Appliance Process Improvement Meeting

February 13, 1996

The Aerospace Center, 901 D St., 9th Floor

Washington, DC

Sponsored by the Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Washington, D.C.

9:00 am -9:15 am Introductions, overview, agenda review

- Doug Brookman

9:15 am -9:45 am Selection of trial standards levels

- Description of past experience

- Open discussion on alternatives/concerns/key issues

9:45 am -10:30 am Selection of the proposed standards levels

- Examination of a sample briefing package

- Open discussion on possible improvements to decisionmaking

10:30 am -10:45 am Break

10:45 am - 11:30 am Review of a "major themes" outline summarizing findings

of stakeholder consultations

- Stakeholder group meetings

- Stakeholder interviews

11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. Review of a draft outline of DOE's proposed

process improvement and research agenda (working lunch)

1:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m Market conditioning and mandatory programs

- Is there a way to describe the conditions under which

market conditioning initiatives would be successful?

- How to determine where on the continuum (MandatoryMarket conditioning) efforts should be targeted

- What should be the parameters of a workshop on this

subject?

2:00 p.m. - 2:30 p. m. Prioritization of rules

- Past Practices

- Status of regulatory agenda development

2:30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Break

2/12/96

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Appliance Process Improvement Meeting 

. February 13, 1996 

The Aerospace Center, 901 D St., 9th Floor 

Washington, DC 

Sponsored by the Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Washington, D.C. 

9:00 am -9:15 am 

9: 15 am -9:45 am 

9:45 am -to:30 am 

10:30 am -10:45 am 

10:45 am - 11:30 am 

11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. 

1 :30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m 

. 2:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. 

2:30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. 

Introductions, overview, agenda review 

- Doug Brookman 

Selection of trial standards levels 

- Description of past experience 

- Open discussion on altematives/concems/key issues 

Selection of the proposed standards levels 

- Examination of a sample briefing package 

- Open discussion on possible improvements to decisionmaking 

Break 

Review of a "major themes" outline summarizing findings 

of stakeholder consultations 

- Stakeholder group meetings 

- Stakeholder interviews 

Review of a draft outline of DOE's proposed 

process improvement and research agenda (working lunch) 

Market conditioning and mandatory programs 

- Is there a way to describe the conditions under which 

market conditioning initiatives would be successful? 

- How to determine where on the continuum (MandatoryMarket conditioning) efforts should be targeted 

- What should be the parameters of a workshop on this 

subject? 

Prioritization of rules. 

- Past Practices 

- Status of regulatory agenda development 

Break 

2/12/96 
3:00 p.m. - 3:45 p.m. Preparation for March workshops

- Proposed agenda review/revision

- Meeting format, participants

- Materials required

- Date for review of workshop materials

3:45 p.m. - 4: 00 p.m. Next Steps

2/12/96

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

3:00 p.m. - 3:45 p.m. 

3:45 p.m. - 4: 00 p.m. 

Preparation for March workshops 

- Proposed agenda review/revision 

- Meeting format, participants 

- Materials reg uired 

- Date for review of workshop materials 

Next Steps 

2/12/96 
'*ocL$S -Tint pi ove4 Co ►-T

FG6jaeay i341, 99&

^^-

ASA

L^«y W y e A-RZ 3 -S ?- 4- 8800

X4 Bevr,

_703-s5r 9S 

1 i

YY Q L^f _. V C

Zo - /$

^G err (,)o^ o / 56 - ^/ 

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

rkOc.ES>S J ~ prto\JlJlo.(.;.vi 

fc..b..lU~'1 . 1 ~ f4l.) Jt(t; b . 

--_._-_. - ._- . __ .. -------

- - , , ' , .. , - -

£!j'v' y? ."3 r: __ .' ;; 1~"- isv /!..- /\ ',/ c --

04~ A-PL 

CJL~j-(), ~kv'I1l_~lIi_~ -lfin ?U.~~~~~~- \Of.~c '" 

,r)','~ ,/ '(,.v' Ph),,\ ~(::.£f 

c.Oc../C. ~ /) !r./J-CiJ IVl iW77t-C<>--

IbS~'\ ~\'2L,~ CD G~ /-Ff:..\ Gr \ ,DA-t ~2. 

. )oliiv ~t/IL.- 7' 1) t V '-::::1' --,-_ .. l,- \.. <-/ 

L u rf:~_uLet~J e.- A-~r 

r;.J/t/v1 ~ OOf\.V- ! .skY\. 1} .... DIM) ~ - 6£.ft fJ, ,/CJ~ , 

Ec{ , OJ ()c' -n~r "- -...v 

bfY~~ 13~Y''''/r--J~J2...( D~L /', I _ I / /. .-

Jt",·,( ! 2 <:. 10.-( fl ::~ . 

tqh !Iolj,~q --.Lt1l4H 

Gv-.~ "Ze!cl V- - L' \ ..... ) E:' ~'~Q. 

V',\ \ [t~{ Tt1OM&U" LV ~ I (l \.., ~t) VV' L 

.::J0c; ·/v1A7fI/li G '-,i CJ47VJA 

'-- : ) '; 7 -; '7 - c':: J () 

~rr- 4ZI-'- S7Pr

~/4 -4'd - ( z

~\S 7?3 - :z=

---..., <._..1 ...:.... _ II -; , _ ~ .i.. '~7

""- \.~ \ 

.--- S/'-) )1 J :~~

~(~~ l-.S ~ 8'37 

~}I if -if )-'1 " -:7l j

> ' 

71)'J.-sz.4- g~oo 

d D'). - fJ21.r/) .. -~ I q 0 

"u1, -rraln-j

'Zoz. SU -037

.... ~'~, - , / 

j' ,~/ ;' ./ .... ,_/ .,: :.~ 

ill - 1'9''1- 5f7"o 

4\'~ - .-;> :;~ '~ 

IUt>-7~~ - '-

763 -:szs- 9S

])O/\J ,"J f-) , bfJ J\JKS A.6 A . 7o.~- 1::jL/ 1- S-':0/ Cl

rJJl'-h" rA t, /4? ( 11-4- Dde .2o::L/~ - ~8

/11 ,c;ltCJ.() I /Z7 ,& k.- Ode 20.2 Ide. - 9/

I 

J"MJ ~ ,f(V/nv DoE 202../ ~:f6-- t.;

~, 

ji (q{//; / -, 

f 1'", ~/ ~; " I r .-, ...; '- oc. ..... ,~ 

~ 

- 
Discussion Draft, February 13,1996

OUTLINE OF PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PLAN

for

Appliance Efficiency Standards Program

PROPOSED STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (see flow chart):

Priority-Setting

• Draft Analytical and Rulemaking Agenda . At least annually, probably in late summer.

DOE will develop, in consultation with stakeholders, its planned analytical and rulemaking

agenda for the coming fiscal year, and its preliminary agenda for the following fiscal year.

• Stakeholder Consultations and Review of Draft Agenda . An annual workshop is to

review the agenda is likely, probably in September.

• Publication of Agenda.

Phase I Analysis and Determinations

• Draft Phase I Analysis and Findings, including engineering analysis, impacts on product

utility, technological feasibility, manufacturer practicability, and significance of possible

energy savings, with initial consumer life cycle cost and net national benefits estimates. (DOE

would propose any required test procedure amendments prior to completing this analysis.)

• Expert and Stakeholder Consultations on Inputs and Outputs of Phase I Analysis.

• Issuance of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or Termination of Standards

Development Process (if standards are not warranted). The Advance Notice would provide

Phase I analysis results, identify the product categories and standard levels to be analyzed in

more detail, and would identify those standard levels eliminated from further consideration.

Stakeholder Negotiations, Phase 11 Analysis, and Proposed Standards

• Public Comments on ANOPR, including, if feasible, Stakeholder Negotiations.

• Phase II Analysis and Formal Stakeholder and Public Comments, followed by revisions

to Phase II analysis, and final stakeholder review (DOE would issue final amended test

procedures, if required, before the completion of this analysis).

• Issue Proposed Rule with Updated Standards.

Final Comments. Analysis Revisions and Rule

• Public (and Stakeholder) Comment on Proposed Rule.

• Final revisions to DOE's analysis.

• Issuance of Final Standards.

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Discussion Draft, February 13, 1996 

OUTLINE OF PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PLAN 

for 

Appliance Efficiency Standards Program 

PROPOSED STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (see flow chart): . . 

Priority.Setting 

• Draft Analytical and Rulemaking Agenda. At least annually. probably in late summer .. 

DOE will develop. in consultation with stakeholders. its planned analytical and rulemaking 

agenda for the coming tiscal year. and its preliminary agenda for the following fiscal year. 

• Stakeholder Consultations and Review of Draft Agenda. An annual workshop is to 

review the agenda is likely. probably in September. 

• Publication of Agenda. 

Phase I Analysis and Determinations 

• Draft Phase I Analysis and Findings, including engineering analysis. impacts on product 

utility. technological feasibility. manufacturer practicability. and significance of possible 

energy savings. with initial consumer life cycle cost and net national benefits estimates. (DOE 

would propose any required test procedure amendments prior to completing this anal.).'sis.) 

• Expert and Stakeholder Consultations on Inputs and Outputs of Phase I Analysis. 

• Issuance of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or Termination of Standards 

Development Process (if standards are not wa"anted). The Advance Notice would provide 

Phase I analysis results. identify the product categories and standard levels to be analyzed in 

more detail. and would identify those standard levels eliminated from further consideration. 

Stakeholder Negotiations, Phase II Analysis, and Proposed Standards 

• Public Comments on ANOPR, including, if feasible, Stakeholder Negotiations. 

• Phase II Analysis and Formal Stakeholder and Public Comments, followed by revisions 

to Phase II analysis, and tinal stakeholder review (DOE would issue final amended test. 

procedl!res, ifrequired. before the completion of this analysis). . 

• Issue Proposed Rule with Updated Standards. 

Final Comments, Analysis Reyisions and Rule 

• Public (and Stakeholder) Comment on Proposed Rule. 

• Final revisions to DOE's analysis. 

• Issuance of Final Standards. 
Discussion Draft, February 13, 1996

DOE DECISION CRITERIA TO BE MODIFIED OR ADDED

The draft process improvement plan to be distributed at the March workshop will address how

DOE intends to modify or expand its consideration of each of the following factors in its future

decisionmaking:

Significant energy savings

Manufacturing practicability

Impacts on manufacturers

Impacts on consumers

Uncertainty of Quantitative Analyses

Participation in Voluntary Programs

Joint Recommendations by Stakeholders

-- among others

RESOLUTION OF KEY ISSUES

The draft process improvement plan will address many key issues identified by stakeholders,

including:

Reducing or Eliminating the Recurring Threat of New Standards: DOE's regulatory agenda

will indicate for which product categories DOE intends to initiate the standards review and

development process. given available budget resources, and the basis for DOE's priority-setting.

For those product categories identified for review, the Phase I analysis, which precedes an

ANOPR, will be designed to narrow the range of technologies or standard levels to be considered,

and to provide the basis for DOE to terminate its review if updated standards are not warranted.

Early Elimination of Maximum Technologically Feasible Standard Level: DOE will no

longer perform an indepth (Phase II) analysis of the "maximum technologically feasible" standard

level unless that level would also be practicable to manufacture (and service), would not affect the

utility of the product and would likely produce net benefits to consumers and the nation.

Improved Analytical Methods: DOE will initiate a cooperative effort with key stakeholders

and qualified contractors to develop improved methods of analyzing the likely impacts of

standards on manufacturers, and possibly other key analysis methods.

Accessing Technical Expertise and Industry Knowledge : By consulting stakeholders and

industry experts at the start of the analytical process, DOE hopes to ensure that its chosen

contractors are knowledgeable and skilled. and that they have ready access to expert peer review.

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Discussion Draft. February 13. 1996 

DOE DECISION CRITERIA TO BE MODIFIED OR ADDED 

The draft process improvement plan to be distributed at the March workshop will address how 

DOE intends to modify or expand it~ consideration of each of the following factors in its future 

decisionmaking: 

Significant energy savings 

Manufacturing practicabili ty 

Impacts on manufacturers 

Impacts on consumers 

Uncertainty of Quantitative Analyses 

Participation in Voluntary Programs 

Joint Recommendations by Stakeholders 

-- among others 

RESOLUTION OF KEY ISSUES 

The draft process improvement plan will address many key issues identified by stakeholders. 

including: 

Reducing or Eliminating the Recurring Threat of New Standards: DOE's regulatory agenda 

will indicate for which product cate,gories DOE intends to initiate the standards review and. 

development process. given availabl~ budget resources. and the basis for DOE's priority-setting. 

