# ^fq Appliance Process Improvement Meeting

January 3, 1996 Loews L'Enfant Plaza Hotel , Washington, D.C. 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 -9:30 am

9:30 am -10:30 am

10:30 am -10:45 am 10:45 am - 12:15 pm
12:15 pm- 1:00pm 1:00 pm - 2:30 pm

2:30pm-2:45pm 2:45 pm - 3:45 pm
3:45 pm - 4:00 pm Introductions, overview - Doug Brookman Agenda review - Chuck Samuels for the task force Background on the legislated schedule Update of current status of rulemakings and analysis - Mike McCabe The rulemaking process and DOE initiatives - Deborah Miller Open discussion on the rulemaking process Break Planning and prioritizing rules -All
Lunch Regulatory and non-regulatory alternatives - Ed Pollock Open discussion Break Consideration of cumulative burden in the planning process -All Next Steps -All

1/2/96

## Z^ z b --^f S^b

S-TA I( "LtD E 2. G-R.o 0 7 M EE T i rJ



# tART 3-c1 lCa(o
Co f A PA,J'-C CRL ENEP6') 

# A®e 

# 1>0 r C, 

# djyL h^ -4 W ;

# 1

# .? -8 - & fD r y Q /Ly d t, icy - SSG- 

## o /.2r n .-

_ c J 

# c J Z42- 4zj-j^



# 46o -t Lit

q/)---777-61220 

# ter" x-02- L/3 ^/^ 311 L &.L 

## g23 

# -V6 `l7 1i)h'r1Poo( .t - 9Rb-4t 9a ^l/,a,,cc S'a^c 6 er 

# y z^L 8ri

# X666 C- ,3z

^

## 5-2 5/7-& 

## 3 ' SG 5-7709
-PZ C2oZJ

- ^^

## 3 , 

## 533 ^



## -0371 v^- ),S-IV le6^

Gtrn^ (is-y-S'o5,6



## }

# Stake h older Group on

Standards Setting Process Improvements Background Materials for Arthur D. Little, Inc. January 3rd Meeting on Brookman King, Planning Collaborative Solutions DOE Office of Codes and Loews L'Enfant Plaza Hotel Standards Washington, D.C. Reference : 47603-00

## NAECA Appliance Standards Rulemaking Status Consumer Products0

Statutory 

### FIRST REVIEW SECO ND REVIEW Name Stan 

## da r

## ds Statutory Status

NAECA Final Rule Final Rul Clothes Washers Yes 01/01/90 Final Rule 05/14/91 05/14/96 ANOPR issued 11/14/94 Clothes Dryers Yes 01/01/90 Final Rule 05/14/91 05/14/96 ANOPR issued 11/14/94 Dishwashers Yes 01/01/90 Final Rule 05/14/91 05/14/96 ANOPR issued 11/14/94 Refrigerators Yes 07/01/89 Final Rule 11/17/89 11/17/94 NOPR issued 07/20/95 Water Heaters Yes 01/01/92 NOPR issued 03/04/940 Pool Heaters Yes 01/01/92 NOPR issued 03/04/94 Direct Heating Equip

. Yes 01/01/92 NOPR issued 03/04/94 Mobile Home Furnaces Yes 01/01/92 NOPR issued 03/04/94 Fluorescent Lamp Yes 01/01/92 NOPR issued 03/04/9401 D Ballasts Ranges & Ovens Yes 01/01/92 NOPR issued 03/04/94 Room Air Conditioners Yes 01/01/92 NOPR issued 03/04/94 Furnaces and Boilers Yes 01/01/94 ANOPR issued 09/08/93 Small Gas Furnaces Yes 01/01/94 Final Rule 11/17/89 Air Conditioners & Heat

Pumps Yes 01/01/94 ANOPR issued 09/08/93 Televisions No NOPR issued 03/04/94 Q 0 FY1996 Interior Appropriation language places a moratorium on issuing new rules. iQ Withdrawn 01/31/95 0 FY 1996 Interior Appropriation language would prohibit the department from issuing a new rule. O DOE has no plans to promulgate standards for TVs at this time Rel. No. 1

