Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

March 7, 1996

MEMORANDUM FOR WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTSFROM:

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

CHRISTINE A. ER

Assistant Secretary

SUBJECT: APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

WORKSHOP

March 19-20, 1996

New Location: Washington National Airport Hilton at Crystal

City, 2399 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington Virginia 22202,

(703)418-6800

Attached you will find preliminary materials for a public workshop to be held on March

19-20, 1996.

This meeting is another effort by the Department of Energy to engage in a dialogue with

stakeholders on a series of preliminary findings concerning ways of improving our

rulemaking program for appliance standards. The "Major Themes" document enclosed is

the result of extensive contacts with stakeholders representing appliance manufacturers,

energy efficiency advocates, states, utilities and others.

Based on our work to date and input from this workshop, we expect to announce several

initiatives in April. We believe useful changes can, and should be made to the way that

the Department determines and sets appliance efficiency standards.

Please note that the site has been changed to the Decatur and Farragut Rooms of the

Washington National Airport Hilton in Crystal City, 2399 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA 22022 to accommodate the large number of participants who plan to

attend.

We look forward to your participation and input.

Enclosures: "Major Themes" Document

Meeting Agenda

Outline of Agenda Elements

•s

*,

.

i^ Printed with soy ink on recycled paper

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

MEMORANDUM FOR WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS'(}f 

FROM: CHRISTINE A. ER''u I.I~ Assistant Secretary • CV\A 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

March 7, 1996 

SUBJECT: APPLL\NCESTANDARDSPROCESSIMPROVEMENT 

WORKSHOP 

March 19-20, 1996 

New Location: Washington National Airport Hilton at Crystal 

City, 2399 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington Virginia 22202, 

(703)418-6800 

Attached you will find preliminary materials for a public workshop to be held on March 

19-20, 1996. 

This meeting is another effort by the Department of Energy to engage in a dialogue with 

stakeholders on a series of preliminary findings concerning ways of improving our 

rulemaking program for appliance standards. The "Major Themes" document enclosed is 

the result of extensive contacts with stakeholders representing appliance manufacturers, 

energy efficiency advocates, states, utilities and others. 

Based on our work to date and input from this workshop, we expect to announce several 

initiatives in April. We believe useful changes can, and should be made to the way that 

the Department determines and sets appliance efficiency standards. 

Please note that the site has been changed to the Decatur and Farragut Rooms of the 

Washington National Airport Hilton in Crystal City, 2399 Jefferson Davis Highway, 

Arlington, VA 22022 to accommodate the large number of participants who plan to 

attend. 

We look forward to your participation and input. 

Enclosures: "Major Themes" Document 

Meeting Agenda 

Outline of Agenda Elements * Printed with soy ink on recycled paper 
PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF

THE APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS

March 19-20, 1996

Proposed Agenda

Tuesday, March 19, 1996

9:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M.

° Welcoming Remarks by Assistant Secretary Christine Ervin

Presentation: "Major Themes" of the Ad Hoc Committee's Improvement Effort

- Question and Answer

- More Detailed Comment and Discussion Period

Presentation: DOE's "Proposed Changes" based on the Outcomes of the Process

Improvement Effort (Ad Hoc Committee's work)

Overview by Assistant Secretary Ervin

- Detailed Presentation by Michael McCabe (DOE, Codes and Standards) and

Mark Friedrichs (DOE, Policy)

- Question and Answer and Discussion Period

• Additional Input and Improvements

Small Group Discussions on DOE's Proposed Changes

• Report back and Discussion on Small Group Outputs

• Closing Discussion

Wednesday, March 20th

9:00 A.M. - 1:00 P.M.

• Overview Presentation: How DOE Intends to Address the Analytic Issues raised by the

Process Improvement Effort

- Question and Answer and Discussion Period

Small Group Discussion: How to Improve DOE's Proposed Approach to:

- Manufacturer Impact Analysis

- Engineering Analysis

- Regulatory Impact Analysis

• Report back and Discussion on Small Group Outputs

• Overview Presentation/Discussion: How DOE intends to make the Transition from the

Existing Structure to the New Structure

• Small Group Discussion: How to Improve DOE's Approach to the Transition from a

Product Sector Point of View:

- Electrical Products

- HVAC and Water Heating Equipment

- Plumbing Products

- White Goods

• Report Back on Key Transition Issues from Sectoral Perspectives

• Closing Discussion

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

It 

It 

It 

It 

It 

.. 

It 

PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF 

THE APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS 

March 19-20, 1996 

Proposed Agenda 

Tuesday, March 19, 1996 

9:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M. 

Welcoming Remarks by Assistant Secretary Christine Ervin 

Presentation: "Major Themes" of the Ad Hoc Committee's Improvement Effort 

- Question and Answer 

- More Detailed Comment and Discussion Period 

Presentation: DOE's "Proposed Changes" based on the Outcomes of the Process 

Improvement Effort (Ad Hoc Committee's work) 

- Overview by Assistant Secretary Ervin 

- Detailed Presentation by Michael McCabe (DOE, Codes and Standards) and 

Mark Friedrichs (DOE, Policy) 

- Question and Answer and Discussion Period 

Additional Input and Improvements 

Small Group Discussions on DOE's Proposed Changes 

Report back and Discussion on Small Group Outputs 

Closing Discussion 

Wednesday, March 20th 

9:00 A.M. - 1:00 P.M. 

It Overview Presentation: How DOE Intends to Address the Analytic Issues raised by the . 

It 

It 

It 

It 

It 

.. 

Process Improvement Effort 

- Question and Answer and Discussion Period 

Small Group Discussion: How to Improve DOE's Proposed Approach to: 

- Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

- Engineering Analysis 

- Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Report back and Discussion on Small Group Outputs 

Overview Presentation/Discussion: How DOE intends to make the Transition from the 

Existing Structure to the New Structure 

Small Group Discussion: How to Improve DOE's Approach to the Transition from a 

Product Sector Point of View: 

- Electrical Products 

- HV AC and Water Heating Equipment 

- Plumbing Products 

- White Goods 

Report Back on Key Transition Issues from Sectoral Perspectives 

Closing Discussion 
APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOP

March 19-20, 1996

Outline of Agenda Elements

A. "MAJOR THEMES" OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS

4 Prioritization of rulemakings is a fundamental means of improving the efficacy of

the rulemaking program;

4 More participation by stakeholders in all stages, and particularly the early stages, of

the standards setting process is required;

4 Better evaluation of the impact of standards on manufactures may require substantial

revisions to the current analysis methodologies and qualitative criteria;

4 The use of technical experts and extensive peer review would be valuable in

developing the engineering analysis;

4 "Technology forcing" proposed standards can-cause substantial manufacturer

dislocation and is the subject of controversial debate;

4 Variations in regional energy costs, climate conditions and appliance usage patterns

cause varying impacts on consumers.