For those product categories identified for review. the Phase I analysis. which precedes an 

ANOPR, will be designed to narrow the range of technologies or standard levels to be considered. 

and to provide the basis for DOE to terminate its review if updated standards are not warranted. 

Early Elimination of Maximum Technologically Feasible Standard Level: DOE will no . 

longer perform an indepth (Phase II) analysis of the "maximum technologically feasible" standard 

level unless that level would also be practicable to manufacture (and service); would not affect the 

utility of the product and would likely produce net benefits to consumers and the nation. 

Improved Analytical Methods: DOE will initiate a cooperative effort with key stakeholders 

and qualified contractors to develop improved methods of analyzing the likely impacts of 

standards on manufacturers. and possibly other key analysis methods .. 

Accessing Technical Expertise and Industry Knowledge: By consulting stakeholders and 

industry experts at the start of the analytical process, DOE hopes to ensure that its chosen 

contractors are knowledgeable and skilled. and that they have 'ready access to expert peer review. 
Discussion Draft, February 13, 1996

PROPOSED APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

• 

Stakeholder 

Review 

" 

Annual' 

Priority -Setting 

.Go/No.Go 

Decision· 

Discussion Draft, February 13, 1996 

PROPOSED APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY STANDARDS 

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 

Stakeholderl 

Expert Review 

Public and Stakeholder 

Comment 

Stakeholder Review 

..... Phase I. ... ANOPR or . ... .--.. . . Analysis II' Termination 

__ .. _ Proposed 

Phase II Analysis ... Standards 

Proposed or Final 

Test Procedures, 

if needed 

Go/No Go 

Decision· 

Final Test 

Procedures 

Public 

Comment 

Revised Analysis 

alid Final Standards 
Criteria for consideration in determining appropriate balance between voluntary programs and. mandatory efficiency standards for a specific appliance

or equipment category, with identified opportunities for improving energy efficiency.

Voluntary Programs Major Change Highly Variable Strong market Strong Highly variable Others TBD

to Consumer LCC forces (few commitment by impacts of

Manufacturing (because of barriers) manufacturers standards on

Process regional or other and retailers to manufacturers and

use differences, voluntary likely antiinstallation costs, efforts competitive effects

etc.j

I

Relatively uniform

Weak impacts on

Mandatory No change to Relatively Weak market commitment by manufacturers and

manufacturing uniform forces (many manufacturers few impacts on

process consumer LCC barriers) and retailers competition

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Criteria for consideration in determining appropriate balance between voluntary programs apd. mandatory efficiency standards for a specific appliance 

or equipment category, with identified opportunities for improving energy efficiency. 

Voluntary Programs Major Change Highly Variable Strong market Strong Highly variable Others TBD 

to Consumer LCC forces (few commitment by impacts of 

Manufacturing (because of barriers) manufacturers standards on 

Process regional or other and retailers to manufacturers and 

use differences, voluntary likely antiinstallation costs, efforts c9mp~titive effects . 

etc.) 

i i i i i i i I 

. 

1 °1 1 1 1 1 1 . 

, 

I 

Relatively uniform 

Weak impacts on 

Mandatory No change to Relatively Weak market commitment by manufacturers and 

manufacturing uniform forces (many manufacturers few impacts on 

process consumer LCC barriers) and retailers competition 
Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF

THE APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS

The Department of Energy (DOE). Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, has

initiated a comprehensive process improvement effort to examine. through a series of

stakeholder meetings and interviews, issues surrounding the appliance standards program. The

initial findings from these meetings and interviews will be the basis for discussion of possible

initiatives that the Department will undertake to improve the appliance standards rulemaking

process.

The workshop will be held on March 19 and March 20. 1996 at the Embassy Suites Hotel in

Arlington. Virginia. Discussion topics will include issues surrounding the planning and

prioritization process. data and analysis collection and decision making criteria. The

workshop also will provide an opportunity to comment on DOE's proposed. 1997 Regulatory

Agenda. The workshop will be professionally facilitated to encourage discussion and

comment on these topics. A briefing document will be sent to all participants that notify the

Department in advance that they will attend and there will be an opportunity to submit written

comments after the workshop.

TIME: March 19. 1996 - 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

March 20. 1996 - 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

PLACE: Embassy Suites Hotel (Crystal City)

1300 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA 22202

(703) 979-9799

(The Crystal City metro station is located on the Yellow line one stop

north of National Airport.)

CONTACT: Mr. Bryan Berringer

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-431

1000 Independence Avenue. SW

Washington. DC 20585

(202)586-0371 (202)586-4617 (Fax)

5?7:

Christine A. Ervin

Assistant Secretary

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Punted with soy ink on recycled paper

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF 

THE APPLIANCE STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCESS 

The Depanment of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, has 

initiated a comprehensi ve process improvement etlon to examine, through a series of 

stakeholder meetings and interviews, issues surrounding the appliance standards program. The 

initial findings from these meetings and interviews will be the basis for discussion of possible 

initiatives that the Department will undeI1ake to improve the appliance standards rulemaking 

process. 

The workshop will be held on March 19 and March 20, 1996 at the Embassy Suites Hotel in 

ArUngton, Virginia. Discussion topics will inClude issues surrounding the planning and 

prioritization process. data and analysis collection and decision making criteria. The 

workshop also will provide an 0ppoI1unity to comment on DOE's proposed. 1997 Regulatory 

Agenda. The workshop will be professionally facilitated to encourage discussion and 

comment on these topics. A briefing document will be sent to all panicipants that notify the 

Department in advance that they will attend and there will be an opportunity to submit written 

comments after the workshop. 

TIME: 

PLACE: 

March 19. 1996 - 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. 

March 20. 1996 - 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. 

Embassy Suites Hotel (Crystal City) 

1300 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Arlington. V A 22202 

(703) 979-9799 

(The Crystal City metro station is located on the Yellow line one stop 

north of National Airport.) 

CONTACT: Mr. Bryan Berringer 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-431 

1000 Independence A venue. SW 

Washington. DC 20585 

(202)586-0371 (202)586-4617 (Fax) 

G£ST7aLQ· Chnstine 

Assistant Secretary 

A. Ervin ~ 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy * Pnnted With soy ink on recycled paper 
Rulemaking Priorities with

Potential Energy Savings

RULEMAKING

PRIORITY

NOPR

DATE

FINAL

RULE

DATE'

PROBABILITY

OF MEETING

SCHEDULE

POSSIBLE ENERGM

SAVINGS (QUADS)

Refrigerator 1 May 95 Dec 95 Medium 1.1

Six Products 2 Mar 94 Sep 95 Medium 12.8 2

Ballasts 3 Sep 95 June 96 Medium 17 z

Electric Water Heaters 4 Feb 96 Dec 96 Low 0.1 - 30.8 2

Central AC /Heat Pump 5 Jan 96 Oct 96 Low 11.4

Furnaces and Boilers 6 Jun 96 April 97 High 2.0 - 10.0

Laundry 7 Jul 96 Mar 97 High 10.4

Dishwashers 7 Jul 96 Mar 91 High 0.5

Televisions 8 TBD TBD 3.1

1 Regulatory Coordination Steering Committee approved dates.

2 Estimate from NOPR.

3 Estimate based on most recent analysis.

May .3, 1995

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Rulemaking Priorities with 

Potential Energy Savings 

RULEMAKING NOPR RNAL 

PRIORITY DATE RULE 

DATE! 

Re.fri gerator 1 . May 95 Dec 95 

Sh Products 2 Mar 94 Sep 95 

Ballasts 3 Sep 95 June 96 

Electric Water Heaters 4 Feb 96 Dec 96 

Centra I AC/Heat Pump 5 Jan 96 Oct 96 

Furnaces and Boilers 6 Jun 96 April 97 

laundry 7 Jul 96 . Mar 97 

Dishwashers 7 Jul 96 Mar 97 

Televisions 8 T8D T80 

1 Regulatory Coordinatfon Steering COIlI1IHtee approved dates. 

2 Estfmte frOil NOPR. 

3 EstflJlate based on most recent analysis. 

May.3, 1995 

PROBABIUTY POSSIBLE ENERG'! 

OF MEETING SAVINGS (QUAt'S) 

SCHEDULE 

Medium 7.1 

MedilU11 12.8 2 

MediU111 17 z 

low 0.1 - 30.8 Z 

low 11.4 ) 

High 2.0 - 10.0 

High 10.4 

High 0.5 

3.1 
Appliance Standards

Office of Building Technologies

Office of Codes and Standards

Briefing on the Analysis in Support of a Proposed Rule for

Room Air Conditioners , Water Heaters, Mobile Home Furnaces,

Direct Heating Equipment, Pool Heaters , Kitchen Ranges and Ovens,

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, Television Sets, and Clothes Washers

February 3,1992

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

\ . Appliance Standards 

O'ffice of Building Technologies 

Office of Codes and Standards 

Briefing o'n the Analysis in Support of a Proposed Rule for 

Room Air Conditioners, Water Heaters, Mobile Home Furnaces, 

Direct Heating Equipment, Pool Heaters, Kitchen Ranges and Ovens, 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, Television Sets, and Clothes Washers 

February 3, 1992 
Rulemaking Considerations

The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, as amended , established

energy conservation standards for 12 products, including:

Room Air Conditioners Pool Heaters

Water Heaters Kitchen Ranges and Ovens

Mobile Home Furnaces Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

Direct Heating Equipment Clothes Washers

The Act directs DOE to undertake two rounds -of review to determine

whether the stringency of the standards should be increased . In addition,

DOE was directed to consider establishing standards on television sets.

The current issue is whether to go forward with a proposed rule that

increases the stringency of existing standards for the eight products and

that sets initial standards for television sets and, if so, to what level.

The proposed rule will then be published for public comment , and upon

review of these comments , a final rule will be published. If the standards

are made more stringent or standards are set on additional products,

the levels would become effective three years after publication in the

Federal Register.

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

The National AppUance Energy Conservation Act, as amended, established 

,energy conservation standards for 12 products, including: 

Room Air Conditioners 

Water Heaters 

Mobile Home Furnaces 

Direct Heating Equipment 

Pool Heaters 

Kitchen Ranges and Ovens 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

Clothes Washers 

The Act directs DOE to undertake two rounds -of review to determine 

whether the stringency of the standards should be increased. In addition, 

DOE was ~irected to consider establishing standards on television sets. 

The current issue is whether to go forward with a proposed rule that' 

increases the stringency of existing standards for the eight products and 

'that sets initial standards for television sets and, if so, to what level. 

The proposed rule will then be published for public comment, and upon 

review of these comments, a final rule will be published. If the standards 

are made more stringent or standards are set on additional products, 

the levels would become effective three years after publication in the 

Federal Register. 

2 
EPCA Requirements

Standards shall be designed to:

♦ Achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency

(Sec 325 (I)(2)(A))

♦ Be technologically feasible (Sec 325 (l)(2)(A))

♦ Be economically justified -

• Seven legislated economic factors are to be considered

(Sec (I)(2)(B))

• There is a rebuttable presumption that a standard is

economically justified if payback is less than three years

(Sec 325 (I)(2)(B))

♦ Provide significant conservation of energy (Sec 325 (1)(3)(B)) --

de minimus test based on EPCA and court decision

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Standards shall be designed tf): 

• Achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency 

(Sec 325 (1)(2)(A» 

• Be technologically feasible (Sec 325 (1)(2)(A» 

• Be economically justified -

• Seven legislated economic factors are to be considered 

(Sec (1)(2)(8» 

• There is a rebuttable presumption that a standard is . 

economically justified if payback is less than three years 

(Sec 325 (1)(2)(8» 

• Provide significant conservation of energy (Sec 325 (1)(3)(8» -

de minimus test based on EPCA and court decision 

3 
Economic Factors

♦ Economic Impact of Standards on:

• Manufacturers

• Consumers

♦ Life-Cycle-Cost (LCC) Impacts

♦ Total Projected Energy Savings

♦ Lessening of Utility or Performance

Impact on any Lessening of Competition

♦ Nation's Need to Conserve Energy

♦ Other Relevant Factors (Including Environmental I mpacts)

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

• Economic Impact of Standards on: 

• Manufacturers 

• Consumers 

• ~ife-Cycle-Cost (LCC) Impacts 

• Total Pro'jected Energy Savings 

• Lessening of Utility or Performance 

• Impact on any Lessening of Competition 

• Nation's Need to Conserve Energy 

• Other Relevant Factors (Including Environmental Impacts) 

4 
Rebuttable Presumption

If the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the

consumer of purchasing a product complying with an

energy conservation standard level will be less than

three times the value of the energy savings during the

first year (that the consumer will receive as a result of

the standard), as calculated under the applicable test

procedure, there shall be a rebuttable presumption th at

such a standard level is economically justified.