## EPAct Standards Rulemaking Status Commercial Products©



# App li

# a nce Statutory Mandated Standards



# -

Standards EPAct 92 Effective Da Air Conditioning & Heat Pump Equip Systems less than 135,000 Btu Yes 1994 2 years after amended ASHRAE 90.1 135,000 to 240,000 BTU Sys Yes 1995 3 years after amended ASHRAE 90.1 Packaged Terminal Yes 1994 2 years after amended ASHRAE 90.1 Furnaces and Boilers Yes 1994 2 years after amended ASHRAE 90.1 Water Heaters Yes 1994 2 years after amended ASHRAE 90.1 Electric Motors 1-200 horsepower Yes 1997 (1999) 1999 (2001) Small electric motors No 2001 (2003) Q Lamps 8 foot fluorescent Yes 1994 (1999) Final Rule 1996 2 & 4 foot fluorescent Yes 1995 (2000) Final Rule 1997 Incandescent Reflector Yes 1995 (2000) Final Rule 1997 General service incandescent No 2001 Final Rule 1998 General service fluorescent No 2001 (2006) High Intensity Discharge No 1999 O Plumbing Fixtures/Fittings Yes 1994-97 1 year after amended ASME/ANSI* Distribution Transformers No 1999 Office Equipment No NA Voluntary program Luminaries No NA Voluntary program State pre-emption removed if ASME/ANSI Standards are not amended for any 5 consecutive years. FYI 996 Interior Appropriation language places a moratorium on issuing new rules. O Dependent on the results of a determination. Ref. No.

## Appliance Test Procedure Rulemakings

Description Last Action Residential Furnaces Final Rule NOPR Final review before mandatory concurrence NAECA Sec 323 01/20/95 Residential Water Heaters Final Rule NOPR NOPR comments analysis NAECA Sec 323 03/23/95 Residential Air Conditioner & Heat Pump NOPR Draft NOPR being revised by NIST NAECA Sec 323 Ranges & Ovens Final Rule NOPR NAECA Sec 323 03/23/95 NOPR comments analysis Clothes Washers NOPR NOPR NAECA Sec 323 03/23/95 05 12 4/,q r Re-open for comments on AHAM test procedur Fluorescent ,& Incandescent Lamps Final Rule NOPR Five unresolved issues. Hold workshop first EPAct Sec 123 09/28/94 quarter '96 Commercial HVAC & Water Heating Equipment Plan to begin work first quarter `96 NOPR EPAct Sec 122 Large Electric Motors NOPR EPAct Sec 122 Drafting NOPR Plumbing Products Final Rule EPAct Sec 123 Revising draft Final Rule HID Lamps NOPR EPAct Sec 124 Distribution Transformers NOPR EPAct Sec 124 Small Electric Motors NOPR. EPAct Sec 124 L-.:.,:.C.Y'ct...X..r...."..,... .w;... ai.L. ...r.:{_...^::; .,. ,., :..Mi. SF { .d ,..St ..... ...?. .. .... .. .. ;at ._.a,. takb3.asali.a.a.r t. ,.. .. 'rt'.,.. .,nkc:.. .._.. .. 0 Dependent on the results of a determination.

Ref. No. 3

## Appliance Labeling Rulemakings

.- StatUtgry Deadline Commercial HVAC and Water Heating Equipment 0 NOPR EPAct Sec 122 Large Electric Motors NOPR (, 0 EPAct Sec 122 HID Lamps NOPR

- EPAct Sec 124 Small Electric Motors NOPR 0 0 EPAct Sec 124 Distribution Transformers NOPR Q 0 EPAct Sec 124 0 12 months after test procedure Final Rule. Q Dependent on results of determination Will be initiated upon completion of test procedure rule.