B. DRAFT PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

In response to stakeholder issues identified in the "Major Themes" document, DOE has

prepared a draft process improvement plan that will be presented for comment on the first

day of the workshop. The major objectives of the process improvement plan are:

4 Early involvement of stakeholders

4 Increased predictability of the rulemaking timetable

4 Increased use of industry expertise

4 Earlier elimination of impractical or problematic design options

4 Greater consideration of alternatives to standards

4 Increased attention to impacts

4 Improved analytical methods

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOP 

March 19-20, 1996 

Outline of Agenda Elements 

A. "MAJOR THEMES" OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS 

-¢>- Prioritization of rulemakings is a fundamental means of improving the efficacy of 

the rulemaking program; 

-¢>- More participation by stakeholders in all stages, and particularly the early stages, of 

the standards setting process is required; 

-¢>- Better evaluation of the impact of standards on manufactures may require substantial 

revisions to the current analysis methodologies and qualitative criteria; 

-¢>- The use of technical experts and extensive peer review would be valuable in 

developing the engineering analysis; 

-¢>- "Technology forcing" proposed standards can· cause substantial manufacturer 

dislocation and is the subject of controversial debate; 

-¢>- Variations in regional energy costs, climate conditions and appliance usage patterns 

cause varying impacts on consumers. 

B. DRAFT PROCESS IMPROVEMENT 

In response to stakeholder issues identified in the "Major Themes" document, DOE has 

prepared a draft process improvement plan that will be presented for comment on the first 

day of the workshop. The major objectives of the process improvement plan are: 

-¢>- Early involvement of stakeholders 

-¢>- Increased predictability of the rulemaking timetable 

-¢>- Increased use of industry expertise 

-¢>- Earlier elimination of impractical or problematic design options 

-¢>- Greater consideration of alternatives to standards 

-¢>- Increased attention to impacts 

-¢>- Improved analytical methods 
C. COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW ANALYTICAL APPROACHES

DOE intends to initiate a cooperative effort with key stakeholders and qualified

contractors to develop improved methods for analyzing the likely impacts of standards on

manufacturers and others. DOE will work in close cooperation with the stakeholders to

address some of the key issues that were identified during the stakeholder consultations

prior to and at the March workshop. DOE intends to conduct work sessions with

interested parties to discuss these consultation findings and to assist in the development

of new analytical approaches.

Smaller breakout sessions will be held to begin developing an optimal path for

conducting the cooperative development. Possible questions that may serve as points of

discussion include:

Manufacturing Practicality

When conducting the engineering analysis of complex systems, how can we ensure that

the system designs being considered represent realistic design concepts that can be

manufactured?

Manufacturing Cost Data

When conducting the life cycle cost analysis, are there better ways to capture

manufacturing, installation and maintenance costs?

Uncertainty of Quantitative Analysis

How can the data and results be treated to reflect the uncertainty of the numbers?

Impacts on Consumers

What analysis tools/methods should be used to measure the financial impact of standards

on different consumer groups?

Impacts on Manufacturers

Should existing manufacturer impact models such as GRIM and MAM be adapted or

replaced to respond to industry concerns? How can the forecasting features be improved?

What consumer behavioral studies (price elasticity, etc.) should be conducted? What

mechanisms will ensure appropriate treatment of "non-average" manufacturers? Can the

models be adapted to consider cumulative regulatory burden? Could a more qualitative

methodology be developed?

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

C. COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW ANALYTICAL APPROACHES 

DOE intends to initiate a cooperative effort with key stakeholders and qualified 

contractors to develop improved methods for analyzing the likely impacts of standards on 

manufacturers and others. DOE will work in close cooperation with the stakeholders to 

address some of the key issues that were identified during the stakeholder consultations 

prior to and at the March workshop. DOE intends to conduct work sessions with 

interested parties to discuss these consultation findings and to assist in the development 

of new analytical approaches. 

Smaller breakout sessions will be held to begin developing an optimal path for 

conducting the cooperative development. Possible questions that may serve as points of 

discussion include: 

Manufacturing Practicality 

When conducting the engineering analysis of complex systems, how can we ensure that 

the system designs being considered represent realistic design concepts that can be 

manufactured? 

Manufacturing Cost Data 

When conducting the life cycle cost analysis, are there better ways to capture 

manufacturing, installation and maintenance costs? 

Uncertainty of Quantitative Analysis 

How can the data and results be treated to reflect the uncertainty of the numbers? 

Impacts on Consumers 

What analysis tools/methods should be used to measure the financial impact of standards 

on different consumer groups? 

Impacts on Manufacturers 

Should existing manufacturer impact models such as GRIM and MAM be adapted or 

replaced to respond to industry concerns? How can the forecasting features be improved? 

What consumer behavioral studies (price elasticity, etc.) should be conducted? What 

mechanisms will ensure appropriate treatment of "non-average" manufacturers? Can the 

models be adapted to consider cumulative regulatory burden? Could a more qualitative 

methodology be developed? 
Impacts on Industry Structure

There are a number of factors which are not explicitly treated in the current analysis

models that have a strong impact on the acceptance of new standards levels. The impact

of standards levels on distribution channels, appliance servicing, foreign imports, patent

rights, fuel switching, industry competition, job displacement, etc. is not well captured in

the current analytical framework. A 'more qualitative methodology could be developed

that may involve supplementing the current framework with market research, site visits,

or interviews for the particular product studies.

Consideration of Voluntary Programs

What criteria/factors/methodologies should be considered in determining the appropriate

balance between voluntary and mandatory efficiency standards for a specific appliance or

product category?

D. TRANSITION TO THE IMPROVED PROCESS

Until new methodologies are instituted, DOE will maintain close communication with

stakeholders to keep them appraised of actions potentially of concern. DOE will

summarize the current status of rulemakings and of relevant analysis. DOE will solicit

the recommendations of stakeholders regarding transition issues impacting particular

product categories.

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

Impacts on Industry Structure 

There are a number of factors which are not explicitly treated in the current analysis 

models that have a strong impact on the acceptance of new standards levels. The impact 

of standards levels on distribution channels, appliance servicing, foreign imports, patent 

rights, fuel switching, industry competition, job displacement, etc. is not well captured in 

the current analytical framework. A more qualitative methodology could be developed 

that may involve supplementing the current framework with market research, site visits, 

or interviews for the particular product studies. 