A determination by the Secretary that such criterion

is not met shall be taken into consideration in the

Secretary's determination of whether a standard is

economically justified.

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

If the Secretary finds that the adEJitionalcost to the 

. consumer of purchasing a product complying with an 

'energy conservation standard level will be less t,h~n 

three times the value of the energy savings during the 

first year (that the consumer will receive as a result of 

the standard), as calculated under the applicable test 

proc·edure, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that 

such a standard level is economically justified. 

A determination by the Secretary that such criterion 

is not met shall be taken into consideration in the 

Secretary's determination of whether a standard is . 

economically justified. 

5 
Analytical Approach

♦ Identified up to 16 classes of each product for a total of 56

classes (based on fuel type, unit capacity, and/or design features)

♦ Identified the features of the baseline equipment for each class

of product (based on the least energy efficient unit on the market

today)

♦ Identified a series of modifications that improve the efficiency

of the baseline unit up to the maximum that is technologically

feasible

♦ Calculated the cost , reduction in energy use, and impact on

life-cycle costs of each of these modifications

Selected trial standard levels for each product and class:

• maximum efficiency level (max-tech)

• minimum life-cycle-cost point

• up to six additional levels

♦ Performed economic analysis of the trial standard levels

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

• Identified up to 16 classes of each product for a tota.1 of 56 

classes (based on fuel type, unit capacity, and/or desig'n features) 

• Identified the features of the baseline equipment for each class 

of product (based on the least energy efficient unit on the market 

today) 

• Identified a series of modifications that improve the efficiency 

of the baseline unit up to the maximum that is technologically 

feasible 

• Calculated the cost, reduction in energy use, and impact on 

life-cycle costs of each of these modifications 

• Selected trial standard levels for each product and class: 

• maximum efficiency level (max-tech) 

• minimum life-cycle-cost point 

• up to six additional levels 

• Performed economic analysis of the trial standard levels 

6 
Products under Consideration

Room Air Conditioners

Water Heaters

Mobile Home Furnaces

Direct Heating Equipment

LI

Pool Heaters

Kitchen Ranges and Ovens

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts.

Television Sets

Clothes'Washers

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Room Air Conditioners 

Water Heaters 

Mobile Home Furnaces . 

Direct Heating Equipment 

~' --

08 

Pool Heaters 

Kitchen Ranges and Ovens 

Fluorescent lamp Ballasts 

Television Sets 

Clothes Washers 

7 
1990 U.S. Primary Energy Consumption

by Product

Room Air Conditioners (1.4 quads)

Clothes Washers (1.0 quads)

Television Sets (0.2 quads)

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

(2.3 quads)

Kitchen Ranges and Ovens

(1.4 quads)

Mobile Home Furnaces

(0.2 quads)

Direct Heating Equipment

(1.1 quads)

Pool Heaters

(less than 0.1 quads)

Total energy consumed in 1990 by these nine products : 11.4 quads

Total energy consumed in 1990 by the buildings sector: 29.2 quads

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

1990 U.S. Pri,mary Energy Consumption 

by Product 

Room Air Conditioners (1.4 quads) 

Clothes Washers (1.0 quads) 

Television Sets (0.2 quad$)-•• ----~!I 

Water Heaters (3.8 quads) 

Mobile Jiome Furnaces 

(0.2 quads.) 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

(2.3 quads) 

Direct Heating Equipment 

(1.1 quads) 

Kitchen Ranges and Ovens 

(1.4 quads) 

Pool Heaters 

(less than 0.1 quadS) 

Total energy consumed hi 1990 by these nine products: 11.4 quads 

Total energy consumed in 1990 by the buildings sector: 29.2 quads 

8 
Potential U.S. Energy Savings

Estimated Energy Saved by Product from 1996 to 2030

Room Air Conditioners

Water Heaters

Mobile Home Furnaces

Direct Heating Equipment1

Pool Heaters

Kitchen Ranges and Ovens

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts*

Television Sets

Clothes Washers

n Max-Tech

n Minimum LCC

q Lowest Standard

(_ -+---T- ► t 1 ► 1 1 1 1 1 ^L_._l 1 ._ J 1 1

0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Quads

*Estimated energy savings is from 1990 to 2025.

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Potential U.S. Energy Savings 

Estimated Energy Saved by Product from 1996 to 2030 

Room Air Conditioners 

Water Heaters 

Mobile Home Furnaces 

Direct Heating Equip 

Pool Heaters 

Kitchen Ranges and Ovens 

Fluorescent lamp Ballasts· 

Television Sets 

Clothes Washers 

54.Squads 

• 

34.9 quads 

• Max-TeCh 

• Minimum LCC 

o lowest Standard 

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 

Quads 

*Estimated energy savings is from 1990 to 2025. 

9 
Outline for Briefing by Product Type

♦ Design options of standard levels

♦ Recommendation for standard level

♦ Projected energy savings for each standard level

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

by class)

♦ Impact on manufacturers (return-on-equity and projected

product shipments)

♦ Other relevant factors (net present values , environmental impacts,

and benefit/cost ratios)

10

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

• Design options of standard levels 

• Recommendation for standard level 

• Projected energy savings for each standard level 

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

by class) 

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

product shipments) . 

• Other relevant factors (net present values, environmental impacts, 

and· benefit/cost ratios) 

10 
Room Air Conditioners

♦ Less than 6000 kBtuh with

louvers

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Room Air Conditioners 

+ Less than 6000 kBtuh with 

louvers. 

11 
i ^-_-------- ' Standards/Design Options

Standard Design Options

Level Less than 6 kBtuh with Louvers

Baseline

I Baseline + enhanced fins +

PSC fan motor

2

Baseline + enhanced fins +

PSC fan motor

3 Level 2 + grooved tubes +

subcooler

4 Level 3 + 11.0 EER compressor

5 Level 4 + 11.5 EER compressor

6 Level 5 + increased coil areas

7 Level 6 + variable-speed compressor +

brushless DC fan motor

12

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Standards/Design Options 

Standard Design Options 

level Less than 6 kBtuh with Louvers 

Baseline 

1 Baseline + enhanced fins + 

PSC fan motor 

2 Baseline + enhanced fins + 

PSC fan motor 

3 

level 2 + grooved tubes + 

subcooler . 

4 level 3 + 11.0 EEA compressor 

5 level 4 + 11.5 EER compressor 

6 level 5 + increased coil areas 

7 level 6 + variable-speed compressor + 

brush less DC fan motor 

12 
Recommendation

Rejected Standard Levels

Max Tech through Level 7:

Payback exceeds life of product, negative short run ROE.

Level 6:

Paybacks range up to 60% (9+ years) of product life, approximately 40%

reduction in short-run ROE, some classes with variable-speed compressors

for which there is no test procedure. .

Recommended Standard Level

Level 5:

Paybacks less than half of product life , is or is close to the minimum LCC

point, insignificant changes in ROE (highest long-run ROE), slightly higher

sales (highest), EERs (9.3 - 11 . 1, averaging about 10. 5) roughly comparable

to central A/C, positive NPV of $9.1 billion, environmental value ranging from

$3.9 to $105.2 billion, energy savings of 2.2 quads.

13

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Recommendation 

I Rejected Standard Levels 

Max Tech through Level 7: 

Payback exceeds life of product, negative short run ROE. 

Level 6: 

Paybacks range up to 60% (9+ years) of product life, approximately 40% 

reduction in short-run ROE, some classes with variable-speed compressors 

for which ,there is no test procedure.·. 

[ Recommended Standard Leve( I' 

Level 5: 

Paybacks less than half of product life, is or is close to the minimum LCC 

pOint, insignificant changes in ROE (highest long-run ROE), slightly higher 

sales (highest), EERs (9.3 -11.1, averaging about 10.5) roughly comparable 

to central AIC, positive NPV of $9.1 billion, environmental value ranging from 

$3.9 to $105.2 billion, energy savings of 2.2 quads. 

13 
Projected Energy Savings (1996-2030)

Electricity

Standard - Percent of

Level Quads Baseline

0.28 1.2%

2 0.62 2.7

3 1.24 5.4

4 1.42 6.2

5 2.22 9.7

0 3.06 13.4

5.22 22.9

14

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Projected Energy Savi.ngs (1996-2030) 

Electricity 

Standard Percent of 

Level Quads Baseline 

1 0.28 ·1.2% 

2 0.62 2.7 

3 1.24 5.4 

4 ·1.42 6.2 

5 2.22 9.7 

6 . 3.06 13.4 

7 5.22 22.9 

14 
------- Impact on Consumers

Price ($)

8

4

Life-Cycle-Cost ($)

10 11 12 13 14,

08

Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER)

10 11 12 13 14

Energy Efficiency Ratio (ERR)

Standard

Level

Energy Use

(kWh/Yr)

Price

(1990 $s)

Life-Cycle-Cost

(1990 $s)

Payback

(Years)

Baseline 532 $288 $716 N/A

1 470 293 671 1.0

2 470 293 671 1.0

3 422 302 641 1.7

4 415 303 637 1.8*

5 397 320 640 3.5

6 382 34 3 650 5.3

7 338 508 780 16.1

Maximum level that meets rebuttable presumption test of economic justification.

Average lifetime is 15 years.

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

11111 Impact on Consumers 

Price ($) Ufe·Cycle-Cost ($) 

1000 1000 

800 800 7 0 

3 5 

600 600 4 6 

7 

400 400 

0 1,2 3 

4 6 

200 200 

0 . . 0 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 

Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) Energy Efficiency Ratio (ERR) 

Standard Enefgy Use Price life-Cycle-Cost Payback 

level (kWh/Vr) (1990 $s) (1990 $s) (Years) 

Baseline 532 $288 $116 N/A 

1 470 293 671 1.0 

2 410 293 611 1.0 

3 422 302 641 1.1 

4 415 303 637 1.0-

5 397 320 640 3.5 

6 382 3~3 650 5.3 

7 338 508 780 16.1 

• Maximum level that meets rebuttable presumption test of economic justification. 

Average lifetime is 15 years. ' 

15 
Impact on Manufacturers

Standard

Return on

Equity (%)

Return on

Equity (%)

Total

Shipments*

Level Lon -Run Short-Run (millions)

Baseline 8.6% 8.6% 171.0

1 8.5 8.5 171.3

2 8.5 8.5 171.5

3 8.5 8.4 171.9

4 8.5 8.4 172.0

5 8.6 8.4 172.0

6 7.9 5.2 171.5

7.1 -4.3 166.7

* From 1996 through 2030.

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

11.11 Impact on Manufacturers 

Return on Return on Total 

. Standard Equity (0/0) Equity (%) Shipments· 

Level Long-Run Short-Run (millions) . 

Baseline 8.60/0 8.6% 171.0 

1 8.5 - 8.5 171.3 

! 

2 8.5 8.5 171.5 

3 8.5 8.4 171.9 

4 8.5 8.4 172.0 

5 8.6 8.4 172.0 

6 7.9 5.2 171.5 

7 7.1 -4.3 166.7 

* From 1996 through 2030. 

16 
Other Relevant Factors (1996-2030)

Net Present

Value*

Value of Emission Reductions**

(billions) Benefit/Cost Ratio***

Standard (billions) Low High

Low High

1 $13 $0.5 $13.9 18.6 126.6

2 3.2 1.1 30.5 7.6 51.7

3 6.6 2.3 60. 9 7.0 46.8

4 7.1 2.6 69.3 6.0 40.1

5 9.1 3.9 105.2 3.7 24.3

6 9.1 5.2 139.3 2.5 16.2

7 -4.9 7.8 208.6 1.1 7.1

* Excluding value of emission reductions.

