1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT -

PRIORITY SETTING WORKSHOP

OPENING REMARKS AND OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION CRITERIA

FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 1996

The Workshop was held in the Ambassador Room of the Embassy Row Hotel, 2015 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., at 9:00 a.m., Doug Brookman, facilitator, moderating.

PRESENT:

(202) 234-4433 DOUG BROOKMAN, Moderator ED POLLOCK VINCE ANDERSON BRYAN BERRING TIM BEGOSKE PETER BLEASBY ROB CURRY LAKE COULSON JIM CRAWFORD SUZANNE FALONI MARK FRIEDRICHS GENE FOLEY CHUCK FOSTER LINDA GREINER DAVID GOLDSTEIN JOHN HOLT DOUG HORSTMAN WILBUR HAAG PHIL HOPKINSON THOMAS JOHN ON



### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

- PRIORITY SETTING WORKSHOP

OPENING REMARKS AND OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION CRITERIA

FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 1996

The Workshop was held in the Ambassador Room of the Embassy Row Hotel, 2015 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., at 9:00 a.m., Doug Brookman, facilitator, moderating.

(202)234-4433 PRESENT: DOUG BROOKMAN, Moderator ED POLLOCK VINCE ANDERSON BRYAN BERRING TIM BEGOSKE PETER BLEASBY ROB CURRY LAKE COULSON JIM CRAWFORD SUZANNE FALONI MARK FRIEDRICHS GENE FOLEY CHUCK FOSTER LINDA GREINER DAVID GOLDSTEIN JOHN HOLT DOUG HORSTMAN WILBUR HAAG PHIL HOPKINSON THOMAS

### J~WAtO~. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.w. WASHINGTON. D.C.20005 (202) 234-44332 PRESENT: (continued)

EARL JONES BERT KALISCH DAVE LEWIS MARK LeFRANCE TED LELAND MARY ELLEN MURPHY MICHAEL McCABE JOE MATTINGLY STEVE NADEL MARK RAYMOND MIKE RIVEST SANDRA RUITER MARK RABA CHARLIE STEPHENS CHUCK SAMUELS MIKE STEIN TERRY THIELE BOB WISBEY MICHAEL WASSON LARRY WETHJE DONNA BANKS GLENN SCHLEEDE RON JARNAGIN CYRUS NASSERI MIKE THOMPSON

(202) 234.4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 (202)234-4433 PRESENT: (continued) EARL JONES BERT KALISCH DAVE LEWIS MARK LeFRANCE TED LELAND MARY ELLEN MURPHY MICHAEL McCABE JOE MATTINGLY STEVE NADEL MARK RAYMOND MIKE RIVEST SANDRA RUITER MARK RABA CHARLIE STEPHENS CHUCK SAMUELS MIKE STEIN TERRY THIELE BOB WISBEY MICHAEL WASSON LARRY WETHJE DONNA BANKS GLENN SCHLEEDE RON JARNAGIN CYRUS NASSERI MIKE THOMPSON

NEAL R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 2

(202) 234·44333 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P R O C E E D I N G S Time: 9:05 a.m. MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Let me welcome you and thank you for being here and allowing us to start just about on time. Appreciate that. We've got-a full day ahead of us, and with no further ado, let me turn it over to Michael McCabe for welcoming remarks.

MR. McCABE: I'm Michael McCabe. I'd like to welcome everybody here. The majority of the faces are rather familiar, but as far as introduction, I am the Director of the Department's Office of Codes and Standards. I have the responsibility for managing, among other things, the Appliance Standards Program.

I'd like to welcome everybody here to today's continuing process of meetings to help implement procedures that we are committed to, as far as the agency, for developing a new and open process for establishing standards where they are technically feasible and economically justified.

The workshops that we've had for the last seven months or so have been in a variety of places. I'd say this is probably the most hospitable. I was just talking to a couple of people a few minutes ago, reminiscing about some of the places where we 've been over the last -- where I've been in the last couple of

(202) 234-4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 3 1 PRO C E E DIN G S 2 

### Time: 9:05 a.m. 3 

### MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Let me welcome you 4 and thank you for being here and allowingus to start 5 

### just about on time. Appreciate that. We've got·a

.. 

### 6 full day ahead of us, and with no further ado, let me 7 turn it over toMichael McCabe for welcoming remarks. 8 

### MR. McCABE: I'mMichaelMcCabe. I'dlike 9 to welcome everybodyhere. The majority of the faces 10 are rather familiar, but as far as introduction, I am 11 the Director of the Department's Office of Codes and 12 

### Standards. I have the responsibility for managing, 13 among other things, the Appliance Standards Program. 14 

### I'd like to welcome everybody here to 15 today's continuing process of meetings to help 16 implement procedures that we are committed to, as far 17 as the agency, for developing a new and open process 18 for establishing standards where they are technically 19 feasible and economically justified. 20 The workshops that we've had for the last 21 seven months or so have been in a variety of places. 22 I'd say this is probably the most hospitable. I was 23 just talking to a couple of people a few minutes ago, 24 reminiscing about some of the places where we've been 25 over the last

-- where I'vebeen in the last couple of

(202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVENUE, NW. WASHINGTON, D.C.20005 (202) 234·44334 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 years. Almost 16 years to the day today we had a

hearing on proposed rule for appliance standards for nine types of appliances. It was in the Postmaster General's conference room in the new Post Office building at 12th and Pennsylvania Avenue, and it was 99 degrees, near 100, 101 degrees, thereabouts, outside. There were about 150 people at the hearing. So it was about -- a few more than we have here today. The air conditioning didn't work anywhere near as well as it does here today. It's definitely an improved environment, and people were falling like flies at that meeting. Hopefully, we will all remain and join in the discussion today.

My staff, which many people have dealt with, are going to play a lot more principal role in today's meeting than will I, but it's their turn. The prioritization process -- it's a new one for us. There are the data which we developed in conversations with industry representatives and others. Some of it is the best which we had. I'll have to admit that it's not as good as it could be.

This is an opportunity for full and complete discussion of it, offering alternatives, suggestions as far as issues that need to be

(202) 234-4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 4 

### 1 years. 2 Almost 16 years to the day today we had a 3 hearing on proposed rule for appliance standards for 4 

### nine types of appliances. It was in the Postmaster 5 General's conference room in the new Post Office 6 building at 12th and Pennsylvania Avenue, and it was 7 99 

### degrees, near 100, 101 degrees, thereabouts, 8 

### outside. There were about 150 people at the hearing. 9 

### So itwas about

-- a few more thanwe have here today. 10 The airconditioningdidn'tworkanywherenearaswell 11 as it does here today. It's definitely an improved 12 environment, and people were falling like flies at 13 that meeting. Hopefully, we will all remain andjoin 14 in the discussion today. 15 My staff, which many people have dealt 16 with, are going to playa lot more principal role in 17 today'smeeting thanwill I, but it's their turn. The 18 

### prioritization process it's a 

### new one for us. 19 Thereare thedatawhichwe developedinconversations 20 with industry representatives and others. Some of it 21 is the best which we had. I'll have to admit that 22 it's not as good as it could be. 23 This is an opportunity for full and 24 complete discussion of it, offering alternatives, 25 suggestions as far as issues that need to be

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODEISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234·44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5

considered. I'dlike to get everybody's comments. We are not here to defend the analysis and information that we are presenting, because today's objective is to receive your comment and your direction as to where we^, are to go next.

The principal individual who will be guiding us from my staff will be Ed Pollock who is my Deputy, the Deputy Director of the Office of Codes and Standards. With that, what I' d like to do before Doug gets into a number of administrative items is to ask my staff to stand up and introduce themselves to you. Most everybody is familiar to people in their own industry that they've worked with, but not to the group as a whole. We'll start with Ed Pollock to my right. MR. POLLOCK: I'm Ed Pollock, Deputy Director of the Office of Codes and Standards. I would ask that the staff, when they stand up and introduce themselves, also say which products it is that they are responsible for right now.

MR. LeFRANCE: I am Mark LeFrance. I work with laundry products.

MR. RABA: Jim Raba. I work in electric 25 11 motors.

(202) 234.4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 5 

### 1 considered. I'dlike toget everybody's comments. We 2 are not here to defend the analysis and information 3 that we are presenting, because today's objective is 4 to receiveyour comment andyourdirectionas towhere 5**w~,are** 

### to go next. 6 

### The principal individual who will be 7 guidingus frommy staff will be Ed Pollock who is my 8 Deputy, theDeputyDirectorof the Office of Codes and 9 Standards. 10 Withthat, what I'dliketodobeforeDoug 11 gets into a number of administrative items is to ask 12 my staff to standup and introduce themselves toyou. 13 Most everybody is familiar to people in their own 14 industry that they've worked with, but not to the 15 group as a whole. We'll start with Ed Pollock to my 16 right. 17 

### MR. POLLOCK: I'm Ed Pollock, Deputy 18 

### Director of the Office of Codes and Standards. I 

### 19 would ask that the staff, when they stand up and 20 introduce themselves, also say which products it is 21 that they are responsible for right now. 22 MR. LeFRANCE: I amMarkLeFrance. I work 23 with laundry products. 24 

### 25 motors.

(202)234-4433 

### MR. RABA: Jim Raba. I work in electric

NEAL R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C.20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 MS. EPPING: Kathi Epping, air conditioners.

MR. NASSERI: Cyrus Nasseri, commercial products and also furnaces.

MS. TWIG: Barbara Twig. DR. BERLIN: Barry Berlin. I'm the economist in the Office, and I work on all products.

MR. HUI: Bill Hui -- MS. WATSON: Ingrid Watson, kitchen products. MR. ADAMS: Carl Adams. I'm the team leader for residential appliances.

MR. McCABE: Qonnie Laughlin, who is sitting to Carl's left, isn't sure what she is, since she does an awful lot and has played a major role in pulling together much of what we have done and accomplished in the last seven months, particularly developing the interpretive rule that was discussed at length yesterday. Qonnie has been invaluable to me in putting that together.

MR. RAYMOND; Michael Raymond, central air conditioners and refrigerators.

MR. McCABE: And the last one, but not the least.