Consideration of Voluntary Programs 

What criteria/factors/methodologies should be considered in determining the appropriate 

balance between voluntary and mandatory efficiency standards for a specific appliance or 

product category? 

D. TRANSITION TO THE IMPROVED PROCESS 

Until new methodologies are instituted, DOE will maintain close communication with 

stakeholders to keep them appraised of actions potentially of concern. DOE will 

summarize the current status of rulemakings and of relevant analysis. DOE will solicit 

the recommendations of stakeholders regarding transition issues impacting particular 

product categories. 
Process Improvement for

Appliance Efficiency

Standards Rulemaking

"Major Themes" of

Stakeholder

Consultations

March 19, 1996

DRAFT #2

Update 3-4-96

U.S. Department of Energy

Christine A. Ervin

Assistant Secretary

Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy

Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Brookman-King Collaborative

Solutions, Inc.

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

Process Improvement for 

Appliance Efficiency 

Standards Rulemaking 

"Major Themes" of 

Stakeholder 

Consultations 

March 19, 1996 

DRAFT #2 

Update 3-4-96 

U.s. Department of Energy 

Christine A. Ervin 

Assistant Secretary 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy 

Arthur D. Little, Inc. 

Brookman-King Collaborative 

Solutions, Inc. 
Process Improvement Agenda

Decision Making

Prioritization

Potential Improvements

DRAFT 3-4-96

LF47603mtyO296 If 1

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Agenda 

iBM? 

Background I 

¥;;:;";' tl4;;;ihd;;:;;;·;lNdU':h.'=.:.z,iS..&-~4.J..;S ; ·£!k~@74g§)#¥ y & bPM·4k&@Wi hAA£, t Fi4l....") 

I i¥ 

Process 

in} • .m •• , J 

Analysis 

ill; 

Decision Making 

I SA taM 

Prioritization 

,... . .'_'''~ I 

Potential Improvements 

LF47603mty0296 If 
Process Improvement Agenda

Analysis

Decision Making

Prioritization

Potential Improvements

DRAFT 3-4-96

LF47603mty0296 If 2

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Agenda 

I ; 9 

Background 

*' & •.. .."" ] 

DeqisidnMaking 

Prioritization 

liPbtentiallrTIpf(jvernents I 

, \ ,,1M! iIi4,ii:l\ZliiJiil,,,,,G· ",M;g ; ©J,. q.,,;.,",, .';';4 ,.;:w;;:;;;;w;; ,4 ,;.' " ,44iiii JA i hi ··4,· 

LF47603mty0296 If 2 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Background Stakeholder Participation

The Department of Energy is committed to enhancing the standards

setting process in conjunction with appliance manufacturers , energy

efficiency advocates, states, utilities, and other interested parties.

• Since Vice President Gore's National Performance Review

recommendations were issued on September 7, 1993, DOE has used

new approaches in carrying out its rulemaking responsibilities in the area

of energy conservation standards.

Whenever possible DOE has invited early stakeholder participation in the

development of rulemaking proposals and encouraged `interested

parties" to work towards agreement-based proposals.

• In recent rulemakings the department engaged in a wide range of

consensus-building mechanisms-such as technical sessions,

workshops and an agreement-based process-to supplement the

traditional rulemaking proceeding.

LF47603mty0296 If

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Background Stakeholder Participation 

The Department of Energy is committed to enhancing the standards 

setting process in conjunction with appliance manufacturers, energy 

efficiency advocates, states, utilities, and other interested parties. 

• Since Vice President Gore's National Performance Review 

recommendations were issued on September 7, 1993, DOE has used 

new approaches in carrying out its rulemaking responsibilities in the area 

of energy conservation standards. 

• Whenever possible DOE has invited early stakeholder participation in the 

development of rulemaking proposals and encouraged 'interested 

parties" to work towards agreement-based proposals. 

• In recent rulemakings the department engaged in a wide range of 

consensus-building mechanisms-such as technical· sessions, 

workshops and an agreement-based process-to supplement the 

traditional rulemaking proceeding. 

LF47603mty0296 If 3 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Background Workshop

The first part of today's workshop presents the findings of e xtensive

stakeholder consultations and solicits further input from pa rticipants.

• Recent rulemakings highlighted the need to address a number of

complex, controversial and, important issues concerning the impact of

standards on consumers and manufacturers.

• As part of its efforts to make continuous improvements, DOE initiated a

major process improvement effort for appliance standards rulemakings.

• Interviews were held with stakeholders to gather information on various

aspects of the rulemaking process and methodology. Five areas were

explored:

- The formal regulatory process contemplated by the laws

- The weighing of benefits and burdens of standards

- Technical and economic models/methodology

Cooperative rulemaking

- Alternatives to product standards

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Background Workshop 

The first part of today's workshop presents the findings of extensive 

stakeholder consultations and solicits further input from participants. 

• Recent rulemakings highlighted the need to address a number of 

complex, controversial and. important issues concerning the impact of 

standards on consumers and manufacturers. 

• As part of its efforts to make continuous improvements, DOE initiated a 

major process improvement effort for appliance standards rulemakings. 

• Interviews were held with stakeholders to gather information on various 

aspects of the rulemaking process and methodology. Five areas were 

explored: 

- The formal regulatory process contemplated by the laws 

- The weighing of benefits and burdens of standards 

- Technical and economic models/methodology 

- Cooperative rulemaking 

- Alternatives to product standards 

LF47603mty0296 If 4 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Background Standards Impact

The Department of Energy is concerned about the impact of standards

on stakeholder groups.

"Ciencyx_

Need for national energy

conservation

Competitiveness and job

creation for a sustainable

economy

Energy security

Emission reductions

• Return on equity

• Competitiveness

• International trade

• Product price

• Product utility

• Operating costs

Avoided costs

Competitive impacts

LF47603mty0296 If

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3~4-96 

Process Improvement Background Standards Impact 

The Department of Energy is concerned about the impact of standards 

on stakeholder groups. 

• Need for national energy 

conservation 

• Competitiveness and job 

creation for a sustainable 

economy 

• Energy security 

• Emission reductions 

• Return on equity 

• Competitiveness 

• International trade 

• Product price 

• Product utility 

• Operating costs 

• Avoided costs 

• Competitive impacts 

LF47603mty0296 If • 5 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Background Methodology

A series of meetings was held with stakeholders who metho dically

identified opportunities for improvement.

Department of

Energy, Office of

Energy Efficiency

and Renewable

Energy

• Policy

• General Counsel

• Program office

oces V 0 *Hf

• Brookman-King

• Arthur D. Little, Inc.

