U.S Department of Energy

MANUFACTURED HOUSING WORKING GROUP

DRAFT SUMMARY MEETING MINUTES

August 4-5, 2014

Day One: Monday, August 4, 2014

The U.S. Department of Energy Manufactured Housing Working Group (hereafter the “MH 

Working Group”) which was chartered by the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal 

Advisory Committee (ASRAC) convened its first meeting at 9:00 a.m. on August 4, 2014 at U.S. 

Department of Energy Headquarters, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20485. The meeting was scheduled to last for two days, with the 

MH Working Group adjourning on Tuesday, August 5, 2014.

Committee members present for the August 4-5, 2014 meetings:

DOE and ASRAC Representatives

• Joseph Hagerman (DOE)

• John Caskey (ASRAC, National Electrical Manufacturers Association)

• John Cymbalsky (ASRAC Designated Federal Official, DOE)

Other MH Working Group Members (in alphabetical order by name of organization)

• American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Lowell Ungar

• Cavalier Home Builders, Michael Wade

• Cavco Industries, Manuel Santana

• Clayton Homes, Inc., Mark Ezzo

• East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Scott Drake

• Efficiency Vermont, Peter Schneider

• Housing Technology and Standards, Richard Hanger

• Lippert Components, Inc., Rob Luter

• Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR), Mark Weiss

• Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), Lois Starkey

• National Manufactured Home Owners Association (NMHOA), Ishbel Dickens

• National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), Keith Dennis

• Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Robin Roy

• Next Step Network, Stacey Epperson

• NTA, Inc., David Tompos

• Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., Bert Kessler

• Responsible Energy Codes Alliance (RECA), Eric Lacey

• Systems Building Research Alliance (SBRA), Emanuel Levy

• Washington State University Extension Energy Program, Michael Lubliner

• Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, Richard Potts

Other:

• US Department of Energy Staff and Consultants

• Members, alternates and other identified guests participating remotely:

o Bryan Rocky
o Don Surrena

o Michael Lubliner

o Michael Wade

o Thomas Ponder

• Members of the Public 

Meeting Notes

I. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS – 9am

Joseph Hagerman, DOE member of the MH Working Group chaired this session

- Discussed new 2015 IECC Standard (promulgated in June 2014) and its implications to the 

working group due to the statutory language. 

Wayne Gordon, DOE General Counsel

- Discussion of ethical rules and responsibilities

- Note: Working Group members may be from subsidiaries of large institutions, but in the 

context of the work here, they are only supposed to be representing their individual 

company, and not necessarily the parent company. 

John Cymbalsky, Designated Federal Official for the ASRAC

- Discussed the purpose of the group

o To discuss, and if possible reach consensus, on a proposed rule for energy efficiency 

of manufactured homes, with consideration given to the IECC 2015 Standards as 

authorized by Section 413 of Energy Independence Security Act (EISA). 

Joseph Hagerman, DOE member of the MH Working Group chaired this session

- Facilitator introductions

II. OVERVIEW of ASRAC and the NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING PROCESS

John Cymbalsky, Designated Federal Official for the ASRAC

- Discussed History of ASRAC

- The Reg-Neg process and operation

o Benefits of the Reg-Neg Process

o Role of Data

 DOE will be providing data as we go and DOE anticipates providing some 

analysis for everyone to consider. DOE has consultants here to help 

facilitate any extra analyses.

o Role of the Term Sheet

 The term sheet that this group votes out, if they do, will be the guts of what 

the proposed rulemaking will be—it should be clear now that whatever 

comes out of here in the form of consensus will be what DOE puts in its 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making if accepted by ASRAC and the Secretary.

o Scope of the Charter
III. DEFINITION OF CONSENSUS

Commissioner Ramirez led MHWG in discussion of consensus decision making and interest based 

problem solving

Key points:

- FMCS facilitators would strive for 100% agreement, solution supported by everyone

- Difference between interests and positions

- Thumbs, up, down, side-ways voting

Group definition of consensus:

The Working Group will operate by consensus of a two-thirds supermajority of the parties to the 

negotiations present and voting. Concurrence will be assumed absent overt dissent, evidenced 

by a negative vote. Abstention shall not be construed as a negative vote. All agreements 

reached during the negotiations are tentative and may be made by the Members present at the 

meeting or their Alternates who attend a meeting in their stead until the Working Group 

reaches a final agreement that is binding on the parties.”—This was incorporated in the Working 

Group’s ground rules (See attachment) 

IV. REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF WORKING GROUP GROUND RULES

Commissioner Hoffman led the group in a discussion of the draft ground rules using samples collected from 

successful negotiated rule-making and drawn from other Working Groups that had been chartered by the US 

Department of Energy ASRAC. A copy of the approved Committee Ground rules is attached 

(http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021

).

V. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

What is the role of the Working Group?

- Joe Hagerman presented (through slides and discussion) what DOE's obligation are in 

relation to the IECC standards, public comment, and HUD consultation. 

