alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 42284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18005]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14795-002]


Shell Energy North America (US), L.P.; Notice of Meeting

    Environmental staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) will participate in a meeting, via telephone, with 
representatives of Shell Energy North America, the Confederated Tribes 
of the Colville Reservation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to 
continue the on-going discussion of potential impacts to cultural 
resources from the proposed Hydro Battery Pearl Hill Pumped Storage 
Project. The meeting will be held at the location and time listed 
below:

Executive Conference Room at the Executive Conference Center at the 
Spokane International Airport, 9000 W. Airport Drive, Spokane, 
Washington 99224, (located adjacent to the lower level baggage claim 
and parking areas), August 30, 2018, 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. PST, Call-
in lines will be available.
    Members of the public and intervenors in the referenced proceeding 
may attend and observe this meeting, in person or via telephone. If 
tribal representatives decide to disclose information about a specific 
location which could create a risk or harm to an archeological site or 
Native American cultural resource, the public will be excused for that 
portion of the meeting. A summary of the meeting will be entered into 
the Commission's administrative record.
    If you plan to attend this meeting, in person or via telephone, 
please contact Brent Hicks of HRA Associates (contractor for Shell 
Energy) at (206) 343-0226 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcded4d5dfd7cffcd4ceddcfcfd3df92dfd3d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d7f75747e766e5d756f7c6e6e727e337e7270">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 14, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18005 Filed 8-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-2131

In Re: LORENZA PORTER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(3:95-cr-00080-RLW)

Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 25, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenza Porter, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lorenza Porter petitions for a writ of mandamus for an

order re-sentencing him with respect to his 1996 conviction for

conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to

distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and heroine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 846. He also challenges our decision in United States v.

Bowens, 224 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2002), and apparently seeks an order

overturning it. We conclude that Porter is not entitled to

mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has

a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a

drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United

Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 

The relief sought by Porter is not available by way of

mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### ARMER E. WHITE, INC., REALTORS, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. The AMBROSE CO. and Riteway, Inc., Realtors, a Florida Corporation, Appellees.

No. 77-2031.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 19, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1978.

*996Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Miami, for appellant.

Garber & Buoniconti, Podhurst, Orseck & Parks and Michael Olin, Miami, for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: *United*Service *Corporation v. Vi-An Construction Corp.,*77 So.2d 800 (Fla.1955); *Parsley Brothers Construction Company v. Humphrey,*136 So.2d 257 (Fla.2d DCA 1962); *Ruwitch v. First National Bank of Miami,*291 So.2d 650 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(b). Compare *Sutton v. Stewart,*358 So.2d 119 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).

KEHOE, J., dissents.
# C_2012270EN.01000201.xml

| 7.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/2

---

Special Report No 11/2012 ‘Suckler cow and ewe and goat direct aids under partial implementation of SPS arrangements’

2012/C 270/02

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 11/2012 ‘Suckler cow and ewe and goat direct aids under partial implementation of SPS arrangements’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’ |
| 12, rue Alcide de Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’

12, rue Alcide de Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
Exhibit 10.2


 


AMENDMENT NO.2


 


TO TERM SHEET



 


This Amendment No.2 to
Term Sheet (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of November 23, 2016, between CHC Group Ltd., as debtor and
debtor in possession (“CHC”) and The Milestone Aviation Group Limited (“Milestone”) and amends
the Term Sheet dated October 11, 2016 between CHC and Milestone (the “Term Sheet”).


 


WHEREAS:


 


CHC and Milestone (together
the “Parties”) entered into the Term Sheet. The Parties intend to amend the Term Sheet as set out in Clause
2 herein.


 


IT IS AGREED as follows:


 


		1.	Definitions



 


Capitalized terms used
herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Term Sheet.


 


		2.	Amendment



 


The Parties herein agree
that the Term Sheet shall be amended with effect from the date of this Amendment as follows:


 


Section 4.1
(Conditions) shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


4.1 Conditions.
The obligations of both parties hereunder are subject to the PSA Approval Date occurring by December 21, 2016. If the PSA Approval
Date does not occur by such date, either party may terminate this Term Sheet.