• Issue identification

• Problem definition

• Root cause

identification

• Improvement

opportunities

• Appliance

manufacturers

• Trade associations

• Energy efficiency

advocates

• State energy

conservation offices

• Gas utilities

• 'Electric utilities

LF47603mty0296 If

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Background Methodology 

A series of meetings was held with stakeholders who methodically 

identified opportunities for improvement. 

• Department of 

Energy, Office of 

Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable 

Energy 

• Policy 

• General Counsel 

• Program office 

• Brookman-King 

• Arthur D. Little, Inc. 

• Issue identification 

• Problem definition 

• Root cause 

identification 

• Improvement 

opportunities 

• Appliance 

manufacturers 

• Trade associations 

• Energy efficiency 

advocates 

• State energy 

conservation offices 

• Gas utilities 

• . Electric utilities 

LF47603mty0296 If 6 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Background Approach

Four general improvement areas were identified and became the

major themes for a series of stakeholder group meetings.

Process

January 3, 1996

Prioritization

Study Team Work Program

• Meetings

• Interviews

Stakeholders January 3, 1996

Decision-making

• Preliminary Meeting, November 23, 1995

February 13,

1996

LF47603mty0296 I 7

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Background Approach 

Four general improvement areas were identified and became the 

major themes for a series of stakeholder group meetings. 

• Preliminary Meeting, November 23, 1995 

Process 

January 3, 1996 

Prioritization 

January 3, 1996 

Analysis 

January 17,18, 

1996 

Decision-making 

February 13, 

1996 

LF47603mty0296 If 7 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Agenda

Background

Process

Analysis

Decision Making

Prioritization

Potential Improvements

LF47603mty0296 If

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Agenda 

I ilAA 

Background , ;. t 

I ali %i n mpgg:;" 

Process I 4· 'v'1t¢ of i>~~"~' 4&4 '''i#»t@ry ,;:. w & ; 7'%»*44 .. ;;;;;;;;=4:=$44;;,;:;,.: 

Analysis t £ ... .J 

I & 4 

· •.. 'D$qision· .• Ma.king s;'~ .. 4 i 

prio titizatio n 

·'B()t~hti~JIrl1ptovements ". .' ····1 

,<. ;M~\4",·~.rl· • ,1 '>.g' .• ;i· db _gin;!;';' EN 1M 

LF47603mty0296 If 8 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Process Stakeholder Interviews

A majority of stakeholders consider DOE's current rulemaki ng

process as overly complex, hard to understand and impossible to

influence.

"When the NOPR came out no one in industry had prior knowledge of its

contents, so the whole thing was a real shock."

Ballast Manufacturer

"The ANOPR was published and asked for costing information that industry

was uncomfortable/unable/unwilling to supply-so they didn't. As a result,

when the NOPR came out two years later and industry saw the data DOE

used, they flipped."

Trade Association

"There is no process to assure industry that corrections will happen-the

problem is that the communication flow is unidirectional from comments to

DOE-we need an informal multidirectional process with dialogue."

Energy Efficiency Advocate

"`Need deadlines for DOE and a threat if DOE doesn't deliver -this worked for

the refrigerator/freezer process."

Energy Efficiency Advocate

LF47603mty0296 If

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Process Stakeholder Interviews 

A majority of stakeholders consider DOE's current rulemaking 

process as overly complex, hard to understand and impossible to 

influence. 

"When the NOPR came out no one in industry had prior knowledge of its 

contents, so the whole thing was a real shock." 

Ballast Manufacturer 

"The ANOPR was published and asked for costing information that industry 

was uncomfortable/unable/unwilling to supply-so they didn't. As a result, 

when the NOPR came out two years later and industry saw the data DOE 

used, they flipped." 

Trade Association 

"There is no process to assure industry that corrections will happen-the 

problem is that the communication flow is unidirectional from comments to 

DOE-we need an informal multidirectional process with dialogue." 

Energy Efficiency Advocate 

'''Need deadlines for DOE and a threat if DOE doesn't deliver-this worked for 

the refrigerator/freezer process." 

Energy Efficiency Advocate 

LF47603mty0296 If 9 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Process Stakeholder Interviews

The common element in many of the stakeholders suggestio ns for an

improved process: more participation by all groups in all stages of

the standards setting process.

"We need a speedy consensus-based process."

Lamp Manufacturer

"Involve all parties throughout the process from the very beginning stages."

Lamp Manufacturer

"If there must be standards, workshops for technical and economic analysis are

the way to go."

Ballast Manufacturer

"If there was sharing of information sooner , then buy-in would be better."

Energy Efficiency Advocate

"An ideal process needs earlier inputs by key stakeholders prior to the ANOPR.

There needs to be a proactive effort to involve participants before the ANOPR."

Utility Interest

LF47603mty0296If 10

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Process Stakeholder Interviews 

The common element in many of the stakeholders suggestions for an 

improved process: more participation by all groups in all stages of 

the standards setting process. 

"We need a speedy consensus-based process." 

Lamp Manufacturer 

"Involve all parties throughout the process from the very beginning stages." 

Lamp Manufacturer 

"If there must be standards, workshops for technical and economic analysis are 

the way to go." 

Ballast Manufacturer 

"If there was sharing of information sooner, then buy-in would be better." 

Energy Efficiency Advocate 

"An ideal process needs earlier inputs by key stakeholders prior to the ANOPR. 

There needs to be a proactive effort to involve participants before the ANOPR." 

Utility Interest 

LF47603mty0296 If 1 0 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Process Current Process

The current rulemaking process results in insufficient stake holder

involvement and does not provide opportunity for dialog.

Intra-Agency

Coordination

• Identify problem

• Substantiate problem

• Determine solution

Advance

Notice of

Proposed

Rulemaking

Comment

I ntra-Agency

Coordination

Proposed

Rulemaking

Final

Rule

Petition for

Reconsideration

Effective

Date

LF47603mty0296 If 11

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Process Current Process 

The current rulemaking process results in insufficient stakeholder 

involvement and does not provide opportunity for dialog. 

Triggering 

Event 

• Identify problem 

• Substantiate problem 

• Determine solution 

Advance 

Notice of 

Proposed 

Rulemaking 

Intra-Agency Proposed Intra-Agency 

Coe:,rdiriation Rulemaking Coordination 

~==~ 

Final 

Rule 

Effective 

Date 

LF47603mty0296 If 11 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Process Suggested Process

Stakeholders suggested an open process with more opportunity for

stakeholder dialog.

