U.S. Department of Energy 

Commercial and Industrial Pumps Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group 

Meeting Summary—First Meeting 

Forrestal Building, Washington, D.C. 

December 18-19, 2013 

Members in Attendance 

Lucas Adin U.S. Department of Energy 

Tom Eckman Northwest Power and Conservation Council (ASRAC Member) 

Robert Barbour TACO, Inc. 

Charles Cappelino ITT Industrial Process 

Greg Case Pump Design, Development and Diagnostics 

Gary Fernstrom California IOUs 

Mark Handzel Xylem Corporation 

Albert Huber Patterson Pump Company 

Joanna Mauer Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

Doug Potts American Water 

Charles Powers Flowserve Corporation, Industrial Pumps 

Steve Rosenstock Edison Electric Institute 

Louis Starr Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 

Greg Towsley Grundfos USA 

Meg Waltner Natural Resources Defense Council 

Doug Brookman Facilitator, Public Solutions, Inc. 

Additional Attendees 

Bob Asdal, Alex Bosenburg, Dan Cohen, John Cymbalsky, Randy Ferman, Wayne Gordon, 

Sanaee Iyama, Betsy Kohl, Paul Lin, Jane Luxton, John Masters, Mark Menzer, Callie Reis, 

Steve Thompson, Dan Weintraub, Ben White, John White, Sarah Widder, Alison Williams 

Day 1 

Facilitator Doug Brookman called the meeting to order and welcomed all present at 10:15AM. 

John Cymbalsky, Appliance Standards team leader, made welcoming remarks, describing his 

experience to date with Negotiated Rulemaking, the potential benefits and his optimism about 

this rulemaking. He introduced Lucas Adin, DOE’s negotiator. He confirmed there would be a 

complete transcript of the meetings. He also affirmed DOE’s obligation to conduct a rulemaking 

irrespective of the results of the negotiation. 

Then, introductions around the room—each person introduced him/herself 
Next, Wayne Gordon, from the General Law Division, gave an operational overview. He 

described that Working Groups (WG) serve as a subcommittee of ASRAC, who will review the 

Working Group’s products. That separation provides an opportunity for WG members to fully 

engage representing the interests of individual companies and associations. He suggested that if 

any questions about ethics arise, members should bring them directly to John Cymbalsky and he 

would bring them to Wayne. 

The facilitator reviewed the Agenda and ground rules. 

DOE representative Lucas Adin gave a brief presentation, describing the authorities under which 

the WG was convened and its relationship to ASRAC. The WG will deliberate, work to achieve 

a consensus and submit a recommendation to ASRAC, who will consider the recommendation 

and make an energy conservation standard recommendation to DOE. He also described the 

standards work undertaken to date: the framework analysis and the framework meeting 

conducted in February 2013. 

John Cymbasky joined in to answer questions about data and describe anticipated products. In 

discussion on timing and scope, he confirmed that DOE wanted to issue a NOPR by the end of 

2014. The discussion on scope continued. Members described the needs and constraints on data 

gathering and in particular the need for “market data and preliminary duty analysis” as the basis 

to inform negotiations. 

Dan Cohen, from the DOE General Counsel’s Office followed with a brief presentation. He 

described DOE’s typical ‘iterative, paper- exchange’ regulatory process, where DOE and 

consultants do multiple rounds of analysis, proposals, public meetings and written comments—

and where DOE receives feedback on those, revises the analysis and creates new proposals. He 

commented that it was not a discussion where parties are engaged and working together to 

process content and do analysis together in the room. Continuing, he described how some 

products are well understood, have been regulated previously and the standard regulatory process 

typically works well. He contrasted those with other products that DOE thinks might benefit 

from more real-time ‘give and take’ taking place in the room. He described his experience, that 

getting folks together in a room and discussing the details, doing analysis and sorting through the 

details, results in an enormous amount of data and information and frequently results in a 

proposal that is better informed product. So that is the idea of a negotiated rulemaking—sit 

down with folks in the room, identify the issues, go through the data and do the analysis to try to 

come up with a proposal. That proposal then, goes out for comment. If the WG does its work 

well there should not be a lot of comment. 

