Well folks they did it.... yep they showed their true colors.... this item came out yesterday:
Generic/default framing values: The NFRC Board of Directors directed the Technical Committee to remove any reference to default frames in NFRC 100 and 200 documents at this time, and to also direct the Technical Committee to continue to work on proper calculation techniques and that they study the results against real CMA data during a maximum of the first two years of the program.
And this... this is what I wrote after one of the meetings in November of 2007 (and its in the archives here if you want to see it whole):
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.
I CALLED IT!! A year ago!
This group is simply freakin disgusting.
Its funny this also proves that when I made the crack about the Board ignoring Marc LaFrance because he sounds like a teacher from Charlie Brown I was right! Amazing.. the DOE along with a majority of people see whats right... but MONEY MONEY MONEY over rules.
This program is absolutely headed down- with decisions like this, it is so obvious that they have no idea what they are getting into.
Simply amazing... bottom line is the next time these people call themselves a "consensus" then this blog post should be used as example A.
And by the way, after the last meeting David Walker of NGA wrote a great piece and he urged people to get involved. I wrote him after and said that it does not matter because the NFRC will do whatever they want... well this surely proves it... does not matter if everyone in the industry votes... 3000- 16... as long as the NFRC and the labs want to make money... they'll go against the majority... and the "consensus"