 


		3.	General



 


		3.1	Sections 4.3 (Confidentiality), 4.4 (Miscellaneous)
and 4.5 (Governing Law) of the Term Sheet are hereby incorporated by reference into (and made part of) this Amendment
as if fully set forth herein and any reference in such sections to “this Term Sheet” shall be read to refer to “this
Amendment”.



 


		3.2	No variation of this Amendment shall be effective unless
made in writing and signed by or on behalf of the Parties.



 




     


     


    

  


		3.3	The Term Sheet shall remain in full force and unchanged
in relation to any other matters not expressly set out in this Amendment and any reference in the Term Sheet to “this Term
Sheet” shall be read and construed as a reference to the Term Sheet as amended by this Amendment.



 


		3.4	The effectiveness of this Amendment is conditioned upon
and subject to the approval of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas.



 


[Remainder
of Page Intentionally Left Blank; Signature Page Follows.]


 




     


     


    

  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment No. 2 to the Term Sheet on the date and year set out above.


 


	THE MILESTONE AVIATION GROUP LIMITED	 	CHC GROUP LTD. 
	 	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Mark England 	 	By:	/s/ Hooman Yazhari 
	 	Name: 	Mark England	 	 	Name: 	Hooman Yazhari
	 	Title: 	Assistant Secretary	 	 	Title: 	Senior Vice President, Legal &
	 	Location: 	Dublin, Ireland	 	 	 	Administration
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 42318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18022]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY


Appointment of Members of Senior Executive Service Performance 
Review Board

AGENCY: Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), Executive 
Office of the President.

ACTION: Notice of Appointments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The following persons have been appointed to the ONDCP Senior 
Executive Service Performance Review Board: Martha Gagne (as Chair), 
Michael Gottlieb, James Olson, and Kemp Chester.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Passante, Deputy General 
Counsel, (202) 395-6709, Office of National Drug Control Policy, 
Executive Office of the President, 750 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 
20503.

    Dated: August 16, 2018.
Michael Passante,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2018-18022 Filed 8-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3280-F5-P
~AA-Z.O/O-OA,,2-

Contacts. With whom outside the FM has this proposal been discussed?

Organization

National Business Aircraft Associ::ation

Regional Airline Association

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association

ATA

Person Contacted

Eli Cotn

Dave Loiterer

Robert Hnckman

Craig Fabian

Response
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3341 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3341

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the rate of special 
pension payable to persons who have received the Congressional Medal of 
                                 Honor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 21, 1993

Mr. Slattery (for himself, Mr. Spence, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. 
   Montgomery, Mr. Stump, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Everett, Mr. Evans, Mr. 
   Stearns, Mr. Sangmeister, Mr. King, Mr. Edwards of Texas, and Mr. 
   Tejeda) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the rate of special 
pension payable to persons who have received the Congressional Medal of 
                                 Honor.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN RATE OF SPECIAL PENSION FOR PERSONS ON THE MEDAL 
              OF HONOR ROLL.

    (a) In General.--Section 1562(a) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended by striking ``$200'' and inserting ``$400''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to months beginning after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
#### John S. WINNIE and Elizabeth Ann Winnie, his wife, and Frank Sarver, d/b/a Craftman Builders, Inc., Appellants, v. John BUCKHALTER, d/b/a Buckhalter Heating and Air Conditioning, Appellee.

No. HH-498.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 3, 1978.

*1015Herbert M. Webb, Gainesville, for appellants.

No appearance for appellee.

BOYER, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order which denied attorney’s fees under Section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1975). Buckhalter brought suit against Winnie to foreclose a mechanics’ lien. Winnie answered denying that the mechanics’ lien law had been complied with and counterclaimed for damages alleging in part a material breach of contract. The trial court determined that neither party had established his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Further, the trial court held that each party should be responsible for his own attorney’s fees.