He continued, there are several additional issues related to ground rules that will be discussed. 

For example, members obligations to be supportive or whether the working group will be 

reconstituted to consider comments on its work. Mr. Cohen reiterated that the working group’s 

product will go back to ASRAC for review. ASRAC meets consistently so they will be available 

to conduct their review. 

Allison Williams from LBNL commented on the request for market data, preliminary duty 

analysis and energy usage. She said the consultant team had been collecting the data and 
beginning the analysis—they have a lot a data and she anticipates that they can share a lot of it 

with the WG. Some of the data presented in the Framework Document has been updated, for 

example, an estimate of shipment distribution by product type, and that will be made available. 

Doug Potts added that American Water will also be able to contribute data to the discussion. 

Ground Rules: Discussion turned to the Draft Ground Rules, which were based on those utilized 

by previous Negotiated Rulemaking Working Groups. The draft was broadcast on the screen 

and, in discussion, real-time edits were made. The review started at the beginning of the 

document, with discussion to clarify. In discussion, members generally affirmed much of the 

content in the document. Specific points included: 

 members confirmed that alternates should be allowed to vote on behalf of members when 

representing members; 

 asked about the status Gary Witt and Howard Richardson, both members were not in 

attendance; 

 clarified that members, if at all possible, are expected to attend “in person”—this was an 

edit to the Ground Rules 

 a quorum of 2/3’s of members must be present, including by remote attendance, for the 

WG to conduct business—alternates do not count as substitutes for members for the 

purpose of establishing a quorum. The 2/3’s count applies to the original, approved 

member list (or, subsequently their substitutes—in any case, as they are approved by 

ASRAC). 

 After considerable discussion on the definition of consensus, the members unanimously 

approved that a dissenting vote by three members present would stop or derail a 

consensus. On any given proposal, the WG can have two negative votes by those present 

and still achieve consensus. 

 Established ‘sub groups’ of the WG would be restricted to a 15 members....this is not 

meant to stop participation of ‘resource persons’ or outside experts that may contribute to 

sub group’s work. 

 Confirmed that sub groups are not authorized to make decisions for the Working Group 

(149) 

There was discussion on details of sub group operations and potential rules/constraints for sub 

group’s work that may be needed. Some members suggested that decision making and quorum 

rules were probably not necessary because most sub groups would have a more narrow 

information gathering/analysis task and they would be reporting to the working group regardless. 

Other members thought rules/guidance would be useful. The WG arrived at an understanding 

that if the task assigned to sub group was complicated, it would consider and offer necessary 

guidance when they commissioned the sub group. (p.181) 

There was considerable discussion on the time frame to conduct the negotiation and possible end 

dates. Several members advocated that the time frame be adequate so the WG could do its work 

successfully and completely. This is especially true, they continued, given the fact that the WG 

was also going to undertake developing/considering the test procedure. 
Tom Eckman described that ASRAC would likely receive the WG consensus proposal and 

review/evaluate it as a whole product, then vote up or down to accept the proposal or send the 

proposal back to the WG to do more work. (191) 

Additional Edits to Specific Sections 

Continuing, there was detailed discussion on virtually every remaining element of the Draft 

Ground Rules. The majority of the language remained intact, however the members offered the 

following elaborations/revisions: 

4. Agreement: 

a. Dan Cohen commented that the second sentence was a holdover from the transformers WG, 

and is not relevant for this WG, so that sentence was deleted. The rest of the paragraph, which 

describes the content of an expected proposal—the term sheet content and supporting analysis—

remained intact. The review also confirmed that DOE staff “will be responsible for translating 

the term sheet and analysis and fulfilling its obligations” on these items. 

b. Continuing, the WG also endorsed language that confirmed DOE’s commitment to use the 

negotiated consensus proposal as the basis for its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR). 

c. After considerable discussion and clarification, confirmed that negotiators who vote for a 

consensus proposal agree to not speak or offer negative comments on the proposal. 

d. Continuing, the language outlines DOE’s responsibility to consider, and respond as needed to 

public comments, to fulfill its responsibility in writing the rule. 

e. Confirmed that no member participating in the consensus may act or speak negatively on the 

final agreement. New language was added to confirm that members who voted negatively on the 

final agreement preserve the right to act against the proposal. 

