoid 142:21

aware 64:21

awkward 12:17

a.m 1:14 4:2 6:21

6:22 63:14,15

A.O 1:18 12:7 51:1

B

B 17:9 32:10,12

36:12 107:3 111:8

113:11

back 4:8 5:20 23:22

24:5 29:16 31:6

33:18,19 34:9,11

38:13 39:4,14

40:15 41:9 46:15

51:15 53:6 58:3

63:12 65:3 66:20

69:9,15 75:16

78:8 81:21 82:2,4

82:21 86:14 87:14

88:17 94:15 95:6

105:21 106:14

108:6,14,17

109:14 110:7

117:7 118:8

125:14 128:12,14

130:20 131:10

133:1,18 134:6

135:15 141:20

148:5

backwards 8:14

bad 136:22

ball 52:19

Ballo 1:19 21:9

25:21 29:21

146:11,21 147:5

bar 57:14

BARHYDT 2:16

8:4,13 10:6 22:13

23:12,17 24:13

25:7,13 26:15,22

27:22 28:8,17

29:4 32:19 33:5,9

34:22 36:22 44:16

45:5,11 47:10

48:15 51:6 52:11

55:13 56:5,10,22

57:6 59:20 65:17

71:7 72:2,7,11

73:1,11 74:18

75:8 76:22 77:18

78:2,14 79:3,14

89:14,19 91:11

101:14 102:2,5,9

104:14 106:5,9

112:12,18 114:17

116:17 117:4,13

118:13,15 119:12

119:20 120:2,8

121:7,14 122:20

123:21 124:9,18

125:10,22 127:15

127:20 128:2,11

129:10,18,21

130:5 133:3 135:1

137:6 140:11

141:4 142:10

base 118:12

based 73:5,16 75:9

105:22 130:6

basic 37:16 75:17

basically 57:8,9

59:22 72:10 76:13

88:3 95:20 129:12

135:12

basis 75:7

Bauman 1:20 15:3

15:3,18 16:1,10

39:3,3 40:2,10,14

40:21 41:3 45:8

45:13 50:16 51:13

60:5 61:19 62:4

67:20 68:7 69:22

72:12 75:15 76:12

79:21 80:11 81:6

82:10,17 83:7

84:7 86:1,21

89:16 94:9 95:19

96:11 97:21 99:4

99:16 102:12

105:5 109:12

110:13 111:15,22

113:14 114:12

126:11 135:16

139:17 142:14

beat 51:16

beginning 23:21

82:22 87:15

101:15 110:16

113:2 139:12

144:17

behoove 56:19

believe 7:17 12:19

21:4 37:12 49:3,4

49:7 53:12 84:9

87:8 105:19

believes 12:20

25:15 43:3 50:7

55:2,9

belong 34:12 60:3

benefit 97:16

best 12:18 69:13

78:4

better 31:6 38:4

61:18 76:13 87:12

106:15

beyond 75:4 84:5

86:18

bigger 129:2

Bill 2:11 84:18,20

86:11 96:8 127:10

140:18

bit 21:17 44:6

73:21 86:19 91:13

103:6 114:20

126:5 145:15

board 39:21 99:21

100:4 124:12

139:15 148:2

body 91:5 143:17

boiler 17:19

boilers 19:4,11

48:19 95:10

boom 117:10,10,10

117:10,10

bottom 86:18 116:7

box 88:20

break 6:11 18:10

63:2 67:5 148:4

breakout 4:16 5:7

5:11,17 6:15 22:3

22:17 47:6,7

121:18

Brian 1:22 92:16

97:17 107:1

108:22 124:20

145:2

bring 71:9,16 73:18

77:5

bringing 19:8 69:8

brings 66:4 88:5

broader 79:16

147:16

broken 19:14

brought 73:22 87:1

budget 45:17

budgeting 110:18

127:8

build 104:14

108:11 143:16

144:7 145:13

146:6

building 1:13

121:10

built 102:6 122:2

136:1 144:1

built-in 134:12

bullet 90:4

bunch 99:17

125:16

burden 103:1

110:21 124:16

127:3,3

business 78:19

143:18

buy 36:14

by-night 99:18

C

C 75:19

calendar 107:7

120:10 128:10

call 39:10 71:10

72:14 79:4 82:4

96:14 109:21,22

called 96:1 99:17

138:14

calling 85:13

calls 82:11

capacity 126:22

127:4

care 60:14 132:17

careful 112:9

carefully 11:2

85:12

case 50:2 55:18

71:17,17 73:18

79:5 85:14 96:6

112:6 120:14

145:15

CaseArts 2:4

cases 20:14,15,17

71:1,10,11,12,12

71:16 72:6 73:12

73:22 74:1 111:4

case-by-case 75:6

category 40:17

caught 60:12 94:3

cause 108:9

caveating 120:4

CCMs 16:7 28:22

29:19

cert 66:5

certain 47:11

120:21 142:3,7

143:3

certainly 5:15 13:4

124:7

certainty 57:11

certification 1:6

3:18 31:7,8,10,20

32:2 34:15,17

60:2,3 71:11,12

71:16,17 72:6

73:2,12 74:2,20

77:1,8,16 78:9

106:1,3,10 112:22

115:15,20 119:19

143:1 145:3,22

certified 17:10

30:15 31:21 32:1

32:15,16 33:1,3
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 151

34:3,5,5,18 71:13

72:17 73:4,13,14

74:3,5,6 91:4,4

99:1 116:9 144:4

144:12

certify 30:13 31:14

71:14 116:13

143:15

certifying 29:11

chain 21:16

challenge 26:7

challenging 53:17

chance 4:12,22 6:8

11:1 131:10

change 6:4,14 12:8

31:12 114:19

133:9,11

changed 6:1

changes 6:7 34:17

57:17 122:13

124:13,13

charge 132:5

133:20 137:1

CHARLES 1:18,24

Charleston 138:17

Charlie 12:7 13:17

30:4 35:17,22

51:1 96:15,15

99:19 107:12

cheating 102:21

check 105:21

checking 129:22

checks 117:18

129:1

choice 7:12 45:3

choices 55:16

choose 92:2 120:21

143:5

choosing 44:22

Christmas 110:22

circulate 64:18

65:14

cite 20:17

civil 77:2,16

claim 76:18 131:3

claimed 76:6

claiming 76:13,14

clarification 83:7

84:2 97:18 106:17

130:3 132:19

136:15 140:3

clarify 33:19 38:1

57:22 140:5

clarifying 107:2

clause 143:4,12

145:9

cleaned 69:17

clear 22:21 23:3

58:19

clearly 95:15

Cleaver-Brooks

2:3 18:22

client 144:5 145:14

146:4

close 65:15

closed 34:14,16

64:15 87:4 107:6

colleague 21:9

come 6:3 8:11,14

11:10,12,21 16:7

24:4 34:14 60:20

63:11 93:16 101:4

107:17 120:3

133:1 142:1

comes 60:14 75:1

93:9 106:1 108:14

134:4

comfortable 30:2

85:11 136:13

142:12

coming 23:22

70:21 77:6 82:2

122:9 144:10

commemorated

24:19

comment 18:5

111:7 132:21

commenting 5:17

comments 4:13,16

7:15 42:9 43:9,17

58:9 99:5 104:3

112:13 113:8

commerce 30:10

31:15

commercial 1:6

64:19 72:7 122:10

committee 1:4 11:7

11:13,19,21 12:2

43:22

committee's 11:17

community 12:20

companies 15:12

17:22 97:11 99:20

100:15,19 101:2

127:9

company 13:15

48:7 75:20 95:18

143:13

compared 78:12

comparing 76:15

competence 143:17

144:1,7 146:6

competency 84:13

competition 85:22

competitive 97:14

complete 50:6

103:8 122:18

completed 108:8

115:5,6 118:7

125:12

completion 114:20

114:21 115:3

118:6

compliant 64:13

compromise 49:18

concentrate 70:13

concept 94:13

95:20 128:21

Concepts 1:19

conceptually 44:17

concern 15:13

39:12 60:8,21,22

94:19 95:8,11

97:3 108:2 132:15

138:3 139:5

concerns 41:8 89:1

95:3 98:11 111:2

116:15 118:11

139:7

Conditioning 1:21

conduct 105:18

127:12

conducting 117:17

135:20

conference 82:11

confidence 145:13

confidentiality

66:11

conflicts 81:13

99:10

consensus 12:1

35:13 67:16

consent 70:9

consequence 109:5

consequences

108:5

consider 52:3

80:10 95:6 143:12

consideration 80:4

122:1

considerations

121:15

considered 85:12

86:5 100:7 103:14

123:1,8 130:22

133:2

considering 80:13

consistent 75:12

contact 65:9 66:3

contained 87:3,7

contentions 68:6

CONTENTS 3:10

contest 133:14

contesting 92:5,8

context 10:3

continue 42:6,20

44:4 47:3 49:11

52:17 53:5 95:7

continuing 47:22

continuous 86:12

contracted 134:16

contrast 5:22

control 107:19

118:21

controlled 91:6

controls 101:18

117:15

convene 6:8

conversation 48:4

conversations 62:1

78:17 81:2

conveys 7:11

convince 85:8

convinced 26:4

convincing 88:2

cooling 121:4

coordinate 91:17

107:16

copy 69:17 112:6

134:18

correct 30:12 61:16

97:20 99:4,4

103:22 133:2

134:7 136:10

correctly 131:6

correlate 87:9

correlating 87:2