(202) 234-4433 MR. BALDUCCI: Anthony Balducci, electric NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 6 1 

### MS. EPPING: Kathi Epping, air 2 conditioners. 3 

### MR. NASSERI: Cyrus Nasseri, commercial 4 products and also furnaces. 5 

### MS. TWIG: Barbara Twig. 6 

### DR. BERLIN: Barry Berlin. I'm the 7 

### economist in the Office, and I work on all products. 8 

### MR. HUI: Bill Hui 9 

### MS. WATSON: Ingrid Watson, kitchen 10 

### products. 11 

### MR. ADAMS: Carl Adams. I'm the team 12 leader for residential appliances. 13 

### MR. McCABE: Qonnie Laughlin, who is 14 sitting to Carl's left, isn't sure what she is, since 15 she does an awful lot and has played a major role in 16 pulling together much of what we have done and 17 accomplished in the last seven months, particularly 18 developingthe interpretiverule thatwasdiscussedat 19 lengthyesterday. Qonniehasbeen invaluable tome in 20 putting that together. 21 MR. RAYMOND; MichaelRaymond, central air 22 conditioners and refrigerators. 23 

### 24 least. 25

(202)234-4433 

### MR. McCABE: Andthe last one, butnot the

MR. BALDUCCI: AnthonyBalducci, electric 

### NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE,NW. WASHINGTON, D.C.20005 (202) 234·44337 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 motors and dishwashers. MR. McCABE: I'd like to welcome everybody here and, with that, turn it back to Doug for housekeeping.

MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you, Michael. I'd like to have everybody introduce themselves, and give your organizational affiliation, if you would, please, as we go along, so we have a sense of who is in the room. This workshop today is being taped. So as we go through the day's work, it would be helpful if you could say your name prior to making your comments, and I'll try and keep reminding you to do that. it will make a better record and, if you do that, it allows the Department to come back to you and say, what did you mean when you said that, and explore it more fully. Let's start over here with you, Dave. I guess we 're going to try and use the microphones. Will these mikes pick up, if they just stay in the center of the table? Let's try that, rather than force everybody to speak into a mike like this.

MR. LEWIS : Dave Lewis, Lennox. MR. CHAPP : Terry Chapp , Modine. MR. DeVUORO: Tony DeVuoro, Modine

(202) 234-4433 

### NEAP R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON

. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 7 1 motors and dishwashers. 2 MR. McCABE: I'dlike towelcome everybody 3 here and, with that, turn it back to Doug for 4 housekeeping. 5 MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you, Michael. 6 I'd like to have everybody introduce themselves, and 7 give your organizational affiliation, if you would, 8 please, as we go along, so we have a sense of who is 9 in the room. 10 Thisworkshop today isbeingtaped. So as 11 we go through the day's work, it would be helpful if 12 you could sayyournameprior tomakingyour comments, 13 and I'll try and keep reminding you to do that. It 14 will make a better record and, if you do that, it 15 allows the Department to come back to you and say, 16 what did you mean when you said that, and explore it 17 more fully. 18 Let's start over here with you, Dave. I 19 guess we're going to try and use che microphones. 20 Will these mikes pick up, if they just stay in the 21 center of the table? Let's try that, rather than 22 force**eve~body** to speak into a mike like this. 23 24 25

(202)234-4433 MR. LEWIS: Dave Lewis, Lennox. MR. CHAPP: Terry Chapp, Modine. MR. DeVUORO: Tony DeVuoro, 

### NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. NW. WASHINGTON. D.C.20005 Modine

(202) 234-44338 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Manufacturing. MR. HOPKINSON: Phil Hopkinson, Square D Company, transformers.

MR. STEIN: Mike Stein, MagneTek, fluorescent ballasts.

MR. WISBEY: Bob Wisbey, Advanced Transformer Company, fluorescent ballasts.

MR. BLEASBY: Peter Bleasby, Sylvania, lamps as in lightbulbs.

MR. GRENNAN: Rich Grennan, Raytheon, commercial laundry.

MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei, Raytheon Appliances, commercial laundry.

MR. WEINGARTNER: Roland Weingartner, Miele Appliances.

MR. HORSTMAN: Doug Horstman, Maytag. MR. SAMUELS: Chuck Samuels, AHAM. MR. JONES: Earl Jones, G.E. Appliances. MS. GREINER: Linda Greiner, Frigidaire. MR. THIELE: Terry Thiele, Frigidaire. MS. FALONI: Suzanne Faloni, York International.

MR. HOLT: John Holt, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

MR. CURRY: Robert Curry, Plumbing

(202) 234-4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i j 8 1 Manufacturing. 2 MR. HOPKINSON: Phil Hopkinson, Square D 3 Company, transformers. 4 MR. STEIN: Mike Stein, MagneTek, 5 fluorescent ballasts. 6 MR. WISBEY: Bob Wisbey, Advanced 7 Transformer Company, fluorescent ballasts. 8 MR. BLEASBY: Peter Bleasby, Sylvania, 9 lamps as in lightbulbs. 10 MR. GRENNAN: Rich Grennan, Raytheon, 11 commercial laundry. 12 MR. MANTHEI : Phil Manthei, Raytheon 13 Appliances, commercial laundry. 14 MR. WEINGARTNER: Roland Weingartner, 15 Miele Appliances. 16 MR. HORSTMAN: Doug Horstman, Maytag. 17 MR. SAMUELS: Chuck Samuels, AHAM. 18 MR. JONES: Earl Jones, G.E. Appliances. 19 MS. GREINER: Linda Greiner, Frigidaire. 20 MR. THIELE: Terry Thiele, Frigidaire. 21 MS. FALONI: Suzanne Faloni, York 22 International. 23 MR. HOLT: John HoIt , National Rural 24 Electric Cooperative Association. 25

(202)234-4433 MR. CURRY: Robert Curry, 

### NEALA. 

### GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 Plumbing

(202) 234-4.\339 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Manufacturers Institute. MR. FOSTER: Chuck Foster, EEI. MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje with ARI.MR. CRAWFORD: Jim Crawford, TraneAmerican Standard.

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly -- MR. DUBOIS: Terry Dubois, U.S. Department of Energy, Systems Analysis.

MS. BANKS: Donna Banks, The American Gas Association. MR. BRODERICK: Jim Broderick, The American Gas Association, government relations.

MR. ANDERSON: Vince Anderson with Whirlpool. MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Department of Energy.

MR. WASSON: Michael Wasson, ASKO Appliances. MR. GOLDSTEIN: David Goldstein, NRDC.

MR. BEGOSKE: Tim Begoske -- MS. RUITER: Sandy Ruiter with Underwriter's Laboratories.

MR. HAAG: Wilbur Haag, A.O. Smith Water Products Company.

MS. MURPHY: Mary Ellen Murphy, Bracey

(202) 234-4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON

. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 9 1 Manufacturers Institute. 2 MR. FOSTER: Chuck Foster, EEl. 3 MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje with ARI. 4 MR. CRAWFORD: Jim Crawford, Trane5 American Standard. 6 MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly 7 MR. DUBOIS: TerryDubois, U.S. Department 8 of Energy, Systems Analysis. 9 MS. BANKS: Donna Banks, The AmericanGas 10 Association. 11 MR. BRODERICK: Jim Broderick, The 12 American Gas Association, government relations. 13 MR. ANDERSON: Vince Anderson with 14 Whirlpool. 15 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, 16 Department of Energy. 17 MR. WASSON: Michael Wasson, ASKO 18 Appliances. 19 MR. GOLDSTEIN: David Goldstein, NRDC. 20 MR. BEGOSKE: Tim Begoske 21 MS. RUITER: Sandy Ruiter with 22**Underwrit~r's** Laboratories. 23 MR. HAAG: Wilbur Haag, A.O. Smith Water 24 Products Company. 25

(202)234-4433 MS. MURPHY: Mary Ellen Murphy, Bracey NEAL R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVENUE. NW. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202)234·443310 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Williams and Company, for Clorox. MR. JARNAGIN: Ron Jarnagin, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

MR. SECREST: Tom Secrest, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

MR. FOLEY: Gene Foley, The Alliance to Save Energy. MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.

MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. There are a few in the front of the room.

MR. FRIEDRICHS: Mark Friedrichs from the Department of Energy Police Office.

MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest from Arthur D. Little. MODERATOR BROOKMAN: For those of you that have just joined us, please take a seat and make yourself comfortable, and we'll do another round of introductions later for those that joined us a few minutes late.

Again, let me welcome you and thank you for allowing us to start on time. I think we have a full day ahead of us.

The purpose of this workshop, as is written on your agenda, is to receive your input on 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 10 

### 1 Williams and Company, for Clorox. 2 

### MR. JARNAGIN: Ron Jarnagin, Pacific 3 Northwest National Laboratory. 4 

### MR. SECREST: Torn Secrest, Pacific 5 Northwest National Laboratory. 6 

### MR. FOLEY: Gene Foley, The Alliance to 7 Save Energy. 8 

### MR. NADEL: SteveNadel, AmericanCouncil 9 for an Energy Efficient Economy. 10 

### MODERATORBROOKMAN: Thankyou. Thereare 11 a few in the front of the room. 12 

### MR. FRIEDRICHS: Mark Friedrichs from the 13 Department of Energy Police Office. 14 

### MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest from Arthur D. 15 Little. 16 

### MODERATORBROOKMAN: Forthose ofyouthat 17 have just joined us, please take a seat and make 18 yourself comfortable, and we'll do another round of 19 introductions later for those that joined US a few 20 minutes late. 21 

### Again, let me welcome you and thank you 22 for allowing uS to start on time. I think we have a 23 full day ahead of us. 24 

### The purpose of this workshop, as is 2S written on your agenda, is to receive your input on

(202)2344433 

### NEAL

### R. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C.20005 (202)234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11

proposed draft product data sheets which we are going to go through today in detail and hear your comments.

I heard Michael McCabe say at the outset that some of the analysis isn't as good as the Department would like it to be. This is your opportunity to try and make it as good as you can, and I would invite you to speak clearly about how it can be improved. The outcomes of this workshop, which are also written on this agenda, is that this, plus additional stakeholder input, will lead to the Department' s issuing in October a final set of rulemaking priorities and the schedules for all priority rulemakings it anticipates in the next two years. So that's where we're headed. That's where the Department is headed with this activity today and in subsequent activities. The agenda, as listed -- We are now doing the first segment, which is opening remarks, introductions, and I'm reviewing the agenda. We're going to have a brief review of the evaluation criteria that are used in considering how someone -- how one of these products would be listed or prioritized. We'll take a quick coffee break.

(202) 234-4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 

### 11 1 proposed draft product data sheets whichwe are going 2 to go through today in detail and hear your comments. 3 I heard Michael McCabe say at the outset 4 that some of the analysis isn't as good as the 5 

### Department would like it to be. This is your 6 opportunity to try andmake it as good as you can, and 7 I would invite you to speak clearly about how it can 8 be improved. 9 The outcomes of this workshop, which are 10 also written on this agenda, is that this, plus 11 additional stakeholder input, will lead to the 12 Department's issuing in October a final set of 13 rulemaking priorities and the schedules for all 14 priority rulemakings it anticipates in the next two 15 years. 16 So that's where we're headed. That's 17 where the Department is headed with this activity 18 

### today and in subsequent activities. The agenda, as 19 listed

-- We arenow doing the first segment, which is 20 opening remarks, introductions, and I'mreviewing the 21 agenda. 22 We're going to have a brief review of the 23 evaluation criteria that are used in considering how 24 someone -- how one of these products would be listed 25 or prioritized. We'll take a quick coffee break.