COs, S02 , and N02

••' Including value of emission reductions.

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Other Relevant Factors (1996-2030) 

Net Present Value of Emission Reductions" 

Value* Standard (billions) level Low 

1 $1.1 $0.5 

2 3.2 1.1 

3 6.5 2.3 

4 7.1 2.6 

5 9.1 3.9 

6 9.1 5.2 

7 -4.9 7.8 

* Excluding value 01 emission reductions. 

.. C02 t 502, and N02 

... Including value 01 emission reductions. 

(billions) . 

High 

$13.9 

30.5 

60.9 

69.3 

105.2 

139.3 

208.6 

-

Benefit/Cost Ratio"* 

Low High 

18.6 126.6 

7.6 51.7 

7.0 46.8 

6.0 40.1 

3.7 24.3 

2.5 16.2 

1.1 7.1 

17 
ama

January 22, 1996

1901 North Moore Street • P.O. Box 9245 • Arlington , Virginia 22209 •703/525-9565

Ms. Deborah E. Miller

Office of the Assistant Secretary

for Energy Efficiency and

Renewable,Energy

EE1-6C016

U. S. Department of Energy

Forrestal Building

1.000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20585

Dear Deborah:

Re: Historical Background of NAECA

The Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association (GAMA) is pleased to

be a participant in DOE's process improvement effort. Based on

what we have seen so far, we are optimistic that this effort

will produce significant results.

Enclosed is a copy of the NAECA historical background

information that Chuck Samuels referred to during our most

recent meeting. On the same subject, also enclosed is a copy of

a speech GAMA's President, Reuben Autery, delivered last year to

GAMA's counterpart in Australia.

I look forward to meeting with you again on February 13.

Very truly yours,

Joseoh_.Y. Mattingly

Director of Government Affairs

and General Counsel

JMM/cb

Enclosures

cc: Michael Rivest, Arthur D. Little, Inc.

An Association of Manufacturers of Appliances and Equipment for Utilization, Distribution and Control of Gas

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Gama 

1901 North Moore Street. P.o. Box 9245 • Arlington, Virginia 22209 .703/525-9565 

January 22, 1996 

Ms. Deborah E. Miller 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable ,Energy 

EEl-6C016 

U. S. Department of Energy 

Forrestal Building 

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20585 

Re: Historical Background of NAECA 

Dear Deborah: 

The Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association (GAMA) is 

be a participant in DOE's process improvement effort. 

what we have seen so far, we are optimistic that this 

will produce significant results. 

pleased to 

Based on 

effort 

Enclosed is a copy of the NAECA historical background 

information that Chuck Samuels referred to during our most 

recent meeting. On the same subject, also enclosed is a copy of 

a speech GAMA's President, Reuben Autery, delivered last year to 

GAMA's counterpart in Australia. 

I look forward to meeting with you again on February 13. 

::~~~:~~~:~lY Director of Government Affairs 

and General Counsel 

JMM/cb 

Enclosures 

cc: Michael Rivest, Arthur D. Little, Inc. 

An Association of Manufacturers of Appliances and Equipment for Utilization, Distribution and Control of Gas 
Prior to its amendment by NAECA in 1987, the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act of 1975 ( EPCA ), as previously amended in 1978,

directed the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) to prescribe

minimum efficiency standards for specified household

appliances . The statute further stated that, not later than 5

years after prescribing an appliance efficiency standard, DOE

must "conduct a reevaluation in order to determine whether such

standard should be amended in any manner." The statute made no

provision for any further DOE reevaluation of the federal

standard for a particular covered product after the initial

reevaluation. Both the initial standard and any amended

standard were to require the maximum improvement in the energy

efficiency of the appliance that was technically feasible and

economically justified. Economic justification criteria were

prescribed by the statute. The statute also provided for

federal preemption of state and local appliance efficiency

standards, but allowed states to obtain a waiver of federal

preemption if the state was able to establish "a significant

state or local interest" to justify such waiver.

The Reagan Administration DOE declined to prescribe substantive

federal appliance efficiency standards, but instead published

"no standard" standards. Several states petitioned DOE for a

waiver of federal preemption. DOE-was preparing to be very

liberal in granting preemption waivers to the states when the

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the State of

California and several other states sued DOE for its failure to

prescribe substantive federal appliance efficiency standards.

NRDC and its fellow petitioners won the lawsuit. In a 154-page

opinion, the U. S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. harshly

criticized DOE and laid out a framework for DOE establishment of

very stringent federal appliance efficiency standards.

Faced with the probability of stringent federal standards and

DOE's inclination to freely grant states exemptions from federal

preemption, appliance manufacturer associations (GAMA, AHAM and

ARI) decided to try to negotiate reasonable legislated standards

with NRDC that would also provide for stronger federal

preemption. The background and history of this effort is

succinctly described in the attached September 5, 1986,

memorandum prepared by the staff of the House Subcommittee on

Energy Conservation and Power (Attachment A). NAECA was

introduced in 1986 as the product of the negotiations between

NRDC and the appliance trade associations. The initial federal

standards were to be legislated standards rather than standards

developed through DOE rulemaking, and federal preemption would

be strengthened. An effort was made not to change EPCA where

/Continued .

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Prior to its amendment by NAECA in 1987, the Energy Policy and 

C.onservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as previously amended in 1978, 

directed the U.· S. Department of Energy (DOE) to prescribe 

minimum efficiency standards for specified household 

appliances. The statute further stated that, not later than 5 

years after prescribing an appliance efficiency standard, DOE 

must "conduct a reevaluation in order to determine w~ether such 

standard should be amended in any manner." The statute made no 

provision for any further DOE reevaluation of the federal 

standard for a particular covered product after the initial 

reevaluation. Both the initial standard and any amended 

standard were to require the maximum improvement in the energy 

efficiency of the appliance that was technically feasible and 

economically justified. Economic justification criteria were 

~rescribed by the statute. The statute also provided for 

federal preemption of state and local appliance efficiency 

standards, but allowed states to obtain a waiver of federal 

preemption if the state was able to establish "a significant 

state or local interest" to justify such waiver. 

The Reagan Administration DOE declined to prescribe stibstantive 

federal appliance efficiency standards, but instead published 

"no standard" standards. Several sta-tes petitioned DOE for a 

waiver of federal preemption. DOE' was preparing to be very 

liberal in granting preemption waivers to the states when the 

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the State of 

California and several other states sued DOE for its failure to 

prescribe substantive federal appliance efficiency standards. 

NRDC and its fellow petitioners won the lawsuit. In a 154-page 

opinion, the U. S. Court of Appeals in washington, D.C. harshly 

criticized DOE and laid out a framework for DOE establishment of 

very stringent federal appliance efficiency standards. 

Faced with the probability of stringent federal standards and 

DOE's inclination to freely grant states exemptions from federal 

preemption, appliance manufacturer associations (GAMA, AHAM and 

ARI) decided to try to negotiate reasonable legislated standards 

with NRDC that would also provide for stronger fed~ral 

preemption. The background ~nd history of this effort is 

succinctly described in the attached September 5, 1986, 

memorandum prepared by the staff of the House Subcommittee on 

Energy Conservation and Power (Attachment A). NAECA was 

introduced in 1986 as the product of the negotiations between 

NRDC and the appliance trade associations. The initial federal 

standards were to be legislated standards rather than standards 

developed through DOE rulemaking, and federal preemption would 

be strengthened. An effort was made not to change EPCA where 

/Continued . . . 
change could be avoided (e.g. product labeling provisions) in

order to minimize controversy about the bill. The attached

House Subcommittee memorandum describes the 1986 bill.

President Reagan pocket-vetoed the 1986 bill. NAECA was

re-introduced very early in 1987, passed Congress with little

opposition, and was signed into law by President Reagan in March

1987.

A "fig leaf" change was made to the 1986 bill to provide

President Reagan a rationale for signing the 1987 bill after

having vetoed the virtually identical 1986 bill. The change had

to do with the schedule for mandatory DOE reevaluation of

standards. The 1986 version of NAECA established schedules for

mandatory DOE review of the standards for each covered product

and for the-effective dates of any amended standards. For most

of the covered products, there were to be two scheduled

standards review cycles followed by further mandatory periodic

DOE review of the standards indefinitely into the future. For

example , the initial NAECA water heater'standards were to take

effect January 1, 1990. DOE was to publish a final rule

amending these standards (if appropriate) by January 1, 1992,

and the amended standards (if any) were to take effect January

1, 1995. Then DOE was to publish a final rule further amending

the water heater standards (if appropriate) by January 1, 2000,

and the amended standards (if any) were to take effect January

1, 2005. Thereafter, DOE was to reevaluate the adequacy of the

water heater standards every five years with.no_sunset.

The lack of any sunset on mandatory DOE review of NAECA

appliance standards was the professed reason for President

Reagan's veto of the legislation. To satisfy the

Administration, the 1987 version of NAECA sunsetted mandatory

review of appliance standards after the second review cycle (see

attached (Attachment B) February 20, 1987, "Coalition Update").

Thus, the statute does not now providefor any further mandatory

DOE review of the NAECA water heater standards after January 1,

2000. After that date, a party may petition DOE for further

strengthening of the water heater standard, but DOE action on

the petition is discretionary.

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

-2-

change could be avoided (e.g. product labeling provisions) in 

order to minimize controversy about the bill. The attached 

House Subcommittee memorandum describes the 1986 bill. 

President Reagan pocket-vetoed the 1986 bill. NAECA was 

re-introduced very early ~n 1987, passed Congress with little 

opposition, and was signed into law by President Reaga~ in March 

.1987. 

A "fig leaf" change was made to the 1986 bill to provide 

President Reagan a rationale for signing the 1987 bill after 

having vetoed the virtually identical 1986 bill. The change had 

to do with the schedule for mandatory DOE reevaluation of 

standards. The 1986 version of NAECA established schedules for 

mandatory DOE review of the standards for each covered product 

and for the~effective dates of any amended standards. For most 

of the covered products, there were to be two scheduled 

standards review cycles followed by further mandatory periodic 

DOE review of the standards indefinitely into the future. For 

example, the initial NAECA water heater ·standards were to take 

effect January 1, 1990. DOE was to publish a final rule 

amending these standards (if appropriate) by January 1, 1992, 

and the amended standards (if any) were to take effect January 

1, 1995. Then DOE was to publish a tinal rule further amendlng 

. the water heater standards (if appropriate) by January 1, 2000, 

and the amended standards (if any) were to take effect January 

1, 2005. Thereafter, DOE was to reevaluate the adequacy of the 

water heater standards every five years with no sunset. 

The lack of any sunset on mandatory DOE revie\..., of NAECA 

appliance standards was the professed reason for President 

Reagan's veto of the legislation. To satisfy the 

Administration, the 1987 version of NAECA sunsetted mandatory 

review of appliance standards after the second review cycle (see 

attached (Attachment B) February 20, 1987, "Coalition Update"). 

Thus, the statute does not now provide for any further mandatory 

DOE review of the NAECA water heater standards after January I, 

2000. After that date, a party may petition DOE for further 

strengthening of the water heater standard, but DOE action on 

the petition is discretionary. 
♦ E7t+AaO J IARXfv. tAASSACHUSETTS. C., AINi*•.

CARLOS J. ?AOCRNEAO CAUFQRNIA

_A^1r.T "k.i MICHAEL C. OXLfY OMIO

-, U. :.r -t:cnS 4OWAa0 ... NIELSCM .TAA

;0 :1-t.gam :;rteAUA VICi'AEL a UPAXIS. FLO'10A

'At :'4 ORES : ECXERT yFAI.ORR

' •nom.. -_c: ; "DPUAN F tENT. NEW YOAR

ILX GFflCIOI

. SXI •IINN.SC'1

I^yw--NCE A. SIDUAN

:NIEF CC.4NSEL ..NO STAFF OIREQCR

Attachment A

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENER GY CONSERVATION

AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTED ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20515

September 5, 1986

.., PwOnly;tA1.6-le7a

ME:'.CFJ NDGM

TC: Me=bers, Subcommittee on Energy Conservation & Power

FRCM: Subcommittee Staff

ST.7'--.T Hear..ng and Markup: H.R. 5.65, "National Appliance Energy

Conservation Act of 1986."

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

The Subcommittee will hold a lecisletive hearing on H.R.

5465 ; the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1986, on

Wednesday, September 10, 1986 at 9:30 a.m . in Room 2322 Rayburn.