Ref. No. 4

## Status of Appliance Standards Reports/Analysis

Lamp Ballasts Draft report including engineering and consumer economic analysis being reviewed. Ranges and Ovens Report including engineering, consumer economic and manufacturer impact analysis to be completed Jan. 96. Room Air Conditioners Report including engineering, consumer economic and manufacturer impact analysis to be completed Jan. 96. HID Lamps Engineering and economic analysis to be completed Dec. 95. Draft report to be completed Feb. 96. Small Electric Motors Engineering and economic analysis to be completed Dec. 95. Draft report to be completed Feb. 96. Central Air Conditioners Engineering analysis completed. Peer review indicates that there are areas that need to be improved.

Ref. No.

## DOE Implemented Process Improvements



# Under the current administration's policy to reinvent government, including improvement in the regulatory process, the Office of Codes and Standards (OCS) has implemented the following actions to improve the appliance standards rulemaking process.

Ref. No. 6

## DOE Implemented Process Improvements (con't)



# Prioritize standards rulemaking based on: • legislated schedule • potential for energy savings • status of test procedure revisions, if required • unresolved issues • status of regulation development (amount of analysis and other work completed) • status of DOE and other agency regulations • other factors 

# 2. Encourage and support consensus rulemaking by stakeholders whenever possible 3. Establish early and continued dialog with the trade associations and other interested stakeholders to improve the analytical models and the quality of input data used in the models.

Ref. No. 7

## DOE Implemented Process Improvements (con't)



# 4. Retain consultants with product design and .manufacturing experience to identify and resolve problems associated with the engineering design analysis. '5. Distribution of analytical results as each stage is completed for peer review. 6. Organized rulemaking drafting teams consisting of staff from OCS, DOE Policy Office and General Council , to identify critical issues and develop solutions at the earliest time possible in the rulemaking process. 7. Established procedures to enable concurrent review of draft regulations both within DOE and by other government agencies. 8. Use of Global Information System to permit evaluation of regional impacts (due to variations in environment , fuel costs, etc.) of proposed standards.

Ref. No. 8

## Criteria for Planning and Prioritizing Rules Work Sheet

Appliance
Electric Water Heaters 

### Savings (Quads) es Procedure Issues Issue ved tat Regulation Development Schedule A 

### Other Factors

Lamp Ballasts Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Clothes Washers Furnaces Refrigerators/Freezers Range/Ovens Clean 3 Oil and Gas Water Heaters Televisions Room Air Conditioners Direct Heating Equipment Pool Heaters Mobile Home Furnaces

Ref. No.

### APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT January 3, 1996, Meeting Evaluation L'Enfant Plaza Renoir Room
1. What is your overall evaluation of this session? Excellent 2 Very Good 6 Good 4 Satisfactory 1 Useless 0
Were your priority issues adequately discussed during the session? 1 Yes, more than I wanted 0 No, Not nearly enough 12 Yes, as much as I wanted 0 No, not at all
3. Did you have an opportunity to participate as much as you expected? 1 Yes, more than I wanted 0 No, Not nearly enough 12 Yes, as much as I wanted 0 No, not at all
.4. Based on this meeting, what additional steps are needed? a. Review summary of discussion points and prepare recommendations. b. O. K C. Committment and action by DOE 6 to implement concrete next steps for .standards meeting improvement. d. Develop better consensus as to end product of this group! e. Clearly established at the meeting. 5. How could we have improved this session? a. Tighter control on time spent on explanations, speeches, etc. b. Stay more on track. I felt sidelined to DOE program, though valuable, was off track. c. Tighten up agenda. d. More complete description of process. e. Improved focus on agenda.

### 6. Additional comments/suggestions:

a. Specifics will be due soon. It's been good so far. b. I am frustrated that one prominent participant seems to be primarily pursuing a legislative strategy and is reluctant to modify his positions as a result of our discussions.