(202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C.20005 (202) 234·44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 We're going to go from the coffee break to a discussion of the individual draft product data sheets, and the order as listed on this handout -- Hopefully, all of you -- Did all of you receive the handouts? All of you got a copy of the handouts? They are listed alphabetically by trade association, and that's how we intend to take them up.

Ed, when he starts off, he's going to say why they are organized that way.

We will take a lunch break. You're on your own for lunch. We're going to come back and take up the additional product data sheets that we haven't covered yet, and then after the afternoon break, the group collectively are going to see what they can do to work towards a priority ranking, talk about how to do it procedurally and the practicalities of it.

I want to end the day by talking about how to improve future prioritization workshops. It's envisioned that some format like this will be done at least on an annual basis to get your input and to help the Department to figure out which rules should be prioritized for action.

Are there questions at the outset on the agenda? If we uncover a more dynamic pathway here, we'll take it. We just haven't figured it out yet. 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (202) 234

-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 

### 12 1 

### We'regoing togo fromthe coffeebreakto 2 a discussion of the individual draft product data 3 sheets, and the order as listed on this handout

-- 4 Hopefully, all of you -- Did all of you receive the 5 

### handouts? All of you got a copy of the handouts? 6 They are listed alphabetically by trade association, 7 and that's how we intend to take them up. 8 Ed, when he starts off, he's going to say 9 why they are organized that way. 10 

### We will take a lunch break. You're on 11 your own for lunch. We'regoing to come back and take 12 up the additional product data sheets that we haven't 13 covered yet, and then after the afternoon break, the 14 group collectively are going to see what they can do 15 to work towards a priority ranking, talk about how to 16 do it procedurally and the practicalities of it. 1 7 I want to endthedaybytalkingabout how 18 

### to improve future prioritization workshops. It's 19 envisioned that some format like this will be done at 20 least onan annual basis to getyour input and tohelp 21 the Department to figure out which rules should be 22**prioritiz~d** 

### for action. 23 Are there questions at the outset on the 24 agenda? If we uncover a more dynamic pathway here, 25 

### we'll take it.**(202)2~** 

### We just haven't figured it out yet. NEAL

### A. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C.20005 (202) 234·4-!J313 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Questions at the outset? I don't see any. How many of you were at the March .workshop? Okay. So most of you were there. How many of you were here yesterday to talk about the interpretive rule? Okay. Thank you.

Just a few very simple ground rules which this group has been kind enough to adhere to in the past: I'd like to request that we speak one at a time. I'd like also to ask that, as you're listening, that you listen as an ally where this is a cooperative effort to try and come forward with good information. Good information is the kind of thing that will make all of us prosper in this.

I' d like to ask that we focus on solutions as we're going through this, and that will keep moving the ball forward in that cooperative spirit. We'd like you to say what you're thinking. Better to have it out on the table and to hear what you're thinking at this point, and all of us will do better if we put it right out there.

Since this is a taped session, I'd like you to say your name prior to giving your comments on specifics -- on the specifics of the product or whatever it is you're commenting on.

I think that is basically it. Ed, are you

(202) 234-4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 1 : 13 1 Questions at the outset? I don't see any. 2 How many of you were at the March 3 .workshop? Okay. Somost of you were there. How many 4 of you were here yesterday to talk about the 5 interpretive rule? Okay. Thank you. 6 Just a few very simple ground rules which 7 this group has been kind enough to adhere to in the 8 past: I'd like to request that we speak one at a 9 time. I'd like also to ask that, as you're listening, 10 that you listen as an allywhere this is a cooperative 11 effort to try and come forward with good information. 12 Good information is the kind of thing that will make 13 all of us prosper in this. 14 I'dlike to ask thatwe focus on solutions 15 as we're going through this, and that will keepmoving 16 the ball forward in that cooperative spirit. We'd 17 like 

### you to say what you're thinking. Better to have 18 it out on the table and to .hear what you're thinking 19 at this point, and all of us will do better if we put 20 it right out there. 21 Since this is a taped session, I'd like 22 

### you to say your name prior to givingyour comments on 23 specifics on the specifics of the product or 24 whatever it is you're commenting on. 25

(202)234-4433 I think that is basically it. Ed, are

### you NEALA. 

### GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C.20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14

going to do the first segment on your criteria? Okay. Additional comments, questions, at the outset? Yes, ma'am. Would you speak into the microphone, please? I'm going to keep reminding people at the outset -- and your name?

MS. RUITER: Sandy Ruiter, Underwriters Laboratories. The material you FAX'ed on the 11th of June, draft -- can that stuff be thrown away? May it be thrown away?

MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. The current draft supersedes all previous drafts. Yes. What is passed out today, yes.

Additional comments, questions, at the outset? Okay, I think we're about to begin.

MR. POLLOCK: Let's start off by reminding everyone that what we're here to do today is prioritize the work that we'll be doing during the next year and, to some extent, the following year as far as standards rulemaking; but there is another large part of our program which deals with the testing of the products to ensure that they are -- or to define the measurement of energy efficiency that's being used, as well as, in the case of the commercial products, the labeling of that information as it applies to the product. 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)234.4433 

### 14 1 going todo the first segment onyour criteria? Okay. 2 Additional comments, questions, at the outset? Yes, 3 ma'am. Would you speak into the microphone, please? 4 I'm going to keep reminding people at the outset -- 5 and your name? 6 

### MS. RUITER: Sandy Ruiter, Underwriters 7 Laboratories. Thematerial you FAX'ed on the 11thof 8 June, draft

-- can that stuff be thrown away? May it 9 be thrown away? 10 

### MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. The current 11 draft supersedes all previous drafts. Yes. What is 12 passed out today, yes. 13 

### Additional comments, questions, at the 14 outset? Okay, I think we're about to begin. 15 

### MR. POLLOCK: Let's startoffbyreminding 16 everyone that what we're here to do today is 17 prioritize the work that we'll be doing during the 18 next year and, to some extent, the following year as 19 far as standards rulemaking; but there is another 20 largepartof ourprogramwhichdealswiththe testing 21 of the products to ensure that they are - - or to 22 define the measurement of energy efficiency that's 23 beingused, as well as, in the case of the commercial 24 products, the labeling of that information as it 25 

### applies to 

### the product.

(202)234-4433 

### NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODEISLANDAVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C.20005 (202) 234.44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 So while we're looking at what areas we'll do the standards rulemaking in, when we're looking at our total budget and the ability of us to complete rulemakings during the next year, keep in the backs of ydur minds that we are limited to how many of these rules we can cover during the next year by the fact that we have to do this other work also.

In some cases, tests will have to be completed, and revisions to the testing will have to be completed before we go on to the rulemaking and the final rule. In no case will we issue a final rule for standards if we still haven't -- Most people know that, but there have been some questions in the past.

For today what I would propose we do is to go through the discussion, as Doug says, in this order. If there are people, beginning with AHAM and the ARI products, the GAMA products and the NEMA products -- If there are people who have travel plans who are concerned about leaving early in the afternoon, to accommodate them we will consider adjusting this order in order to make sure that the products that they are interested in are covered before they leave.

Why we are grouping them by product like this is that there is the issue of cumulative burden,

(202) 234-4433 

### NEAP R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 15 1 

### Sowhilewe'relookingatwhat areaswe'll 2 do the standards rulemaking in, when we're looking at 3 ,our total budget and the ability of us to complete 4 rulemakings duringthenextyear, keep inthebacks of 5 your minds that we are limited to how many of these 6 'rules we can cover during the next year by the fact 7 that we have to do this other work also. 8 

### In some cases, tests will have to be 9 completed, and revisions to the testing will have to 10 be completedbeforewe go onto the rulemakingandthe 11 final rule. Inno casewill we issue a final rule for 12 standards if we still haven't

- - Most people know 13 that, but there have been some questions in the past. 14 Fortodaywhat I wouldproposewe do is to 15 go through the discussion, as Doug says, in this 16 order. If there are people, beginning with AHAM and 17 the ARI products, the GAMA products and the NEMA 18 products

-- If there are people who have travel plans 19 who are concerned about leaving early in the 20 afternoon, to accommodate them we will consider 21 adjusting this order in order to make sure that the 22 products that they are interested in are covered 23 before they leave. 24 Why we are grouping them by product like 25 this is that there is the issue of cumulativeburden,

(202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. NW. WASHINGTON. D.C.20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16

and so we wanted to talk about products that bigger manufacturers may be interested in, more or less, together in one group.

There's the other side of that. There may be some cases

-- in the case of, for instance, an air conditioner -- where the two products are actually a system for space conditioning and, therefore, instead of cumulative burden issue, we may want to be talking about bringing those two rulemakings together so that we minimize the burden by dealing with them as systems. So those are the types of things we want comments from manufacturers as we go through these data sheets. Those are the types of issues that we need to identify so, as we're planning our schedule and our workload for the next couple of years, we can factor that into the schedules that we ultimately develop on the information which you provide to us here today. You don't have this information. I'm just going to put it up here. You can probably read it, but I want to go over it briefly.

What we are trying to do today is to come up with a grouping of the products. So, therefore, I want to emphasize from the very beginning that the

(202) 234-4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234.4433 16 

### 1 and so we wanted to talk about products that bigger 2 manufacturers may be interested in, more or less, 3 together in one group. 4 

### There I S 

### the other side of that. Theremay 5 be some cases -- in the case of, for instance, an air 6 conditioner

-- where the two products are actually a 7 system for space conditioning and, therefore, instead 8 of cumulative burden issue, we may want to be talking 9 about bringing those two rulemakings together so that 10 we minimize the burden by dealing with them as 11 systems. 12 So those are the types of things we want 13 comments from manufacturers as we go through these 14 

### data sheets. Those are the types of issues that we 15 need to identify so, as we're planning our schedule 16 and our workload for the next couple of years, we can 17 factor that into the schedules that we ultimately 18 develop on the information which you provide to us 19 here today. 20 

### You doni

### t have this information. Ilm

### just 21 going to put it up here. You can probably read it, 22 but I want to go over it briefly. 23 What we are trying to do today is to come 24 up with a grouping of the products. So, therefore, I 25 want to emphasize from the very beginning that the

(202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. NW. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17

actual placement

-- where we place the decimal point on the numbers for energy savings are not so important as a relative ranking of the different products.

We basically have come up with three different groupings which we expect to be able to develop out of the information on the product data sheets that we've given to you in the handout. That is, high priority products which, for whatever reason, the issues that we'll discuss today we should place our primary emphasis on during the next year.

These are rules which will have high energy savings or ones which we've completed most of the analysis for. So we can quickly bring them to completion into the final rule and put them out.

The second group are those in the medium level which will be ones that we'll be primarily focusing on during the following year . However, I should emphasize that we do expect to be doing some preliminary work on those products during this following year, depending on where -- how much funding Congress gives us and where other issues and workload go. So that --

MR. CURRY: Could you describe following year, this year?

