Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

November 29, 1995

MEMORANDUM FOR: Paul Brodie

Rick Fedrizzi

David Goldstein

Joe Mattingly

Bill Prendergast

Edward Reid

Chuck Samuels

Dick Stillwell

FROM: Christine A. Erv

Assistant Secret

ohn Wil.on

Energy Efficienckantenewable Energy

SUBJECT: Appliance Standards Process Improvement

Thank you for all of your hard work at the first meeting of our

process improvement on Tuesday, November 21, 1995.. It was

heartening to come back to the meeting in the afternoon and to

see the progress that the group had made-in developing a

framework for future discussions. I want you to know that we

appreciate your commitment to work with us on improving this

process.

Our facilitator, Doug Brookman, has faithfully transcribed and

made sense of our notes from the meeting. You can see how

productive the meeting was when you review the attached

documents.

The group suggested a very aggressive time line for completion of

our process tasks and has scheduled the following dates for

meetings of the full stakeholder group:

January 3, 1996 Planning "Basket"

January 17-18, 1996 Data/Analysis "Basket"

February 13, 1996 Decision making "Basket"

In order to stay on this tight timef.rame, several members of the

group volunteered to work with our staff, through a series of

conference calls, to develop a draft agenda/work plan for each of

these meetings. Attached is a matrix with the dates and times of

these calls. The first "Planning" conference call has been

scheduled for December 7, 1995, the first "Input-Analysis"

conference call has been scheduled for December 12, 1995 and the

first "Decision making"conference call has been scheduled fora

January 30, 1996.

Pratte i.ph soy ink am VSC CI w pgp i

Matt Chwalowski

Gene Foley

Steve Nadel

Kyle Pitsor

W.A. "Buzz" Reed

Joseph Romm

Douglas Smith

coon "T1T-T •- .:......«.

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 03

, coo~ 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Paul Brodie 

Rick Fedrizzi 

David Goldstein 

Joe Mattingly Bill Prendergast Edward Reid 

Chuck Samuels 

Dick Stillwell 

FROM: Christine A. Erv 

Assistant Secret 

Energy Efficienc 

November 29, 1995 

Matt Chwalowski 

Gene Foley Steve Nadel 

Kyle Pitsor 

W.A. "Buzz" Reed 

Joseph Romm 

Douglas Smith 

ohn W~l 

SUBJECT: Appliance Standards Process Improvement 

Thank you for all of your hard work at the first meeting of our 

process improvement on Tuesday, November 21, 1995." It was 

heartening to corne back to the meeting in the afternoon and to 

see the progress that the group had made" in developing a 

.framework for future discussions. I want you to know that we 

appreciate your commitment to work with us on improving this 

process. 

Our facilitator, Doug Brookman, has faithfully tr~nscribed and 

made "sense of our notes from the meeting. You can see how 

productive the meeting was when you review the attached 

documents. 

The group suggested a very aggressive time line for completion of 

our process tasks and has scheduled the following dates for 

meetings of the full stakeholder group: 

January 3, 1996 

January 17-18, 1996 

February 13, 1996 

Planning "Basket" 

Data/Analysis "Basket" 

Decision making "Basket" 

In order to stay on this tight t.imeframe, several members of the 

group volunteered to work with our staff, through a series of 

conference calls, to develop a draft agenda/work plan for each of 

these meetings. Attached is a matrix with the dates and times of 

these calls. The first "Planning" conference call has been 

scheduled for December 7, 1995, the first "Input-Analysis" conference call has been scheduled for December 12, 1995 and the 

first "Decision making" conference call has been scheduled for 

January 30, 1996. 

~T"T'" .". ........ _ ... _. 

.. 
All calls will begin at 2:30 pm. Mike Rivest of the A.D. Little

staff will. be in touch with the volunteers-to see if these dates

and times work for the majority of the group. He also will

provide the participants with*the.teleconference numbers.

An important reminder. If there are other stakeholders who you

believe should be invited to participate in the process

improvement, please contact Deborah,Miller at 202/ 586-8888 as

'soon as possible.

Again, thank you for your participation. I look forward to

seeing you on January, 3, 1996!

Attachments

tool 31-TTI'I 'a ?Iti$LW CSCSC98ZOZI ST:6T S6/OC/TT

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 03

too~ 

All calls will begin at 2:30 pm. Mike Rivest of the A.D. Little 

staff will. be in touch with the volunteers to see if these dates 

and times work ~or the ma10rity of the group. He also will 

provide the participants with-the teleconference numbers. 