## APPLIANCE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT MEETING January 3, 1996 PURPOSE : Explore a range of diverse views [plus collect improvement advice]

on DOE's rulemaking process. 1/3 GOAL: Uncover/Extract process improvements with focus on planning

Not focus on past Not trip FACA Have an open process review



## PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS OVERVIEW
Stakeholder Groups R.M. Process 4 PLANNING 4 INPUT/DATA ANALYSIS 

### 4 COMMENT 4 DECISIONMAKING

Overarching Goal: Substantiate input that leads to process improvements

## PRIORITIZING RULES

Recommendations: • Stakeholder input surrounding estimates of potential energy savings should be obtained early since energy savings is so fundamental to selection. These energy savings estimates need to be factored against what it costs to achieve the savings predicted. Energy Savings estimates should be obtained:

1. On a per unit basis 2. On an aggregate basis • Provide stakeholders input in definition of what possible energy savings are, not just a review of technical feasibility including, 7 criteria plus economic justification • Test procedure linkage must be made to the products being considered • Make regulatory agenda setting an opportunity to get stakeholder input • The model for energy savings calculation should be "Stakeholder input followed by publicized decision by DOE" • This process of early stakeholder input/comment can feed the RD&D agenda • New Priority: Issue test procedures before final appliance standards are

issued (This is an essential chronological sequence that fit with any new standard) - Must be prioritized decisions • Make the effective date of test procedures coincide with the effective date o the appliance standard so as not to confuse public ... • Once priorities are set , continue to devote resources to take these priority products to conclusion; or Make a decision to re-prioritize and remove products from the list

## SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS

• Analysis should be included in the ANOPR

Process should extend period from just before ANOPR to NOPR • Stakeholder meeting prior to ANOPR , but this step must take time out of the existing process 

## NEXT STEPS • Have a scoping meeting prior to work beginning to characterize the prioritization • Distribute existing prioritization scheme 

### • Summary 

## SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS • More stakeholder involvement before any major intellectual decision-making effort - Especially meeting prior to concurment with the triggering event - Especially address : analysis methods , product classes , tech

. options • Narrow range of discussion and differences by these early meetings • Discussion not one way input - DOE should test assumptions, etc. and should allow for a dialogue with stakeholders • DOE needs to get interim products to the public : Go public before too much personal investment of stakeholders 

## OUTPUT • Focus on issues to be discussed at an all stakeholder meeting • Create a document which features "What we are considering doing" - From DOE which represents significant input form this stakeholder group as a vehicle to present these ideas/recommendations at larger stakeholder meeting

### NON-REGULATION ALTERNATIVE How to get over the gaps in the curve? Ed Pollock identified that one goal of the non-regulatory programs should be to get over the gaps in the product "introduction" curve • The GAP can relate to existing manufacturer's capacity • Develop the technology to take incremental steps rather than large steps • Substitutes/Complements to rules should be seriously considered by DOE



## CUMULATIVE BURDEN Cumulative Burden falls along two dimensions: 1. Other agencies impacts (e.g.) CFC's at EPA vs. 2. DOE impacts on Multiple Product Line Manufacturers • These burdens may include both new technology standard, such as CFC's and the timing of standards applied to multiple product line manufacturers, which is not taken into account now • DOE should address this and find some way to assess and coordinate with other agencies • Multiple product standards should be considered in DOE's planning/prioritization process • If prioritization is done right this is not a problem. The fundamental basis here is an economic rationale, not a public health rationale GOAL : The goal of assessment and coordination should be no undue

burden on industry due to INTER -AGENCY ACTIONS • Attempts to coordinate actions are necessary - Make this explicit (institutionalized and formalized) in the rulemaking process • Manufacturers will be proactive in identifying these problem areas if you give them the opportunity to comment • Agencies must be proactive in harmonizing these separate activities • Prioritization (making choices) is necessary

## RE: 1/17- 18 MEETING

-- Goal of meeting is not to know how to resolve each issue, we need to be in a position to know how to resolve the key issues plus which issues to do first. • What are we trying to achieve? - Narrow issues - Define, refine THEN - • Where do we go from here? • 1 1/2 days - start at noon the first day • Reconfigure existing list to fit within categories of impact - Products: Technical feasibility 

### - Consumer - Manufacturers - National - Utilities - Factors - Data = Models - Consensus Potential • Set criteria to evaluate which structure priorities make sense • Identify key issues that drive the rest