correlation 124:5

correlations 122:11

cost 15:8 16:15

34:7 51:18 98:12

142:21 143:1

costs 28:16 29:1

97:4

couple 67:1 70:1

82:17 141:19

course 120:12

132:21

court 21:13 32:8

36:5 60:12

cover 143:5

covered 67:6

108:16 118:4

137:13

covering 67:7

140:1

crazy 110:4

CRE 19:16 51:13

58:6 62:1 67:21

68:9 69:9 80:2,12

81:6,7,8,10 84:22

85:13 95:6 141:5

143:7,22,22

147:18

credibility 101:11
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 152

credible 85:3

credit 144:13

criteria 17:5,6

18:12 79:1 143:14

CSA 90:17 93:2

curious 13:6 129:9

currently 14:10

19:20 24:21 49:1

customers 35:18

36:1

cycles 124:14

CYMBALSKY

2:17

D

Daikin 2:1

DANE 1:21 34:8,12

35:4 37:19 38:4

59:5,18,22 63:18

69:3 82:3 85:15

85:21 87:22 88:12

89:17 91:7,22

92:7 93:15,22

94:6 105:19 106:7

106:13 108:16

109:9 112:8

114:18 115:9

116:10,12 119:7

119:13 120:1,7

126:6,10 131:19

132:12 137:20

138:6,12,15,20

139:11 140:4

142:16 143:19

146:18 147:19

data 65:1,7,8 66:14

73:17 74:2,7,8

75:2,10,12,13

91:10,10 92:12

98:3 114:15 115:1

115:4 116:2

117:19 119:18

129:22 130:15,21

133:22 135:8

136:2 144:5

147:12

databases 30:1

date 103:21 104:10

105:13,13,14,17

106:17 115:6,7

127:7

day 110:15

days 107:6 108:17

109:20 111:4

114:2,5,7,14

115:2,8 121:17,19

121:22 122:5,7,18

123:11 125:3,12

125:15,18 126:3

131:14

deadline 108:7

deal 58:21 110:7

142:22

dealing 19:16 98:6

deals 84:12

debate 10:17 39:13

95:7

debating 94:18

December 108:7

decide 15:9 16:2

30:14 37:14 40:20

41:1,5 46:14

decided 52:21 53:3

decides 15:7

deciding 48:6

decision 33:11 48:9

55:7,8 56:1 109:2

111:5

decisions 141:2

deem 48:10

defect 131:17

defected 136:22

definite 43:14

definitely 108:21

111:6 142:10

definitive 11:13

60:13 107:20

definitively 43:11

52:21 53:3

deleted 59:5,6

deleting 8:20

demand 134:18

Department 1:1

2:15,16,17 22:5

23:10 29:18,22

51:18,19 52:1,3,5

52:14 97:7 98:3,5

102:17 103:9

133:4

Department's

22:18

dependent 75:11

depends 75:14

describe 25:22

103:20

descriptions 58:4

104:5

desire 110:15

detail 83:12

detailed 136:14

details 57:1 63:20

94:10 105:7

128:22 139:20

determine 31:17

53:11

determined 74:21

develop 44:5 50:17

54:22 56:7 58:12

developing 14:4

47:3,22 52:9

54:12

devil 128:21

dialogue 20:8

dictate 107:14,15

119:10

dictated 91:5

difference 50:2

59:16 113:7

differences 85:1

different 5:10,16

19:14 21:2 24:22

25:11 27:3 30:20

31:3 37:17 39:20

45:21 53:10 56:14

71:8,10 74:7,8

79:12 86:2 89:18

119:4 122:12

136:6 145:15

147:9,22

differently 47:5

difficult 87:7

directly 65:10 69:9

99:9 113:20 116:5

131:9

disagree 5:19 36:1

36:8

disagreement

109:6

discipline 10:8

discretionary

127:12 128:5

discuss 11:7 48:21

67:21 68:5,7

106:14 131:22

135:14

discussed 7:9 47:6

48:3 51:7 52:15

64:4 140:2,6

142:11

discussing 24:7

30:17 33:17 41:14

46:21 54:11

discussion 3:12,14

3:17 8:5 39:22

43:21 53:3 70:9

81:12 84:21 94:17

101:13 133:14

discussions 19:21

41:18 52:17 84:16

123:3 126:13

dispute 37:14

distinct 54:3

distinction 93:10

distinctions 69:1

document 21:20

80:2 105:6 122:9

123:1 132:22

documents 84:15

DOE 12:10 14:7,20

16:6,13,17 17:3

17:11 18:10,12

19:1 20:1,22

25:15 26:12 27:5

28:2,4,5 29:13

30:14,21 31:2

32:15,22 33:21

35:2,16 36:2

37:10 38:17 40:3

41:22 42:13 43:3

45:9,16,20 49:4,7

49:9 50:1,1,5,20

51:3,14 52:21

53:4,10,11,15,20

53:21 54:4,14

55:2,8 56:3 57:9

59:14 64:4 65:13

66:18 70:16,18

71:3 77:10 79:8

89:12,22 95:22

96:4 101:9,11,11

101:13,14 104:11

104:19 107:4

108:13,20 109:3,9

109:16 110:3,9

111:10,21 112:1,6

113:18,20 114:1,7

114:13 119:5

120:8 121:15

122:4 125:2

127:13,21 128:14

130:11,16 131:9

131:14 132:7,11

133:12,15 134:8

136:4,18,19 137:2

137:4 140:22

141:9,10,13,17

142:2 143:21

145:20 146:13,15

146:22 147:15,16

148:1

DOE's 9:19 26:1,7

50:19 114:5

140:19 141:7

DOE-approved

32:20

doing 11:9 34:6

56:20 57:3 78:19

87:6 98:9 103:5,9

113:12 114:9,10

117:8 122:17

126:14 127:21

130:14 135:8,10

139:21

door 87:4

Doppel 1:22 5:4,9
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 153

8:2,16 10:4,11

13:22,22 15:15,21

16:5,11 17:16

18:3 19:13 26:9,9

26:17 27:16 28:7

28:9,18 29:6 30:8

30:13 32:3,10,12

38:6,6,22 39:17

40:7,12,19,22

43:18 44:3,12

47:20,20

double 36:17 37:16

doubt 12:21

draft 68:2 80:15

draft/working 80:2

drive 33:8

driven 36:14

driving 16:5

drop 15:10,21 41:6

122:16

dropped 38:10

dropping 15:20

41:8

duly-approved

90:6

DVMP 112:3

D.C 1:14

E

earlier 5:22 52:12

72:19

early 4:11 56:20

60:19

Earthjustice 1:19

easy 79:4

edition 61:3

editorial 18:5

effect 106:2 111:8

effective 103:21

104:10 105:13,13

106:17

effectively 50:12

55:4

efficiency 36:15

64:9 65:7,8 76:14

76:14 87:13 144:8

144:11

effort 82:13 98:10

eight 88:1

Eisner 1:14,17 4:3

6:10,17 7:1,15 8:1

8:19 9:1,4,8,22

10:8,19 17:2 18:8

19:6,10 22:6,11

22:20 23:5 24:3

25:1,10,18 27:20

32:7,13,21 33:12

33:18 34:10,16

35:6 36:4 37:6,18

37:22 38:20 39:2

41:11 42:9 43:1,8

43:17 44:2 49:2

49:17 50:5,19

51:10 54:15 57:15

58:3,10,18 59:1,8

59:11 61:14 62:2

62:10,20 63:4,6

63:16,19 64:1

65:16,19 66:10,21

67:4 68:11 69:20

70:8,13 71:21

79:7,19 81:11,20

82:15,19 86:13

87:14,18 88:14,16

89:5,9,20 94:4

99:2,5 100:8

101:22 102:3

103:11 106:16

111:8 112:10,15

113:8 115:3 116:7

116:11,14,19

118:10 129:15

130:6 131:8

132:16,20 137:8

140:15 148:3

either 20:14 46:13

50:1,2 55:17 56:4

56:4 65:12 105:14

134:16 136:5,7,8

141:22 147:1

elaborate 137:11

137:18

Electric 1:22

elements 119:10

eliminate 34:8

eliminating 35:7

else's 96:14

email 10:22 65:21

65:22 69:22

emailing 69:20

ends 102:5

energy 1:1 2:15,16

2:17 36:15 90:18

91:3 98:7 144:2,7

144:11 145:21

enforce 103:9

enforcement 71:5,5

71:20 73:10 76:4

76:20 127:19

engage 17:5

enrolled 105:16

ensure 117:18

129:1

ensures 11:15

ensuring 119:5

enter 29:7

entire 22:1 80:9

94:22

envision 24:6

140:19

envisioning 95:17

EPA 98:7,8 140:22

equipment 1:6 90:7

95:14 96:17,19

98:16 131:16

136:1,6,8

error 134:10

especially 22:4

Esquire 21:9

essence 46:6 141:2

established 23:21

etcetera 88:19

89:13

ETL 93:1 137:12

138:8

evaluated 139:10

Eve 111:1

event 45:2

eventually 36:20

53:17,19 80:18

147:13

everybody 4:3,5

7:18 10:22 28:21

30:7 33:8,21 37:3

40:2 55:22 56:13

59:11 62:20 67:12

76:15 80:21 81:12

83:5 86:14 87:18

88:16 91:12

103:12 106:22

108:2 117:8

124:10 147:13,21

everybody's 50:15

evolving 41:18

exactly 4:17 21:5

108:14 113:1

128:13 129:5

example 105:15

111:12 132:3

133:18

exceeding 90:1

excuse 91:2 138:2

exist 19:5

existing 89:12,22

expanded 44:6

expectation 70:19