Triggering

Event

Intra-Agency

Coordination

Advance

Notice of

Proposed

Rulemaking

Intra-Agency

Coordination

Proposed

Rulemaking

Intra-Agency

Coordination

Final

Rule

Effective

Date

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Process Suggested Process 

Stakeholders suggested an open process with more opportunity for 

stakeholder dialog. 

Triggering 

Event 

Advance 

Jntra~Agency Notice of 

Coordination Proposed 

Rulemaking 

Intra-Agency Proposed 

Coordination Rulemaking 

Intra-Agency 

. Coordination 

1-::m:m:!I~~ 

Final 

Rule 

Effective 

Date 

LF47603mty0296 If 12 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Agenda

Background

Analysis

Prioritization

Potential Improvements

LF47603mty0296 If 13

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Agenda 

. ····Background 

kg Qg;;;; 'l:%&i14A EW ill? ttu,; Cpb& +&; . 

t .. · .. , 

I i UladaG;! um 

Analysis 

iD~Cisi9rl Making '.;>:':~{:~;<~>;:,: :;.:,' ,';>: : ,', ; :;:," :: ; < :, ,./ l' 

potential Improvements ./'~,),:;;!:);:<~,~:",:.:' >,~,~"<.,;:,:.,.:,,;,,»,,, '. ,', 

LF47603mty0296 If 13 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Analysis Agenda

LF47603mty0296 II 14

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Analysis Agenda 

Products " .. ,J 

I , NAP' dg'4 r 

Consumers 

Manufacturers J 

National .J 

LF47603mty0296 II 14 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Analysis

The following analysis issues were considered for products,

consumers, manufacturers, and the nation.

Statutory/Policy

Issues

Data Issues

Contractor Issues

Model/Methods

consume

Statutory/Policy

Issues

Consumer Choice

Issues

Financial Model

Issues

Equity Methods

1,

Statutory/Policy

Issues

Data Issues

Financial Model

Issues

Economic Model

Issues

1-114911-

Overview

Statutory/Policy

Issues

Model Issues

Market Solutions

Utility Emissions

LF47603mty0296 If 15

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Analysis Overview 

The following analysis issues were considered for products, 

consumers, manufacturers, and the nation. 

'\, , ~ \" ~":;;i 

" . 'F?roduc'ts ," ~ ~ \' :1!4 "'I ~ 0'~t ":: '(~ \q;; t): 

'> ~ '0-1':~~\; ~y J"" '\~~;y ~J .:x ~","i.", ... >;1 

I'::. ~h(' '~~ .... '" ~} ';;'~ !'i<% A:Z,"" 4R'h1t~;rk$$~+~~l 

.; , Consumers:~ t~L i :, " ~ p' ~;: i\0t' ~': ~~'15 :~~;.~ 1:f~~: :::~~~~~~~ 

Statutory/Policy Statutory/Policy Statutory/Policy Statutory/Policy 

Issues Issues Issues Issues 

Data Issues Consumer Choice Data Issues Model Issues 

Issues 

Contractor Issues Financial Model Market Solutions 

Financial Model Issues 

Model/Methods Issues Utility Emissions 

Economic Model 

Equity Methods Issues 

",~ ..... .,..~ "'""",,",,&~~ __ ~~'>M ~;.., -..... ~ .... ,,,- "'''''~~, • Mo.~.~_~ .... , 

LF47603mty0296 If 15 
Process Improvement Analysis

The following product issues were identified.

• Should `Technologically

Feasible" include

manufacturing practicality?

• Is the existence of a

support infrastructure a

relevant criteria?

- Suppliers, buyers,

distributors, service

• Have concerns of product

utility, reliability and safety

been adequately

considered?

• How can "economically

justified" and speculative

forecasts be reconciled?

• Should "MAX Tech" be

pursued?

• How can confidential

manufacturing cost data be

obtained?

• How should data spread be

treated?

• How should uncertainty be

portrayed?

• How can the data obtained

be validated?

• What can be done when no

data is available?

• How do anti-competitive

laws restrict data

availability?

Contractor Issues

How should support

contractors be selected?

• What level of review is

appropriate?

• What should be the nature

of the support contract?

L

DRAFT 3-4-96

Product Issues

Models/Methods

• Does the analysis reflect

that the impact of design

options is different for

different firms?

• How should the product

classes be selected?

LF47603mty0296 If 16

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

Process Improvement Analysis 

The following product issues were identified. 

.•••. ·...:·§tatutorylssues .......... ...... . ...... . 

• Should "Technologically 

Feasible" include 

manufacturing practicality? 

• Is the existence of a 

support infrastructure a 

relevant criteria? 

- Suppliers, buyers, 

distributors, service 

• Have concerns of product 

utility, reliability and safety 

been adequately 

considered? 

• How can "economically 

justified" and speculative 

forecasts be reconciled? 

• Should "MAX Tech" be 

pursued? 

Data Issues . : ... • How can confidential 

manufacturing cost data be 

obtained? 

• How should data spread be 

treated? 

• How should uncertainty be 

portrayed? 

• How can the data obtained 

be validated? 

• What can be done when no 

data is available? 

• How do anti-competitive 

laws restrict data 

availability? 

Contractor Issues 

• How should support 

contractors be selected? 

• What level of review is 

appropriate? 

• What should be the nature 

of the support contract? 

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Product Issues 

Models/Methods 

• Does the analysis reflect 

that the impact of design 

options is different for 

different firms? 

• How should the product 

classes be selected? 

LF47603mty0296 If 16 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Analysis Product Issues-Engineering Analysis

Stakeholders support the concept of employing technical ex perts and

providing extensive peer review . Also...

"DOE should hire industry people. Maybe even hire more people than they have

now and be less reliant on a contractor."

Trade Association

"We need competent consultants with industry experience to perform the

engineering analysis."

Lamp Manufacturer

"(Engineering) analysis should be done by experienced, impartial technical

people."

Water Heater Manufacturer

"The contractor is doing its best, but they need peer review."

Electric Utility Interest

"Paralysis by analysis is a concern."

Energy Efficiency Advocate

...interim analyses results should be publicized to allow for early

comment.

LF47603mry0296 It 17

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Analysis Product Issues-Engineering Analysis 

Stakeholders support the concept of employing technical experts and 

providing extensive peer review. Also ... 

"DOE should hire industry people. Maybe even hire more people than they have 

now and be less reliant on a contractor." 

Trade Association 

"We need competent consultants with industry experience to perform the 

engineering analysis." 

Lamp Manufacturer 

"(Engineering) analysis should be done by experienced, impartial technical 

people." 

Water Heater Manufacturer 

"The contractor is doing its best, but they need peer review." 