- Joe also tracked the different rounds of analysis needed and reaffirmed that the obligations 

of this Working Group are to develop that term sheet 

- Joe announced that he had asked Pacific Northwest National Lab to prepare an energy 

analysis of the 2015 IECC and asked them to compare the current manufactured housing 

energy use to an energy use expected by a manufactured housing constructed to the 2015 

IECC requirements and then also compare it to the 2006, 2009 and 2012 goods. 

Facilitators led discussion and organized group ideas, issues, and concerns into mind map 

(http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021)

Meeting adjourned at 4:30p.m. after a period of public comment
DAY TWO: Tuesday, August 5, 2014

The meeting began at 9 a.m. and ended at 4:30 p.m.

PRESENT:

Members Present: Keith, Scott, Stacey, Mark, Lowell, Richard, Eric, Manny, Rob, Richard, Robin, 

Mark, Dave, Emanuel, Joe, John, Bert, Peter Michael, Lois, Ishbel, DOE’s Joe Hagerman and John 

Cybalsky; ASRAC’s John Caskey;

Ed Barbour and Matthew Walker, Navigant, Court Reporter, OGC’s Mike Jensen and Kavita 

Vaidyanathan; Emily Marchetti, DOE

Others: Members of the public

This session was a continuation of discussion of critical issues, definitions, and approaches from 

Monday, August 4th

Meeting Notes

I. Development of Categories for Consideration in the Rule:

Using an organizing suggestion from ASRAC representative, John Caskey, the facilitators 

collapsed the categories into 4 major areas for discussion and potential need for data:

1. The envelope of the building (including flashing, windows, skylights, insulation, etc.

2. The equipment including appliances, HVAC, DWH, ducts, ventilation, etc.

3. Financial concerns including financing purchase price, O and M costs, affordability, etc.

4. Performance of building including operation and maintenance, durability, climate 

zones, energy consumption, comfort, indoor air quality, energy Star rating, etc.

II. Discussion

- Defining affordability 

- The purpose of the statute which states, that these energy efficiency standards “shall be 

based on the most recent version of the IECC except in cases were the code is not cost 

effective or more cost effective”

o There was discussion that Congress had chosen a new statute (EISA) and a different 

agency (DOE) to develop these standards but it also mentioned consultation with 

HUD so that is another factor to be considered.

- Where the working group should start? 

o One idea was to start with the 2015 IECC and provide a cost analysis that also 

factors in shipments and deals with the question, “how much does it cost to build 

the home?” What should be role of existing HUD standards? The point was 

stressed that HUD standards would not be a barrier since they have set a floor (a 

minimum) to developing these new energy efficient standards.
- Distribution of overlapping maps of the United States to show the differences between 

HUD’s 3-climate zones and the IECC’s 7-climate zones 

- Need for Cost Scenarios and Data

o Joe Hagerman stressed that DOE needed cost scenarios and modeling to see how 

these efficiency standards could be achieved. He asked for assistance and sharing of 

data (under Non-disclosure agreements NGAs) with the economic experts that DOE 

has contracted with including Navigant and PNL.

- Three subcommittees formed:

 Subcommittee for PNNL Scenarios and Trial Standard Levels.

• Chair will be Mike Lubliner with members: Emanuel Levy, Eric Lacey, 

Michael Wade, Manny Santana and please Note, Peter Schneider 

called after the meeting had ended and asked to join this group and 

the facilitators agreed, so he is another member of this 

subcommittee). 

 A Subcommittee on Financial Considerations

• Chair Stacey Epperson and members Robin Roy, Mark Ezzo, Ishbel D

ickens, and Lois Starkey.

 Alternative Energy Models

• Emanuel Levy and Joe Hagerman

Meeting adjourned at 4:30p.m. after a period of public comment

Summary of Actions taken by the Working Group during its first 2 days of meetings:

1. Approval of Ground Rules distributed to WG members

2. Approval of definition of Consensus (in the ground rules)

3. Beginning of Organization of topics, definition of issues, and establishment of subcommittees to 

gather data

4. Promise to provide latest PNNL analysis and have that distributed to WG members before next 

meeting.

5. Agreement on next meeting dates, times, locations.

6. An agenda will be sent to all WG members in advance of the next meeting.

7. Development of 3 subcommittees

Follow-up work for Next meeting:

1. Joe provide efficiency study 

2. Javier email last map

3. WG members gather options/ideas for possible resolutions 

4. Subcommittees provide scenarios for PNNL study

5. Future Dates
DATE Location Room Webinar Link

August 21, 2014 DOE Forrestal 8E-089 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/652272752

August 22, 2014 DOE Forrestal 8E-089 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/869956928

September 9, 2014 DOE Forrestal 8E-089 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/887855449

September 10, 2014 DOE Forrestal 8E-089 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/896904784

September 22, 2014 DOE Forrestal GH-019 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/915091240

September 23, 2014 DOE Forrestal GH-019 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/278235472

October 1, 2014 DOE Forrestal GH-019 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/585091001

October 2, 2014 DOE Forrestal GH-019 https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/726540504