MR. POLLOCK; Okay. I'm talking about

(202) 234-4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 17 1 actual placement where we place the decimal point 2 on the numbers for energy savings are not so important 3 as a relative ranking of the different products. 4 We basically have come up with three 5 different groupings which we expect to be able to 6 develop out of the information on the product data 7 sheets that we've given to you in the handout. That 8 is, highpriorityproductswhich, forwhateverreason, 9 the issues that we'll discuss today we should place 10 our primary emphasis on during the next year. 11 These are rules which will have high 12 energy savings or ones which we've completed most of 13 the analysis for. So we can quickly bring them to 14 completion into the final rule and put them out. 15 The second group are those in the medium 16 level which will be ones that we'll be primarily 17 focusing on during the following year. However, I 18 should emphasize that we do expect to be doing some 19 preliminary work on those products during this 20 followingyear, dependingonwhere

- - howmuch funding 21 Congress gives us and where other issues and workload 22 go. So**t~at** -- 23 

### MR. CURRY: Could you describe following 24 year, this year? 25 MR• POLLOCK; Okay. I'm talking about

(202)2344433 NEAL R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C.20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18

fiscal year, 1997 fiscal year and 1998 fiscal year, which starts in October of each year.

MR. CURRY: Rob Curry. So high priority is fiscal year 1996. Medium priority --

MR. POLLOCK: 1997. Ninety-six is almost -- yes. MR. CURRY; Okay. So high priority is fiscal year 1997?

MR. POLLOCK: Right. During the -- For the medium priority group, we're looking at doing the preliminary ground work. We'll begin to collect information on the products. What are the design options which should be considered in efficiency for the product? How are we going to go about getting that information on the cost for it, the economics of the product, the performance of it? How do we model it or attain the information that we need for decision making, but we won't get into heavy analytical work on those products until 1998.

Then there's the bottom group, and those are those products which have very low energy savings or, for some reason such as dates that are established in the law, we should not be moving forward with a rulemaking at this time; because they either, as I said, have a low savings or else something that's

(202) 2344433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 18 

### 1 fiscal year,**1~97** 

### fiscal year and 1998 fiscal year, 2 which starts in October of each year. 3 

### MR. CURRY: Rob Curry. So high priority 4 is fiscal year 1996. Medium priority

-- 5 

### MR. POLLOCK: 1997. Ninety-six is almost 6 

### yes. 7 

### MR. CURRY; Okay. So high priority is 8 fiscal year 1997? 9 

### MR. POLLOCK: Right. During the

-- For 10 the mediumprioritygroup, we're looking at doing the 11 preliminary ground work. We'll begin to collect 12 information on the products. What are the design 13 options which should be considered in efficiency for 14 the product? How are we going to go about getting 15 that information on the cost for it, the economics of 16 the product, the performance of it? How do we model 17 it or attainthe informationthat we need for decision 18 making, butwe won't get intoheavy analytical work on 19 those products until 1998. 20 Then there's the bottom group, and those 21 are those products which have very low energy savings 22 or, for some reason suchas dates that are established 23 in the law, we should not be moving forward with a 24 rulemaking at this time; because they either, as I 25 said, have a low savings or else something that

### 's

(202)234-4433 

### NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C.20005 (202)234·443319 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 triggered in the future. For example, the commercial products are established as being when ASHRAE 90.1 changes the standard level for commercial central air conditioning, furnaces, for the space -- or for water heating. Then the Department is direct to consider those standards that are in that new version of ASHRAE 1990. So because they are in the process right now of revising those levels, but that has not been published as a final version of the revised 90.1, we would not be considering them as either high or medium level at this time, but in subsequent prioritizations after ASHRAE has published their proposal or their final decision on what those levels should be, then we would move forward in putting them in the priority and doing the rulemaking on them.

MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Maybe there are questions at this point on the high priority, medium priority, and low priority standard. Yes?

MR. THIELE : Terry Thiele, Frigidaire. I'm confused, because the description of high priority was predicated upon DOE resources , but your description of low priority was based upon energy savings. Are you prioritizing based upon what DOE can

(202) 234-4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 

### 19 1 triggered in the future. 2 For example, the commercial products are 3 established as being when ASHRAE 90.1 changes the 4 

### standard level for commercial central air 5 conditioning, furnaces, for the space -- or for water 6 

### heating. Then the Department is direct to consider 7 those standards that are inthat newversionofASHRAE 8 

### 1990. 9 So because they are in the process right 10 now of revising those levels, but that has not been 11 published as a final version of the revised 90.1, we 12 wouldnotbe consideringthemas eitherhighormedium 13 level at this time, but in subsequent prioritizations 14 after ASHRAE has published their proposal or their 15 final decisiononwhat those levels shouldbe, thenwe 16 wouldmove forward inputtingthem inthepriorityand 17 doing the rulemaking on them. 18 

### MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Maybe there are 19 questions at this point on the high priority, medium 20 priority, and low priority standard. Yes? 21 

### MR. THIELE: Terry Thiele, Frigidaire. 22 I'mconfused, becausethedescriptionofhighpriority 23 

### was predicated upon DOE resources, but your 24 description of low priority was based upon energy 25 savings. AreyouprioritizingbaseduponwhatDOE can

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### A. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20

do next year, regardless of how much energy gets saved off of that rule? Are you prioritizing based upon the act of the rulemaking?

MR. POLLOCK: I'm sorry for the confusion, Terry. We are prioritizing on the impact of the rulemaking. The issue will be where we draw that line between each one of these groups -- Well, the low priority we would not do, but where we draw the line between the high priority and the medium priority will have to depend on our resources.

So there may be some products that, in our discussions today, we might have some debate about whether they should go in high priority or in low priority, and in that case then we would -- we might put those in a separate category, and it would fall one way or the other, depending on the level of

resources. MR. THIELE: The reason I ask is, if you've got a rule ready to go where there is little to virtually no energy savings, does that, nonetheless, remain a high priority item because it's ready to go?

MR. POLLOCK: Okay. That is the other side of it and, yes, resources do come into play in that case; because it is something that we could 25 11 complete and, therefore, a minimum amount of resources

(202) 2344433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 20 1 do next year, regardless ofhowmuch energygets saved 2 off of that rule? Are youprioritizingbased upon the 3 act of the rulemaking? 4 MR. POLLOCK: I'msorryfor the confusion, 5 We are prioritizing on the impact of the 6 .rulemaking. The issue will be where we draw that line 7 between each one of these groups - - Well, the low 8 priority we would not do, but where we draw the line 9 betweenthehighpriorityandthemediumprioritywill 10 have to depend on our resources. 11 So theremaybe someproducts that, inour 12 discussions today, we might have some debate about 13 whether they should go in high priority or in low 14 priority, and in that case then we would

-- we might 15 put those in a separate category, and it would fall 16 one way or the other, depending on the level of 17 resources. 18 MR. THIELE: The reason I ask is, if 19 you've got a rule ready to go where there is little to 20 virtually no energy savings, does that, nonetheless, 21 remain a high priority itembecause it's ready to go? 22 

### MR. POLLOCK: Okay. That is the other 23 side of it and, yes, resources do come into play in 24 that case; because it is something that we could 25 completeand, therefore, a minimumamount of resources

(202)234-4433 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C.20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21

for us to complete

. So there are the two paths in this prioritization that we are doing.

This will be different from what happens in the future where we have already established the priority for work that's in process , and we would be only adding new tasks or new products to be considered in grouping in the priority.

So we do have a little bit different situation and the criteria is a little bit different for the workshop that we're going through today, because we do have to take a look at the work that has already been completed, the amount of resources that we would have to expend in order to complete that rulemaking, and that ' s a tradeoff to energy savings, which would be -- and other issues which I've discussed, which would be of more major concern later on where we've already established some schedule for the work that ' s in process.

MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Dave? I saw Dave, and then to this gentleman in the back.

MR. LEWIS : Dave Lewis, Lennox. Ed, could you -- You're describing then that the high priority products would start October ' 96 through October '97. That would be the work, and it would begin with a ANPR. Is that what you're saying? NEAP R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON

. D.C. 20005 (202) 234.4433 21 1 

### for us to complete. So there are the two paths in 2 this prioritization that we are doing. 3 This will be different from what happens 4 in the future where we have already established the 5**p~iority** 

### for work that's in process, and we would be 6 onlyaddingnew tasks ornew products tobe considered 7 in grouping in the priority. 8 

### So we do have a little bit different 9 situation and the criteria is a little bit different 10 for the workshop that we're going through today, 11 becausewe do have to take a look at the work that has 12 already been completed, the amount of resources that 13 we would have to expend in order to complete that 14 rulemaking, and that's a tradeoff to energy savings, 15 

### which would be and other issues which I've 16 discussed, whichwouldbe of more major concern later 17 on where we've already established some schedule for 18 the work that's in process. 19 

### MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Dave? I saw Dave, 20 and then to this gentleman in the back. 21 MR. LEWIS: DaveLewis I 

### Lennox. Ed, could 22 you -- You're describing then that the high priority 23 products would start October '96 through October '97. 24 That would be the work, and it would begin with a 25 ANPR. Is that what you're saying?

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.w. WASHINGTON. D.C.20005 (202) 234·44331

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 MR. POLLOCK; Well, that takes us back to the process approval we were talking about, and we have defined that process as saying that we begin and a major chunk of the work is done prior to publishing the advance notice of proposed rulemaking. The data collection, the determination of the model and the actual preliminary analysis will all be completed prior to publishing that advanced notice.

MR. LEWIS: So just in final, you're really talking about when you will begin a process. You're not necessarily flagging the conclusion of a process. MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Mark Friedrichs has a follow-on comment.

MR. FRIEDRICHS: You have to keep in mind that there are a number of rulemakings that are in the midst of the process right now, and as part of the process improvement, we've talked about at what stage we would restart those product standard development efforts. In some cases, we still -- We may be after a proposed. rule and be going to a final rule. In some

cases, we're going back to an advanced notice. In most cases, actually, we're going back to some form of advanced notice. So there is a little uncertainty

(202) 2344433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 22 1 MR. POLLOCK; Well, that takes us back to 2 the process approval we were talking about, and we 3 have defined that process as saying that we begin and 4 a major chunk of the work is done prior to publishing 5 the advance notice of proposed rulemaking. The data 6 collection, the determination of the model and the 7 actual preliminary analysis will all be completed 8 prior to publishing that advanced notice. 9 MR. LEWIS: So just in final, you're 10 really talking about when you will begin a process. 11 You're not necessarily flagging the conclusion of a 12 process. 13 MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Mark Friedrichs has 14 a follow-on comment. 15 MR. FRIEDRICHS: You have to keep inmind 16 that there are a number of rulemakings that are in the 17 midst of the process right now, and as part of the 18 process improvement, we've talked about at what stage 19 we would restart those product standard development 20 efforts. 21 In some cases, we still

- - We maybe after 22 a proposed.rule andbe going to a final rule. In some 23 cases, we're going back to an advanced notice. In 24 most cases, actually, we're goingbackto some form of 25 advanced notice.