experience 143:16

146:7

expert 21:6,14

explain 13:8 89:2,6

explanation 79:9

explanations 88:19

explicit 135:3,5

explicitly 21:11

25:15

expressed 97:8

110:15

extended 95:4

extensively 72:19

extent 45:1 56:17

59:21 103:13

extra 110:21

F

Facilitator 1:14,17

facility 135:21

fact 42:3 43:7

105:6

factor 124:13

factoring 120:16

facts 44:1 75:11

fail 70:22 77:7

failsafe 84:8

failure 71:3 72:3

77:7,13 131:2,4

131:18 132:7

133:13 137:3,3

Fair 89:19

faith 13:13

fall 84:5

falls 127:21

far 44:4 68:5 87:2

107:7 108:15

140:21 147:16

fast 66:6

February 107:8

111:9,10

federal 1:3 71:6

76:18

feedback 65:11

67:11 81:3 88:9

145:1

feel 38:4 47:5 80:21

87:12 103:1,4

feelings 48:7

feels 69:10

felt 101:19

FERRIOL 1:22

92:16 97:17 107:1

108:1,22 110:10

124:20 145:2,7,10

146:10

field 15:2 60:12,20

figure 35:12,19

56:19 78:21

107:11 119:3

126:5,7

final 58:19 80:6,15

80:15 106:3

107:18 114:21

115:4 118:6,7

129:7,8,11 131:9

133:21 135:12

144:17

finalized 65:2
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 154

find 16:19 17:1

53:20 117:12

118:2 127:17

135:13

fine 13:6 15:11

40:5 43:16,20

122:5 140:8

finish 86:14

finished 24:4 82:8

first 17:20 41:21

67:17 82:3 83:2

89:11,21 90:4,5

134:10

fit 82:16 141:7

143:4

five 6:18 64:8 65:6

77:12

fix 61:16

fixed 79:1

flag 146:12

flat 73:7 77:19

fleshed 123:9

flow 132:5

fly 1:23 22:10 55:5

55:5,15 56:6 57:4

99:17

fly-by-night 100:18

focus 4:4 48:11

focused 103:13

FOIA 146:17 147:2

folks 85:13

follow 125:4

following 33:2

58:10 140:22

follow-up 124:21

footing 119:6

foreclosing 101:16

101:20

forever 26:5

forget 19:9 20:3

145:8

forgot 10:6

form 13:4

formal 11:4

formulate 43:19

Forrestal 1:13

forth 99:2

forward 78:13

79:18

found 64:7 136:22

four 115:17,18

117:7 126:15

142:18

frame 65:18 112:11

121:11

framework 44:5

47:3 48:1 52:9

Frank 2:7 8:7,9

12:3 41:11,13

42:11 46:5 92:21

94:12 95:12

105:11 113:10,15

free 16:16,21

FREEMAN 2:19

Friday 66:3

friends 85:15

FTC 72:6

fulfill 19:3

full 58:13 67:9 68:8

80:13,17 102:17

141:3

functions 141:14

fund 45:10,16 52:4

fundamental 21:20

funded 49:9 50:21

51:9,17 52:1

funding 14:9 27:19

50:17 51:4

further 13:11

51:11 70:12 89:6

121:17 128:9

140:15

furthest 67:18

future 13:12 15:19

53:18

G

general 3:12,14,17

80:10 88:10

132:21 140:17

generalization

144:21

generally 64:7

generic 84:8

generosity 16:20

GEOFFREY 1:23

getting 9:8 16:12

67:17 75:16 78:19

94:2 102:6

GH-019 1:13

give 31:19 37:10

49:19 50:6,10

54:21 80:21 87:12

97:13 113:16

142:5

gives 100:13

giving 29:17 67:11

113:20,21

go 4:8 5:20 6:9,18

12:14 15:22 17:13

18:16 28:10 29:16

34:19 35:11 36:9

36:18 56:4 58:3

60:10 66:16 67:9

69:15 70:2 78:8

78:13,15 79:19

80:17,18 81:8,21

82:2,4,21 83:5

84:4 86:14,17

87:14 88:17,17,21

94:15 95:6 96:14

96:20 98:2 99:22

103:21 105:21

106:13 108:17

109:14 110:7

115:2 116:5 118:8

118:12 126:20

128:7 131:8,10

132:6 134:6

135:15 136:5

142:2 145:1

146:15

goes 31:20 39:4

40:14 53:6 103:6

110:14 111:8

116:4 118:1

130:20 131:14

going 8:7,11,13

10:5 11:7 15:8,10

15:15 16:3,15,17

17:3 18:17 22:9

23:2 24:6,15,19

25:5 27:18 28:12

28:16,21 29:7

30:22 37:14 40:5

40:9 46:15,16,17

46:20 50:13,20

52:20 53:10,13,17

53:20 54:20 63:7

63:7 64:18 65:3

68:18,20 69:8,10

69:11,14 71:1,3

72:14 75:2,3,3,6

75:21 78:21 79:12

80:14 82:22 83:13

93:13 94:17 96:9

98:2,19,20 99:10

99:18,22 100:1,6

100:15 101:2,3

102:21 104:19

106:2,11 107:15

109:19 110:1,22

111:2,6 113:3,5

115:11,17,19

119:20 120:3

122:8,12,15 123:3

123:8,16 124:3

125:17 126:2

128:13 133:18

136:2,13,16

137:21 142:19

145:19 147:14

148:1

good 12:13 13:13

14:22 16:22 41:9

58:4 60:15 66:5

69:18 76:7 81:20

94:11 102:11

116:19 118:17

119:11 133:6

Goodman 2:9

gotten 46:11 52:19

88:8

governing 128:5

Government 22:22

23:3

grammatically

61:16

Granted 51:2

green 91:8,9 92:2

ground 23:20

group 1:7,13 4:17

5:8,18 6:2,6,8

11:8 17:20 18:7

19:15 22:1,8,16

22:22 24:2 25:3

35:8 39:6,15

40:19 41:2 42:5

42:17,18 43:10

46:7 47:6,11,22

48:5,10,11 52:22

57:21 58:1,4,13

60:1 62:5 63:17

67:9,21,22 68:8,9

69:9,10,19,21

70:21 80:3,7,9,14

80:18 81:7,8 82:5

84:22 88:14 89:12

89:22,22 90:17

92:1 94:18,22

95:10 96:4 97:1

103:15 116:4

grouping 142:7

groups 19:14 22:3

23:8,13 24:1,4,18

24:22 38:11 41:5

47:5 61:21 77:6

79:12 81:18 82:7

86:3 123:4,5

138:8

group's 22:19

141:5

guess 4:15 12:4,17

23:22 24:13 41:16

44:16 56:13 61:9

70:21 95:13 127:7

130:9 137:20

140:21 141:4

guidance 77:10

79:10

Guide 92:9,22 93:4

93:11,12 115:10

guidelines 14:5

120:22

guilty 88:3 123:18
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 155

guy 115:11,12,16

guys 6:17 40:18,22

98:9 102:18 117:6

135:20

H

half 67:5 108:6

HALLEY 1:23

handed 24:15

handle 93:5 147:17

handled 45:20

117:15

handles 86:8

handling 117:16

hands 114:5 118:20

happen 136:16

happened 43:22

117:21

happening 65:18

happens 56:2 76:9

88:5

happy 26:6 30:1

79:8 84:22 119:15

144:20,22

hard 115:9

Harvey 2:4 12:15

12:16 16:20 21:8

84:1 85:6 87:22

103:6 123:14

head 84:18 90:12

105:12

heads 40:5

hear 7:7 8:8 12:10

13:2 63:16,20

79:12 95:2 100:20

104:7 141:1

heard 4:7 20:2,10

21:5 25:2 45:18

51:2 138:10

hearing 25:12 45:6

61:11 84:18

heartburn 29:17

heater 17:20

heaters 48:20

95:10 122:10,11

123:17

HEATING 1:6

hedging 73:19

held 122:8 146:20

help 10:2,20 61:4

81:21 82:1 85:13

88:1 102:22 127:3

146:8

helpful 12:8 122:22

helps 81:2,3

hesitant 115:21

118:19

hey 28:11 81:4

96:15 98:18 99:19

109:17

high 100:3

higher 81:15 85:16

hike 28:13

hire 138:19

hit 126:3

hold 118:13,13

132:13 145:19

home 110:22 145:1

homework 53:16

Hon 1:24 18:4 23:6

30:4,4,12,16

33:16 35:17,17

36:7 37:10 57:22

58:15,21 81:17

90:15 91:1 102:7

102:10 107:12,12

114:19 115:8

116:22 117:5

118:6 126:8 128:8

130:3 134:12

135:6 136:18

140:13 141:15

142:19 143:7

147:9,20

honest 102:19

103:10

hoops 145:17 146:3

HOOTMAN 1:25

9:2,6,20 13:10,20

30:18 31:10 35:22

45:1 70:4,11

77:15,21 147:7

hopefully 39:20

67:2 81:2,3

hour 67:4

hours 46:21

How's 67:18

HTP 2:8 48:3 93:7

101:1 117:20

122:7 143:2

huge 45:17 56:12

110:11

HURST 1:25 9:14

60:7 61:8 62:8,16

119:9 120:20

121:13

Hussmann 2:6

HVAC 1:6 19:15

64:19 65:12 70:4

75:19 121:9

I

idea 27:1 40:15

41:7 80:14 81:21

94:12 97:8 99:16

126:14,17 127:8

141:5

ideas 58:12 79:17

80:3 82:20

identification

140:20

ignorant 84:3

impact 56:12,18

101:10 124:8

impartiality 85:2

implies 28:15 114:8

imply 114:2

importance 106:10

important 6:13

18:6 39:9 52:18

61:6 94:21,21

96:21 101:12

impose 27:9

imposed 97:2

impression 98:4

