New Accounting Standards

		In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income.” ASU No. 2011-05 eliminates the option to present components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of shareholders’ equity. All non-owner changes in shareholder’s equity instead must be presented either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. Also, reclassification adjustments for items that are reclassified from other comprehensive income to net income must be presented on the face of the financial statements. ASU No. 2011-05 will be effective for the Company for the quarter ending December 31, 2012. The adoption of this guidance will have no impact on the Company’s consolidated financial condition and results of operations.

		In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, “Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs.” ASU No. 2011-04 clarifies and changes the application of various fair value measurement principles and disclosure requirements, and will be effective for the Company in the second quarter of fiscal 2012 (January 1, 2012). The Company has assessed the updated guidance and expects adoption to have no impact on the Company’s consolidated financial condition and results of operations. Refer to Note 15, “Fair Value Measurements,” to the financial statements for disclosures surrounding the Company’s fair value measurements.

		In December 2009, the FASB issued ASU No. 2009-17, “Consolidations (Topic 810): Improvements to Financial Reporting by Enterprises Involved with Variable Interest Entities.” ASU No. 2009-17 changes how a company determines when an entity that is insufficiently capitalized or is not controlled through voting should be consolidated. The determination of whether a company is required to consolidate an entity is based on, among other things, an entity’s purpose and design and a company’s ability to direct the activities of the entity that most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance. This statement was effective for the Company beginning in the first quarter of fiscal 2011 (October 1, 2010). The adoption of this guidance had no impact on the Company’s consolidated financial condition and results of operations. Refer to Note 1, “Financial Statements,” to the financial statements for further discussion.

		In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU No. 2009-13, “Revenue Recognition (Topic 605): Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements — A Consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force.” ASU No. 2009-13 provides application guidance on whether multiple deliverables exist, how the deliverables should be separated and how the consideration should be allocated to one or more units of accounting. This guidance eliminates the use of the residual method allocation and requires that arrangement consideration be allocated at the inception of the arrangement to all deliverables using the relative selling price method. The selling price used for each deliverable will be based on vendor-specific objective evidence if available, third-party evidence if vendor-specific objective evidence is not available, or estimated selling price if neither vendor-specific or third-party evidence is available. The amendments in this ASU also expand the disclosures related to a vendor’s multiple-deliverable revenue arrangements. The Company adopted ASU No. 2009-13 on October 1, 2010. The adoption of this guidance did not have a significant impact on the Company’s consolidated financial condition and results of operations, and appropriate disclosures have been included herein.

		The Company’s building efficiency business sells certain heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) and refrigeration products and services in bundled arrangements, where multiple products and/or services are involved. Significant deliverables within these arrangements include equipment, commissioning, service labor and extended warranties. In order to estimate relative selling price, market data and transfer price studies are utilized. Approximately four to twelve months separate the timing of the first deliverable until the last piece of equipment is delivered, and there may be extended warranty arrangements with duration of one to five years commencing upon the end of the standard warranty period. As each deliverable had a determinable relative selling price and the residual method was not previously utilized by the Company, there were no changes in units of accounting, the allocation process, or the pattern and timing of revenue recognition upon adoption of ASU No. 2009-13. Furthermore, adoption of this ASU is not expected to have a material effect on the consolidated financial condition or results of operations in subsequent periods.