(202)234-4433 So there is a little uncertainty NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE, N.W

.. WASHINGTON, D.C.20005 (202)234-443323 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about where we would start the process. What Ed is saying is that any high priority product for which we have adequate resources to proceed, we would commit those resources in '97 and get as far as we can with those . We're not committing to complete the process in '97. Of course, we all recognize that the full rulemaking process we expect to take two or three years for any product.

So high priority simply means that we're going to commit those resources necessary to move forward at the beginning of fiscal year '97, October First. MR. LEWIS: Thank you.

MR. SCHLEEDE: My name is Glenn Schleede. I had some rather basic questions -- I'm new to the process -- that I probably should have asked earlier, but I thought they were coming up under this topic, but this has a different meaning than I interpreted on the agenda. Can you tell me where the basic information is, like how you do your cost calculations, what you do with -- what you use in the way of energy price forecasts, how you define energy security, all those basic stuff? Is that written down someplace that a newcomer can get hold of it, or where 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 iI 23 1 about where we would start the process. 2 What Ed is saying is that any high 3 priorityproduct for which we have adequate resources 4 toproceed, we would commit those resources in '97 and 5 get as far as we canwith those. We're not committing 6 to complete the process in '97. Of course, we all 7 recognize that the full rulemaking process we expect 8 to take two or three years for any product. 9 So high priority simply means that we're 10 going to commit those resources necessary to move 11 forward at the beginning of fiscal year '97, October 12 First. 13 MR. LEWIS: Thank you. 14 MR. SCHLEEDE: My name is Glenn Schleede. 15 I had some rather basic questions

-- I'm new to the 16 process -- that I probably should have asked earlier, 17 but I thought they were coming up under this topic, 18 but this has a differentmeaning than I interpretedon 19 the agenda. 20 Can you tell me where the basic 21 information is, like how you do your cost 22 calculations, what you do with

-- what you use in the 23 way of energy price forecasts, how you define energy 24 security, all those basic stuff? Is that writtendown 25 someplace that a newcomer canget hold of it, orwhere

(202)2344433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVENUE, NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234·44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24

is it, because it -- All that basic stuff seems not to be present in any document I've seen so far.

A further question: Where does one get copies of all the little studies referred to in the footnotes on these data sheets?

MR. POLLOCK: The best place to find the type of information you're asking for is, for those products where we have done a notice of proposed rulemaking or a final rule, we issue as a complement to the information that's in the Federal Register a document we call the Technical Support Document.

That has fairly extensive description of the analytical methods that we go through and how the different values that you're referring to are calculated. MR. SCHLEEDE: A while back, as I recall, it was published in the Federal Register a description of how the cost calculation process worked. This was done a couple of years ago when you were looking at including externalities in the process. Does that -- Is that set of rules -- Is that what you follow?

There must be some generic set of rules as to what you -- how you make calculations, what price forecasts you use, and I'm particularly interested in price forecasts since those have changed so much. 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 24 

### 1 is it, because it All that basic stuff seems not to 2 be present in any document I've seen so far. 3 

### A further question: Where does one get 4 

### copies of all the little studies referred to in the 5 footnotes on these data sheets? 6 

### MR. POLLOCK: The best place to find the 7 type of information you're asking for is, for those 8 products where we have done a notice of proposed 9 rulemaking or a final rule, we issue as a complement 10 to the information that's in the Federal Register a 11 document we call the Technical Support Document. 12 That has fairly extensive description of 13 the analytical methods that we go through and how the 14 different values that you're referring to are 15 calculated. 16 

### MR. SCHLEEDE: Awhile back, as I recall, 17 itwaspublishedinthe Federal Registera description 18 of how the cost calculationprocess worked. This was 19 done a couple of years ago when you were looking at 20 including externalities in the process. Does that 21 Is that set of rules

-- Is that what you follow? 22 Theremustbe somegeneric set of rules as 23 to what you -- how you make calculations, what price 24 forecasts you use, and I'mparticularlyinterested in 25 price forecasts since those have changed so much.

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVENUE, N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234·443325 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR.-_POLLOCK: I'll let Mark respond to

that. MR. FRIEDRICHS: Unfortunately, we tried to pull together for this exercise the best information we had available. Sometimes this 'information was several years old. One of the reasons for this meeting is to try to find out whether or not there's better information.

As Ed mentioned, all we're trying to do here is not determine specifically what savings are going to result from specific design options. That's going to happen in the standards development process.

This information isn't really going to go any further beyond the priority setting process. So we're just trying to get the best information we can about the relative energy, economic, environmental impacts of standards in different areas, as well as those other factors discussed on the sheets.

Because the Technical Support Documents were developed at different times, that are referenced -- some, I think, go back to 1990; some were in 1993 to 1995 -- they each use slightly different price forecasts, because each year we update the price forecasts based on what the Energy Information Administration does.

(202) 2344433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 25 

### 1 MR. POLLOCK: I'll let Mark respond to 2 that. 3 

### MR. FRIEDRICHS: Unfortunately, we tried 4 

### to pull together for this exercise the best 5 

### information we had available. Sometimes this 6 'informationwas several years old. One of the reasons 7 for this meeting is to try to find out whether or not 8 there's better information. 9 As Ed mentioned, all we're trying to do 10 here is not determine specifically what savings are 11 going to result from specific design options. That's 12 going tohappen in the standards development process. 13 This information isn't reallygoing to go 14 any further beyond the priority setting process. So 15 we're just trying to get the best information we can 16 about the relative energy, economic, environmental 17 impacts of standards in different areas, as well as 18 those other factors discussed on the sheets. 19 Because the Technical Support Documents 20 weredevelopedatdifferent times, thatarereferenced 21 some, I think, go back to 1990; some were in 1993 22 to 1995 they each use slightly different price 23 forecasts, because each year we update the price 24 forecasts based on what the Energy Information 25 Administration does.

(202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISlANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C.20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Sometimes they've used slightly different assumptions about discount rates for calculating the new present value of benefits. So, unfortunately, there isn't one single methodology, but at this stage we don't think that single methodology is necessary; because we're really just trying to get an idea of relative impacts of possible standards in different categories. We're not looking for a lot of precision.

MR. SCHLEEDE: I hate to beat this into the ground, but still there must be some kind of a process that you've got that you even make these rough estimates. I mean, when EIA changes their price forecast by 38 percent, that must have some significance --

MR. FRIEDRICHS: But if you're looking -- MR. SCHLEEDE: and unless you're willing to divulge where this stuff is --

MR. FRIEDRICHS: In each case, the process used, discount rates, price forecast, everything, are described in the Technical Support Documents.

MR. SCHLEEDE: Are they available? MR. FRIEDRICHS: Those are available and, if you have difficulty getting them, I'm sure that Ed and his staff can locate them for you. I'm just saying that there is not a single set of assumptions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 26 

### 1 Sometimes they'veused slightlydifferent 2 assumptions about discount rates for calculating the 3 

### new present value of benefits. So, unfortunately, 4 

### there isn't one single methodology, but at this stage 5 we don't think that single methodology is necessary; 6 because we're really just trying to get an idea of 7 relative impacts of possible standards in different 8 categories. We're not lookingfor a lot of precision. 9 

### MR. SCHLEEDE: I hate to beat this into 10 the ground, but still there must be some kind of a 11 process thatyou've got that you 

### evenmake these rough 12 

### estimates. I mean, when EIA changes their price 13 

### forecast by 38 percent, that must have some 14 significance 15 

### MR. FRIEDRICHS: But if you're looking

-- 16 

### MR. SCHLEEDE: and unless you're 17 willing to divulge where this stuff is

-- 18 

### MR. FRIEDRICHS: Ineachcase, theprocess 19 used, discount rates, price forecast, everything, are 20 described in the Technical Support Documents. 21 

### MR. SCHLEEDE: Are they available? 22 

### MR. FRIEDRICHS: Those are available and, 23 if you have difficulty getting them, I'm sure that Ed 24 

### and his staff can locate them for you. I'm just 25 

### saying that there is not a single set of assumptions

(202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27

which have been used for all of the savings, because they have been done at different times.

So the price forecasts have changed, and we haven' t gone back to update this analysis. We'll do that in the rulemaking process, if there's. a determination that we should go forward with a rule in that area. MODERATOR BROOKMAN: And there's the interpretive rule also.

MR. POLLOCK: Which does describe some of those steps. MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Some of the steps. Additional questions here about the criteria?

MR. POLLOCK: Let me point out that what we come out with at the end of this prioritization process is just a grouping. As I pointed out, we do have the task of the test procedures, and what is published in the Federal Register notice on the regulatory agenda will be a proposed schedule which identifies when we would expect to publish the notice of proposed rulemaking and when we would expect to publish the final rule.

That will be different from the final type of information that comes out of this meeting. We will take this information, based on determining what

(202) 234-4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 27 1 which have been used for all of the savings, because 2 they have been done at different times. 3 So the price forecasts have changed, and 4 we haven't gone back to update this analysis. We'll 5 do that in the rulemaking process, if there's. a 6 determination that we shouldgo forward with a rule in 7 that area. 8 MODERATOR BROOKMAN: And there's the 9 interpretive rule also. 10 MR. POLLOCK: Which does describe some of 11 those steps. 12 MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Some of the steps. 13 Additional questions here about the criteria? 14 MR. POLLOCK: Let me point out that what 15 we come out with at the end of this prioritization 16 process is just a grouping. As I pointed out, we do 17 have the task of the test procedures, and what is 18 published in the Federal Register notice on the 19 regulatory agenda will be a proposed schedule which 20 identifies when we would expect to publish the notice 21 of proposed rulemaking and when we would expect to 22 publish the final rule. 23 Thatwillbedifferent fromthe final type 24 of information that comes out of this meeting. We 25 will take this information, based on determiningwhat

(202)234-4433 

### NEALA. 

### GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENue, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C.20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28

we should put at the high level, what we should focus our effort on during 1997, and then factor that into .the resources and the workload that we have, to come up with what we issue in that agenda.

It is our intent to put that schedule together and to circulate that for industry comment before we publish that as a final rule. We will not have another workshop on it, but we do seek your input on that schedule so that we can consider your concerns in developing that schedule before it's finalized.

Other questions? Okay, let's go on and talk a little bit about the process that we of us on the staff had used to develop a methodology for ranking these products.

The preliminary set of criteria for ranking the products was proposed during the early meetings with the interested parties, what we call the Ad Hoc Committee, and was presented at the workshop in March. It is listed also in the interpretive rule.