F. Similar language was inserted here to preserve the rights of members who have voted 

negatively to speak against the consensus proposal. 

5. Facilitator: Clarified that the members can request that the facilitator be replaced 

6. Meetings: 

a. The meetings clause was amended to reflect that the negotiations will be conducted under the 

authority of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), 1975 as amended. 

Discussion turned to objectives and scope as a way to inform the expected duration of the 

negotiation, and the WG’s desire to complete the ground rules by the end of day 2. (240) One 

member described a sequence of questions or needs for the WG: establishing a test procedure 

and an efficiency metric. An energy efficiency (EE) advocate added “about where the 

products—what products are large and what products are small in terms of scale and 

impacts.......and that will help determine our interest and what ought to be covered”. Alison 

Williams reported that they have some market profile data for a certain segment of products that 

may be within scope—but may not have market information for what may ultimately be 

considered in scope. (241) She continued that data is not compiled/formatted yet to be shared. 

Discussion turned to the availability of data to support scope. HI’s proposal, floated at the 

Framework meeting in February listed five different pump groups: “flexible couple horizontal 

frame manage and centrifugal; flexible couple horizontal for manage centrifugal—otherwise 

known as end suction; end suction close couples, single-stage end suction; flexible couple 
vertical inline; rigid couple vertical inline; and, close couple vertical inline; plus, inline casing 

diffuser pumps; and close couple submersible diffuser centrifugal four and six inch bowl 

diameter only” (244) In addition, one key question is the breadth or configurations included in 

the scope. Should the scope be confined to the hydraulic portion or include the motor or include 

the entire pump system—the ‘extended product’. 

One member of the EE caucus described their initial response the HI’s proposal presented at the 

Framework meeting. “Generally supported the scope: limiting to clean water and generally 

supportive of horsepower range, minimum flow etc”. Two categories outside HI scope we want 

to consider: double suction pumps and circulator pumps. Also explore extended product (251) 

perspective for smaller horsepower pumps—perhaps bear-shaft pumps and pumps sold combined 

with a motor. In discussion, a HI member thought that data has probably not been collected for 

the categories of pumps outside HI’s original proposal. Another member of EE caucus described 

his interest in fractional-power circulator pumps. 

DOE general counsel Betsy Kohl described the Department’s current thinking on the definition 

of pumps: If a pump manufacturer pairs together a motor with the pump (shipped together), it is 

the efficiency of the system that is going to have to meet the minimum standard. In discussion 

the system was alternately described as an integrated product. There was considerable 

discussion surrounding the implications of this potential definition. Industry members described 

the complexity of some pump systems and said they frequently don’t have control over parts of 

the system. An EE advocate noted that whatever a manufacturer shipped together should be the 

unit required to meet the standard. The discussion turned to specific data that they would like to 

see to evaluate which pumps might be included in the rulemaking. That data is not available 

presently. Then the members returned to a far-ranging discussion on what pumps that might be 

included in the scope and data availability and needs, focusing in part on circulators. This was in 

part, anticipating, that a preliminary understanding of the WG’s potential scope will enable the 

WG to estimate the timeline for the negotiation. Betsy Kohl clarified that DOE interpreted that 

its scope of authority for potential coverage for pumps very broadly. 

The discussion turned to meeting scheduling. The WG discussed the feasibility of keeping the 

current schedule: on Day 1, start at 10AM and end at 6PM; on Day 2, start at 8AM and end at 

3PM. A few individuals lobbied for an earlier start on Day 1 and a later start on Day 2. Others 

said the existing times work well for them. For the next meeting we will keep the same times. 

In discussion, members generally approved a two-day configuration mid-week, typically in 

Washington, D.C. A few members suggested that we try another location—one meeting on the 

west coast, or, at a member’s facility near O’Hare Airport, or, at a facility in San Francisco. In 

addition to satisfying technology requirements for a webinar and transcript, DOE indicated that 

the budget for travel was limited. 