improperly 137:1

improvement 13:3

inaccurate 74:16

inadequate 88:11

88:12,13

include 44:7 93:1,2

105:8 126:13

137:13

included 39:11

89:4

includes 130:4

144:7

including 11:9

incorrect 130:19

132:4,5 133:19,19

133:20

incorrectly 132:8

increase 88:6

incur 34:7

independence 1:14

101:19 129:1

independent 84:10

92:11 99:12

115:15

independently

32:17

indeterminate

10:14

indicated 47:22

individual 83:16,21

individually 48:8

industry 45:19

69:13 87:6 89:3

90:8 94:7 144:14

information 13:5

13:18 21:3 46:13

57:10 74:11 78:9

118:18 119:4,17

127:18 128:13

133:5 146:14

initial 114:10

initiated 15:17

innocent 88:3

123:22

input 111:7 142:6,8

installed 132:4

instances 131:7

instilled 91:17

intend 5:15

intent 7:11 108:4

113:13 116:1

142:15

intention 91:22

interaction 82:14

interest 133:4

interested 54:12

60:6,7 98:5

interesting 85:19

124:10

interests 62:3

internal 143:20

interpretation

37:15

introduced 31:15

invalid 88:4 131:22

132:1,12,14

135:18

investment 96:22

involved 36:19

69:6 72:6 83:21

90:16

involvement 97:20

140:19

ISO 92:9 96:9

issue 9:17 12:5 14:9

14:12,17,19 16:13

19:7 26:13,20,21

35:10 39:9,16,19

40:8 46:8,15

50:15 58:7 60:8

61:12 72:15 75:13

86:1 87:2 92:19

94:19 95:5,7

104:20 107:18

110:14 116:18

118:2 123:16

124:10 131:16

133:3,16 135:14

136:3,4,7,12

140:16 148:4

issues 19:15 26:10

51:22 54:3 64:16

67:7,10 106:19

108:9 110:20

123:6 124:5 126:9

128:9 147:10

item 13:5,18 46:6,7

85:6 105:8

items 41:9 79:22

147:22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 156

iterations 126:21

J

January 109:17,18

110:14 111:16,17

127:7

Jeff 1:20 2:1 15:3

19:18 39:3 54:1

69:4 70:16 96:9

99:19

Jeff's 79:20

Jeremiah 2:19

65:21 70:1

Jill 1:25 9:18 13:6

job 131:6

jobs 122:18

Joe 2:5 112:21

115:19,20 137:9

139:12 140:5

John 1:25 2:17

89:6

JOHNSON 2:1

jump 146:3

jumped 112:20

145:17

jumping 99:21

justification 69:1

justified 103:16

justifies 103:17

K

Karen 2:2 4:10,13

47:10 57:8 104:9

105:20

Karen's 104:15

Karim 1:18 10:16

15:7 23:19 53:9

68:3 70:17 73:8

75:17 77:4 94:16

101:7

keep 46:15 52:20

68:9 90:11 96:21

97:4 100:3 102:14

103:12 122:7

keeps 41:17 90:12

key 4:10 5:7

kick 104:17

kind 6:9 8:17 9:11

19:12 28:9 45:3

57:12 73:19,21

75:6,11,16,17

80:21 81:16 83:8

83:13 84:8,14

104:14 108:8

115:9 118:22

119:14 121:8

124:15 128:3,15

128:19 140:1

kinds 54:22 122:21

Kleiss 2:1 4:19 8:21

19:18,18 20:5,8

20:21 43:10,16

48:13 54:1,1

knew 45:11 119:15

know 6:6 11:18

35:20 39:6 44:12

47:9,9 49:8,14

52:21 53:7,8

69:11,14 74:12,15

75:10 78:14 82:7

87:1 92:7 95:3

97:15 107:21

108:3 110:10,16

111:10 113:6

117:2 121:10

123:2,6 124:7

128:3 129:3 133:8

133:15,22 134:21

136:2,7 137:22

138:10 145:19

knowing 49:12

50:12 138:4

knowingly 71:18

KOJAK 2:2 56:21

62:12 87:20

131:15 141:19

L

lab 99:12,12 108:20

109:22 111:12

117:22 118:2

125:8 126:22,22

130:12,18 131:9

133:6,13 134:17

136:9,11 138:9,17

139:3,4 146:20

laboratories 1:22

2:2 19:2 91:21

114:22

laboratory 93:19

labs 115:17 117:12

117:16 138:21

139:8

lack 118:17

laid 55:16 71:8

101:6

language 10:2,18

10:18 12:18 13:3

13:16 24:11 37:21

57:20 59:2 61:3

62:22 65:14 66:8

105:20

larger 19:4

latest 68:2

Laughter 7:13

10:10 20:4,7,20

21:7,10,15 32:9

36:3,6 47:16

48:17 57:2 60:16

62:18 63:5 79:6

112:14,16 116:21

123:20 124:2,17

131:1 137:19

Laura 2:16 9:22

10:21 20:16,16

43:1 55:6 66:4

75:15 103:22

109:17 110:5,21

111:15 112:10

113:9 116:20

123:14 127:10

130:6 132:17

136:13,16 140:18

144:22

Laura's 82:6

law 20:13

lawyer 20:1

lawyers 13:10

19:21 20:6 21:1

leap 120:6 128:18

leapt 128:15

learn 82:1

learnings 146:7

leave 4:11 8:6

10:21 41:4 94:13

95:5

leaves 67:8

leaving 21:17

left 4:19 5:10 12:18

60:11,20 142:18

legal 10:18 18:18

19:1 22:13 25:7

25:13 33:13 37:7

38:21 46:22 49:4

49:18,20 50:14

51:22 54:18 56:2

59:6,8 60:13

62:22

legally 33:10 35:3,5

Lennox 1:25

lesser 103:17

letter 109:17

111:16 126:15

letters 111:1

let's 17:7 32:7,13

52:20 58:3 59:12

60:22 70:13,22

71:3 74:10,12

75:5 78:9,11

82:20,21 86:5,13

86:14,16 88:21,22

103:21,22 109:15

118:11 135:22

145:16

level 57:11 74:14

82:14 83:19 98:17

115:14 147:18

levels 15:1 45:3

102:20

liability 100:16

101:3

lie 109:1

light 39:20

liked 9:12

limit 115:5

limited 93:11 96:16

limiting 120:19

line 52:19 89:11

116:7

linked 71:5 77:7,8

list 16:8 17:9,9,13

18:12,15 28:22

29:9 30:11,15

31:20 32:10,11,12

32:15 33:3,8 34:2

34:5,6,18,19

35:19 36:10,11,12

36:12,17,21 37:16

41:8 53:7 56:1

75:21 76:16,16

119:14 125:2

listed 16:6 19:11

55:19

listening 11:20

listing 35:15 75:22

101:3

lists 30:7 32:16

35:20 36:9 55:11

55:19 75:22

little 4:11 38:7 44:6

50:10,10 73:21

86:19 91:13 103:6

114:20 126:5

145:15

live 36:15 65:12

located 22:6

Lochinvar 2:1

19:19 54:2

lock 13:11,14,15

15:16

locking 15:13

lock-in 115:21

logic 113:17

logical 121:11

logistical 128:19

logistics 126:9

long 60:14 104:21

107:21 115:16

116:15 117:2

121:20 123:12

125:15 131:12

132:18 133:1,17

longer 82:15 116:8

116:8

look 4:12,22 10:3

11:2 26:18 36:10
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 157

38:12 53:16 59:11

59:12 64:20 65:5

65:9 66:2 71:3

78:10 108:4

123:22 131:3

134:20

looked 36:10,12

73:1 74:1 86:9

looking 4:9 58:7,11

67:10 73:12 75:2

75:3 112:18

119:16,17 133:21

141:4

looks 6:4 74:16

134:3

loop 107:6 108:11

loophole 143:6

loss 137:1

lot 5:10 19:16

38:14 52:18 75:8

78:16,18 97:3

98:9 99:20 100:18

112:12 113:7

123:3,17 128:17

137:15 138:7

141:1

lovely 109:16

low 57:13 85:9

134:2

lower 81:15

lump 61:12

lunch 67:5 148:4

M

main 118:15

128:15

majority 64:14

making 121:3

130:1 141:1

142:13 147:15

manage 90:13 91:9

91:16 95:14,18

96:5,6,6

managed 93:20

management 88:22

90:10 91:20 93:18

99:8 100:9 141:22

managing 83:15

91:3,18 99:14

141:2

mandate 55:9

mandated 50:1

52:10

mandatory 33:17

55:21 56:16 57:12

manipulating

116:2

manufacturer

31:16 71:18 73:3

75:22 78:17 90:7

95:14,17 96:9,17

97:1,5 99:14

101:5,21 103:7

105:14 107:3

109:15,16 111:3

112:1 113:12,17

113:19 114:9

121:15 122:5

127:4 129:2,17,19

130:14,21 131:13

132:9 134:4

141:22 142:13,21

manufacturers

13:1 23:14,16

24:21 25:19,20,22

40:4 44:9 45:16

46:3 52:7 61:4,9

61:13 64:20 65:12

69:16 74:1 101:4

115:22 116:1

121:10 125:8

134:14,15 137:15

138:4 144:10

manufacturer's

59:14 72:17 114:8

136:11 139:3

manufacturer-ap...

111:20

manufacturer-de...

90:16

manufacturer-fu...

5:2 26:16 42:1,14

45:9 49:5,10 50:8

50:11 54:5,7 55:3

55:10 102:15

manufacturer-run

83:14,20 97:8,18

99:9 101:16

128:21 129:16

manufacturer-sp...