A witness list is attached. At 2 p.m. on the same date and in the

same room, the Subcommittee will mark up H.R. 5465. This

memorandum describes the key provisions of the bill.

ackcround

Residential buildings account for 16.5 Quads of energy

cons=..-t_on in the United States, or 23% of the national total.

Cf that f icure, approximately 80% is attributable to major home

apci_ancss, including central systems (centrai air conditioning

and heating, hot water heaters, etc.) and individual units

(ref iaerators, freeezers, washers and dryers, rocm air

con itioners, etc..) . The central tenet of this or any apcliance

standards bill is simple: the more efficient the appl_ar:cs, the

less energy is consumedAc :.ra ce e. ciency standards are desicn L cuir ements or

mirinun efficiency requirements for appii ancss. unlike energy

of _cienc•_ rating;, which are informational ors:,. , appliance

eT_ _ci enc_ standards establish actual baseline, y^..__mum

requir ements for each covered product . The result is that the

least energy efficient products are el^minate6, r esulti ng in

grea ter average e_ _ic iency , decr eased ever _v CCT13 Ct: on C_^

ratetaye_c, and decreased demand requirement--:- or. utilities

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06 . ., !::!\, .. ao .. 'AAJlUY. !.c.4SUCHUSiTi"s, CriAllli;;A'. 

.. (~ ·;,t':'~""·IC:':'.:'4 c.:.IIl0S ... lIoo""U.O c.u.JFOI'INIA 

!~"".,~.r --:l ... ; \I,CHA'" C. £1XUY ~ .. 'o ~'L~:";":.i. -::t~\S "OWAAO ..... ~I(LSCH .",,:... 

';0 :: . .:,.~ .. ;: ..... :.wa.8.&tr.I.. VICiot .. Ei.. IlllJP..A-"S. FlO"OA 

"O;~" ... nc: 'I ~It£;j ~ EeXERT '<(',." "01l1C 

':' ... .,\. ... _ ·:,.c:."; ·'"PUAH. j.E~T"l'Crw "OA. ;.:: ::·,.or _ /"tu) 10 CF~ICjO) . 

, :,":::SII ·JIN ... ·SC .. "" 

': : ..... ~t~ :.lICI'U(ul./Oit 

::F:·'=::l 

I,...lwaca.,cr't 'SI:'J"''''' 

:;I1IH C:;'''5£ ...... 0 STU' OII\~CJl 

ME!!OFJ~lDul! 

" 

Attacmnent A 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUSCOMMITTEEON ENERGY CONSERVATION 

AND POWER 

OF THE 

_ C;OMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERC:= 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515 

Septe~ber 5, 1986 

• .••• 1"I4O~~%l":"U24 " ." . .-: . !,~.~~- ': ... 

., 

# 

,t •• 

:' • • _-_ • ..-r- •• "" 

T,-..· 

....... VeT-he?"c:! 

1~ .... ..,; ~ ... _, Subcommittee on Energy Conser;at~on & power 

FP.C~: Subcommittee Staff 

Eear~ng and Markup: H.R. 5~65, WNational Appliance Ener~~ 

Consertation Act of 1986. w 

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

T!1e Subcommittee will hold a legislative hearing on H.R. 

5465; t!1e National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1986, on Wed~esday, September 10, 1986 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 2322 Rayburn. 

A wit~es3 list is attached. At 2 p.m. on the same date and in the s~e roo~, the Subcommittee will mark up H.R. 5465. This . me.;"::lOra-"1CU:1l describes the key provisions of the bill. 

Backe-round 

Resident~al buildi~gs account for 16.~ Quads of energy consu=~~~on in the united St~tes, or 23% of the nat~onal total. 

Of tba~ fig~re, aFproxiDately 80% is attributable to major heme c::.t"'~ -~-l;-~r~~ _~. ___ .... ;nr7r'c."~na - ........ _ CQ~t-al .......... sv~tQ~e _ ... _ ................. (cQ~t~al .;. •• - c -;~ ___ c~nc-;~~on;nc .... '-- .. - _ 

c.J.. -~c- hQ-~~~c • _.::. ___ ... _ , ho~ 4.. w-t:'o~ Q ~ _ he~te?"s _ _," e~c) ... anc" l'nc-l"Tia-u- y _ .c._ i u~;te ••• w 

(ref=~aerators, f=eezars, washers and drvers, roc= air 

condit£oners, etc.'. The central tenet of ~~is or any appliance st~nd~rds bill is simple: tbe more ef=icient t~ea;:lianc~, ~e 

leSE E.!:ergy is. consumed. 

;"_~pliance ef::icienc.! standards are d~.sign r~:.:i=E!!len!:s or mini=~= e£=iciency reguir~ents for app~~anc~.s. unl~ke ene~~J 

ef=~c~enc7 ratinss, whic~ are inior:lat~onal o~~y, appliance 

e.,:= ~ c'; e"'" ~ •• s· -nc-- rc"s eC'''' -bl ; en' ac" ual baC'e 1 i .... e .... i ... ~ ..., .. ..." . ___ .. • .. ~.: \-Q..i a _ ... .w. ... _ • _ _ __ "' .. i ...... _ ...... _ ...... ~ 

requi=ements for eac~ covered produc:. The result is t~at t~e 

le=st energy efficient produc:s are elimin~t2d, re.sult~ng in 

gre=!:er average ef~iciency, decre=sed energy c~nsu=~~~on by 

r~t~~2yers, and decreased demand rE~uire!!lent~ or. u~~:it~es. 
2

'QderaAnn 'ance Standards Lecis , latzon of the 970's

Appliance efficiency has been a subject of national interest

since at least the initial 'energy price jolts of the early 1970's.

In 1975, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act

(EPr=.) , which requi red the U. S. Department of E ercy (DOE) to mandate energy labeling of appliances and to prescribe voluntary,

r_;-wide appliance efficiency improvemento. In addition,

EC_A authorized, but did not require , DOE to set mandator?

efficienc- standards if the lebel inc and voluntary antroaces proved ineffective. - -- s

in 1978, Congress enacted the National EnerTy Conservation

Policy Act (NECPA) , 42 Q.S.C. 6291 eat see) NEC2A, among other

thincs, a....ended EPCA to require DOE to promulgate expeditiously

mandatory Federal efficiency standards for 13-covered 3 covered' products (refrigerators, freezers, water heaters , room air conditioners,

central air conditioners, furnaces , dishwe_her: , clothes washers, clothes dryers, home heating equipment, kitchen ranges/ovens, television sets, and humidifiers/dehumidifiers). The Carter

Administration DOE proceeded with the rulemmaking and, in 1960,

issued proposed standards for 8 of the 13 covered appliances.

The "No-Standard* Standard

One of the Reagan Administration DOE's first official acts

was to scrap the proposed appliance standard rules,,and to embark

upon a new rulemaking procedure. Between 1982 and 19831, DOE

issued proposed and then final ' no-standard" standards for most of

the covered appliances. These standards constituted DOE's

determination that, applying the statutory criteria of

"technological feasibility" and "economic justification," the most

appropriate Federal appliance standards were no standards at all.

The "no-standard" standards resulted ii ediately in

litigation. The Natural Resources Defense Council, joined by

Congressman Richard Ott_neer and the States of California, H nnesota and New York, sued DOE to overturn th e str. .. -nd-.r r'-^.._ G a as

wholesale misapplication of the Congressional directive to

promulgate Federal standards. On July 16 , 1985, a unanimous pane?

of the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 154-pace derision

striking down the "no-standard" standards as "unsupported by

substantial evidence and . . contrary to lawn for a host of

reasons, and directing the Department to initiate a new rulemmaking

Procedure in accordance with the statutory intent. NPDC v.

?err ncton, 768 F.2d 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1985). T h-, r ._emaking

sz_1l in progress.

ct_ -i }•_ at the State Level

%tir.' le Congress was enacting the f'-rst Federal atpl_arce

standards legislation in the 1970 ' s, some states began enactiz

ewr. appliance standards legislation. First California,

later New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Orecon, passed

a d

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

2 

r~deral- Acolianc~ ~tandarq~ teaislation of t~e l~iOts 

Appliance efficiency has been a subjec~ of nat~onal interest sin!:~ a'C. least the initialenOergy price jolts of t.'1e early 1910's. 

In 19i5, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EP-:';)' which requi r~d the u. S. Depart.:nent of Energy CDOE> to ~enca'C.s ener~J labellng of appliances and to prescr~be voluntary, i::,G~.str-7-",ide a'C'Cliance ef::icienc·., imorovl;:!:len'C.::. In acei toien, EC::~; au~~cr.ized~- but did not requl re, - DOE to set mandator·, 

e£=:c:'enc:l standards if the lebelina and voluntary ac'Cro~bes ... -,z: .• -- - -- t prcvea lne~.eC~lve. 

In 1978, Concress enacted the National Energy Conser7ation 

Policy Ac~ (NEC?A), 42 U.S.C. 6291 et ~L NEC?A, among otber 

tl:':'ngs., a:.:ended EPCA to requi re DOE to promulgate expedi tiously 

manda'C.ory Federal efficiency standards for 12 covered proc.uc:s 

(ref:igerators,freezers, water heaters, roem ai: conditionersi 

central air conditioners, furnaces, dishwi:~~her::t clothes wast,~rs, 

clothes dryers, home heating equipment, k;j. tchen ranges/ovens, 

television sets. and humidifiers/dehumidifiers). The Carter 

Ad::linistr ation DOE proceeded wi tb the rule.'!!aki'hg and, in 1980, 

issued proposed standards for 8 of the 13 covered appliances. 

The ·No-Stand~rd~ Standard 

One of the R~agan'Administration DO~'s first official acts 

was to scrap the proposed appliance standard rules, ,and to embark 

upon a new rulemaking procedure. Between 1982 and 1983, DOE 

issued proposed and then final ,-no-standard- standards for most of 

the covered appliances. These standards const:'touted .DOE' S 

determinat~on that. applying the statutory criteria of 

-technological feasibility~ and -economic justification,- the most 

appropriate Federal appliance standards were no standards at all. 

The ~no-standard· standards resulted i~eciatelv in lit~gation. The Natural ReEources Defense Council, Joined by 