An importa:1t reminder. If there are other stakehol~ers who you believe should be invited to participate in the process 

improvement, please contact Deoorah'Miller at 202/586-8888 as 

·soon as possible. 

Again, thank you for your participation. I look forward to 

seeing you on January, 3, 1996! 

Attachments 

:nu11 . a lIl1HJ.HV n : BY S6/0Cltt 
n

0

0

Task Force/Stakeholder Group Milestones for

Process Improvement

Draft Schedule

U L1.46 Om

^3-i-^i

• ^^'rs'.[ -'Lay'1 . ^'=:

^ OR :3»L ,^>c'L-ii•`r

-3i

^+ -.,° _^=

^}=r^S^^s

^^ _

'" a:aoT^'35 -c.`'rz':...s^cr^"

+

^ r;ui ^u• 3.r ^R*s^, ssc 2-; tir ii F.

e: •'_ <$- g^r'^Sx.-r.i-- =a __ .^i:^-= ^K=`".".,^`:=^c.S<:=^:•-e..^a;.s,^.z.$„}•^_'.;s^_'s•:r^c,f^, ::s ^,';^

•c>;cZ- .Jt?Tn.^!'.p, "^a-ts' .p^E.-'^c^^sc^:

A

uecernber 7 J December 14

2:30 pm to 3:30 pm 1 2:30 pm to 3:30 pm

January 30 February 6

2:30 pm to 4:30 pm 2:30 pm to 3:30 pm

Planning Task Force:

Input/ Anaylsis Task Force:

February 9 February 13

David Goldstein, Ed Reid , Chuck Samuels

Matt Chwalowski, Gene Foley, Joe Mattingly, Kyle Pitsor, Bill Prendergest,

Chuck Samuels

Decesion Making Task Force: Steve Nadel, Bill Predergest, Chuck Samuels, Dick Stillwell

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 03

? 

Q 

? 

Q 

? 

I) 

o 

... 

:> 

... 

l 

. 

I) 

of 

Task Force/Stakeholder Group Milestones for 

Process Improvement 

2:30 pm to 4:30 PJn 

January 30 

2:30 pm to 4:30 pm 

Planning Task Force: 

Itlptltl Anaylsis' Task Force: .. , 

Decesion Making Task Force: . " 

Draft Schedule 

December 15 January 3 

2:30 pm to 3:30 pm 

January 9 January 12 January 17-18 

2:30 pm to 3:30 pm 

February 6 February 9 Februruy 13 

2:30 pm to 3:30 pin 

David Goldstein, Ed Reid, Chuck SamueJs 

Mati Chwalowski~ Gene Foley, Joe Mattingly, Kyle Pitsor, Bill Prendergest, 

Chuck Samuels 

Steve Nadel. BiD Predergest. Chuck Samuels, Dick Stillwell 
OVERVIEW

MEETING SUMMARY 11/21/95

STAKEHOLDER GROUP ON RULE MAKING

PURPOSE OF MEETING

• Begin to explore range of diverse views [and ultimately collect advice]

on. Rule-making Implementation Process

Define goals, major outcomes, elements and a pathway to initiate a

Rule-making Implementation Process

GOALS/OUTCOMES

GOAL: Improve quality and clarity of communication with consumers

and stakeholders

Look at flaws in the law or application of the law

(Look at this first)

OUTCOME: Define what process should be to improve S/H participation

Recommendations on how to improve the process

Get input to DOE about how to do this Rule-making better

OVERALL GOAL

-j PLANNING: Time - 80% DOE 20% Other

-?j INPUT DATA

ANALYSIS

^j COMMENT

DECISION MAKING

Outcome = Substantive Input That Leads to Process Improvements

1

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 03

OVERVIEW· 

MEETING SUMMARY 11/21/95 

STAKEHOLDER GROUP ON RULE MAKING 

PURPOSE OF MEETING 

v • Begin to explore range of diverse views [and ultimately collect advice] 

on Rule-making Implementation Process 

v • Define goals. major outcomes. elements and a pathway to initiate a 

GOAL: 