Section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1975) of the mechanics’ lien law provides:

> In any action brought to enforce a lien under part I of this chapter, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover a reasonable fee for the services of his attorney, to be determined by the court, which shall be taxed as a part of his costs.

Winnie was entitled to recovery of attorney’s fees under Section 713.29 as the prevailing party since he successfully resisted the mechanics’ lien foreclosure action and was not found otherwise liable for damages in the same case. See, e. g., *Charter Development Corp. v. Eversole,*342 So.2d 143 (Fla.lst DCA 1977); *Falovitch v. Gunn & Gunn Construction Co.,*348 So.2d 560 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); *Mardan Kitchen Cabinets, Inc. v. Bruns,*312 So.2d 769 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); *Dominguez v. Benach,*277 So.2d 567 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); *H. D. McPherson, Inc. v. Metro Electric of Orlando, Inc.,*253 So.2d 878 (Fla.4th DCA 1971). Contrast, *Emery*v. *International Glass & Mfg. Inc.,*249 So.2d 496 (Fla.2d DCA 1971). However, Winnie is only entitled to attorney’s fees for the services rendered incident to the mechanics’ lien aspect of the case. *Kinard Enterprises, Inc. v. Johnson,*308 So.2d 593 (Fla.lst DCA 1975); *Planas & Franye Engineers, Inc. v. Padilla,*310 So.2d 354 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); *Jackson v. Hatch,*288 So.2d 564 (Fla.2d DCA 1974).

Accordingly, that portion of the final judgment denying Winnie attorney’s fees is reversed and the cause is remanded for a determination by the trial court of a reasonable fee for Winnie’s attorney’s services incident to the mechanics’ lien aspect of the case.

McCORD, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Exhibit 32.2
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In connection with the Quarterly Report of IZEA Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donna Mackenzie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  Dated:  September 9, 2011
  
  /s/ Donna MackenzieDonna Mackenzie

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-22217) of Overland Data, Inc. of our report
dated August 17, 2000 relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
-------------------------------
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


San Diego, California
September 27, 2000
#### MIAMI SOD COMPANY and Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Company, Petitioners, v. Willie SMITH and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 35849.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 17, 1967.

Rehearing Denied June 13, 1967.

Blackwell, Walker & Gray and John L. Welborn, Miami, for petitioners.

L. Barry Keyfetz and Israel Abrams, of Ser, Greenspahn, Keyfetz & Morrissey, Miami, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida In*100dustrial Commission bearing date September 6, 1966.

After hearing argument of the parties and upon careful consideration of the petition, the briefs and record, we conclude there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is therefore denied.

The petition for attorney’s fees filed by Respondent Smith is granted in the sum of three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00).

THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

CALDWELL, J., dissents.
257 La. 984

#### Patricia T. FLOYD, Wife of/and William M. Floyd v. The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS et al.

No. 51173.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 10, 1971.

In re: Patricia T. Floyd, wife of/and William M. Floyd applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 242 So.2d 332.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we cannot say that the result reached is incorrect.

BARHAM and TATE, JJ.,

are of the opinion the writ should be granted. The Court of Appeal has failed to set forth a satisfactory factual basis for finding abuse of discretion in the lower court award of damages. See C.C. Art. 1934(3). The appellate award appears to be violative of the principles enunciated in Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La. 239, 158 So.2d 149.
Exhibit 32.01   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of DMH International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jon-Marc Garcia, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   /s/ Jon-Marc Garcia By: Jon-Marc Garcia Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: May 11, 2012     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see

Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please

also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other

deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the

filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 KATE BRAVERMAN,

3 Plaintiff-Appellant,

4 v. No. 31,574

5 LPL FINANCIAL CORPORATION,

6 Defendant-Appellee, 

7 and

8 RICHARD LEES; JONATHAN THORNTON; 

9 and ALAN GOLDSTEIN, 

10 Defendants.

11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY

12 Raymond Z. Ortiz, District Judge

13 Gary W. Boyle

14 Santa Fe, NM

15 for Appellant

16 Lewis and Roca LLP

17 Ross L. Crown

18 Albuquerque, NM 
2

1 for Appellee LPL Financial
3

1 Bannerman & Williams

2 Margaret A. Graham 

3 John A. Bannerman

4 Albuquerque, NM

5 for Defendant Richard Lees

6 Richard S. Lees, PA

7 Richard S. Lees

8 Santa Fe, NM 

9 for Defendant Alan Goldstein 

10 MEMORANDUM OPINION

11 BUSTAMANTE, Judge.

12 Appellant Kate Braverman (Plaintiff) appeals from the district court’s order that

13 dismisses her claim of malicious abuse of process against Appellee LPL Financial

14 Corporation (Defendant). 

15 In her docketing statement, Plaintiff argued that the district court erred (1) in

16 granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss her malicious abuse of process claim [DS 4;

17 RP Vol.II/385, 396; Vol.III/426, 465] and (2) in denying her oral motion to amend her

18 complaint. [DS 3, 4] We issued a notice, proposing to affirm both issues. Plaintiff

19 has not filed a memorandum in opposition. Therefore, for the reasons extensively

20 detailed in our notice, we affirm both issues. See Frick v. Veazey, 116 N.M. 246, 247,

21 861 P.2d 287, 288 (Ct. App. 1993) (providing that failure to respond to a calendar

22 notice constitutes acceptance of the proposed disposition). 
4

1 Defendant filed a memorandum in support, and we briefly address Defendant’s

2 memorandum. As Defendant has acknowledged, our notice disposes of the issues

3 raised by Plaintiff in her docketing statement. [MIS 2] Although not argued in

4 Plaintiff’s docketing statement [DS 3], Defendant nonetheless requests that this Court

5 address also the merits of Plaintiff’s malicious abuse of process claim in relation to

6 its interpleader action. [MIS 2] We find it unnecessary to do so since Plaintiff did not

7 raise arguments in her docketing statement in relation to the interpleader action, and

8 our affirmance of the issues raised is dispositive. See generally Rule 12-208(D)(4)

9 NMRA (providing that the docketing statement sets forth the issues on appeal). 

10 To conclude, we affirm. 

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 

13 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

14 WE CONCUR:

15 

16 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

17 

18 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
5
#### John W. BEVER, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION et al., Respondents.

No. 43769.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 13, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed, sua sponte.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA - 2013 - 0833 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM140AD

215 - A4436 --- 9/19/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket



### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
# 7a7 17 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CLOTHES WASHER STANDARDS WORKSHOP July 23, 1997 U.S. DepartmentofEnergy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Room 1E-245 Purpose ofWorkshop: The objective oftheworkshop will be to discuss theprocess and analytical toolsto be utilized throughout the clothes washer standards rulemaking process. Outcomes ofWorkshop: To provide amore detailed understanding ofthe process and the tools to be used forthe clothes washer standards rulemaking. Receive comments prior to proceeding with the data collection and analyses. PRELIMINARY AGENDA 9:00 - 9:30 am Opening remarks, Introductions, Agenda Review 9:30 - 10:00 am Overview ofClothes Washer Rulemaking Schedule 10:00 - 11:00 am Manufacturing Costs: Approaches to Data Gathering, Reporting and Statistical Treatment 11:00 - 11:15 am Break 11:15 -Noon Determining Future Prices for Clothes Washers Noon - 1:00 Lunch (on your own) 1:00 - 2:00 pm Life Cycle Cost Analysis 2:00 - 2:30 pm Preliminary Basecase 2:30 - 2:45 pm Break 2:45 - 3:30 pm National Energy Savings Spreadsheet (NESS) 3:30 -4:00 pm Consumer Acceptance Remaining Issuesto be Addressed Next steps Closing Remarks - Adjournment