NFRC Day 3 update

Yes this is quick, as I know most people have not even had the chance to read the Day 2 piece yet... so please go ahead and scroll below.

Why do I have time for this? Well in what I am told was an unusual situation, the morning meeting today ended at 10:42... and according to bi-laws could not start the next meeting until 1:30... So may as well strike while the iron is hot...

((I swear what a gig- we met for a whole 2:42- and then got a 3:30 break.... once again I am in the wrong business- but again I am told this is the exception not the rule))

Today it was VERY clear the division and opinions on this whole issue. The debate that it raged around was not a crucial piece but the sides that were taken basically PROVES my point that the this whole debacle comes down to money.

Without getting technical the situation was surrounding a "Default" table from NFRC on the frame groups.

The manufacturers and trades all wanted to keep the defaults in the NFRC frame process because it does allow the manufacturers to not have test their products if they do not want to.

The test labs obviously want EVERYTHING tested, so they along with Cardinal Glass (who I wonder, out loud, do they sell glass as a priority or are they just a test lab/legislation party that happens in passing to sell glass) pushed to have the defaults eliminated.

So the room voted and the manufacturers outnumbered the labs 32-16. But before the debate was done, it was announced that this issue should be sent up to the board for their "direction"

That brought an intense response from Marc LaFrance of DOE, who noted this is insane, that there is no reason for the default to be removed, and after discussing this for 2 years, we need to move on.

Greg Carney followed with a note, that once again it looks like it does not matter that the group has voted a certain way because the Board will continue to make its own calls.

Anyway, after a short break, it was announced that the Board is "willing" to consider the defaults, so for now.. that's still alive. But will it last?

My answer: No. Why- because looking around the room, many of the 16 votes against the default were Board members... but with some of the changes on the board, there is hope, but the big players on the board like Marcia Falke and Tony Rygg voted against- so something tells me this too... like Tom Culp's extremely reasonable proposal from last meeting (that was voted through overwhelmingly) will get shot down.

The comical part was that a comment was made that the NFRC is "membership driven" but counts on the board to make sure they stay on message. That basically does not mesh from everything we have told over the years.

NFRC is a 501c3 and their responsibility is to the public, not the members. Groups like GANA have to listen to the members, NFRC does not. So for NFRC to all of a sudden announce its a "membership driven" group is pure folly.

Last there is one other thing at play here. If the commercial folks are successful in limiting or reducing the unnecessary testing, steps and complexity, that will trickle over to the residential side.. and golden gooses will be dying all over the world.

Thanks again to everyone who has read and chimed in- I appreciate that. And I must apologize, because unfortunately I will not be here tomorrow for the juiciest part of the meeting, which will be the Public Board meeting. But next time I'll re-arrange and be there and I am hopeful that USGNN will have an indepth piece that will allow me to make comment.