66:14

manufacturing

1:24 2:2,9 131:16

March 109:8

Mark 1:23 55:5

market 33:8 36:14

59:19 143:15

marketing 53:8

57:9

Mary 1:21 34:22

99:19 137:10,17

145:12

MASSOUD 2:4

matter 6:21 14:19

35:1 37:8 43:14

60:18,22 63:14

matters 22:3,4

McQuay 2:1

MDA 66:15

mean 6:13 11:5

17:15 23:13 27:13

28:10 29:15 34:11

38:9 55:15 57:9

67:16 75:8 77:11

78:16 80:6 102:20

105:13 109:10

116:11 125:13

128:2 129:7,8

131:20 137:21

meaning 127:14

137:14

means 38:14 41:2

79:13 104:10

136:19

meant 47:15 103:5

103:8 145:4

mechanism 134:13

media 11:20

medium 134:1

meet 18:12 68:21

71:22 72:3,16

73:14 96:1 100:2

122:17 137:4

143:14 146:4

meeting 1:7 11:9

21:6 35:16 90:1,1

126:4 148:7

meetings 141:20

meets 17:6 33:2

34:1,20 72:15

member 62:5

members 61:18,20

82:12,12 143:22

143:22

mention 66:10

mentioned 79:9

145:16

met 1:13 54:13

70:7

method 122:13

MEYERS 2:2 4:15

5:1,6,13 6:12 7:3

9:11 12:13,22

17:18 18:6 29:2

29:13 42:10 47:1

47:13,17 48:22

52:5,16 63:22

104:4,9 111:19

129:6,14

MICHAEL 2:2,20

middle 121:5

Mike 65:9 66:2,12

million 103:2

mind 27:11 54:2

120:6 122:7

127:20 128:18

130:10

minimize 127:3,3

minimum 51:18

54:9,13 56:8 57:4

57:7 70:20 71:6

71:22 72:4 76:18

96:22,22

minutes 6:18 63:11

70:2

misinformation

86:12

misinformed 86:17

misinterpreted

5:14

misrepresented

71:19

missed 72:13

misses 132:6

missing 6:14

mistake 131:11

Mitsubishi 1:22

26:10 38:7 47:21

model 75:22 81:18

102:21 111:21

140:22

models 87:5 112:2

112:4 118:12

120:9,14 126:14

126:15,16

modified 49:1

Molvie 2:3 18:21

18:21 19:8

moment 75:7

money 16:16 29:1

monopoly 85:22

month 113:7 125:9

125:20,21

months 104:12

111:4 113:6 121:6

141:20

morning 4:9 39:18

67:8 68:12

motor 64:8

motors 3:14 48:16

63:12,17 64:12

65:6,8 66:2,18

70:6

move 36:20 41:9

48:16 53:13 61:1

111:13

moved 52:19

moves 53:20

moving 106:10

140:6

muddles 38:9,18,21

multiple 49:4 76:16

126:21

N
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 158

name 89:18 138:18

names 138:14

NAPM 82:12

National 1:20 15:4

39:4

nature 28:14 41:15

Navigant 2:20

necessarily 26:3,4

80:1 119:2 127:19

143:9

necessary 48:10

68:16 135:15

146:5

need 8:11,17 40:15

40:17 44:12 46:13

48:11,20 53:1

66:1,1,8 68:22

77:10 79:8 82:8

85:7 90:13,14

91:3 94:20 101:9

103:1 109:8

117:18 119:2

120:18 123:9

125:2 139:8,19

141:6

needed 106:18

139:8

needing 56:7

needs 9:12 30:14

44:6 55:2 114:20

121:22 122:17

132:9 134:6 147:8

negative 116:16

negotiate 50:12,22

54:17 55:4 141:17

negotiated 110:5

negotiating 49:9,22

54:11

negotiation 51:11

56:18 109:3

negotiations 42:7

42:20 46:11 49:12

55:1 110:6

Neil 1:14,17 5:18

69:7

Neil's 52:12

neither 49:12 56:6

NEMA 64:6

NESHAN 2:4

never 73:18

new 79:17 87:1

111:1 117:12

135:22 136:5

138:11 143:14,15

144:10

night 4:10 8:3

69:18

nightmare 57:1

nodding 20:19

nonverbal 20:9

normal 143:18

note 94:14 106:8,14

140:11,14

noted 39:14

notes 143:20

144:18

notice 126:16

notification 133:12

notified 121:15

126:18

notifies 122:4

notify 39:9 107:4

November 107:9

108:3,20 110:2

111:13 113:4,4

121:5

NRCan 145:22

NRTL 83:10 84:7

90:6,13,14,15,18

91:6,19,20 92:15

92:20 93:8,10

94:1,8

NRTLs 84:14 92:3

number 57:1 69:5

73:7,15,16 74:4,6

77:19,20 87:3

88:1 94:4 106:19

107:20 110:20

142:20 147:10,11

numbers 85:8,16

119:19 147:12

O

object 8:19 26:1

35:14,18 36:17

objection 37:16

41:6

objections 9:9

57:19 59:1 62:21

62:21 81:1 93:5

objects 9:10

observation 118:16

obviously 79:14

occasions 130:17

October 80:16

offer 97:12

offered 66:13

offering 100:6

officially 46:8

oh 8:13 22:13

109:22 113:22

134:4,9 138:6

okay 7:15 8:1,14

9:8 20:5 23:5

25:14 27:22 28:8

28:13,18 29:6

40:14,21 42:3

44:3 57:15 59:1

63:8 74:10 76:4

77:21 81:13 83:1

92:13 103:5

106:22 109:18

112:15 113:18

114:12 120:1,7

125:22 129:14

130:5 133:8 135:1

136:19 141:17

146:1,10

once 31:18,19 61:4

63:7 83:16 88:4

120:11,18 125:20

126:16,18 136:1

open 11:12 12:9

13:1 20:21 41:4

79:17 82:20 97:11

101:20 102:6

146:1,5

open-ended 107:13

operate 92:1,2

95:22

operates 90:17

opinion 11:6 21:12

21:22 37:11,11

60:13,17,22 93:4

101:9 109:4

opinions 20:12

21:3 25:11

opportunity 130:15

131:3,5,13 132:10

132:22 133:9,18

135:14

oppose 37:7

opposed 77:18

opposite 128:6

opt 45:8

option 15:19 16:4

89:4 95:15 96:7

97:6,10,19 101:6

101:16 146:1,5

optional 52:6,10

53:2,5,7 55:17,20

options 90:5

100:14 105:3

order 27:8 54:14

138:9 146:4

organization 14:5

17:6 100:4 118:1

129:12

organizations

97:12 99:18 100:5

original 64:22

112:22 119:18

Originally 105:22

OSHA 93:9

other's 23:9

ought 129:4

outcome 26:6

outliers 64:11

outline 95:21

outrageously

121:20

outside 6:18 48:4

48:10 62:5

overall 96:4 101:10

112:3

overhead 101:4

overlap 23:18

overseeing 83:18

oversees 118:2

oversight 97:20,22

o'clock 148:5

P

pace 66:6

package 7:20 62:22

66:7

packages 104:20

page 82:16 83:3,6

86:18 87:19

pages 18:11 82:18

paid 28:6

paragraphs 102:4

parallel 135:12

part 14:9,11,14

24:12 27:1 51:17

54:10,12 77:20

85:3 86:8 87:5

94:16 97:6 106:3

120:15 123:19

132:16 141:15

144:3,14

participants 11:19

11:19

participate 14:7,15

14:22 16:14,15

26:19 27:3,6,8

28:2,3,5,14 38:15

52:7 105:4

participating 14:21

17:22 55:20

participation 25:16

26:13 27:12,17

42:1,14

particular 59:19

69:14 120:13

121:6

particularly 75:19

85:2 128:20

parties 25:17

party 83:9,10,12,15

83:17,20 84:6

96:5,20 97:13,19

97:22 98:9,16,17

98:22 99:1 107:4

107:16 108:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 159

109:3 112:4,6

113:18,21 114:3

114:13,15,22

116:3,5,6 120:9

121:16 122:4

127:1 129:21

130:13,14 131:5

132:6 133:21,21

134:19,22 135:7

135:10 136:9

139:19,21,22

141:10,11,12

142:1

pass 115:4

passed 64:15 114:3

pass/fail 130:22

147:4

path 88:6

Paul 1:22 13:22

26:9 31:6 38:6

39:12 44:2,18

47:20

Pause 7:14 70:3

83:4 86:20 87:17

87:21 104:2

105:10 106:21

pay 14:14 28:12

33:14 40:4,9,13

45:17 46:4

paying 14:11,11

15:1

pays 26:14,20

35:10 45:20,22

46:2

penalties 77:2,16

86:2,7

people 14:7 15:5,18

16:14 19:9 31:13

38:1 44:14 45:18

49:3,4,7 54:17,20

67:1 68:12,18

69:5 75:19 78:15

82:13 85:8,9 89:1

102:18 103:10

110:16 112:19

140:10 142:11

people's 115:18

percent 74:12,13

77:12 88:11

percentage 49:6

perception 110:6

perform 92:12

performance

119:19

period 143:13

person 62:13,14

129:12 138:18

perspective 25:2

124:19

Pete 2:3 18:21

phase 10:14

Phil 7:6

Philip 108:10

Phillip 2:8 48:2

92:18 93:6 100:22

117:20 122:6

123:15 124:6,21

124:22 143:2

145:3

Phillip's 48:15

phone 61:22 82:4

91:12 100:21

104:8 137:18

phrasing 12:9

pick 125:4 141:18

picking 44:21

98:20

piece 38:13 136:5

pieces 119:4

pity 32:8

place 56:4 77:9

92:10 103:8

places 56:2 141:8

plan 119:1 122:18

125:14 141:16,16

planned 82:10

plans 119:6

player 4:10

playground 7:6

playing 15:1

playroom 4:6

pleasant 7:12

please 7:7 89:16

plenty 111:11

plowing 78:15

plus 37:20

point 5:21 7:17

10:11,15 12:4

19:16 39:5 44:18

51:10 58:4 66:5

80:5,12 81:20

98:1,12 101:8,13

101:18 102:12

104:17 109:6,20

114:4 126:1,12

134:20 137:21

138:3 141:12

144:16 145:13,14

146:8

pointed 8:7

points 24:16 69:7

94:11

policy 33:11 35:1

37:6 52:14 55:6,8

56:3

pop 100:19

posed 140:10

position 6:2 11:13

11:17 12:5,10,18

22:18,19 24:20

29:18,22 49:2

50:6,20 51:14

80:6 100:18 117:6

122:16

positions 22:2 24:5

45:21

possibility 35:7

55:7,14

possible 11:6 81:17

97:4 129:4

possibly 137:15

potential 109:5

137:3

potentially 26:7

103:4 135:18

pragmatic 124:19

precludes 56:7

preliminarily 58:8

prematurely

136:20

premise 99:8

prepared 141:13

present 1:16 2:13

2:22 52:2 58:13

68:1 95:16 136:17

presented 41:17

57:20 85:8 86:12

presenting 80:20

presiding 1:15

pretty 65:15 66:1,9

67:2 84:2

previously 117:21

pre-existing 20:13

probably 85:13

124:10 128:12

problem 13:7 36:7

36:16 37:8 43:4

68:19 69:8 72:15

88:7 93:1 101:22

107:20 124:6

125:19

problems 21:17

106:19

procedure 124:13

proceed 67:13

68:11

process 36:18 52:8

66:16 67:1 93:13

104:18 107:22

117:2 119:10,11

127:5 140:20

141:3

processes 118:9

product 31:14

40:16,17 70:19

73:5 74:11 76:21

83:19 86:2 116:9

121:4,6 127:17

136:21 139:10

production 121:1

products 17:9 29:8

29:11 30:10 32:16

64:13 65:5 72:10

75:20 85:11 87:4

121:21

program 5:3 14:4,6

14:8,10,13,16,18

15:5,8,10,16,17

15:18,22 16:3,13

16:14,15,18,19,19

16:21 17:5,11,12

17:14 18:1,13,14

19:4,12 26:13,19

26:20 27:2,4,4,6,8

27:13,18 28:2,4,4

28:6,10,11,15

29:7 30:6 31:1

32:20 33:1 34:1

34:20 38:16 40:4

40:9,13,18 42:16

42:21 44:6,9,15

45:10,15 46:1,16

47:4 48:1 49:6,9

49:10,15,22 50:3

50:9,11,18 51:4,8

52:7 54:6,8,9 55:3

55:10,12,18,20,21

56:9,12 57:12

60:2,3 71:4 76:3

79:15 83:11,14,20

88:22 90:10,11,14

90:16,18 91:3,9

91:16,18,20 92:3

92:10 93:2,3,19

93:20,21 94:8,13

95:14,18,21,22

96:3 97:13 99:9

99:15 100:9

101:17 104:16,17

105:15,16,18

109:15 110:11

111:20 112:1,3

121:9,9 126:18

127:11 128:21

129:22 130:13,20

139:19 142:22,22

144:5,14,15

programs 3:12

18:16 30:20 35:16

38:12 41:19,19

42:2 91:8,8 97:9

97:14 100:6

120:17 137:12

145:11

program's 119:1
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 160

promised 9:22

properly 136:1

proposal 68:4

80:16 81:7,8,22

98:22 104:11,13

107:7 109:21

propose 80:13

proposed 80:8

107:5 108:18

110:2 121:16

125:11

proposing 51:17

143:8

proven 88:3

provide 97:16

141:13

provided 64:6 65:1

114:6

public 11:12,18

146:14 147:12

publish 29:14

published 24:15

147:12

pull 31:6 33:18,18

126:4

pulled 22:12

pulling 21:16

purely 18:5 101:3

purpose 11:4 81:11

99:12 126:13

pursue 42:6 48:9

pushback 85:7

put 11:14 17:8,13

17:20 30:9 33:2

34:2 39:21 53:5

65:21,22 89:11

90:4 92:22 93:3

99:11 112:9 113:9

115:8 117:5,9

119:14 128:4

131:20 144:20

146:15

puts 12:17 101:11

110:21

putting 51:21

79:18

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-...