Electric Utility Interest 

"Paralysis by analysis is a concern." 

Energy Efficiency Advocate 

.. .interim analyses results should be publicized to allow for early 

comment. 

LF47603mty0296 If 17 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Analysis Product Issues-MAX Tech

The law requires that standards promote the achievement of the

maximum efficiency potential-"technologically feasible" an d

"economically justified."

"At the levels originally set in NAECA and EPAct, the standards were not

`pushing' technology. As standards are revised, this is an entirely different

ball game. If standards are too high, they could drive out of business the

smaller manufacturers as capital needs and proprietary designs become

dominant issues."

Trade Association

"Standards should not drive technology to its limits, but rather remove low-end

products from the market."

Trade Association

"The statute is biased toward conservation. Setting a high level first and then

lowering it in response to well-documented comments is a safe approach for

DOE to use given the statute and possible legal challenges."

Trade Association

This approach is an example of "technology driven standar ds,"

or "technology forcing " and is the source of much debate.

LF47603mty0296 If 18

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Analysis Product Issues-MAX Tech 

The law requires that standards promote the achievement of the 

maximum efficiency potential-"technologically feasible" and 

"economically justified." 

"At the levels originally set in NAECA and EPAct, the standards were not 

'pushing'technology. As standards are revised, this is an entirely different 

ball game. If standards are too high, they could drive out of business the 

smaller manufacturers as capital needs and proprietary designs become 

dominant issues." 

Trade Association 

"Standards should not drive technology to its limits, but rather remove low-end 

products from the market." 

Trade Association 

"The statute is biased toward conservation. Setting a high level first and then 

lowering it in response to well-documented comments is a safe approach for 

DOE to use given the statute and possible legal challenges." 

Trade Association 

This approach is an example of "technology driven standards," 

or "technology forcing" and is the source of much debate. 

LF47603mty0296 If 18 
Process Improvement Analysis

The following consumer issues were identified.

Consumer. ssues` Sam

Statutory/Policy

• Are product features

preserved?

Consumer Choice

Has consumer choice been

limited? Enhanced?

Are increased first-costs

preventing some consumer

classes from purchasing the

product?

Financial Model

What is the appropriate

discount rate for life-cycle

cost calculations?

• Should average energy

costs be be used?

• Should average consumer

usage patterns be

considered?

DRAFT 3-4-96

Consumer Issues

Equity

• What are the distributive

impacts of standards?

- on different regions

(varying weather and

utility rates)

- on consumer rate

classes

income level

home size

age

- on end-use patterns

LF47603mty0296 It 19

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

Process Improvement f\nalysis 

The following consumer issues were identified. 

• Are product features 

preserved? 

Consumer Choice . ": .. :.-,; .':.:.:. 

• Has consumer choice been 

limited? Enhanced? 

• Are increased first-costs 

preventing some consumer 

classes from purchasing the 

product? 

Financial Model 

• What is the appropriate 

discount rate for life-cycle 

cost calculations? 

• Should average energy 

costs be be used? 

• Should average consumer 

usage patterns be 

considered? 

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Consumer Issues 

Equity 

• What are the distributive 

impacts of standards? 

- on different regions 

(varying weather and 

utility rates) 

- on consumer rate 

classes 

- income level 

- home size 

- age 

- on end-use patterns 

LF47603mty0296 If 19 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Analysis Consumer Issues

Regional energy costs, climate conditions , and appliance us age

patterns have varying impacts on consumers.

"We need to look at average consumers"

Energy Efficiency Advocate

"This is not a big problem and should have a low priority."

Energy Efficiency Advocate

"Standards impact differently in different geographic regions of the U.S. This

issue is worthy of discussion."

Utility Interest

This issue is weighed differently by different stakeholder groups.

LF47603mty0296 If 20

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Analysis Consumer Issues 

Regional energy costs, climate conditions, and appliance usage 

patterns have varying impacts on consumers. 

"We need to look at average consumers" 

Energy Efficiency Advocate 

"This is not a big problem and should have a low priority." 

Energy Efficiency Advocate 

"Standards impact differently in different geographic regions of the U.S. This 

issue is worthy of discussion." , 

Utility Interest 

This issue is weighed differently by different stakeholder groups. 

LF47603mty0296 If 20 
Process Improvement Analysis

The following manufacturer issues were identified.

ani factures Issue,

Statutory Issues

Have standards resulted in

a lessening of competition?

Should the "Jobs Impact" of

proposed standards be

considered?

- Total jobs?

- Jobs displaced?

Should standard levels that

change industry structure

be mandated?

- Number of competitors

- Competitors' market

share

- Dominant technology

Data Issues

• How can confidential

manufacturer data be

obtained?

• What are appropriate

sources of public data?

Analysis/Models

Methods

How will the price increase

affect demand for the

product?

How much of the cost

increase will be passedthrough to the consumer?

What qualitative

methodologies would

improve manufacturer

impact analysis?

- Interviews?

- Site visits?

DRAFT 3-4-96

Manufacturer Issues

Consultation Issues

How can foregone

investments be valued?

• How can stranded assets

be valued?

• How can the cumulative

burden of multiple

standards be considered?

• How can the analysis

characterize different

manufacturers?

t.F47603mty0296 If 21

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

Process Improvement Analysis 

T~e following manufacturer issues were identified. 

• Have standards resulted in 

a lessening of competition? 

• Should the "Jobs Impact" of 

proposed standards be 

considered? 

- Total jobs? 

- Jobs displaced? 

• Should standard levels that 

change industry structure 

be mandated? 

- Number of competitors 

- Competitors' market 

share 

- Dominant technology 

• How can confidential 

manufacturer data be 

obtained? 

• What are appropriate 

sources of public data? 

Analysis/Models 

Methods· 

• How will the price increase 

affect demand for the 

product? 

• How much of the cost 

increase will be passedthrough to the consumer? 

• What qualitative 

methodologies would 

improve manufacturer 

impact analysis? 

- Interviews? 

- Site visits? 

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Manufacturer Issues 

Consultation Issues 

• How can foregone 

investments be valued? 

• How can stranded assets 

be valued? 

• How can the cumulative 

burden of multiple 

standards be considered? 

• How can the analysis 

characterize different 

manufacturers? 

LF47603mty0296 If 21 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Analysis Manufacturer Issues

Accurately evaluating the impact of standards on manufacturers may

require substantial revisions to the current analysis method ologies.

"Manufacturer impact analysis is a key issue . The key factors are the impact of

price on consumer demand and manufacturer mark-up . We need better data

to define these parameters."