Members did a preliminary calendar review and identified possible dates to schedule six or more 

months of two-day meetings. One goal for Day 2 is establish a schedule of meetings that will 

serve the needs of the WG for the duration of the negotiation. After closing remarks, the 

meeting adjourned at 6PM. 
Day 2 

Attendance: All member present for Day 1 were also present for Day 2 

The meeting was called to order at 8:06AM at DOE. Doug Brookman suggested a more specific 

set of goals for the day. Those were to: 

 Finish/approve the ground rules—the dates may be the last outstanding remaining issue 

 Continue discussion on the potential scope and key definitions for the negotiation 

 Create a preliminary list of key data/analysis needs 

 Discuss a pathway for the test procedure 

 Discuss/clarify how the negotiation fits with DOE’s traditional rulemaking procedure 

 (Added later) establish a schedule 

Lucas Adin described that overnight the analysis team had compiled some slides to inform the 

discussion. He suggested the discussion begin with the issue of scope with prepared slides. 

Presentation and discussion covered the following points: 

 Referenced DOE’s preliminary definition of pumps 

 The number of pumps sold and the type of driver, not the dollar value 

 Suggesting not to cover the efficiency of driver as well as exclude other mechanical 

equipment 

 And limit scope to clean water pumps 

In discussion, members described their experience, that the great majority of pumps—“90 

percent or more”—were driven by an electric motor. Regarding scope, a few members noted 

that a small percentage of motors shipped, irrespective of size, should not disqualify them from 

inclusion in scope. Two members advocated for the concept of fuel neutrality, so no one-fuel 

application has a competitive advantage. Industry members also clarified that the great majority 

of pumps shipped with a motor integrated (with the exception of fire pumps) are electric motors. 

Lucas described several possible rating metrics, corresponding to different configurations, 

ranging from bare pumps, a pump integrated with a motor and a system that integrates controls 

as well. Considerable discussion ensued on various pump combinations and what should be 

included in scope. Industry members advocated that the WG limit the scope to the European Lot 

11, as in the HI original proposal (and in part to meet a presumed negotiation schedule of 6 

months or so). Another member advocated for including circulators since they are sold in large 

numbers, shipped with integrated motors which are not regulated, so there is a large potential 

energy savings. As stated in Day 1, a member advocated that circulator pumps be included in a 

separate rulemaking. Another member raised the issue of the implications of expanding the 

scope beyond Lot 11 and the industry not having the available re-design capacity to comply, 

resulting, potentially, in small manufacturers going out of business and larger manufacturers 

going offshore. 

Discussion turned to the test procedure. An industry member commented that work was 

underway on the test procedure (#40.6) and the scope for bare pumps corresponds to Lot 11. A 

draft of the test procedure, as it goes out for ballot, could be provided to the WG in February. 

Another member asked about the test procedure’s composition and asked if the test procedure 

could be modified to accommodate a pump + motor configuration. There was considerable 
discussion on the complexities of different test procedure configurations and applications, 

especially whether it would be possible to simply measure the electrical power that goes into the 

motor in an integrated pump-motor configuration. 

One EE caucus member restated where she thought there were potential energy savings 

opportunities: one was circulator pumps and, in addition, more efficient motors and finally, 

adding controls. One additional area for potential savings would be variable speed drives 

(VSDs). Continuing the member suggested that more efficient motors and VSDs “would only be 

appropriate in a market segment where today pump manufacturers generally sell the pump with a 

motor”. 

Discussion continued and scoping questions emerged: one member restated that industry seems 

to have accepted Lot 11 and it does not seem as though we have the data to expand to include 

circulators; but DOE is developing a test procedure and that could include circulators. An 

industry member suggested that part of the problem with circulators is that we don’t have a load 

profile, once again, we don’t have the data. One member made an appeal for the DOE technical 

support team to do some investigation to see whether expanding the test procedure to include an 

integrated motor was feasible. DOE said they could do that. One industry member said that 

those involved in formulating the test method were open to new and novel approaches. 

Another industry member clarified that the earlier discussion surrounding motors being paired 

and tested as a unit was referring to ECMs (123). The ensuing discussion described the 

complexity of testing with motors (and potentially controls) that multiple possible speeds. The 

member went on to say that most of major manufacturers are moving to ECMs, that the market is 

driving it. 