ConcrEssman Richard Ott:'naer and the States of C~liforniar 

~~~;'eso'C.~ and New York, sued DOE to overtur~ t~e st~r.dards as a 

wholesale misap~lication of ~~e Concressional di=Ec~:'ve to 

prsmulga 'C.:= Federal st::.ndards. On July 16, 1985, a unani1:lou~ pc:nel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appaals issued a 15~-Fage dec:'sicn s~=~kinc down tbe ·no-s~andard· standards as wun5u~~or~ed bv suts~~nt:'al evidenca and ••• cont=arv to lawn f8r-a,host of 

reasons, a.r:d di rec~ing t!lE Depar-=:::ent to i:1i t:'a1:::: a ne';l rulE:l2.}::'!'lg 

proc2cure in ac=ordanca with ~~e statutory in~e~~. NPr.C v. R~"'==-nct::r:., 768 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1985). T::.:~:c r::'::'e~ak':'ng lZ 

s~~ll in progress. 

~ilii'::' e Cong:: ess was enact:'ng t!1e first FeGer ~l a!;;? 1 i anC2 s~~nc~rds leaislat:'on in t!1e 1970's, some st~tes ~e~3n en~c~~nc 

t--:eir c"Jn a~nliance st~.r.dards leaislation. First C~l':for:lic" .ind 

later ~ew Y~~k, ~isconsin, Minne~ota and Oregon, passed 
3

legislation or promulgated regulations establishing standards for

appliances covered under Federal law. Although NEC,=.k provides

that Federal appliance standards preempt state standards , the law

also allows DOE to grant waivers to states able to demonstrate a

"significant State or local interest ' justifying the state's

standards in lieu of the Federal standard.

At the same time that DOE promulgated the Rnc -standard"

standards , it began a practice of granting wailer patitions filed

by the states. As a result, the major activity in appliance

standards over the past decade has been at the state level. At

present, more than a half-dozen states have appliance standards

legislation of one kind or another on the books , and another ten

states are moving in that direction.

Industry and the vironmentalists Negotiate

In December 1985 , DOE and the Solicitor General ' s office

decided not to appeal th e Court's decision in ZC v. Herrington.

Appliance manufacturers,, accordingly , were confronted with the

absence of Federal appliance standards for t.he''immediate future,

and a growing plethora of differing state regulations,

complicating industry ' s long-term planning .- Environmental groups,

for their part, were put to the task of fighting a series of

legislative battles at the state level , Vith litigation ensuing in

some cases . In early 1986 , th.e major appliance manufacturer

associations and the Natural Resources Defense Council began a

negotiation to resolve their long-standing differences in the area

of appliance standards.. That negotiation continued for close to

six months and resulted in a comprehensive agreement which is the

foundati on of H. R. 5465.

E.R5. 165

There are two central tenets to the National Appliance Energy

Conservation Act of 1986, E.R. 5465. First, the bill legislates

e°Z'r^ss energy conservation standards for eleven ccnsi er

products; DOE is responsible for amending the standards in te

future. Second, the bill preempts state law under most

circumstances.

(a) Tie _Ztandards

The bill sets exress energy conservation standards for

eleven. covered products: (1) refrigerators and freezers; (2) room

a;.r conditioners; (3) central air conditioners and heat pumps; (4)

water heaters; (5) furnaces; (6) dishwashers; (7) clothes washers;

(8) clothes dryers; (9) direct heating equipment; (1,11) kitchen

ranges and ovens; and (11) pool heaters. The standard for a

covered product is expressed as either a design rec, r:meat or a

Performance standard prescribing a minimum enercv e-= _c. enc y level

or a marinum quantity of enera use. These standards take effect

in 1985, 1990 or 1992, demendina upon t e product, and remain in

affect fo;- anywhere from 3 to 1.0 years, again deTenc_. _ upon t; -e_

EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06 ...... ~ .• ~ -pi.· •• : .. ~ • 

. :-, ,--......... '" 

3 

legislation or promulgated regulations establishing standa~~s for apclianc~s covered under Federal law. Alt~ouah NEC?A provloes 

tSat Federal appliance standards preempt state standards, tbe law 

also allows DOE to grant waivers to states able to demonstrate a 

·significant State or local interest- justifying t~e state's s~andarcs in lieu of the Federal standard. " " 

At tbe" SaI:le time cat DOE promulgated t~e ,,':lc-standard" . st3r.carcis, it began a prac~ice of granting wai7er patiti-Qns f~led 

by the states. As a result, the major activity in appliance 

standards over the past decade has been at the state level. At pr~sent, more than a half-dozen states have at:'Oliance standards 

legislat!on of one kind or another on the boo~~, and anotber ten 

st3tes are moving in that direction. " -

Incustr7 and the ~virQnmentalist3 Neaotiate 

In December 1.985, DOE and the Solicitor General'::; Office 

decided not to appeal the Court's decision in NF~C v. gerrinctcn. AFplianc:= ltanufacturers, accordingly, were confronted with the 

absence ,of Federal appliance standards for the" immediate future, 

and a growing plethora of differing state regulations, complicating industry's long-term planning. ' Environmental groups, 

for their part, were put to the task of fighting a series of 

legislative battles at the state level, with litigation ensuing in 

some cases. In early 1.986, the major appliance manufacturer . associations and the N-atural Resources Defense Council began a 

neootiation to resolve their lonc-standina differences in the area - - .- of aPOliance standards. That rie'aotiation continued for close to 

six months and resulted in a compr~hensive agre~ent which is the 

foundation of H.R. 5465. 

E.R-'L., 5.:i65 

There are two central tenets to the National AFpliance E~er~~ 

Conser7ation Act of 1986, H~R. 54E3. First, ~e bill legislates er.:r"ess enercv conservation standards for e.!.e~!e!l c::nst:=er prod~c~3; DOE-is resFonsible for amending t~e standards in t~e 

f~ture. Second, the bill preempts s~ate law under mos~ 

circ~!Jstances. 

The bill sets express ener~1 conservation s~~r.d~rds for e.!.e~en covered produc~3: (1) refrigaratcrs and f:eezer$; (2) room 

air conci::ioners~ (3) cen~ral air conditioners and he::.t pumps: (4) 

water heaters; (5) furnaces~ (6) dishwashers; (7) clo~~es washe~si 

(8) clot~es dryers; (9) d!.rec~ heating esuiper:~;' (:0) - kitchen 

ranges and ovens; and (11) pool heater::;;. T!1e st:3r:c~=d fora 

covered oroduet is exrressed as ei~,e~ a desic~ r~=~:=2~ent or a _ _ _ 4 

F2r=or~~r.c~ st~ncard presc=ibing a mininum er.e=sy e==~c:er.e7 level 

or a ::na=i::um cruanti t·, of ener~.; u.se. These St:2r:03=:::S t.::;.ke e£fet;:"!: 

l

·.., ... __ 'T 08 "-' Q " _ _ _ _ 1000 -or 100-2 _, a·e~enQ =' .. .4 r-no _ u-on ~ t;"Q ..... _ proc'"c- _ _, ...::............ -,...~ r,::,,,,,,,,,';n _ •• ,........... i-:-. ... 

~£fec= f=r anywh~re f:om 3 to 10 years~ again de~e~:::~~g uFon t~€ 
.4

product . The Federal standards are as strong as or stronger than

arv ene rgy conservation standards currently in effect in any,

state. DOE is directed to promulgate follow-on stan dards for each

product, to take effect upon expiration of the express statutory

standards. These . f ollow-on standards may not be lower than the

e tress standards set forth in H.R. 5465.

(b) P reemution

As a general rule, the Federal ' appliance standards opreempt

all state standards . Special consideration is given to states

with appliance standards currently on the books . In addition,

states may petition DOE for a waiver of the Federal standards.

State regulations prescribed or enacted before January 8,

1987 which are applicable to products before January 3, 1988 are

'g:: z.-ndf athered ' under H. R. 5465. No other state regulations may

bezc,me applicable. 'srandfathered ' regulations remain effective

until the applicable Federal standards become effective , but they

may not be revised upward during that period . At the effective

date of each Federal standard , these 'grandfathered' state

standards are superseded.

States may file petitions with DOE seeking waiver of Federal

preemption . The State must establish by a preponderance of the

evidence that its regulation is needed i.n order to meet 'unusual

and compelling State or local interests ,' defined as conditions

substantially different in nature or magnitude from those

prevailing in the United States generally . In addition, DOE may

not grant a State's waiver application if interested persons

establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the State

r e gul ati on will significantly burden marketing, manufacturing,

distribution , sale or servicing of affected products on a national

basis. Finally, DOE may not grant a State ' s waiver application if

interested persons establish by, a preponderance of the evidence

that the State regulation is likely to result in the,

unavailability in 'the State of any covered product type or class

of performance characteristics . For instance , if the State

rernulation would el irinate frost-free refrigerators in the state,

DOE would be precluded from granting that aspe ct of the State' s

waive= application.

A State may apply for a waiver of Federal preemption at any

t::re after enactment. State waiver applications take effect three

years of ter they are granted by DOE, and in general not before

e:=-.ration of the express Federal energy conser-: ation standards in

E.R. 5465 . The only circumstances under whin h .a.St_te may

inpiement a regulation for which -DOE has gr anted a waiver before

that date is if the State can show, by a preponderance of the

evidence , that, due to c-;circumstances not re :scrip ?Y forseeabl e, an

"energy emergency condition' exists within the State which

the health, safety and we? fare of its residents because

of the inability- of the State to provide adequate quantities of

ene_ to its residents at less than prohi-it e cost2.

. ' EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

., .--.-........... 

. 4 

product. The Federal standards are as strong as or stronger tban 

ar.y er.ergy conser.vation standards currently in ef=ec~ i~ any, . st~t~. DOE is directed to promulgate follow-on stanaarcs for eac~ 

produc:, to take effect upon expiration of the e~press statutory st~nciards. These.follow-on standards may not be lower than the e~r;ss standards set forth in B.R. 5465. 

(b) P:ee!!lotion 

• 

As a general rule, the Fecerai' appliance standards :preempi: 

al: state standards. Soecial consideration is aiven to states wit~ appliance standard~ currently on the books: In addition, st~t:es may petition DOE for a waiver of the Federal standards. 

State regulations prescribed or enacted before January 8, 

1987 which are applicable to products before January 3, 1988 are 

-g=2ndfathered- under B.R. 5463. No other state regulations may 

l::e·';;:.Jme applic.able. a'~randfat.b.~redw regulations remain effective 

until the applicable Federal ~~andards become effective, but they 

z:ay not: be revised upward during that period •. :-At the effective 

date of eacb Federal standard, these wgrandfathered w state 

standards are superseded. 

States may file'petitions with DOE seeking waiver of Federal 

preemption. The State must establish by' a preponderance of the 

evidence that its regulation is needed in order to meet ·unusual 

and compelling State or local interests.· defined as conditions 

substantially different in nature or magni tude from those 

prevailing in the united States. generally. In addition. DOE may 

not: gra.nt a State's waiver applis:ation if interested persons 

est:ablish by a preponderance of the evidence ,that the state 

regulation will Significantly burden marketing, manufacturing, 

distribution, sale or servicing of affected products on a national 

basis. Finally, DOE may not grant a State's waiver applicatio~ if ir.~erested persons establish by a preponderance of the evidence t~at the State regulation is likely to result in the~ 

u~~vailabili~I in the State of any covered proc~c= type or class 

of per~or~ance characteristics. For instance, if t~e stat:e re~~lat~on would eliwinate frost-free refr~cer~tors in t~e state, 

DOE would be precluded from granting that aspec: of tbe State's 

waiver applic3tion. 

A State may apply for a waiver of Federal. Dree..~ction at anv t~~e af~~r enact~ent:. State waiver applic~tior.s take ef=ec~ three 

years af~er they are granted by DOE, and in gener~ not before e=-::~i=at:ion of the express Federal energy conser:-at:ion star-dards in 

E. R. 5465. The only circumstances under whic~a .. S ta te may i=ple~ent a regulation for which nOE bas granted a waiver before 

t!1at date is if the State can show, 'by a prepor:c2ra....,:c~ of t!1e ev~dence, t~at,due to circumstances nct: reascnablv for~eeable, an 

"enErgy e~ergencJ condition- exist3 wit~in the St~t2 whic~ 

:"::1Fer:"ls the health, safety and welfare of its reside::-=.:s !:eC::iu~e 

oi the in3.bi~it'"I 'of the State to proviDe acequat:e q;l2.nt':' ::ie:::: of 

ene!':."?! to i tsresidents at lesE than prohibi t.:. ':2 cost~. 
pro=ected Energy ;avincs

According to the American Council for an Enercy-Efficient

Economy., S.R. 5465 would provide consumers with a net savings of

$28 billion, or nearly $300 per household , based on appliances

sold through the year 2000 and assuming that DOE does not revise

anv of the Federal standards upward during that time frame.

Overall, the benefits throuch reduced operating costs art nearly

three tines as gr eat as the increased first costs. of the covered

products. In addition , H. R. 5465 will lower residential energy

consumption in the U.S. by 1 Quad or about 6%. The energy savings

expected over the lifetime of products sold through 2000 -- 17

Quads -- is equivalent to over two years of energy imports at

America' s current import rate . Finally, the standards would lower

peak el ectricity demand in 2000 by 22 , 000 Megawatts -- equivalent

to about 1. 0% of the growth in peak power. demand ring 1986-2000

as forecast by the utility industry.

11

EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

. . , " 

.' .... -

,,5 

.. ' ,,- : .~ .... . .. -..... ' .. 'Ii'· : ,-. • .' 

:" ,--........ '. 

According to the American Council for an Energy-Ef=icient 

Econcmy., B. R. 5465 would provide consumers wit!:l a net savings of S~8 billion, or nearly $300 per household, based on appliance7 sela tllr::lughthe year 2000 and assUI:1ing tllat DOE does net reVlse 

ar:.., of t~e Federal standards u't:"'ailard durine ti"lat time frame. 