Rule-making Implementation Process 

GOALS/OUTCOMES 

Improve quality and clarity of communication with consumers 

and stakeholders 

Look at flaws in the law or application of the law 

(Look at this first) 

OUTCOME: Define what process should be to improve SIH participation 

Recommendations on how to improve the process 

Get input to DOE about how to do this Rule-making better 

OVERALL GOAL 

c ~ PLANNING: Time - 80% DOE 20% Other 

0 

e ~ INPUfDATA 

M 

M -+ ANALYSIS 

E ~ COMMENT 

N -+ DECISION MAKING 

Outcome = Substantive Input That Leads to Process Improvements 

1 
OVERVIEW

ROLE OF GROUP

• Inform DOE's Rule-Making Process

• Part of planning process

- Makes sense (what we do)

- Identify ways to proceed (guidance)

- Vehicle to provide information to Stakeholder groups

- Identify areas to improve

- Results in research agenda

• Provide actual substantive advice

• Advise on internal review process

NEXT STEPS

Stakeholder group will spend I day per issue area

Meeting Schedule:

January 3 Schedule Planning (I Day)

Stakeholder Group Reps: Chuck Samuels, Ed Reid, David Goldstein

January 17-18 Input - Analysis (1.5 - 2 Days)

Stakeholder Group Reps: Buzz Reed, Joe Mattingly, Gene Foley

Bill Prendergest, Kyle Pitsor, Matt Chwalowski,

Chuck Samuels

February 13 Decision Making (1 Day)

Stakeholder Group Reps: Steve Nadel, Bill Prendergest, Dick Stillwell,

Chuck Samuels

STRAWMAN:

• DOE/ADLJB-K plus members create strawman prior to each meeting

- Conference call with members to scope strawman

- Drafting

- Conference call to refine strawman

2

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 03

OVERVIEW 

ROLE OF GROUP 

• Inform DOE's Rule-Making Process 

• Part of planning process 

- Makes sense (what we do) 

- Identify ways to proceed (guidance) 

- Vehicle to provide infonnation to Stakeholder groups 

- Identify areas to improve 

- Results in research agenda 

• Provide actual substantive advice 

• Advise on internal review process 

NEXT STEPS 

Stakeholder group will spend 1 day per issue area 

Meeting Schedule: 

January 3 

Stakeholder Group Reps: 

-January 17·18 

Stakeholder Group Reps: 

February 13 

Stakeholder Group Reps: 

STRAWMAN: 

Schedule Planning (1 Day) 

Chuck Samuels, Ed Reid, David Goldstein 

Input - Analysis (1.5 - 2 Days) 

Buzz Reed, Joe Mattingly, Gene Foley 

Bill Prendergest, Kyle Pitsor, Matt Chwalowski, 

Chuck Samuels -

.Decision Making (1 Day) 

Steve Nadel, Bill Prendergest, Dick Stillwell, -

Chuck Samuels 

• DOEIADUB-K plus members create strawman prior to each meeting 

- Conference call with members to scope strawman 

- Drafting 

- Conference call to refine straw man 

2 
ONE THING TO CHANGE

If you could change one thing about DOE's rule-making process, what

would it be?

• Done faster

• Broader array of inputs into process

• Multi-directional dialogue at early stages in process before ANOPR and between

ANOPR and NOPR

14

• More participation by all groups in all stages of process -- especially at the beginning A

• Re-focus process on developing and communicating rational basis for consumers

to choose (the process does not accomplish this at all)

1^M

• Clearer definition of ground rules, such as at is economically justifiable to ?wA

• Defined end point for product when reach diminishing returns

• More realistic better weighting of input values that lead to results

• Better input as labs develop their models (models not developed in a vacuum) SA

• Find outcomes that maximize benefits to all

• All be happy! PVA

• Faster + DOE should have more discretion - Especially regarding the statute

• End products should be a better communication vehicle for consumer to make rational

decisions

• More use of negotiation - Eliminate/limit the points of disagreement 9)4/_ZA 1,vM

• Use better judgment in development of technical assumptions ?A

• Ongoing, open dialogue, faster 01,t 1. / t t1 '

• Incorporate more opportunity for give-and take. Create opportunities to bargain

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 03

ONE THING TO CHANGE 

If you could change one .thing about DOE's rule-making process, what 

would it be? 