There have been some amendments to the language, but basically the criteria that we're using have remained pretty much the same. Foremost in our concern, because that is our job, is saving energy. So the number one criteria, the thing that you find at the top of the list if you look at any one of these --

(202) 234.4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 i! 28 1 

### we shouldput at the high level, what we should focus 2 

### our effort on during 1997, and then factor that into 3 

### .the resources and the workload that we have, to come 4 

### up with what we issue in that agenda. 5 

### It is our intent to put that schedule

.- 

### 6 together and to circulate that for industry comment 7 before we publish that as a final rule. We will not 8 have anotherworkshop on it, butwe do seekyour input 9 onthat schedule so thatwe canconsideryour concerns 10 in developing that schedule before it's finalized. 11 Other questions? Okay, let's go on and 12 talk a little bit about the process that we of us on 13 the staff had used to develop a methodology for 14 ranking these products. 15 

### The preliminary set of criteria for 16 ranking the products was proposed during the early 17 meetings with the interestedparties, what we call the 18 Ad Hoc Conunittee, andwas presented at theworkshop in 19 March. It is listed also in the interpretive rule. 20 There have been some amendments to the 21 language, but basically the criteria that we'reusing 22 have remained pretty much the same. Foremost in our 23 concern, because that is our jobr 

### is saving energy. 24 So the numberone criteria, the thingthat you find at 25 the top of the list if you look at anyone of these

(202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C.20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29

Right now I don't want to focus on going through the bigger product but just focus on these different categories that we have identified for ranking the priorities. Energy savings and costs -- These numbers here represent source energy, because we put them into a common reference database relationship so that we can compare electric product with gas product and so on. So the numbers that you see in the block on any one of the tables will be source energy.

They can range over quite a range. What we have done, depending on how far along, what sources we had for information, if we've done some analysis, we use the analysis for projected efficiency and projection of national energy savings.

Again, I want to emphasize. The important thing here is to give us relative ranking. We recognize that in many cases the high end of these may represent technologies which are not economically justified, which may have severe impact on the industry, but at this point in time we have not made an attempt. to filter those out.

What we are looking for, though, is in the next block where we talk about economic benefits and where we talk about the burdens, we would want people 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 29 1 Right now I don't want to focus on going through the 2 bigger product but just focus on these different 3 categories that we have identified for ranking the 4 priorities. 5 Energy savings and costs -- These numbers 6 here represent sourceenergy, becausewe put theminto 7 a common reference database relationship so that we 8 can compare electric product with gas product and so 9 on. So the numbers that you see in the block on any 10 one of the tables will be source energy. 11 They can range over quite a range. What 12 we have done, dependingonhow far along, what sources 13 we had for information, if we've done some analysis, 14 we use the analysis for projected efficiency and 15 projection of national energy savings. 16 Again, I want toemphasize. The important 17 thing here is to give us relative ranking. We 18 recognize that inmany cases the highendof thesemay 19 represent technologies which are not economically 20 justified, which may have severe impact on the 21 industry, but at this point in time we have not made 22 an attempt. to filter those out. 23 Whatwe are lookingfor, though, is inthe 24 next block where we talk about economic benefits and 25 where we talk about the burdens, we would want people

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### A. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 30

who have information concerning both sides , benefits and burdens, to provide us with comment of issues that we should consider for any of the energy levels which are represented above.

So that if there is, in the case of water heaters, heat pump water heaters , you probably will already find, because we know about that already, that this imposes a severe burden on the existing water heater manufacturers, because there ' s a radical change in technology. We realize it puts a burden on a large part of the population.

We're aware of that . We've still put the number up there, just for consideration, to show, yes, there is this potential range, but we want to better identify the problems with going to that range so that, when we actually come to the point of making a decision on what the energy potential savings really is, we can narrow that down a little bit; but at this point in time, in many cases we won't have done, and especially in the future, much analysis to get to these numbers . We're looking at the range of potential. So, therefore, it has to be somewhat subjective, and we're going to be taking a best guess 25 11 of where we think the final next level of energy

(202) 2344433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234.4433 ", 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 who have information concerning both sides, benefits andburdens, toprovideus with comment of issues that we should consider for any of the energy levels which are represented above.

'I So that if there is, in the case of water heaters, heat pump water heaters, you probably will already find, becausewe know about that already, that this imposes a severe burden on the existing water heatermanufacturers, becausethere's a radical change in technology. We realize it puts a burden on a large part of the population. We're aware of that. We've still put the numberup there, just for consideration, to show, yes, there is this potential range, but we want to better identify the problems with going to that range so that, when we actually come to the point of making a decision on what the energy potential savings really is, we can narrow that down a little bit; but at this point in time, in many cases we won't have done, and especially in the future, much analysis to get to these numbers. We're looking at the range of potential. So, therefore, it has to be somewhat subjective, and we're going to be taking a best guess of where we think the final next level of energy

(202)234-4433 

### NEALA. 

### GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C.20005 (202)234·44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31

efficiency will fall in making our decision, but there's also the risk, when we do something like this, of signaling a level of efficiency which may or may not be the final answer when you go through the analysis. Jim, I see you have a question.

MR. CRAWFORD: One, is this the only class of appliance for which you've done a 15 year energy projection versus a 30 year projection?

MR. POLLOCK: At the present time, I didn't want to get into -- When you're referring to energy projection --

MR. CRAWFORD: Well, you've got -- I don't care about the numbers, but this is a 15 year span.

MR. POLLOCK: Let's let Mike respond to that. MR. CRAWFORD: I'm sorry, '93.

MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, ABL. I believe the forecasts that end in the year 2015 were taken out of 1990 TSDs that were prepared for laundry products.

MR. CRAWFORD: All the others go out to 30. MR. RIVEST : Right. They do go to 30, and you're right. In most cases , we have tried to be consistent. When you were asking the question, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (202) 234-4.433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234.4433 I 31 

### 1 efficiency will fall in making our decision, but 2 there's also the risk, whenwe do somethinglike this, 3 of signaling a level of efficiency which mayor may 4 not be the final answer when you 

### go through the 5 analysis. 6 Jim, I see you 

### have a question. 7 

### MR. CRAWFORD: One, is this the onlyclass 8 of appliance for which you've done a 15 year energy 9 projection versus a 30 year projection? 10 MR. POLLOCK: At the present time, I 11 didn't want to get into When you're referring to 12 energy projection

-- 13 

### MR. CRAWFORD: Well, you'vegot - - I don't 14 care about the numbers, but this is a 15 year span. 15 

### MR. POLLOCK: Let's let Mike respond to 16 that. 17 

### MR. CRAWFORD: I'm sorry, '93. 18 

### MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, ABL. I believe 19 the forecasts that end in theyear 2015 were taken out 20 of 1990 TSDs that were prepared for laundryproducts. 21 MR. CRAWFORD: All the others go out to 22 30. 23 

### MR. RIVEST: Right. Theydo go to 30, and 24 

### you're right. In most cases I 

### we have tried to be 25 consistent.

(202)234-4433 

### When you were asking the question, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234·443332

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 didn't realize we had the shorter time frame here. MR. CRAWFORD: Second question that goes right along with that, which will apply all the way across the board: Do we have a base number for total energy consumption in the U.S. over this 2000 to 2030 period, so we know whether we're talking about 10 percent of the energy consumption is on the table here or .0001 percent is on the table here? I think that should have something to do with our determinations.

MR. POLLOCK: We do have numbers that were generated by a study that the man sitting back there looking at his paper --Jim Broderick' s group has done. There was a report that was issued. I don't know if we have a copy of it here today.

MR. FRIEDRICHS: There is a very simple rule of thumb. We consume about 88 quads now a year. You can take that up to about 100, about 3,000 quads between now -- over a 30-year period. You can make it 2500 or 3500, but that's the rule of thumb.

MR. POLLOCK: The report I'm referring to actually breaks it out product by product. So that, if you're looking at a bigger product and where it ranks, it gives you some -- and I agree with you, Jim -- it gives you some relative merit to say, well, if we get 10 percent because it's such a large amount of 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 32 

### 1 didn't realize we had the shorter time frame here. 2 

### MR. CRAWFORD: Second question that goes 3 right along with that, which will apply all the way 4 

### across the board: Do we have a base number for total 5 

### energy consumption in the U.S. over this 2000 to 2030 6 period, so we know whether we're talking about 10 7 percent of the energyconsumptionis onthe table here 8 or .0001 percent is on the table here? I think that 9 should have something to do with our determinations. 10 MR. POLLOCK: We dohavenumbers thatwere 11 generated by a study that the man sitting back there 12 lookingat hispaper --JimBroderick'sgrouphas done. 13 There was a report that was issued. I don't know if 14 we have a copy of it here today. 15 MR. FRIEDRICHS: There is a very simple 16 rule of thumb. We consume about 88 quads now a year. 17 You can take that up to about 100, about 3,000 quads 18 betweennow -- over a 30-yearperiod. You canmake it 19 2500 or 3500, but that's the rule of thumb. 20 MR. POLLOCK: The report I'mreferring to 21 actually breaks it out product by product. So that, 22 if you're.looking at a bigger product and where it 23 ranks, it gives you some -- and I agree with you, Jim 24 it gives you some relative merit to say, well, if 25 we get 10 percent because it's such a large amount of

(202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C.20005 (202) 234·443333 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1

### 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 energy being used, that -- MR. CRAWFORD: This is exactly what I was .looking for, so that we knew where our economy is going and we knew where to focus.

MODERATOR BROOKMAN: You're comfortable with that number, Jim?

MR. POLLOCK: The next block below the benefit burden block is the environmental impact. Certainly, that is very important for the nation, for the world, considering the benefits from the environmental pollution reductions as well as, if the energy is oil especially, the national security, although most of our products represent a smaller percentage of that.

The thing that we're really looking for, for our decision making purposes, in this block is not those quantities of carbon or CO2 reduction but more discriminators. If we are.looking at standards for water heating and we go to one level, will there be fuel switching, and what will that impact be on the environment as far as pollutants go, or are there components which might be used in reaching a higher energy efficiency, a different type of insulation which represents some sort of environmental hazard?

Hopefully, that won't exist, but those are

NEAP R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234.4433 'i 33 

### 1 energy being used, that 2 

### MR. CRAWFORD: This is exactlywhat I was 3 

### looking for, so that we knew where our economy is 4 

### going and we knew where to focus. 5 

### MODERATOR BROOKMAN: You're comfortable 6 

### with that number, Jim? 7 

### MR. POLLOCK: The next block below the 8 benefit burden block is the environmental impact. 9 Certainly, that is very important for the nation, for 10 

### the world, considering the benefits from the 11 environmental pollution reductions as well as, if the 12 energy is oil especially, the national security, 13 although most of our products represent a smaller 14 percentage of that. 15 The thing that we're really looking for, 16 for ourdecisionmakingpurposes, inthisblockis not 17 those quantities of carbon or CO2 

### reduction but more 18 

### discriminators. If we are looking at standards for 19 water heating and we go to one level, will there be 20 fuel switching, and what will that impact be on the 21 environment as far as pollutants go, or are there 22 components which might be used in reaching a higher 23 energy efficiency, a different type of insulation 24 which represents some sort of environmental hazard? 25 Hopefully, thatwonI

### t existI 

### butthoseare

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234·44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34

the types of things that we need to have called to our attention so that, when we are looking at ranking these energy savings numbers that we have at the top, we're aware of the environmental impact of going to a particular standard level and what that represents. Is that clear? Any questions on that?

