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, Washi ngton, 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 Coopera tive 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 Buildin g 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, a lterna tes and other identified guests participating remotely:

o Bryan Rockyo 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 IEC C Standard (promulgated in June 2014) and its implications to the working group due to the statutory language

. Wayne Gord on, DOE General Counsel

- Discussion of ethical rules and responsibilities

- Note: Working Group member s 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

- D iscussed the purpose of the group

o T o discuss, and if possible reach consensus, on a proposed rule for energy efficiency of manufactured homes , with consideration g iven to the IEC C 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 R ole 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 Prop osed Rule Making if accepted by ASRAC and the Secretary.

o Scope of the CharterIII. 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 parti es.”

— 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 neg otiated 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 Pa cific 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 co mpare 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/#!docket Detail;D=EERE

- 2009

- BT

- BC

- 0021 )

Meeting adjourned at 4:30p.m. after a period of public commentDAY 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, Nav igant, 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 4 th

Meeting Notes

I. Develo pment 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.

- W here 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 f loor (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 s tressed 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 includin g Navigant and PNL.

- Three subcommittees formed:

 Subcommittee for PNN L 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 mee ting 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 W G 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 PNN L analysis and have that distributed to WG members before ne xt 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 m embers gather options/ideas for possible resolutions 4. Subcommittees provide scenarios for PN N L study 5. Future DatesDATE 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