• Done faster 

• Broader array of inputs into process 

• Multi-directional dialogue at eady stages in process before ANOPR and between 

ANOPR and NOPR 

• More participation by all groups in all stages of process -- especially at the beginning 

• Re-focus process on developing and communicating rational basis for consumers 

to choose (the process does not accomplish this at all) 

IA 

• Clearer definition of ground rules, such as what is economically justifiable to consumer 

• Defined end point for product when reach diminishing returns 

• More realistic better weighting of input values that lead to results 

• Better input as labs develop their models (models not developed in a vacuum) 

• Find outcomes that maximize benefits to all 

• All be happy! 

• Faster + DOE should have more discretion - Especially regarding the statute 

• End products should be a better communication vehicle for consumer to make rational 

decisions 

• More use of negotiation - Eliminatellimit the points of disagreement 

• Use better judgment in development of technical assumptions 

• Ongoing, open dialogue, faster 

lA 

• Incorporate more opportunity for give-and take. Create opportunities to bargain tV'i)': /0/., sV' 

3 
• Make sure the process is explicitly public '!, j S A ( h1M

• Technical support documentation should be subject to peer review early on, especially

prior to being published in record zA

• Phase down mandatory standards and move toward market-based standards PC

• Cumulative regulatory burden taken into account FL

• Impacts on small (uneducated?) manufacturers 16

PRELIMINARY LIST

KEY ISSUES/PROBLEMS WITH REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

• User friendliness is missing i'-j

• Is simplification possible?

• Some key factors are over-looked A

Example:' Heat pumps

(ambient air temperature was not considered in the analysis)

• Cumulative burden not considered DA

• Cost differential for-confidence level to market and manufacture a new product /A0

• Need to compare data against established criteria 1'\

Specific models' adequacy:

- Should they be used at all?

- Which individual contractors should be used

- How to interpret the outputs?

• DOE over-relies on these computer models rather than weigh expert judgments,

and non-quantitative analysis

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 03

• Make sure the process is explicitly public 

• Technical support documentation should be subject to peer review early on, especially 

prior to being published in record 'IA 

• Phase down mandatory standards and move toward market-based standards n 

• Cumulative regulatory burden taken into account fL 

• Impacts on small (uneducated?) manufacturers ~ 

PRELIMINARY LIST 

KEY ISSUES/PROBLEMS WITH REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

• User friendliness is missing 

• Is simplification possible? 

• Some key factors are over-looked f' A 

Example: Heat pumps 

(ambient air temperature was not considered in the analysis) 

• Cumulative burden not considered vf'1 

• Cost differential for·confidence level to market and manufacture a new product :r lAM 

• Need to compare data against established criteria ::' ()" 

• Specific models' adequacy: ;i Pt - Should they be used at all? 

- Which individual contractors should be used 

- How to interpret the outputs? 

• DOE over-relies on these computer models rather than weigh expert judgments, 

and non-quantitative analysis j ~ 

4 
PLANNING KEY ISSUES

Overall picture needs to be looked at

• Prioritization of products/actions

• Test procedures must be revised

• Consideration of non-regulatory alternatives

• Public input and dialogue

• Consideration of regulatory alternatives

<'Realty = DOE cannot do all that is prescribed >

<DOE must be practical about what DOE tries to accomplish>

- Schedule: Must be reasonable

* Congress sets, they are frequently missed

- Regulatory burden (other Federal requirements)

EXAMPLE(S) OF PLANNING BREAKDOWNS

A. Regulatory agenda published every year

- Is total failure

By the time it hits the street, it is out of date, not useful

B. Input to climate action plan

S/H input was not used much

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 03

PLANNING KEY ISSUES 

Overall picture needs to be looked at 

• Prioritization of products/actions 

• Test procedures must be revised 

• Consideration of non-regulatory alternatives 

• Public input and dialogue 

• Consideration of regulatory alternatives 

< Realty = DOE cannot do all that is prescribed>· 

<DOE must be practical about what DOE tries to accomplish> 

- Schedule: Must be reasonable 

* Congress sets, they are frequently missed 

- Regulatory burden (other Federal requirements) 