CVerall, the benefits through" reduced operating costs ar~ nearly 

three times as creat as the inc::-eased first costs of the covered .. procucts. In addition, H.R. 5465 will lower residential energy ccnsu~p~ion in the u.s. by 1 Quad or about 6%. The energy savings expec~ed over the li£etime of products sold through 2000 -- 17 

Quads -- is equivalent to over two years of ener~J i~por~s a~ 

America's c~r=ent import rate. Finally, the star-dards would lower 

peak electricity demand in 2000 by 22,000 Megawat7.s -- equivalent 

to about ~.O% of the growth in peak power. dem.and cD ring 1986-2000 

as foreca~t by the utility industry.· . 

". 
_.r _ av> 4.► -. &ua A a63 L&LAlLk--- i_l d lt. l\..l L%-I VLLll L' L&1. %.a3

February 20, 1987 FC^ 2 5 1 C4

COALITION UPDATE

P ASSES SE`NA.TE On F.bruar 17 the Senate o -is -.-d the

•i -- . nD7anceFner:'), Co nser'7 3C_OR Act a D

G am : S 3:-^ ( ; ' ^ _ the f i v e abse nt S e n a t o r s a_. l e ' . . 2 _-

Cos .U: ors Before the f inai vote on the le 1 at o " --En

passed an amendment by unanimous consent altering the future DOE

rulemaking schedule in the bill. This amendment was wor e"d out as

a compromise between the Reagan Administration, on the one hand,

and the Coalition and Congress, on the other. As a result of the

amendment (and assuming it is adopted in the House), the

Administration's senior advisors will be recommending that the

President sign the NAECA.

As introduced, the NAECA provided for scheduled future rule makings

to readdress the'standards ad infini tum. The compromise amendment

eliminates the requirements in the bill for mandatory future

rulemakings after two reviews . After the second set of

rulemakings , the Department of Energy is given discre tionary

authority to readdress . the standards .. The amendment also permits

a person to petition the Department for a review and rulemaking to

determine if the standards need to be amended.

HOUSE ACTION: Markup in the House Energy and Power Subcommittee

is scheduled for Tuesday, February 24, at 2:00 p .m. Congressman

Joe Barton ( freshman Republican from Texas ) will be offering (at

least) two amendments opposed by the Coalition. .One would gut the

standard levels in the bill while the other would eliminate all

future DOE rulemaking authority. Coalition members are urged to

contact members of the Subcommittee to request that they oppose

t::_ B.r_on amendments . Amendments will also be offered to conform

t`:e :souse bill with the Senate bill. Subcommi__ee me _bers should

be urged to support these amendments.

cor_ ittee consideration of the bill is hoed for _n ,.hie

a :,d Commerce Committee on Thursday, uSe

action could come the first week in Marc'.:.

1 :^l ^ir11: n t1^tikv.iId ^Utrc • :L"T(^a, Viri,'ini.1 12 f:•?11::i' 1 1)) ^^^ ,ih54

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

February 20, 198i FE3 2 5 1ge~ 

COALI:ION UPDATE 

;:.::;'::':'":..ll _';'pn'i.':"ance Enel:'-;Y C,1nser-Tat'::on Act (~;,:_;,,~_:.., ~,: a. :-J~:' ,:;;2.:' 

~G~~ 0~ 39-~ (~~:~ the eive absent Senators 0.1: ~e~~2 ~t~_ 

c ::: ~ ;: ~; i. ::: 0 r.3 ; • E e f 0 l:' e t!1 e r 1. n a i v 0 teo nth e 1 e ; i .: :. .J. t: :. 0 :"'" :. ~~ Sen.:;.:. ::: 

passed an amendcent by unanimous consent alter~ng the f~cuLe ~OE 

l:'ule:.laking sc!1edule in the bill. This amendment: ;.;as ',,;od:/d out as 

a. co~pr~~ise bet~een the Reagan Administration, on t~e one hane, 

and t!1e Coalition and Congress, on the other. As a result of t~e 

amend~ent (and assuming it is adopted in the House), the 

Ae~inist=ation's senior advisors will be recommendin~ that t!1e 

?=esid~nt sign the NAECA. 

As ~ntroduced, the NAECA provided for schedul~d future rulemakings 

t~ readdress the~ standards ad infinitum. The compromise amendment 

el:minates the requirements in the bill for mandatory future 

rulemakings after t~o reviews. After the second set of 

rulemakings, the Department of Energy is given discretionary 

authority to readdress .the standards.. The amendment also permits 

a person to petition the Department for a review and rulemaking to 

determine if the standards need to be amended. 

HOUSE ACTION: Markup in the House Energ~ and Power Subcommittee 

is scheduled for Tuesday, February 24, at 2:00 p.m. Con~ressman 

Joe Bar:on (freshman Re~ublican from Texas) will be offering (at 

least) two amendments opposed by the Coalition •. One would gut t!1e 

stancard levels in the bill while the other would eliminate all 

future DOE rulemaking authority •. Coalition members are urged to 

coct3C: members of the S~bcommittee to request that they oppose 

t~~ 5dr:on amendments. Amendments will also be offere~ to con£or~ 

t~E 50use bill with the Senate bill. Subcommi::ee ~e=bers should 

be urged to support these amendments. 

Fu:: co~=it:ee consideration of t~e bill is hoce~ ~ .. .L 

:: ::.: !:' ; : T a :: d. C u t:l :-: e !" c e C 6 L:.::' itt e eon T h u r s day, F ~ S ::- . ...;. 3. r .. :~ :::;. 

:: ::.. ;:: G rae::: i 0 ceo u l d com e the f i l:' S t wee Kin X arc :: • 
It is truly an honor and a privilege for me to

have the opportunity to address the natural

gas industry of this remarkable country.

Today, I want to tell you about how the gas

appliance industry in the United States has

used federal law to promote our nation's

energy conservation goals and maintain

healthy markets for gas and gas appliances.

First, in case you don't know, our

association, the Gas Appliance

Manufacturers Association - GAMA for

short - represents the whole spectrum of

household and commercial gas appliances

and components. Our members manufacture

and sell central heating equipment, room

heaters, water heaters, commercial cooking

equipment, gas controls, gas burners-and gas

vents. We also represent suppliers of

equipment and services used in the

production, transmission and distribution of

natural gas.

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

It is truly an hon9r and a privilege for me to 

have the 0pp0rlunity to address the natural 

gas industry of this remarkable country. 

Today, I want to tell you about how the 6gas 

appliance industry in the United States has 

used federal law to promote our nation's 

energy conservation goals and maintain 

healthy markets for gas and gas appliances . 

. First, in case you dori't know, oUf 

association, the Gas Appliance 

Manufacturers Association - GAMA for 

short - represents the whole spectrum of 

household and commercial gas appliances 

and components. Our members manufacture 

and sell central heating equipment, room 

heaters, water heaters, commercial cooking 

equipment, gas controls, gas burners-and gas 

- vents. We also represent suppliers of 

equipment and services lls-ed in the 

production, transmission and distribution of 

natural gas. 
The United States woke up to the need for

energy conservation in the early ' 1970's with

the formation of the OPEC oil cartel. Since

that "oil crisis" 20 years ago, consumers in

the U.S. have become much more interested

in the cost of operation of their appliances,

and the. market has responded with more

efficient appliances.

This natural market response to greater

demand for more efficient appliances has

been accelerated by federal law that GAMA

helped to design and implement. GAMA's

motive for doing so was to avoid disruption

of the markets for natural gas and gas

appliances.

In the 1980's, political pressures for

increased energy conservation had made

regulation of appliance energy use

inevitable. The Reagan Administration was

inclined to leave regulation of appliance

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

The United States woke up to the need for 

energy conservation in the early' 1970's with 

the formation of the OPEC oil cartel. Since 

that "oil crisis" 20 years ago, consumers· in 

the U.S. have become much more interested 

'in the cost of operation of their appliances, 

and the. market has responded· with more 

efficient appliances. 

This natural market response to greater 

demand for more efficient appliances has 

been accelerated ,by federal law that GAMA 

helped to design and implement. GAMA's 

motive .for doing so was to avoid disruption 

of the markets for natural gas and gas 

appliances. ' 

In the 1980's, political pressures for 

increased energy conservation had made 

regulation of appliance energy use 

inevitable. The Reagan Administration was 

inclined to leave regulation of appliance 

2 -
energy consumption to the individual states.

Many states in fact began the process of

developing laws to regulate appliance

energy use. This presented.the gas

appliance industry with a nightmare

scenario. The various states would build

beauracracies to impose and enforce their

own, inconsistent rules for appliances.

Some of the states with the largest

populations - California, New York,

Massachusetts, Florida and others had

already established such bureaucracies. Gas

appliance manufacturers feared that the

economics of production and distribution

would be greatly complicated if numerous

states had their own separate appliance

requirements. The consumer as well as the

manufacturer would lose with that scenario,

as loss of efficiencies in production and

distribution would result in higher prices.

To avoid this nightmare, GAMA, on behalf

of its members, reached a "negotiated

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

energy consumption to the individual states . 

. Many states in fact began the process of 

developing laws to regulate appliance . 

energy use. This presentedthe gas· 

appliance industry with a nightmare 

scenario. The various states would build 

beauracracies to impose and enforce their 

own, inconsjstent rules for applia~ces. 

Some of the states with the largest 

populations - California, New York, 

Massachusetts, Florida and others - had 

already established such bureaucracies. Gas 

appliance manufacturers feared that the 

economics of production and distribution 

would be greatly complicated if numerous 

states had their ~wn separate appliance 

requirements. The consumer as well as the' 

manufacturer would lose with that scenario, 

as loss of efficiencies in production and 

distribution would result in higher prices. 

To avoid this nightmare, GAMA~ on behalf 

of its members, reached a "negotiated 

3 
settlement" with the energy conservation

advocacy groups that had been urging the

states to regulate appliances. The result of

this negotiated settlement was the passage in

1987 of the National Appliance Energy

Conservation Act, which we simply call

NAECA.

GAMA was instrumental in the drafting of

NAECA. Faced with the inevitability of

appliance energy conservation standards, we

had four main objectives. First, we wanted

to establish uniform national standards that

individual states could not deviate from. .

Second, we wanted the national standards to

be set at reasonable levels. Third,. we

wanted appliance manufacturers to be

afforded adequate "lead time" to prepare to

comply with the initial standards and any

future revised standards. Fourth, we wanted

to insure that standards would remain in

place long enough for manufacturers to

recoup their investment in complying

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

settlement" with the energy conservation 

advocacy groups that had been urging the 

states to regulate appliances. The result of 

this negotiated- settlement was the passage in 

1987 of the National Appliance Energy" 

Conservation Act, which we simply call 

NAECA. 

GAMA was instrumental in the drafting of . 

NAECA. Faced with the inevitability of 

appliance ~nergy conservation standards, we 

had four main objectives. First, we wanted 

to establish uniform national standards that 

individual states could not deviate from. 

Second, we wanted the national standards to 

be set at reasonable levels. Third, we 

wanted appliance manufacturers to be 

afforded adequate "lead ti~e" to prepare to 

comply with the initial standards and any 

future revised standards. Fourth, we wanted 

to insure that standards would remain in 

place long enough for manufacturers to 

recoup their investment in complying 

4 
products before any more stringent standard

is adopted. Happily, NAECA incorporated

all four of these objectives.

NAECA established minimum energy

efficiency requirements for most major

household appliances. Not only gas

appliances are regulated; competing electric

and oil-fired appliances are regulated as

well. Great pains were in fact taken to

insure that the legislation did not advantage

any particular energy source. The

improving market share natural gas. has

enjoyed in recent years in U.S . residential

end-use markets shows that natural gas

certainly has not been disadvantaged by

NAECA.

Let me now try to explain to you briefly

how NAECA -works. The initial NAECA

standards were negotiated by the competing

interest groups and are specified in the law.

Most of the standards for gas appliances are

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

products before any more stringent standard 

is adopted. Happily, NAECA incorporated 

"all four of these objectives. 

NAECA established minimum energy " 

efficiency requirements for most major 

household appliances. Not only gas 

appliances are regulated; competing electric 

and oil-fired appliances are regulated as 

welL Great pains were in fact taken to .. 

insure that the legislation did not advantage 

any particular energy source. The 

improving market share natural gas. has 

enjoyed in recent years in U.S. residential 

end-use markets shows that natural gas 

certainly has not been dis·advantaged by 

NAECA. ' 

Let me now try.t9· explain to you briefly 

how NAECA ·works. The initial NAECA 

standards were negotiated by the competing 

interest groups and are specified in the law. 

Most of the standards for gas appliances are 

5 
performance standards that manufacturers

are allowed to meet any way they can. In

just a few .cases, the NAECA standard is

prescriptive. For example, NAECA

prohibits the use of a constant burning pilot

on gas dryers and on kitchen ranges and

ovens having an electrical supply cord.

The U.S. Department of Energy, DOE for

short, is charged with the overall

management of the NAECA regulatory

scheme. DOE was directed by the statute to.

consider revisions to the standards

periodically through the rulemaking process

according to specified timetables. For

example, the initial NAECA minimum