MR. FRIEDRICHS: Mark Friedrichs again. Just an expansion on that. The environmental numbers are basically just derivatives of the energy savings numbers, and they use standard conversion factors of how much CO2 is emitted by the electric utility sector, how much NOX and SO2 it has, and for direct combustion products similar conversion factors.

So it's relative -- Once you have the energy savings numbers, it's relatively easy to get these rough estimates of environmental impacts. What Ed is saying is that what we're really looking for here is the other kinds of environmental impacts that may not be simply derivative.

MR. POLLOCK: Right, and looking for those which deviate from the rule of thumb that we may not be aware of that we need to be alerted to.

The next block is the statutory deadline. In many cases , for the residential products we are behind schedule now. So, obviously, that date would 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON

. O.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 34 

### 1 the types of things that we need to have called to our 2 

### attention so that, when we are looking at ranking 3 these energy savings nuwbers that we have at the top, 4 

### we're aware of the environmental impact of going to a 5 particular standard level and what that represents. 6 Is that clear? Any questions on that? 7 MR. FRIEDRICHS: Mark Friedrichs again. 8 Just an expansion on that. The environmental numbers 9 are basically just derivatives of the energy savings 10 

### numbers, and they use standard conversion factors of 11 

### how much CO2 is emitted by the electric utility 12 

### sector, how much NOX and S02 it has, and for direct 13 combustion products similar conversion factors. 14 

### So it's relative Once you have the 15 energy savings numbers, it's relatively easy to get 16 these rough estimates of environmental impacts. What 17 Ed is saying is that what we're really looking for 18 here is the otherkinds of environmental impacts that 19 may not be simply derivative. 20 

### MR. POLLOCK: Right, andlookingforthose 21 

### which deviate from the rule of thumb that we may not 22 

### be aware of that we need to be alerted to. 23 

### The next block is the statutorydeadline. 24 

### In many cases, for the residential products we are 25 

### behind schedule now. So, obviously, that date would

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C.20005 (202) 234·44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 35

indicate to as that it's one that is in for consideration.

I discussed a little bit earlier, there are some products which we are triggered by actions form other organizations. There are also cases where the EPCA rule proscribes for electric motors that in 1999, I believe it is, we are to begin rulemaking processes . So that date would represent here and, of course, would be considered in determining whether we should be moving forward with work during the next couple of years on that.

Then the next block, which deals with Terry' s comment earlier this morning: That is the amount of resources that were required to complete the rulemaking process . This data block probably will be dropped in the future , but right now it's a very important consideration for us in deciding what we're going to do during 1997 and '98.

The other regulatory impacts from other organizations, as well as from DOE, need to be considered. I already discussed that . I don't know if we need to go into that any further, but it is a concern to us that we consider that so that we don't put undue burden on any particular manufacturer in 25 II developing our rules.

(202) 234-4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 

## , i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 indicate to us that it's one that is in for consideration. I discussed a little bit earlier, there are some products which we are triggered by actions form other organizations. There are also cases where 'the EPCA rule proscribes for electric motors that in

1999, I believe it is, we are to begin rulemaking processes. So that date would represent here and, of course, wouldbe considered indeterminingwhether we should be moving forward with work during the next couple of years on that. Then the next block, which deals with Terry's comment earlier this morning: That is the amount of resources that were required to complete the rulemaking process. This data blockprobably will be dropped in the future, but right now it's a very important consideration for us in decidingwhat we're going to do during 1997 and '98. The other regulatory impacts from other organizations, as well as from DOE, need to be considered. I already discussed that. I don't know if we need to go into that any further, but it is a concern to us that we consider that so that we don't put undue burden on any particular manufacturer in developing our rules.

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. NW. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 We can deal with this in two ways. One is to delay the actual rulemaking process. The other way would be to change the effective dates of the new standard. So this is an initial look at that impact, but it's not the final lcok at that impact.

Stakeholder recommendations: There may be some cases where the industry has indicated that they are developing a voluntary program which will augment or replace any rulemaking that we might be doing. We've been discussing with Philip here this morning the work that they are doing with the distribution transformers.

Certainly, given the fact that we do not have enough rulemaking or funds to do rulemakings for every products, where there is an effective program that is doing the same thing that we would be able to do with standards, there is no justification for us moving forward. So, certainly, we will be looking at those types of issues , and recommendations of other types from the manufacturers of which rules we should be doing first.

As we go through today, one of the things that I would encourage people to comment on -- I've given you a definition of high, low and medium. I'd like to hear comments as we go by product by product, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 36 

### 1 We candeal with this intwoways. One is 2 todelaythe actual rulemakingprocess. The otherway 3 would be to change the effective dates of the new 4 standard. So this is an initial look at that impact, 5 but it's not the final leok at that impact. 6 Stakeholderrecommendations: Theremaybe 7 some cases where the industry has indicated that they 8 are developing a voluntaryprogramwhichwill augment 9 or replace any rulemaking that we might be doing. 10 We've been discussing with Philip here this morning 11 the work·that they are doing with the distribution 12 transformers. 13 Certainly, given the fact that we do not 14 have enough rulemaking or funds to do rulemakings for 15 every products, where there is an effective program 16 that is doing the same thing that we wouldbe able to 17 do with standards, there is no justification for us 18 moving forward. So, certainly, we will be looking at 19 those types of issues, and recommendations of other 20 types from the manufacturers of which rules we should 21 be doing first. 22 As we go through today, one of the things 23 that I would encourage people to comment on -- I've 24 given you a definition of high, low and medium. I'd 25 like to hear comments as we go byproduct byproduct,

(202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE, NW. WASHINGTON, D.C.20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37

do you consider this a product which we should be focusing our work on next year or is it something that should be delayed a little bit or is it something that should be put down in that bottom level, in the delay indefinitely? Philip?

MR. HOPKINSON: Phil Hopkinson from Square D. My question is, if indeed we have a sufficient voluntary standard, even though we also have a significant benefit, does that put us in a low priority then? What does that do in terms of priority ranking? MR. POLLOCK: It is certainly something we would have to consider. It's one factor. I think we need to -- It would not be the only factor, and we would have to have more information on the success of the program and what it really represents before we would make a final decision which group it goes into.

MR. FRIEDRICHS: Mark Friedrichs again. I wanted to make one other comment on stakeholder recommendations. There are certain products where we're in the midst of the rulemaking or where we might initiate a rulemaking where the energy savings or benefits of the standard might be quite small. So in other words, normally the priority setting process might rank the product relatively low.

(202) 234-4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 37 

### 1 do you consider this a product which we should be 2 focusing ourwork onnextyear or is it something that 3 shouldbedelayeda littlebit or is it something that 4 shouldbe put down in that bottom level, in the delay 5 indefinitely? Philip? 6 

### MR. HOPKINSON: PhilHopkinsonfromSquare 7 D. 

### My question is, if indeed we have a sufficient 8 voluntary standard, even though we also have a 9 significant benefit, does that put us in a low 10 priority then? What does that do interms ofpriority 11 ranking?. 12 MR. POLLOCK: It iscertainlysomethingwe 13 would have to consider. It's one factor. I think we 14 need to -- It would not be the only factor, and we 15 would have to have more information on the success of 16 the program and what it really represents before we 17 would make a final decision which group it goes into. 18 

### MR. FRIEDRICHS: Mark Friedrichs again. 19 I wanted to make one other comment on stakeholder 20 

### recommendations. There are certain products where 21 we're inthemidst of the rulemakingorwhere we might 22 initiate**~** 

### rulemaking where the energy savings or 23 benefits of the standardmight be quite small. So in 24 other words, normally the priority setting process 25 

### might rank the product relatively low.

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE, N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C.20005 (202) 234·44331 2 3 4 5

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 An example might be ranges and microwave ovens. We're fairly far along in that process. It's .a relatively small impact or no impact, if we actually decide not to strengthen the standard, but the stakeholders, both the manufacturers as well as the energy efficiency advocates may want us to complete that rulemaking.

So we would need to hear whether or not there was some overriding reason why we should go forward with a rule, even though the rule might otherwise rank fairly low.

MR. POLLOCK: The stakeholder recommendations -- Right below that then is the issue of the voluntary programs -- Oh.

MR. LEWIS: Dave Lewis, Lennox. One more question on stakeholders. Just because a certain manufacturer has a unique product that they are producing or could product,. the Department of Energy will look at the qualitative aspect of stakeholder suggestions as well as raw data. Right?

MR. POLLOCK: That's right. MR. LEWIS: I guess what I'm looking at is, as I go through here, I see most of this being very quantitative. I mean, by and large, most of the information here that we've so far discussed has been

(202) 234.4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 '. 38 1 

### An example might be ranges and microwave 2 ovens. We're fairly far along in that process. It's 3arelatively small impact orno impact, ifwe actually 4 decide not to strengthen the standard, but the 5 

### st'akeholders, both the manufacturers as well as the 6 

### energy efficiency advocates may want us to complete 7 

### that rulemaking. 8 

### So we would need to hear whether or not 9 

### there was some overriding reason why we should go 10 

### forward with a rule, even though the rule might 11 

### otherwise rank fairly low. 12 

### MR. POLLOCK: The stakeholder 13 

### recommendations Right below that then is the issue 14 of the voluntary programs -- Oh. 15 

### MR. LEWIS: Dave Lewis, Lennox. One more 16 

### question on stakeholders. Just because a certain 17 manufacturer has a unique product that they are 18 producing or could product, the Department of Energy 19 will look at the qualitative aspect of stakeholder 20 suggestions as well as raw data. Right? 21 

### MR. POLLOCK: That's right. 22 MR. LEWIS: I guess what I'm looking at 23 is, as I go through here, I see most of this being 24 very quantitative. I mean, by and large, most of the 25 information here that we've so far discussed has been

(202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE, N,W. WASHINGTON. D.C.20005 (202)234-443339

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 very much on the more documented side. Here, we have stakeholder recommendations, which is a rather broad topic, and I guess the concern is we've had a historical experience some years back with a given competitor that looked to use government regulations to provide a marketplace advantage for them. I guess I hope that the Department wouldn't be caught in that kind of a situation.