4:1

p.m 148:6

Q

qualifications

91:21

qualified 17:14

137:17

quality 117:19

quantity 118:12

question 7:22 9:17

9:18 12:6,9 13:1

19:19 20:22 21:20

25:5 27:10 29:16

30:5 33:13,16

34:13 37:8 41:21

42:6,12,19 43:12

45:14,22 46:22

50:16 52:12,14

53:14,19 54:19

61:17 62:13 67:20

68:10 70:16 72:18

74:10,17 77:5

86:4 88:5 93:7

95:13 101:20

103:6 104:15

107:2 124:21

126:11 129:6

130:9 135:17

140:18 146:8

147:21

questioning 49:21

62:15

questions 7:16

11:14 39:7 43:9

61:15 65:16 66:21

78:18 89:1 99:6

104:3 106:18

107:13 118:10

120:6 128:18,19

130:10 140:9

quick 66:1 91:11

quickly 41:18 67:3

106:11

quite 36:15 115:1

139:12 146:2

R

raise 60:5 102:13

109:5 124:9

126:12

raised 41:22 42:3

42:13 43:3 59:14

60:1 61:9,15,17

61:20,21 62:6,8

62:14 94:12,19

97:3 123:17 124:6

raising 123:6

random 127:21

rated 74:11

rating 31:17 74:16

75:4 88:4 131:22

132:2,15

ratings 16:9 29:14

29:20 88:5

reach 82:13

reaching 24:8

reaction 123:11

read 7:22 10:12

82:21 83:12 86:5

88:9,17 91:15

119:21 125:10

128:16

reader 22:21

readers 83:3

reading 23:3 84:10

86:15 90:11

113:11

ready 62:20 67:21

79:19 83:5 86:17

real 36:16 91:11

reality 117:14

realize 48:4 120:13

really 6:6 7:10

14:17 17:19 21:11

26:10 39:22 40:7

41:20 44:21 53:15

53:21 55:15 60:14

60:18 61:5 70:4

78:19,20 81:19

91:19 95:13,15

100:14 114:2

123:12,15

reason 37:20 51:11

53:14 74:4 75:17

80:20 89:10 97:13

116:22 134:17

reasonable 54:21

97:15

reasons 37:7,17

received 125:2

recognition 94:15

recognized 18:1

91:4

recognizes 42:5,18

43:11

recognizing 106:17

recommend 35:8

recommendation

13:5,18,21 31:7

38:2

recommendations

24:1 51:21

recommending

143:12

record 6:21 58:9

63:14 123:10

redesigned 64:14

reduction 94:8

reexamine 7:19

refine 81:22

reflect 14:2

reflected 22:12

47:8 123:1

reflecting 21:5

43:21

reflection 12:12

Refrigeration 1:6

1:20

regard 145:21

regarding 9:18

regards 139:18

regional 60:10

regs 104:17

regulation 31:8

42:21 46:18 128:4

128:7

regulations 73:6

119:2 122:8

Regulatory 124:16

relate 85:2 94:2

100:10

related 44:14

relatively 87:5

100:2

relevant 39:22

relisting 76:21

remember 36:4

89:9 141:19

142:11

remind 4:5 103:12

remote 86:22 87:2

87:7,9,10

removed 5:5

reopened 31:8 32:1

repeat 13:8 118:3

rephrase 47:18

replace 102:16

replaced 93:14

report 7:2 24:5

31:20 39:14 67:17

107:18 115:13

132:7 133:7 134:2

134:3 147:4,8,11

147:22

reported 114:1

128:12,14 130:11

130:16 132:11

134:8 136:21

137:2,4

reporter 32:8 36:5

reporting 114:11

125:13

reports 25:4 58:11

113:17 114:8,13

138:14 146:21

147:15

represent 11:22

21:21,22 22:2

23:13 48:7

represents 80:6

request 91:12

146:17 147:2

require 14:7,20

16:13 17:12 18:19

19:1 25:16 26:13

26:19 27:5,7,12

27:17 28:3 31:3

35:8 41:20 42:1
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 161

42:13 46:17 49:5

128:3

required 14:12

18:9 27:3 29:9,13

30:6 40:8 56:11

96:2

requirement 27:9

36:19 54:9 99:10

99:11 100:15

101:1

requirements

17:22 30:19 31:2

31:11,13 49:15

53:1,5 56:8,15,17

57:5,7 77:9 80:10

84:4 85:17 88:6

96:1 136:15

139:20 145:20

requiring 18:14

28:5 30:21 33:14

35:9 44:8,20

rerate 76:8

reread 5:20

rerun 134:11

135:15

reserve 26:1

131:20,21 132:14

residential 72:10

85:10 121:3

122:10

resolve 9:17 50:14

60:19 61:1

resolved 25:6

respect 85:6

respond 120:22

response 59:3 66:1

67:15 88:10

responsibility

31:16 96:18,19

102:17 148:1

responsible 83:15

83:17 96:12,13

97:5 98:15 99:22

100:2

rest 60:2 69:15

86:5

result 78:11 133:9

133:11 134:18

136:21 147:3

results 113:18,20

114:1,5,6,13

115:15 117:7,15

128:11 130:11

134:8,21 135:11

146:19,19,22

resume 143:18

resumed 6:22

63:15

retest 136:5

review 23:8 104:19

114:21 115:1,4,6

118:7,7 125:20

129:7,11 130:4,15

130:18,21 131:9

131:13 132:10

133:1 135:11,12

reviewer 132:6

133:21 134:19

rewriting 76:21

Rheem 2:2 104:10

right 4:3 7:1 11:20

18:1,3 19:13

23:17 25:11 26:1

26:5,15 30:17

31:18 37:12,13

38:1 47:18 59:6

63:10 68:13 70:14

72:2 74:17 78:1,2

78:5,7 90:18

93:12,21 98:2,7

103:20 106:4,19

112:7 114:16

117:4 118:1 121:7

122:14 126:10

130:2 131:4,19

132:8 138:12,12

139:11 142:16

145:7,12 147:19

RIVEST 2:20

role 106:3 129:2

141:7

rolling 113:3,5

RON 2:6

room 1:13 12:11

19:22 21:1 33:21

34:21 49:11 54:17

56:14 69:6 123:4

123:18 134:6

140:10 147:13

root 135:11

rule 17:4 66:5,5,6

106:1,10

rulemaking 1:3

106:12

rulemakings 106:6

rules 23:20

run 52:3 69:12

74:12 83:10 84:13

89:11 90:11 99:8

132:4 133:19

134:5,6 135:10

137:16,17,17

138:4,9,22 145:11

running 90:12

121:2,5 129:21

130:12,13

Rusty 2:9 135:2

S

Sachs 2:4 7:6 12:16

12:16 13:2,16

16:20 21:8,11,16

61:2 62:6 63:2

84:1,17 85:5 88:8

88:13,15 123:14

124:3

safety 145:22

sample 74:19

Sanders 2:5 112:21

112:21 137:10

138:2,7,13,16

139:6,14 140:8

satisfaction 50:15

save 89:17

savings 143:1

saw 20:10,16 93:7

142:3

saying 9:15 16:1

17:19 27:17 28:1

28:14,19,21 30:22

31:22 33:9 34:3

35:11 38:20 41:21

44:4,8,18 47:11

47:14 54:16 61:11

68:5,14 76:11

89:6 92:6,8,19,21

99:18 100:17

108:15 109:2,13

122:20 124:22

125:6 135:9

137:22 142:15

145:20 147:7

says 7:5 15:16

25:15 38:17 44:13

90:9 95:20 108:2

108:14,17 109:16

109:17 110:4

112:8 113:11,17

113:19,22 114:7

141:8,10

scalable 110:11

scale 51:6 79:16

scaling 64:6,8,12

65:4,11 66:19

scenario 73:20

118:5

schedule 106:20

107:5,15 108:19

109:21 110:3,9

111:11 118:11

121:17 125:11

scheduled 125:9

schedules 125:20

scheduling 124:14

scheme 85:4

scope 48:5 137:12

137:13 139:9

144:6,13 147:16

screaming 117:6

screen 4:4,12 7:4

7:10 9:5 10:2

19:20 21:5

scrubbing 66:17

scurrying 117:11

second 90:6 130:18

section 24:14

118:16 142:3

sections 7:19 22:16

22:17

see 26:17 29:9

32:13 37:8,20

47:17 55:16,19

57:17 65:6 66:19

68:16 75:9 81:12

81:13,14 84:22

105:1 112:18

118:19,20 120:4,5

121:21 132:15

136:2 140:21

142:4,9 144:19,22

seeing 39:19 40:5

seen 140:21

SEER 76:1,5

segment 59:19

select 112:1,4 120:9

selected 120:15

142:6,9

selection 83:18

121:12 125:1

142:13

selections 105:1

112:7 142:2

selects 90:19

111:21

self 87:3,6

self-contain 87:10

self-contained 87:4

send 65:3,20 66:20

69:22 104:12

110:3 115:19

127:1

sends 115:13

sense 9:9 26:3

28:20 44:17 45:5

62:10 84:3 87:11

88:10 121:8 122:3

137:15

sent 10:5 66:7

74:10 146:22

sentence 5:4 17:20

18:4 28:19 43:2

46:18,19 47:2

89:21 90:4

separate 19:7

20:11 23:8 24:1
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 162

30:1,6 33:3 34:2

35:15 36:9 54:3

58:1 106:12

separated 105:2

SEPTEMBER

1:10

sequence 117:9

sequencing 29:10

30:9

serious 147:20

seriously 53:16

session 5:12,17

6:16

sessions 23:1 47:7

set 34:1 56:8 69:13

99:2 121:1 136:8

sets 18:12

setting 14:20

shake 84:18

share 66:13

SHEBIK 2:6

100:20 104:7

sheet 11:15,22

she'd 13:8

short 84:5

shortly 66:9

show 66:17 69:18

69:21 125:4

showed 136:22

shows 75:12

shut 142:17

shy 21:9

side 34:9,11 49:12

75:19,20 79:20

sides 55:2

signed 133:6