The discussion turned to the issue of data and analysis needs. Members asked questions about 

what data DOE has: what categories of pump type and horsepower; data on how pumps are 

sold---whether its an integrated product with the motor, or potentially shipped with a motor but 

not attached. Continuing, what would be the pump types and horsepower bands—unit shipment 

data, connected load (total kilowatt) and whatever is available as an energy use estimate and/or 

duty cycle estimate. Another member requested data on the different types of drivers and the 

overall capacity/ annual energy use estimate (135). Another member, noting that this is probably 

“ a little further ahead”, said that preliminary LCC and NIA results would be needed to start 

talking about standard levels. DOE added that most of the data of that type is limited to Lot 11 

and a bare pump configuration. DOE also added that they would try to figure out as soon as 

possible which data they do not have. 

Continuing with data needs, the discussion turned to circulators, talking about different type of 

motors: single phase or PCS and ECM motors—and finding a way to test for them. One industry 

member commented that the Europeans had studied all of this and the data is readily available. 

He continued that the EU concluded that looking at different motor types was a waste of time 

because, if you focus on pumps, you “can only get a little percentage out of it”, and the market is 

headed in that direction. (143) Another member said that manufacturers, generally, could not go 

straight to market to obtain ECM motors. Others contributed that they were noisy and costly. 
Lucas Adin said he had been making a list of anticipated data needs, which broadly included: 

shipment data across types of pumps we are considering, including circulators, and broken down 

out by horsepower, pump type or configuration, connected load and configuration as shipped. 

And (subsequently,) representative load profiles in the field. 

One member asked if industry members had an existing performance rating system? An industry 

member responded that “what we did was collect the efficiency for Lot 11 Pumps. We did a 

survey....we aggregate the data....and we developed a minimum efficiency index. We were 

basically mimicking what they did in Europe.” (155) Member: Are the performance levels you 

are reporting consistent with the draft testing standard? Industry member—yes. The 

conversation turned to a detailed discussion on trimming impellers—the point being that many 

possible pump modifications that are made to suit different applications. 

The conversation turned to the availability of data and what Navigant had collected. One 

member confirmed that the data to be presented would be aggregated and that all data 

collected/analyzed by the consultant team would be subject NDAs. 

Betsy Kohl from the DOE General Counsel’s office described how DOE’s reading of the statute 

suggests that they could either set a performance requirement or a design requirement—it is 

either/or. And she confirmed the compliance date would be five years from the date DOE 

publishes the final standard. On preemption, unless there is a specific statutory directive for a 

particular product, the general rules apply—that a state standard would not be permitted—

“we’ve got a covered product here, DOE is working on a standard and there is a statutory 

prescription before our standard becomes effective for state action.”(175) In further discussion 

on issue of preemption, Dan Cohen elaborated that pumps are a covered product, so any form of 

pump (including circulator pumps) is a covered product; and further, from a legal perspective it 

did not matter whether a pump was principally used residentially or commercially. (177) 

The WG then began a discussion on a test procedure pathway. John Cymbalsky clarified DOE’s 

perspective on scope, “the scope shouldn’t necessarily be limited by the timeframe that we’ve 

discussed generally.....we shouldn’t be limiting scope purely on the basis of time....if we think 

that things should be within the scope and it will take more time to analyze and to produce a 

good rule that will achieve energy savings that we want to pursue and we need more time to do 

it, then we’ll look at getting more time...” He went on to say the general timeframe discussed 

yesterday seemed “pretty ambitious given some of the things we have been talking about”, 

including the test procedure, which also needs to be drafted and published as a proposed rule. 

He continued, that needs to happen in the timeframe of this standards rulemaking. He further 

clarified that the test procedure NOPR would probably be issued during the timeframe of these 

negotiations (188). 

Discussion continued on preemption questions: whether swimming pool pump regulations 

adopted by California and other states are preempted. DOE General Counsel said they would 

have to look into it. 

Discussion turned to the test procedure and its implications for the duration of the negotiation. 