Energy Efficiency Advocate

"DOE uses models that industry does not relate to. Key models are overly

complex and not sufficiently validated."

Trade Association

"The detailed theoretical academic models used have virtually no connection

to the realities of a competitive free marketplace. We question whether or not

such studies have any practical value."

Ballast Manufacturer

"In the Federal program, determining the economic impact on manufacturers is

the controlling issue."

State Energy Office

More "qualitative" measures should be added to enhance the

analysis.

LF47603mry0296 If 22

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Analysis Manufacturer Issues 

Accurately evaluating the impact of standards on manufacturers may 

require substantial revisions to the current analysis methodologies. 

"Manufacturer impact analysis is a key issue. The key factors are the impact of 

price on consumer demand and manufacturer mark-up. We need better data . 

to define these parameters." 

Energy Efficiency Advocate 

"DOE uses models that industry does not relate to. Key models are overly 

complex and not sufficiently validated." 

Trade Association 

"The detailed theoretical academic models used have virtually no connection 

to the realities of a competitive free marketplace. We question whether or not 

such studies have any practical value." 

Ballast Manufacturer 

"In the Federal program, determining the economic impact on manufacturers is 

the controlling issue." 

State Energy Office 

More "qualitative" measures should be added to enhance the 

analysis. 

LF47603mty0296 If 22 
Process Improvement Analysis

The following national issues were identified.

atic h I IsSUE

Statutory/Policy

What forces drive the

nation's needs for energy

conservation?

Security

Environmental quality

Economic benefits from

energy savings

What is a "significant" level

of savings for the mid1990's and beyond?

Models

How should the baseline

energy consumption be

calculated?

How will energy price

forecasts change the

program's benefits?

Market Solutions

Are market forces

accurately represented in

the baseline energy

consumption forecast?

Could other

regulatory-non-regulatory

methods achieve similar

results?

DRAFT 3-4-96

National Issues

Utility Emissions

. Should environmental

costs/benefits be

monetized?

LF47603mmyO296 If 23

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

Process Improvement Analysis 

The following national issues were identified. 

• What forces drive the 

nation's needs for energy 

conservation? 

• Security 

• Environmental quality 

• Economic benefits from 

energy savings 

• What is a "significant" level 

of savings for the mid1990's and beyond? 

• How should the baseline 

energy consumption be 

calculated? 

• How will energy price 

forecasts change the 

program's benefits? 

Market Solutions· 

• Are market forces 

accurately represented in 

the baseline energy 

consumption forecast? 

• Could other 

regulatory-non-regulatory 

methods achieve similar 

results? 

DRAFT 3-4-96 

National Issues 

Utility Emissions . 

• Should environmental 

costs/benefits be 

monetized? 

LF47603mly0296 If 23 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Analysis National Issues

A clearer definition of what constitutes a "significant" level of energy

savings is required.

"The law of diminishing returns is catching up with us. Why regulate an

appliance that consumes $14 of energy per year?"

Appliance Manufacturer

"We are getting closer to Carnot efficiency . The gains in efficiency are obtained

at a higher cost."

Utility Interest

"Efficiency changes can be evolutionary or revolutionary . Evolutionary changes

cost increasingly more to implement." .

Appliance Manufacturer

" In the absence of major leaps in technology, products should.be "graduated"

from the standards program."

Appliance Manufacturer

LF47603mty0296 If 24

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Analysis National Issues 

A clearer definition of what constitutes a "significant" level of energy 

savings is required. 

"The law of diminishing returns is catching up with us. Why regulate an 

appliance that consumes $14of energy per year?" . 

Appliance Manufacturer 

"We are getting closer to Carnot efficiency. The gains in efficiency are obtained 

at a higher cost." . 

Utility Interest 

"Efficiency changes can be evolutionary or revolutionary. Evolutionary changes 

cost increasingly more to implement." . 

Appliance Manufacturer 

" In the absence of major leaps in technology, products should be "graduated" 

from the standards program." 

Appliance Manufacturer 

LF47603mty0296 If 24 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Agenda

Background

Process

Analysis

Prioritization

Potential Improvements

LF47603mty0296 if 25

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

Process Improvement Agenda 

l

,pi ".,. . .. ··'C;/3a"CkgfOt.Jr'ld ·····;··'2';', r % b soc'; kAWP; £1 4b% d lnW,¥&:t?4;' 

1.', •. (.· .•. ',;; .••• ··•· •.••.. >, .. ,',;,v •. '.,' •• ,'i(Rrocess • ,.' . '._,,"_ _ _ :d<:;:,»>, "-.': ~:,:_.;<::> 

i us u;; hy;;;$",' ; hgM au 

Decision Making 

Prioritization 

1 ' •.....•. ' .... , ..•.. ",.".,' ..... . 

¥ B& 

- :/,-,:,:>','- ':;-'.::':::<:::: :<,,:,:::,::.,: ",' , -:,-,: :,: ::, \ . ',::: ':<:>:;:~::::,,:)<:-::-): -:; -,' :' -',' -,' -",- ',' ,::- :<:. :-- :',« :: 9 %&£;.;;.1 1 ggbsN44 a~l.,;;;g44kk-? PM J¥",$¥4;Z;P;;W;md· @d'1£%M4tk A 

F'otentiall mprovements /', '., .,,,,'i',' • 

DRAFT 3-4-96 

.,,,,,,..1 

"" .I 

.. ..1 

LF47603mty0296 If 25 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Decision Making

The uncertainty of any quantitative analysis must be conveyed to DOE

decision makers.

• Projected energy savings for each standard level

• Impact on consumers ( product energy use, costs, and paybacks)

• Impact on manufacturers ( return-on-equity and projected product

shipments)

• Other relevant factors ( net present value, environmental impacts, and

benefit/cost ratios)

Reviewing the briefing materials would provide an additional

opportunity for stakeholder participation.

LF47603mty0296If 26

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Decision Making 

The uncertainty of any quantitative analysis must be conveyed to DOE 

decision makers. 

• Projected energy savings for each standard level 

• Impact on consumers ( product energy use, costs, and paybacks) 

• Impact on manufacturers ( return-on-equity and projected product 

shipments) 

• Other relevant factors ( net present value, environmental impacts, and 

benefit/cost ratios) 

Reviewing the briefing materials would provide an additional 

opportunity for stakeholder participation. 