significant 6:4,14

49:6 118:17

signing 129:13

similarly 127:7

simple 126:8

simpler 19:16

simply 17:3,9 18:10

114:6

Simultaneous

17:17 30:3 32:6

35:21 38:3 48:18

59:10 62:9,19

85:20 87:16

112:17 118:14

129:20

single 74:18,22

78:11

sir 137:10

sitting 110:22

115:21 123:4

139:15

situation 14:3

19:17 75:9 78:8

79:2

situations 143:3

six 111:3

skip 132:13

slew 139:7

slide 82:6,7 88:22

slides 4:9 87:15

99:3

slow 83:3

small 87:5 101:5

smaller 123:17

Smith 1:18 12:8

51:2

soften 9:14

sold 72:1

solve 92:22

somebody 7:1

25:18 36:9 51:15

53:21 57:16 61:11

67:13 68:20 70:2

96:14 102:20

111:12 125:3

133:9 138:10

145:16

somewhat 75:18

120:19

sooner 126:5

sorry 7:7,8 8:15

10:6 25:8 58:8

92:18 104:9

sort 63:19 69:1

118:21 119:21

121:18,22

sorts 121:14

sound 85:9

sounds 135:1 137:6

Southern 2:4

so-and-so 138:17

span 107:11

speak 4:5 32:7

91:13 125:7 137:8

speaking 17:17

30:3 32:6 35:21

38:3 48:18 59:10

62:9,19 85:20

87:16 112:17

118:14 129:20

speaks 93:18

specific 17:21

58:12 66:2,15

77:20 78:5

specifically 125:7

specify 119:3

136:18

speed 67:2 93:16

117:19 133:20

134:1,5,7

spell 36:1

spelled 98:21

spelling 103:22

spells 23:7

spend 30:22

spent 46:21

spread 78:10,12

120:11

spreadsheet 64:5

64:19,22 65:1

stacked 108:5

stand 24:21

standard 54:13

68:22 70:20 71:6

71:22 72:1,4,16

73:15 76:7,18

77:17 100:3

124:12

standards 1:3 33:2

34:1,20 35:16

60:11 71:11 72:3

90:1,2 144:6,8

standpoint 98:13

110:8

Stanonik 2:7 8:9,10

11:3 12:3,3 31:5

31:11 32:4,11

41:13,13 42:12

43:6,13 44:10

46:5,5 59:16 74:9

75:5 78:7,22 90:9

90:21 91:2,14

92:5,13 95:12,12

105:11,11 113:10

113:10,16 114:14

124:1

Star 90:18 91:3

98:7 145:22

start 4:14 58:5

67:10 68:15 82:22

82:22 83:2 86:15

86:15 88:22

104:18,22 105:17

118:17 137:2

started 40:10 81:19

113:7

starting 67:18

145:13

stated 21:12

statement 5:9 8:21

9:12,15 11:4 14:1

19:20 21:4 38:17

38:21 39:11 41:15

42:2 59:7,9

statements 6:1 43:7

STATES 1:1

station 125:9

statistics 73:2,6,10

74:3,20

status 24:20

statute 53:6 71:9

statutory 10:1

staying 103:10

stays 9:2,4,6 66:18

step 118:8

Stephens 2:8 7:5,8

7:21 23:15 48:2,2

48:19 59:13 93:6

93:6,17 94:1 95:8

100:13,22 101:1

108:10,10 112:5

117:20 122:6,6

124:16 125:6,19

126:1 143:2,11

145:5,8 146:9

stock 121:19,19,20

121:21 122:7

123:13 125:1,4,17

stop 86:13

street 138:19

strengthen 88:2

stressing 102:14

stricken 8:3

strong 81:1

strongly 48:8

struck 4:20

Structural 1:19

struggle 39:16

struggling 39:7

40:6

study 10:13 122:11

stuff 38:14 45:3

46:9 72:8 96:13

100:1 125:16

143:21

subgroup 24:10

25:4 44:11 46:10

58:5,7,20 68:14

80:7,12

subgroups 24:5

58:11 68:17

100:11

subject 19:11,22

77:1 146:16

submit 91:10 95:19

98:3,8 109:20

146:13

submitted 143:20

submitting 95:21

109:14

substantially 22:4

substantive 13:7

102:4

successfully 51:16

sued 51:16 53:21

sufficient 58:14

101:18 117:14

suggest 41:21

suggested 13:17
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 163

25:19 94:5

suggesting 18:9

54:16 81:14 107:8

suggestion 48:14

48:15 82:20

suggestions 67:14

100:9

suit 13:12

summarize 64:2,4

summary 24:17

119:7

supervised 144:15

support 17:21

20:16,18 21:4

supporting 5:1

20:14 21:2 58:16

supposed 21:21,22

22:2,7 48:6 73:4

73:13 116:12

134:1

sure 5:13 17:2

27:20 34:10 62:4

64:3 70:11 94:17

102:18 103:10

105:3 108:1 129:5

130:1 131:5,6

137:20 140:14

146:12

surprise 123:15

surprised 75:18

SW 1:14

sympathetic

116:18

system 93:18 102:8

134:13 137:5

141:16

T

TAB 133:20 134:1

134:5,7

table 3:10 55:17

take 6:10,18 7:20

28:13 29:18,22

41:10 54:21 57:18

59:11,12 63:11

64:20 66:22 70:1

94:21 95:4 102:16

102:16 103:3,8

104:19 107:22

115:18 116:15

117:3 144:3

taken 4:21 5:8 80:4

takes 98:14 103:3

116:8,8 132:17

talk 6:5,19 10:22

31:12 63:12 67:6

67:18 68:1 69:15

86:6 98:8 103:22

106:7 119:20

126:6 143:20

talked 5:11 40:16

67:7 68:12 83:8

102:13

talking 14:4 17:15

18:18 24:16 37:1

38:15 46:9 55:1

67:10 68:22 69:4

70:17 72:18,19

75:18 86:16 90:10

137:18 138:11

141:21 142:11

144:1

technical 93:10

technician 135:22

138:11

technicians 138:13

technology 143:15

teleconference 2:22

tell 28:12 46:8,14

46:20 85:16 98:1

125:17 136:4

telling 16:17 98:17

ten 6:18 63:10,10

63:11

tend 92:21

term 92:20

termination 136:20

terminology 144:3

terms 10:20 46:10

84:5 90:22 100:11

120:22

test 17:8 70:22

73:16 74:2,7,8,13

74:19 75:1,2,10

75:12 77:7 78:11

83:16,16,22 84:13

87:6,9 92:12

93:21 98:19,21

99:1 107:5,17,18

109:19 110:2

113:1,18,20 114:6

114:9,20,21 115:1

115:4,5,11,13,15

117:7,12 118:3

121:17 122:13

124:13 125:11,18

126:17,19 127:17

127:22 129:7,13

131:4 132:8 133:6

133:6,10,11,13

134:6,10,18 135:8

135:15,20 136:20

137:3,14 139:3

141:16 144:5

145:14,18 146:4

146:19,19 147:4

147:11

tested 76:1,2,5

90:20 102:22

125:14 128:10

134:16 142:3

tester 107:17

111:10 129:8

testimony 21:6

testing 3:12 5:2

16:16,21 17:5

18:20 28:12 30:21

31:17 42:15 54:5

54:7 73:19 83:18

87:10 90:14,20,21

91:18,21 96:16

97:22 98:1,21

105:1 113:12

115:18 117:9

120:9,17 121:12

124:14 125:12

128:6 130:14

135:10 136:11

137:11 138:8

139:1,21,22

145:12 146:2

147:14

tests 71:2 78:10

90:13 115:20

117:17,21 127:12

134:15 135:11

137:16 138:5,9

text 7:22

Thank 84:17 85:5

Thanks 75:15

THARP 2:9 20:3

33:7 49:14,21

72:5,9 80:8 81:10

89:3,8 90:3 130:9

131:12 132:3,18

133:16 135:4,9,19

136:10

theirs 13:17 70:5

theoretically

126:21

thing 14:22 16:22

24:11 32:22 69:2

81:16 82:21 92:19

103:11 118:22

121:8 124:15

140:1 144:17

146:11

things 11:21 24:21

38:8 40:16 48:5

48:11,20 54:22

68:15 82:8 86:4

98:13 105:2

110:18 117:3

120:5 122:21

124:4 125:14

128:15 141:9

142:19

think 4:12,17 5:17

5:19,21 6:1,12

7:10,21 8:6,16,21

9:12,16 10:11,14

10:17 11:6 13:2

14:3,8 16:22

17:18 22:3 23:11

23:13 26:10,11

27:22 29:21 39:4

39:8,13,17 41:7,7

41:20 43:20,21

44:3 45:19,21

46:2 47:4,14,18

47:21 48:3,6,19

49:19 50:2,16

51:13,16,20,20

52:2,16,17 53:2

53:10,12,13,14,18

53:19 54:10,18,20

56:11,19 57:8,15

57:17 60:8 61:10

61:19,22 67:5,6

68:4,10,14,17,19

69:3,17 74:9,17

74:22 75:16 77:10

77:19 78:15,15

79:11 80:14,20

84:13,15,21 85:17

86:7,14,19 87:22

92:18,19 93:4

94:11,12,18,20,20

95:2 96:20 97:7,9

97:10 99:7,20

100:13 101:8,12

105:22 108:11,12

109:12 110:13,18

110:20 111:2

113:15 117:1,22

118:15,18 120:3

121:17 122:22

123:2,8 124:11

126:17,17 127:13

128:14 131:19

132:9 133:4,11

135:16 141:6,6,8

141:11 143:19

144:22 145:3

146:9 147:10,16

147:20 148:2

thinking 47:19

56:22 68:15 80:22

81:4 100:12

103:15 119:21

124:18 139:22

146:12

thinks 53:1

third 83:9,10,12,14

83:17,20 84:6
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 164

90:7 96:5,20

97:13,19,21 98:9

98:16,17,22 99:1

107:4,16 108:13

109:3 112:4,6

113:18,21 114:3

114:13,15,22

116:3,5,5 120:8

121:16 122:4

127:1 130:12,13

131:5 132:5

133:20,21 134:19

134:22 135:7,10

136:9 139:18,20

139:21 141:10,10

141:11 142:1

third-party 112:2,3