standards for furnaces took effect in 1992.

DOE was directed by NAECA to publish a

final rule by 1994 amending the initial

furnace standards, if appropriate. Any

amended furnace standard would not take

effect until 2002. DOE has started the

rulemaking process to consider amending

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

performance standards that manuf~cturers 

are allowed to meet any way they can. In 

just a few.cases, the NAECA standard is 

prescriptive. For example, NAECA I 

prohibits the use of a constant burning pilot " 

on gas dryers and on kitchen ranges and 

ovens having an electrical'supply cord. 

The U.S. Department ofE.nergy, DOE for 

short, is charged with the overall 

management of the NAECA regulatory . 

. scheme. DOE was directe'd by the statute to 

consider revisions to the standards 

periodically through the rulemaking process 

according to specified timetables. For 

example, the initial NAECA minimum 

standards for furnaces took effect in 1992. 

DOE was directed by NAECA to publish a 

final rule by 1994 amending the initial 

fumacestandards, if appropriate. Any 

amended furnace standard would not take 

effect until 2002. DOE has started the 

rulemaking process to consider amending 

6 
the initial NAECA furnace standards,. but

has not been able to adhere, to the schedule

prescribed by NAECA.

To give you another example, the initial

NAECA standards for water heaters took

effect in 1990. NAECA directed DOE to

publish a final rule by 1992 amending the

initial water heater standards, if appropriate.

Any amended water heater standard would

not take effect until 1995. DOE has

published proposed new water heater

standards, but, again, has not been able to

adhere to the NAECA timetable.

Please note that the NAECA timetables for

furnaces and water heaters have built-in lead

times and sufficient time for manufacturers

to recoup their investment in existing

products, before they have to replace them

with new products. For example , furnace

manufacturers were given a lead-time of 5

years from the 1987 passage of NAECA to

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

the initial NAECA furnace standards,_ but 

has not been able to adhere to the schedule 

prescribed by NAECA. 

I 

To give you another example, the initial 

NAECA standards for water heaters took 

effect in 1990. NAECA directed DOE to 

publish a final rv1e by 1992 amending the 

initial water heater standards, if appropriate. 

Any amended water heater standard would -

not take effect until 1995. DOE has 

published proposed new water heater 

standards, but, again, has not been able to 

adhere to the NAECA timetable. 

Please note that the NAECA timetables for , 

furnaces and water heaters have built-in lead 

. times and sufficient time for m'anufacturers 

to recoup their investment in existing 

products before they hav~_,to replace them 

with new products. For example, furnace 

manufacturers were given a lead-time of 5 

years from the 1987 passage of NAECA to 

7 
bring their entire product lines into

compliance with the.1992 furnace standards.

DOE is directed to publish any amended

furnace standard by 1994, well in advance of

its 2002 effective date. The 1992 furnace

standards will be in effect for at least 10

years before any amended furnace standard

takes effect.

Although DOE has not been able to adhere

to the NAECA timetable, DOE has agreed to

maintain the lead times contemplated by the

statute. Thus, instead of taking effect in

2002, any amended furnace standard might

not take effect until 2004 or later, depending

on how long it takes DOE to publish an

amended standard.

In amending NAECA standards, DOE does

not 'have unlimited discretion. The statute

forbids DOE to reduce the stringency of an

existing standard, but it also requires DOE

to justify any more stringent standard. Any

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

bring their entire product lines i~to 

compliance with the .1992 furnac;e standards. 

DOE is directed to publish any amended 

furnace standard by 1994, well in advance of 

its 2002 effective date. The 1992 furnace 

standards will be in effect for at least 10 

years before any amended furnace standard 

takes effect. 

Although DOE has not been able to adhere 

to the NAECA timetable, DOE has agreed to 

, maintain the lead times contemplated by the 

statute. 'Thus, instead of taking effect in 

2002, any amended furnace standard might 

not take effect until 2004 or later, depending 

on how long it takes DOE to publish an 

amended standard. 

In amending NAECA standards, DOE does 

not have unlimited discretion. The statute 

forbids DOE to reduce the stringency of an 

, existing standard, but it also requires DOE 

to justify any more stringent standard. Any 

8 
new standard must be both technically

feasible and economically sound.

Economic justification criteria are spelled

out in the law. DOE must consider the

likely economic impact of a proposed new

standard on both consumers and

manufacturers. Of paramount importance_ is

whether savings in operating costs will

offset the higher price consumers may have

to pay for a more efficient appliance. DOE

must also consider any lessening of the

overall performance or utility of the

appliance that would, result from the

proposed new standard.

There is another very important duty DOE

performs under NAECA besides deciding

whether to amend the standards.

Manufacturers need to know what they must

do to establish compliance with standards.

In other words, the manufacturer must know

how to test its products to meet the

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06 r • 

new standard must be both technically 

feasible and economically sound. 

Economic justification criteria are spell~d . .. ~ 

out In the law. DOE must ·consider the 

likely economic impact of a proposed new 

standard on both consumers and 

manufacturers. Of paramount importance.is 

whether savings in operating costs will 

offset the higher price consumers may have 

to pay for a more efficient appliance. DOE 

must also consider any lessening of the 

overall performance or utility of the 

appliance that would result from the 

proposed new standard. 

There is another very important duty DOE 

performs under NAECA besides deciding 

whether to amend the standards. 

Manufacturers need to know what they must 

do to establish compliance with standards. 

In other words, the manufacturer must know 

how to test its products to meet the 

9 
applicable efficiency standard. Through the

rulemaking process, DOE has developed test

procedures for measuring the. efficiency of

most NAECA-covered. products. Any

efficiency claim a manufacturer makes for a

particular appliance model must be

supported by testing using the applicable

DOE test procedure.

The gas appliance industry did not want to

see the-government establish an elaborate

program to verify manufacturers' efficiency

claims and to enforce NAECA standards.

We believed that the industry itself could do

the job just as responsibly and more

effectively. For many years now, GAMA

has sponsored efficiency certification

programs for residential space heating

equipment and water heaters. Random

selection and testing of products is

conducted by an independent test house'

under contract with GAMA. Twice a year,

we publish 'a directory informing consumers

10

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06 , " 

applicable efficiency standard. Through the 

rulemaking' process, DOE has developed test 

procedures for measuring the.efficiency of 

most NAECA-covered'products. Any , 

• 

efficiency claim a manufacturer makes for a 

particular appliance model must be 

supported by testing using the applicable 

DOE test procedure. 

The gas appliance industry did not want to 

see the 'government establish an elaborate 

program to verify manufacturers' efficiency 

claims and to enforce NAECA standards. 

We believed that the industry itself could do 

the job just as responsibly and more 

effectively. Fo~ many years now, GAMA 

has sponsored efficiency certification 

programs for residential space heating 

equipment and water heaters. Random 

selection and testing of products is 

conducted by an-independent test house' 

under contract with GAMA. Twice a year, 

we publish 'a directory informing consumers 

10 
of the efficiency of virtually every furnace,

boiler, water heater and gas space - heater in

the marketplace . I am happy to say that, due

to the excellent reputation of GAMA's

efficiency verification programs, the federal

government has relied on our programs

instead of creating their own.

NAECA has satisfied our goal to establish

uniform national standards. The statute

contains strong federal preemption

provisions that prevent the states from

creating their own additional requirements.

An exemption from federal preemption is

theoretically possible, but very difficult to

obtain, and no exemptions have been

granted. Occasionally, GAMA has had to

remind a state government that a proposed

regulation is preempted by NAECA,

.generally with very little resistance. The

states now recognize that DOE is the proper

place to debate appliance efficiency issues.

11

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

of the efficiency of virtually every furnace, 

boiler, water he.ater and gas space heater in 

the marketplace. I am happy to say that, due . 

to the excellent reputation of GAMA's . 4 

·efficiency verification programs, the federal 

government has relied on our programs 

instead of creating their own. 

NAECA has satisfied our goal to establish - , 

uniform national standards. The statute 

contains strong federal preemption 

provisions that prevent the 'states from 

creating their own additional requirements. 

An exemption from federal preemption is 

theoretically possible, but very difficult to 

obtain, and no e.xemptions have been 

granted. Occasionally, GAMA has had to 

remind a state government that a proposed 

regulation is preempted by NAECA, 

. generally with very little resistan~e. The 

states now recognize that DOE is the proper 

place to debate appliance efficiency issues. 

11 
The success of NAECA has led to the . .

establishment of a similar regulatory scheme

for commercial appliances under the Energy

Policy Act of 1992. GAMA again played a

key role in the drafting of the federal law.

Preemptive national standards for

commercial space heating .equipment and

water heaters are now in effect under the

new law.

To conclude, I would like to share with you

some statistical information showing the

progress of gas appliance sales in the United

States, including the effects of NAECA on

appliance efficiency.

12

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

The success of NAECA has led to the .. 

establishment of a similar regulatory scheme 

for commercial appliances under the Energy 

Policy Act of 1992. GAMA again played a 

key role in the drafting of the federal law. 

Preel1)ptive national standards for 

commercial space heating equipment and 

water heaters are now in effect under the 

new law. 

To conclude, I would like to share with you 

'. some statistical information showing the 

progress of gas appliance sales in the United 

States, including the effects of NAECA on 

appliance efficiency. 

12 
March 19-20 Proposed Workshop Agenda

- Draft 1--Major Topics

Goals:

Familiarize attendees with the Ad Hoc group's purpose, the process we used and the

major themes, findings and recommendations of the group.

• Provide DoE an opportunity to present its proposed regulatory process improvements,

in response to the Committee's work.

• Create an opportunity for all attendees to question and comment on both the Ad Hoc

group's findings and recommendations and on DoE's proposed changes to its

regulatory process.

• Layout the elements and principal assumptions behind a proposed Regulatory Agenda

and receive questions, comments and advice from attendees on how to prioritize.

Tuesday, March 19

1. Brief presentations on Major Themes/Findings of the Ad Hoc group followed byquestion and answer and discussion:

• Blocks of major findings and themes-(?Planning, Input-Analysis, Decisionmaking?)

-Panelists to brief on what this means, how it emerged and answer questions

II. DoE presents Proposed Process Improvements Overview

-Questions, answers and discussion

III. Lingering Questions/Topics Discussion

• Break into smaller groups to discuss and receive recommendations on specific subsets

of the proposal.

(?Create several informal "Topic Tables" to answer more specific questions?)

Wednesday March 20,

1. DoE's Proposed Regulatory Agenda - -

• Brief Presentation on Current Status of Rules and Test Procedures- Discussion

• Tiered Presentation on what is proposed followed by Question, Answer and

Discussion

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 06

Goals: 

March 19-20 Proposed Workshop Agenda 

-Draft I--Major Topics 

• Familiarize attendees with the Ad Hoc group's purpose, the process we used and the 

major themes, findings and recommendations of the group. 

• Provide DoE an opportunity to present its proposed regulatory process improvements, 

in response to the Committee's work. 

• Create an opportunity for all attendees to question and comment on both the Ad Hoc 

group's findings and recommendations and on DoE's proposed changes to its 

regulatory process. 

• Layout the elements and principal assumptions behind a proposed Regulatory Agenda 

and receive questions, comments and advice from attendees on how to prioritize. 

Tuesday, March 19 

1. Brief presentations on Major ThemeslFindings of the Ad Hoc group followed by 

question and answer and discussion: 

• Blocks of major findings and themes-(?Planning, Input-Analysis, Decisionmaking?) 

-Panelists to brief on what this means, how it emerged and answer questions 

II. DoE presents Proposed Process Improvements Overview 

-Questions, answers and discussion 

III. Lingering Questions/T opics Discussion 

• Break into smaller groups to discuss and receive .recommendations on specific subsets 

of the proposal. 

(?Create several informal "Topic Tables" to answer more specific questions?) 

Wednesdav March 20, 

I. DoE's Proposed Regulatory Agenda 

• Brief Presentation on Current Status of Rules and Test Procedures- Discussion 

• Tiered Presentation on what is proposed followed by Question, Answer and 

Discussion