An industry member reiterated that the HI version may be available as early as January. Another 
member described the key role that life-cycle cost analysis would play and how multiple 

iterations on issues such as cost, loadings and duty cycle would probably be necessary, probably 

discussed over several months. Another member reiterated that the WG should try to meet the 

goal of a proposed rule by end of 2014. The previous member suggested that to meet that 

timeline, “to be finished with a term sheet in September, the discussion of life-cycle costs and 

resolution of the levels has got to happen not later probably than June/July timeframe”. 

There was more discussion on what would be needed to establish scope knowledgably. One 

member suggested the WG make it practical and consider a phased approach, starting with Lot 

11. There was more discussion on what was included in Lot 11 and what DOE proposed as an 

preliminary scope in its February framework meeting. A member reminded everyone that the 

Ground Rules enabled the WG to extend the deadline if necessary. DOE confirmed, that from 

their perspective, a bare minimum scope would be Lot 11, with a few additional pump types, as 

described at the Framework meeting. (208) 

Lucas Adin suggested the following dates: that negotiations (WG) would terminate on 

September 1; and, the WG would submit its term sheet to ASRAC on July 15—and these could 

be adjusted if it is necessary. He went on to suggest a possible scope: Lot 11 plus the additions 

referenced in the Framework meeting, which leaves open the scoping issue of bare pumps vs. 

pumps with motors and other integrated combinations, and finally, also addressed, the issue of 

circulators. An industry member advocated for this scope and timeframe, and being open to new 

data and analysis that might expand the scope as it emerges. Industry members commented on 

the importance of accurately identifying pump types to be included—and they should be 

consistent with the HI listings/definitions. The consultant team said they had developed a 

‘crosswalk’ table which reference specific HI codes and that would address the issues raised. 

Discussion ensued on the preliminary scope proposal. A member suggested that the WG re-label 

Lot 11 to be something new and distinctive. An EE coalition member stated that they would still 

like to see the data, especially for the expanded pumps list in the DOE framework before settling 

on a scope. Another member asked and DOE clarified that the proposal, at this stage is for bare 

shaft pumps. What followed was a lot of detailed discussion on what pump types and parameters 

could/would be included. 

The facilitator restated the scope—characterized as a ‘preliminary minimum scope” that had 

emerged in discussion and there was considerable back and forth among members about whether 

the description was clear enough and what was included. One issue was if the proposal included/ 

considered an efficiency metric. Another was including circulators and other pumping 

technologies, later when possible, included in the scope. One member suggested that after the 

meeting, DOE counsel go back to the record to make sure the WG had a clear, concise 

description of scope. Other members expressed concerns about moving to define scope too 

rapidly. After more discussion, the facilitator called for vote. The WG had three dissenting 

votes and two abstentions, so the proposal was not accepted. Discussion continued on what the 

advantages/disadvantages of establishing a preliminary scope at this time were. One member 

proposed that the WG hold off on establishing scope until the next WG meeting, which was 

generally accepted by the members. 
The WG turned to a final review of the ground rules section-by-section, with the following 

additions/clarifications: 

 Adding ‘rounding down’ to the nearest whole person to the quorum requirement 

 Confirming DOE will provide appropriate support to subgroups; subgroups are not 

authorized to make decisions for the WG 

 Confirmed the dates July 15 for the term sheet to be sent to ASRAC and September 1 as 

the WG termination date 

The facilitator asked for a vote the WG voted unanimously to accept the ground rules. 

The final issue of the day was to consider scheduling: The WG considered a six month calendar 

to establish a meeting schedule. After a detailed review, and considerable discussion, the WG 

established the following meeting dates: 

 January 30-31 

 March 4-5 

 March 26-27 

 April 29-30 

 May 28-29 

 June 18-19 

 July 23-24 

A few members offered to host a WG meeting and/or site visit, possibly March 3 or 6 or other 

meeting dates. This opportunity will be explored in the January meeting. 

Several members made appreciative closing remarks, citing the tenor and spirit of the first 

meeting. The WG adjourned at 3PM 

Meeting summary prepared by Doug Brookman 

January 24, 2014