117:22 130:12

146:20

Thirty 121:19

thought 5:6 6:2 8:2

9:10 10:4 18:16

20:6 22:12 26:22

29:4 34:14 41:14

71:17 76:12 118:4

123:7 127:5,8

thoughts 39:2

132:1

three 23:7 24:4,7

24:22 68:17 90:5

93:16 106:19

115:17,18

threw 84:7

throw 15:4

THURSDAY 1:9

tied 94:10

Tim 20:3

time 10:7,12 32:8

36:8 42:11 51:3

54:21 57:16,18

65:17 67:8 70:7,8

83:3 86:10 94:22

95:4,16 104:19

106:15 111:11

112:10 115:5

117:11 120:22

121:1,11,11

122:17,18 123:5

123:12 125:8,16

126:2,4 127:2

133:1 137:2

139:16 142:8

143:13 144:15

times 120:21

timing 98:13 111:5

TIMOTHY 1:19

title 90:9

today 15:11 40:1

51:4 70:9 118:20

139:15

told 108:18

tolerance 72:12,20

72:21 73:5 78:6

tolerances 74:22

TOM 2:1

tomorrow 64:18

66:3

tool 53:8

top 69:7 88:21

totally 30:1

track 25:9

trade 89:3 90:8

Trane 1:25

transcend 143:9

transitional 123:16

124:4

translated 11:16

Traulsen 1:21 2:5

112:22

traveling 115:17

tried 82:5

trigger 71:4 74:15

77:13,16

TRITSIS 2:11

84:20 86:10 96:8

99:7 127:10,16

128:1 140:17

trouble 69:12

true 1:24 135:20

try 61:4 82:13 86:3

88:17 97:3 98:10

trying 33:19 35:12

37:22 38:2 41:4

43:18 61:6 78:20

79:1 91:14,15

96:21 105:12

107:11 108:4

109:4 117:12

124:1 127:2

138:22 144:20

twice 15:8 57:3

63:7

two 18:11 19:21

20:9,11 21:2

26:10 30:1,6

32:16 35:20 36:8

49:3 54:2 55:11

55:16,19 56:1,2

60:20 64:11,13

69:5 71:10 83:8

100:11 105:2

106:5 126:15

142:19 147:9,11

two-level 129:11

type 12:1 80:22

94:13 119:16

typed 132:17

types 64:8 71:10

145:11

typically 71:9

U

UL 28:10 92:3,8,17

93:2 97:17 99:13

107:2 108:22

115:12 124:20

137:12 145:3,11

ultimate 109:1,2,7

ultimately 51:22

133:7

UL/ETL 90:17

understand 15:5

15:12 19:6 27:21

28:1 41:6 54:15

61:5,6 70:18 79:2

91:15 94:15

143:10

understanding

37:1 93:12

understands 84:22

understood 24:14

25:3 37:18 41:3

Underwriters 1:22

2:2

unified 122:11

unintended 108:4

109:5

unique 103:16,18

uniquely 30:20

unit 76:8 87:9,11

107:9 121:16

122:19 126:20

UNITED 1:1

units 90:19 98:18

98:20 99:20

109:19 125:1

127:1 128:9 132:4

141:18

untrue 42:8

upcoming 125:21

update 24:20

use 16:2 20:15,15

29:15 35:15 50:7

72:21 84:14 103:2

109:15 144:3

useful 57:10

uses 83:8

usually 78:14,16

129:10

U.S 2:15,16,17

V

valid 94:19 135:17

value 8:22 10:15

71:13,14,19 72:17

73:13

values 64:9

variety 71:8

verbal 20:9

verbally 41:16

verification 3:17

5:2 14:6,8 16:21

17:11,12,21 18:13

18:19 19:3,4

27:18 28:15 30:5

30:19 31:1,3

32:20 33:17,22

34:9,13 35:9,11

36:19 38:12,16

40:13,18 41:2

42:2,7,15,21,21

44:5 45:10,15

46:1,12,16 47:4

48:1 49:15 50:3

50:18 52:6 54:5,7

54:8,14 56:9 67:9

70:18 71:4 73:18

75:1 76:2,3 79:15

85:3 99:9,14

102:15 106:2,11

106:20 113:1

118:11 122:19

124:14 129:19

134:15 145:4

147:14

verified 16:9,12

29:1,1,8,12,14,20

30:7,15 32:1,17

33:1,4 34:3,5,19

36:20,21 116:10

116:11 134:19,22

verifier 92:11

verifies 17:8

verify 107:17

119:17

verifying 70:19,20

versed 19:22 84:11

84:12

version 65:2 92:4

versus 56:16 87:3

122:1

view 132:22

views 23:14 47:7

56:14

vigorously 20:19

VIKTOR 1:19

violation 72:3 77:1

violations 71:8

visual 38:5

voice 4:6,6 7:7

voluntarily 33:22

voluntary 14:10,13

14:16,18 16:2,18

18:1 32:22 34:6

35:15 44:14,21
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 165

55:11 56:15 57:6

94:7

volunteer 14:5

vote 7:20 9:3,21

12:1 21:14 23:6

37:21 38:2 41:10

57:18 63:3

voted 58:2

votes 49:13

voting 35:4

W

wait 47:10 88:15

131:11

waiting 70:15

walked 39:18

want 4:14,21 6:7,10

7:2,19 9:20 10:9

10:21 13:4,11,14

16:2 18:15 19:9

24:9 26:7 28:11

29:19 31:12 34:18

39:5 41:11 42:16

43:1 46:7,14

49:11,13 50:13

52:2 60:10 62:11

63:16,20 64:1

65:9 67:8 68:1,7,8

70:9 73:17 79:21

83:11 88:15,16

89:1,5,14,15,20

95:9 97:10,12

98:4 102:13 111:3

114:5 117:5

118:18,20 119:9

119:10 120:3,5

127:17 130:8

131:4 133:12,15

135:4 136:3,16

137:5 138:20

142:17 144:9,22

wanted 4:8 65:5,6

117:1 142:2,4

146:12

wanting 38:11

wants 14:6 49:9

66:13 70:2

warrants 54:21

Washington 1:14

wasn't 74:6 102:22

139:14 142:3

water 1:6 17:19

48:20 95:10 122:9

122:10 123:17

wavering 73:21

way 35:12 42:22

45:7 48:22 53:13

56:4 66:15 67:12

71:4 73:22 75:1,4

75:5 78:5 87:8

119:3 133:11

134:9 145:10

147:17

ways 50:9 70:22

webpage 18:11

website 16:6 29:16

29:19 146:16

week 66:3

weeks 117:8

weigh 101:13

went 6:21 52:8

63:14

weren't 23:18

36:11,13 64:21

76:5,19

we'll 17:13 33:7

38:10 39:9 65:22

82:4 88:17 89:17

110:7 126:4

132:21 140:4

147:15

we're 14:4,20 16:11

17:18 18:17 24:3

28:20 30:16 33:17

34:22 35:1,4,6,7

37:1,22 38:1,15

39:19 40:6 42:17

43:21 44:4,18,20

48:5 49:21 51:14

51:17,21 53:20

58:16 64:18 65:2

65:13,15 69:8,11

70:15 73:12 75:2

75:3,16 76:1,2

77:18 78:17,19,20

80:14,22 83:12

86:22 88:3,20

92:18 94:17 98:6

98:22 108:18

116:3,12 117:6,7

117:11 119:15

122:8,12,15,16

123:8 137:22

140:6 144:4,20,22

we've 7:3 19:14

24:4 45:18 51:7

52:18,19 62:1

64:6,17 66:7 67:6

70:17 80:17 84:16

97:3 111:13 123:1

139:1 142:17

whichever 42:22

willing 6:5 86:3

window 107:19

wish 13:7 26:1

wishes 42:6,20 47:2

47:12

witness 107:17

145:12,18 146:2,4

witnessed 99:1

134:16 135:21

witnesses 21:14

wonderful 110:5

wondering 93:9

word 90:12 93:8

wording 7:9 57:16

94:11

words 7:12 61:7

71:21

work 23:9 58:20

65:14 80:5 85:7

94:4 98:10 103:8

112:11 122:19

129:5 137:13

141:6 143:4

worked 52:1 66:8

105:7 111:6 117:1

working 1:7,13

11:8 22:1,7,16,18

22:22 24:1,4 39:6

42:4,17,18 44:4

46:7 48:5 52:22

58:13 67:22 68:8

70:5,5 77:6 80:13

80:18 85:10 96:4

116:3 124:5

works 64:8,12

65:13 69:13

worries 15:6

wouldn't 15:7 28:3

36:13 52:9 64:12

66:16 89:11

120:18 137:14

wrap 67:2

write 17:4 89:15

116:19

writing 111:1

written 41:16

wrong 126:4 134:5

X

X 115:5 120:4

Y

Y 115:6 120:4

year 15:8,9 93:15

98:19 108:6

110:16,17 113:2

120:10,11,12,18

120:21 126:16,19

127:17 128:10

years 60:20 82:2

88:11 93:16

Year's 111:1

yesterday 6:2 7:11

7:18 10:1,12 11:9

12:6 19:21 20:10

24:14 39:21 46:21

48:3 53:15 60:9

60:17

yesterday's 13:8

Z

Z 120:4

zero 103:3

Þ

þ 108:11,17

1

1 21:14 148:5

1st 107:8,10 109:8

109:17,18 111:16

10 76:7

10:09 63:14

1000 1:13

11 76:5

11:02 63:15

12 1:10 76:1 104:12

113:3,5

12:29 148:6

17025 84:3,9,12

85:1 114:22 130:3

139:9 142:22

143:3,17 145:6,18

17065 84:3,9 85:1,3

92:10 93:4,11,14

94:2 99:11,13

100:14 101:1

142:21

1725 138:22 139:4

2

2 21:14 88:11

2013 1:10

2014 113:4

2015 113:5

3

3.8 103:2

30 107:6 108:17

109:20 111:4

114:1,5,7,14

115:2,8 121:17,22

122:5,7,18 123:11

125:3,12,15,18

126:3 131:14

30th 110:15 127:7

31st 108:7

4

4 85:6

5

5 3:12

50 88:10 115:20
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 166

6

63 3:14

65 84:10 92:9,22

93:4,11,12 96:10

115:10

67 3:18

7

72 137:14

8

8:30 1:14

8:33 4:2

8:36 6:21

9

9:13 6:22

90 74:13

92 74:12
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 

167

Commercial HVAC, Water Heating and

Refrigeration Equipment W/G

US DOE

09-12-13

Washington, DC