EXAMPLE(S) OF PLANNING BREAKDOWNS 

A. Regulatory agenda published every year 

- Is total failure 

By the time it hits the street, it is out of date, not useful 

B. Input to climate action plan 

- SIH input was not used much 

5 
DATA KEY ISSUES

INPUT AND OPINION ACCUMULATION

• Evaluate use of contractors t A

• Assure data is useful/quality z&

• Workshops to gather and describe type of data pathway `i f

• Stakeholders should be involved in selecting design options

• Intentional/unintentional gaming of the system °

Example: Usefulness

<Questions about which elements to use

<How to evaluate quality of data by divergent groups

° Show range of uncertainty

° Make these judgments, and show how they were

arrived at transparent

• Address confidentiality issues followed by workshop on "Proposed" inputs to model j-

• Mechanisms to decide which data is missing 7- A

• Key drivers for which no good data

Example: Mark-up incrementalism (GIST to elasticity of demand)

fA

6

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 03

DATA KEY ISSUES 

INPUT AND OPINION ACCUMULATION 

• Evaluate use of contractors 

• Assure data is useful/quality 

• Workshops to gather and describe type of data pathway /1 l 

• Stakeholders should be involved in selecting design options ! ', .. 

, 

• Intentional/unintentional gaming of the system ~ r 

Example: . Usefulness 

~Questions about which elements to use 

~How to evaluate quality of data by divergent groups 

o Show range of uncertainty 

o Make these judgments. and show how they were 

arrived at transparent 

• Address confidentiality issues followed by workshop on "Proposed" inputs to model .1 ~ 

• Mechanisms to decide which data is missing ;p />< 

• Key drivers for which no good data 

Example: Mark-up incrementalism (GST to elasticity of demand) 

6 
DECISION MAKING KEY ISSUES

• It takes too long now

• If participants and department get agreement along the way , then this problem should

be diminished

• There is insufficient attention to advanced technologies " 1

• Don't get maximum buy-in = no sense that Stakeholder were a part of making decision

• Decision-making process is not apparent -- understandable

• The end points not described

• There is no strategic plan government-wide -- no large overview

• Special consideration should be given to small /medium size manufacturers

- Technical issues don't spread evenly among all sizes of manufacturers

• Special consumer classes need to be included ? consulted?

• Increased flexibility in statutory requirements -- especially implementation period

for STDs

FACA CONSTRAINTS

GOAL: NOT GET ENTANGLED IN FACA

Ground Rules =

1. Group not to make decisions

2. Group not to create consensus decisions/recommendations to DOE

DOE's Expectations of Group:

• Government will get a balanced view, such as "Who is missing?"

• These are open meetings that provide an open process

• The process conforms to FACA guidelines

7

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 03

DECISION MAKING KEY ISSUES 

• It takes too long now 

• If participants and department get agreement along the way, then this problem should 

be diminished 

• There is insufficient attention to advanced technologies :r IA 

• Don't get maximum buy-i-n = no sense that Stakeholder were a part of making decision 

• Decision-making process is not apparent -- understandable 

• The end points not described 

• There is no strategic plan government-wide -- no large overview 

• Special consideration should be given to small/medium size manufacturers 

- Technical issues don't spread evenly among all sizes of manufactl,lrers 

• Special consumer classes need to be included? consulted? 

• Increased flexibility in statutory requirements -- especially implementation period 

for STDs 

GOAL: 

FACA CONSTRAINTS 

NOT GET ENTANGLED IN FACA 

Ground Rules = 

1 . Group not to make decisions 

2. Group not to create consensus decisions/recommendations to DOE 

DOE's Expectations of Group: 

• Government will get a balanced view, such as "Who is miSSIng?" 

• These are open meetings that provide an open proc'ess 

• The process confonns to FACA guidelines 

7 
LIST TO REVISIT

ISSUE ACTION

3 FACA ISSUE Evaluate this as we go

"No assumption is written in stone"

3 "What is said in this room" -- -i No attribution to assure free

Ways that all can speak freely flowing exchange

3 • Consumer interest not represented

* Key persons group identified

Key issues group identified

* Interviewed by ADL to see if they

need to be included

--► ADL interviews to assess

if they need to be included

STORAGE BIN

• "Nitty gritty" details of what doe does (after this improvement effort,-- 1 year +)

• Public interaction process needs

Public hearing

* Etc.