LF47S03mly029S If 26 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Agenda

Analysis

Decision Making

Prioritization

Potential Improvements

LF47603mty0296 If 27

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Agenda 

r ... aM 

I I , ,.;wl, " ; » ~ b g '\ I~,,,,.M s· 441: h ,## 4; J 

; 9&4. ~=m 1ZSJ t%§; ; I, 2 444 g! . ,,, I <Analysis 

D~cision Making 

Prioritization 

.. ·····E()t~ntial'mpr()vements ~;':·:~>;:t>:;·:»: ,}' " ~'<;<:''J:'>:''''< ::,->;:, 

LF47S03mty029S If 27 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Prioritization Stakeholder Consultations

Prioritization of rulemakings was emphasized as a fundamental means

of improving the efficacy of the appliance program.

• Most believed that the department could not realistically achieve the

original rulemaking timetable-set by legislation.

• DOE should be given more flexibility in priority setting.

Stakeholders noted that the department's regulatory agenda, as

currently conducted and published in the Federal Register, has limited

value.

• Whatever prioritization plan DOE does adopt , stakeholders should be

consulted.

• Many participants stated the need for a more dynamic strategic plan for

the appliance program-one that considers a larger government-wide

view and inter-agency involvement.

Lt 47603mty0296 If 28

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Prioritization Stakeholder Consultations . 

Prioritization of rulemakings was emphasized as a fundamental means 

of improving the efficacy of the appliance program. 

• Most believed that the department could not realistically achieve the 

original rulemaking timetable' set by legislation. 

• DOE should be given more flexibility in priority setting. 

• Stakeholders noted that the department's regulatory agenda, as 

currently conducted and published in the Federal Register, has limited 

value. 

• Whatever prioritization plan DOE does adopt, stakeholders should be 

consulted. 

. . 

• Many participants stated the need for a more dynamic strategic plan for 

the appliance program-one that considers a larger government-wide 

view and inter-agency involvement. 

. LF47603mty0296 If 28 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Prioritization Stakeholder Consultations

The department received suggestions of possible criteria it should

use in planning and prioritizing future rules.

• The legislated schedule

• The potential for energy savings

• An evaluation of market direction

• The status of test procedure revisions, if required

• The current status of regulation development (amount of analysis and

other work completed)

• The presence of unresolved issues

• The status of other DOE or other agency regulations

• The cumulative burden on multi-product manufacturers

• Other factors found relevant

LF47603mty0296 If 29

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Prioritization Stakeholder Consultations 

The department rec~ived suggestions of possible criteria it should 

use in planning and prioritizing future rules. 

• The legislated schedule 

• The potential for energy savings 

• An evaluation of market direction 

• The status of test procedure revisions, if required 

• The current status of regulation development (amount of analysis and 

other work completed) 

• The presence of unresolved issues 

• The status of other DOE or other agency regulations 

• The cumulative burden on multi-product manufacturers 

• Other factors found relevant 

LF47603mty0296 If 29 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Agenda

Background

Process

Prioritization

Potential Improvements

LF47603mty0296 It 30

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Agenda 

Ii 

'5;; ." ",", " "' '" " .,1 

I 'm." .. '" .. " " ,I 

I =&4;\t 

Analysis 

a Sg B¥w !gp'mAc; W2 : :)2=.-0 4 Ii @4 , ........ " ..,J 

I ""'{ %fA $2; ==$ 4wS; %&rU 

<'~<[)ecisiorr Maki ng 

. Prioritization 

4, _ "" •• ,.""~,,J Potential Improvements 

lF47603mty0296 If 30 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Potential Improvements Process

Incorporating stakeholder views, a list of potential improve ments to

the current rulemaking process was developed.

Initiate stakeholder consultations before the

ANOPR and before the NOPR is published

Consider the concept of informal consensus

standards if stakeholders perceive that the

benefits justify the effort

LF47603mty0296 If 31

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Potential Improvements Process 

Incorporating stakeholder views, a list of potential improvements to 

the current rulemaking process was developed. 

Initiate stakeholder consultations before the 

ANOPR and before the NOPR is published l=iI>:#I4A~""",~~'~ 

Consider the concept of informal consensus 

standards if stakeholders perceive that the 

bene'fits justify the effort . 

- ~.rK>;J:.~~~~~ '~~~ 

LF47603mty0296 If 31 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Potential Improvements Analysis

Possible solutions to product issues were suggested.

Ensure that contractors performing the

engineering analysis possess the

appropriate design and manufacturing

expertise

Peer review contractor work

Consult stakeholders early and often to

address engineering and data issues.

I

LF47603mtyO296 If 32

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

Process Improvement Potential Improvements 

Possible solutions to product issues were suggested. 

Ensure that contractors performing the 

engineering analysis possess the 

appropriate design and manufacturing 

expertise 

Peer review contractor work 

Consult stakeholders early and often to 

address engineering and data issues. 

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Analysis 

LF47603mty0296 If 32 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Potential Improvements Analysis

Despite the shortcomings of models, stakeholders generally recognize

their usefulness.

Data

9j

• Since, both the models and the data driving them are

uncertain, the modeling process should make explicit

this consideration.

Review • Over reliance on assumptions and models can produce

inaccurate results, expert judgment and qualitative

analysis is needed to provide a "reality check."

Participation • Increased stakeholder participation in the development

of models and in the analyses is required to ensure

accuracy, transparency and valid results.

Assumptions • The key assumptions must be understood and

accepted for the output to be trusted. I

LF47603mty0296 If 33

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Potential Improvements Analysis 

Despite the shortcomings of models, stakeholders generally recognize 

their usefulness. 

Data 

Review 

• Since both the models and the data driving them are 

uncertain, the modeling process should make explicit 

this consideration. 

• Over reliance on assumptions and models can produce 

inaccurate results, expert judgment and qualitative 

analysis is needed to provide a "reality check." 

Participation • Increased stakeholder participation in the development 

of models and in the analyses is required to ensure 

accuracy, transparency and valid results. 

Assumptions • The key assumptions must be understood and 

accepted for the output to be trusted. 

LF47603mty0296 If 33 
DRAFT 3-4-96

Process Improvement Potential Improvements Prioritization

To enhance planning and coordination with respect to both new and

existing regulation, stakeholders suggested a number of possible

department actions.

Make regulatory agenda preparation an

opportunity for stakeholder input

Receive public input on the estimate of

energy savings

Improve test procedure linkage to new

standards

LF47603mty0296 If 34

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 09

DRAFT 3-4-96 

Process Improvement Potential Improvements Prioritization 

To enhance planning and coordin~ation with respect to both new and 

existing regulation, stakeholders suggested a number of possible 

department actions. 

Make regulatory agenda preparation an 

opportunity for stakeholder input 

Receive public input on the estimate of 

energy savings 

Improve test procedure linkage to new 

standards 

LF47603mty0296 If 34