MR. POLLOCK: What we're looking for here more is group recommendations. Certainly, if we could have a -- In the case of refrigerators where there was the group of interested people who came together and provided us with a proposed standard level, that represents a strong recommendation to us of we should proceed, because they've already got a recommendation.

It certainly would be of interest to us if all of the manufacturers came together and provided a recommendation. Where it's a single manufacturer, how much value does that have? You know, there's common sense here of what we place on this, and certainly, just because one manufacturer is pushing that does not represent.something that we would put much weight on.

The next block is the market or voluntary programs. I emphasize

-- we stated this morning in the small group that our Assistant Secretary,

(202) 2344433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 : I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 

### very much on the more documented side. Here, wehavestakeholderrecommendations, which is a ratherbroadtopic, and I guess the concern is we've had a historical experience some years back with a given competitor that looked touse government regulations to provide a marketplace advantage for them. I guess I hope that the Department wouldn't be caught in that kind of a situation. MR. POLLOCK: What we're looking for here more isgrouprecommendations. Certainly, ifwe could have a -- Inthe case of refrigeratorswhere therewas the group of interested people who came together and provided us with a proposed standard level, that represents a strongrecommendation tous of we should proceed, becausethey'vealreadygota recommendation. It certainlywouldbeof interest tous if all of the manufacturers came together andprovided a recommendation. Whereit'sa singlemanufacturer, how much value does that have? You know, there's common sense here of what we place on this, and certainly, justbecauseonemanufacturerispushingthatdoes not represent.something that we wouldputmuchweight on. The next block is themarket orvoluntary programs. I emphasize

-- we stated this morning in the small group that our Assistant Secretary,

(202)234-4433 NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C.20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40

Christine Irvin; would much rather see us be able to use a voluntary program rather than go to a mandatory rogram for these standards.

In our office where we're doing the analysis, where we see that -- One of the important factors is the economic justification. Well, if a voluntary program is doing the same thing as what we would be doing so that any increase in standards or even the cost of implementing a mandatory program to achieve that level of savings, then we can show economic justification for moving forward.

So it's a very important consideration for us to include. The other side of the voluntary programs, and it doesn't play so much in the decision of prioritization but it certainly might play into the schedule for issuing the final rule, is that there may be voluntary programs that complement the standards rulemaking. In the case of the distribution transformers, there may be a situation where we may not want to move forward with mandatory standards, but the adoption of the test procedure and coming out with labeling would help that programs, and so the two would work in concert.

So there are various mixes of this. Where

(202) 234.4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 , I 40 1 Christine Irvin-, would much rather see us be able to 2 use a voluntaryprogram rather than go to a mandatory 3 _program for these standards. 4 In our office where we're doing the 5 analysis, where we see that

-- One of the important 6 -factors is the economic justification. Well, if a 7 voluntary program is doing the same thing as what we 8 would be doing so that any increase in standards or 9 even the cost of implementing a mandatory program to 10 achieve that level of savings, then we can show 11 economicjustification for moving forward. 12 So it'sa veryimportant considerationfor 13 us to include. The other side of the voluntary 14 programs, and it doesn't play so much in the decision 15 ofprioritizationbut it certainlymight play into the 16 schedule for issuing the final rule, is that theremay 17 be voluntary programs that complement the standards 18 rulemaking. 19 In the case of the distribution 20 transformers, there may be a situation where we may 21 not want tomove forwardwithmandatory standards, but 22 the adoptionof the testprocedure and comingout with 23 labeling would help that programs, and so the two 24 would work in concert. 25

(202)234-4433 So there arevariousmixes of this. Where NEAL R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C.20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 .5 6 7 8

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41

we're issuing a more stringent standard, there may be market pool programs that would help make the transition, develop the market for the product before the effective date of the standard.

This is the type of thing where we're looking for various people who have an interest in this particular product or standard to join with us to find ways that we can work together to develop programs on the market pool side on the standards program that make sense, that complement, that minimize the burden, and to maximize the savings. Any questions on this?

Then the next block, I have touched on a little bit already, is the issue of the test procedures. Certainly, if we are going into technologies which will -- which are not covered by current test procedures or, if we're looking at a new product which we have not yet adopted test procedures for, then that work has to be completed before we can complete standards rulemaking.

That doesn't mean that we won 't begin to look at the analysis, collect information on how we're going to model or determine what the energy potential savings is , but we will not go to a final rule until we have an agreement on the test methodology that will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 

### 41 1 

### we're issuing a more stringent standard, theremay be 2 market pool programs that would help make the 3 transition, develop themarket for theproduct before 4 the effective date of the standard. .5 

### This is the type of thing where we're 6 looking for various people who have an interest in 7 thisparticularproduct orstandardtojoinwithus to 8 find ways that we can work together to develop 9 programs on the market pool side on the standards 10 program that make sense, that complement, that 11 minimizetheburden, and tomaximize the savings. Any 12 questions on this? 13 Then the next block, I have touched on a 14 little bit already, is the issue of the test 15 

### procedures. Certainly, if we are going into 16 technologies which will

-- which are not covered by 17 current test procedures or, if we're looking at a new 18 product whichwe have not yet adopted test procedures 19 for, then that work has to be completedbefore we can 20 complete standards rulemaking. 21 That doesn't mean that we won't begin to 22 lookat theanalysis, collectinformationonhowwe're 23 going tomodel ordetermine what the energypotential 24 savings is, but we will not go to a final rule until 25 we have an agreement onthe testmethodologythatwill

(202)234-4433 

### NEALA. 

### GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C.20005 (202) 234'44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42

be used to measure that performance. So we need to know that in establishing priority.

MR. FRIEDRICHS: Just a small clarification: We've actually committed to not go to a proposed rule unless we have completed modification to the test procedure.

MR. POLLOCK: And have a draft document, but the final draft --

MR. FRIEDRICHS: The final changes to the test procedure before we have a proposed standard. I think that's stated in the new process.

MR. POLLOCK: And then last block is just the catchall for other information that we as decision makers on setting these schedules should be aware of, where we're looking for anyone who has information to bear on this decision making can provide us with comment that we should consider.

Are these questions on this in general? Then after the break we'll come back and begin to go through product by product and look at some of the numbers and the comments that we have to date.

I also wanted to just emphasize that we have made -- In the letter that was sent out to you, we've made a comment in there that we will receive written comment on these data sheets until July 12. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON

. D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 42 

### 1 be used to measure that performance. So we need to 2 know that in establishing priority. 3 

### MR. FRIEDRICHS: Just a 

### small 4 

### clarification: We've actually committed to not go to 5 a proposedrule unless we have completedmodification 6 to the test procedure. 7 

### MR. POLLOCK: And have a draft document, 8 but the final draft

-- 9 

### MR. FRIEDRICHS: The final changes to the 10 test procedure before we have a proposed standard. I 11 think that's stated in the new process. 12 MR. POLLOCK: And then lastblock isjust 13 the catchall forotherinformationthatwe as decision 14 makers on setting these schedules shouldbe aware of, 15 where we're looking for anyone who has information to 16 bear on this decision making can provide us with 17 comment that we should consider. 18 Are these questions on this in general? 19 Then after the break we'll come back and begin to go 20 through product by product and look at some of the 21 numbers and the comments that we have to date. 22 I also wanted to just emphasize that we 23 have made

-- In the letter that was sent out to you, 24 we've made a comment in there that we will receive 25 written comment on these data sheets until July 12.

(202)234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C.20005 (202) 234-44331 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43

There may be some of you who are concerned about some of the numbers that are here, and we would welcome .corrections to these numbers with some documentation to justify changes in the numbers , which we will consider and put into the final version of these data sheets before we begin our actual final grouping of the products for proceeding to the regulatory agenda.

MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Additional final questions before we go to break? I see none. There were a few individuals that came in that didn't get a chance to introduce themselves at the outset. Would you introduce yourselves now? I know, for example, Mark, you came in. Would you introduce yourself, please? I thought I saw a few others that didn't introduce themselves. Yes?

MR. BARZELL: Dan Barzell with Circuit City. MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes?

MR. KUMAR: B.J. Kumar, Energetics. MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Anybody else that didn't get a chance to introduce themselves? Great. Let's take -- Let's try and make this a fairly short break -- 10 minutes, and we're going to try and start up again. We've got a lot of work to do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. (202) 234

.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234.4433 43 1 

### There may be some of you who are concerned about some 2 of the numbers that are here, and we would welcome 3 corrections to these numbers with some documentation 4 to justify changes in the numbers, which we will 5 consider andput into the final version of these data 6 sheets before we begin our actual final grouping of 7 the products for proceeding to the regulatoryagenda. 8 

### MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Additional final 9 

### questions before we go to break? I see none. There 10 were a few individuals that came in that didn't get a 11 chance to introduce themselves at the outset. Would 12 you introduce yourselves now? I know, for example, 13 

### Mark, you came in. Would you introduce yourself , 14 

### please? I thought I saw a few others that didn't 15 introduce themselves. Yes? 16 

### MR. BARZELL: Dan Barzell with Circuit 17 City. 18 

### MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes? 19 

### MR. KUMAR: B.J. Kumar, Energetics. 20 

### MODERATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Anybody 21 else that didn'tget a chance tointroducethemselves? 22 Great. 23 Let's take

-- Let's try and make this a 24 fairly short break

-- 10 minutes, and we're going to 25 try and startup again. We've got a lot of work to do

(202)234-4433 

### NEALA. 

### GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C.20006 (202)234·443344 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 here. Please avail yourselves of the

refreshments.(WHEREUPON, the workshop was recessed briefly at 10:00 a.m.)

(202) 2344433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 44 1 here. 2 Please avail yourselves of the 3 refreshments. 4 (WHEREUPON, the workshop was recessed 5 briefly at 10:00 a.m.) 6 

## - - 

### - 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

### NEAL

### R. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVENUE,N.w.**(202)~** WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005 (202) 234·443345 CERTIFICATE

''This is to certify that the foregoing transcript in the matter of: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY APPLIANCE STANDARDS WORKSHOP OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION CRITERIA Before: DOUG BROOKMAN, FACILITATOR

Date: JUNE 14, 1996

Place: WASHINGTON, D.C.

represents the full and complete proceedings of the aforementioned matter, as reported and reduced to typewriting.

JOHN MONGOVI^'

(202) 2344433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. NW WASHINGTON,D.C. 20006 (202) 2344433 45 CERTIFICATE



### :'This is to certifythat the foregoing transcript in the matter of:

Before:

Date:

Place: 

## u.s. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY APPLIANCE STANDARDS WORKSHOP OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION CRITERIA DOUG BROOKMAN, FACILITATOR

JUNE 14, 1996

WASHINGTON, D.C.



### represents the full and complete proceedings of the aforementioned matter, as reported and reduced to typewriting.

(202)234-4433 

### NEAL

### A. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODEISLANDAVENUE.tNI WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005 (202)234-4433