8

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 03

LIST TO REVISIT 

ISSUE 

..; • FACA ISSUE 

"No assumption is written in stone" 

..; • "What is said in this room" --

Ways that all can speak freely 

..; • Consumer interest not represented 

* Key persons group identified 

* Key issues group identified 

* Interviewed by ADL to see if they 

need to be induded 

ACTION 

- Evaluate this as we go 

- No attribution to assure free 

flowing exchange 

- ADL interviews to assess 

if they need to be included 

STORAGE BIN 

• "Nitty gritty" details of what doe does (after this improvement effort,~- [ year +) 

• Public interaction process needs 

* Public hearing 

* Etc. . 

8 
APPENDICES

TRUISMS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS

• REALISTICALLY DOE'will not, cannot do everything

• Budgets constrain us (among other reasons)

• There is no such thing as an 'average product

• One size does not fit all

• 50 sizes does not fit better

DEFINITIONS

DIALOGUE

• DOE does not dictate this plan. Have input to the plan not input on the plan

• Interactive NOT Reactive

NEGOTIATED =

Does not mean consensus at every step -- attempts to narrow differences and limits the

factors/range in dispute

• Quality of data

• Source of data

WAYS TO CATEGORIZE PROBLEMS

t p,

• Analysis of data

• Logistics of public input

• DOE decision-making `%'^

• Statutory constraints

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 03

APPENDICES 

TRUISMS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS 

• REALISTICALL Y DORwill not. cannot do everything 

• Budgets constrain us (among other reasons) 

• There is no such thing as an 'average product 

• One size does not fit all 

• 50 sizes does not fit better 

DEFINITIONS 

DIALOGUE ~ 

• DOE does not dictate this plan. Have input to the plan not input on the plan 

• Interactive NOT Reactive 

NEGOTIATED = 

Does not mean consensus at every step -- attempts to narrow differences and limits the 

factors/range in dispute 

WAYS TO CATEGORIZE PROBLEMS 

• Quality of data 

• Source of data 

• Analysis of data 

"\-: 

• Logistics of public inp~ti j ~ 1 \!I"A 

.,.}, 

• DOE decision-making 'i' , 

• Statutory constraints :; ~l.r \ 1 i' \ \)'fV' ~ 

9 
INITIAL BASKETS

CREATING ENOUGH STRUCTURE SO THAT COMMENTS ARE

USEFUL

• DOE planning and prioritization (Macro)

• Quality of data

• Consumer input

• Source of data

• Complements/Supplements to STDs VI-

• Analysis of data z N

• Process input logistics of public input QL^St Ins

• DOE decision making o

• Application of DOE discretion

• Statutory issues iI tip` t off`

• Need for public comment throughout the entire process rt'^"^' hM

10

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 03

INITIAL BASKETS 

CREATING ENOUGH STRUCTURE SO THAT COMMENTS ARE 

USEFUL 

• DOE planning and prioritization (Macro) 

• Quality of data 

• Consumer input 

• Source of data 

• Complements/Supplements to SIDs l(\.-

• Analysis of data ~ (It 

• Process input logistics of public input ?L.\J~ \ n"'" 

• DOE decision making \)tA 

• Application of DOE discretion \I'M 

• Statutory issues 1\.-1 ~,. \ ot!-

• Need for public comment throughout the entire process ?v \ \: ~ \ \'l P" 

10 
ADOPTED (PROPOSED) AGENDA

END TIME

9:15 Opening Remarks:

Introductions:

Christine Ervin

All

9:30 Agenda Review:

Housekeeping:

Ground Rules:

FACA:

AD HOC Group

Doug Brookman

All

Doug Brookman

Doug Smith

10:30 Role, Purpose of Stakeholder Group

"One thing you would like to change."

BREAK

12:00 How to approach -- Path and Goals, Outcomes, Elements

LUNCH

2:45 Interview Guide

BREAK

4:00 Next Steps

11

 EE-PI-96-001 COMMENT 03

· . 

ENPTIME 

9:15 

9:30 

10:30 

12:00 

2:45 

4:00 

ADOPTED (PROPOSED) AGENDA 

Opening Remarks: 

Introductions: 

Agenda Review: 

Housekeeping: 

Ground Rules: 

FACA: 

AD HOC Group 

Christine Ervin 

All 

Doug Brookman 

All 

Doug Brookman 

Doug Smith 

Role, Purpose of Stakeholder Group 

"One thing you would like to change." 

BREAK 

tIow to approach -- Path and Goals, Outcomes, Elements 

LUNCH 

Interview Guide 

BREAK 

Next Steps 

11