Stakeholder Analysis

The Europeans’ close relationship with international standards-setting bodies like the ISO and IEC was key to the development of EN 61000-3-2.  It was not, however, the European electronic/electrical equipment manufacturers that pushed for the adoption of EN 61000-3-2, but rather the European power producers. Power producers dominated the committees responsible for the standard in both the IEC and CENELEC despite the large impact the standard will have on the electronic/electrical industries. 

I.       The European Utilites Industry  

IEC sub-committee 77A (SC77A) was formed and began working on the development of a harmonics standard in 1981. But it wasn’t until 1988, after seven years of work, that representatives from the IT industry were included on SC77A. By that time, it was already focused on the interests of the European utility industry. Despite IT industry complaints, the standard quickly grew to encompass all products connected to electric utility power lines.[1] When in the early 1990s, TC74/WG9[2] discovered some safety problems associated with high harmonic currents and circulated several proposals to address these problems, SC77A was unwilling to accept the proposals.[3] “Dr. Gretsch, convenor of SC77A/WG1, agreed that at least one of the proposals was logical, but he was not willing to agree to a change or write IT into the second half of 61000-3-2 (1KW to 16 amps).”[4] 

Currently, IT manufacturer participation in SC77A is gradually increasing, particularly within WG1 (harmonics).  Now, the agenda and content is being more influenced by objective data brought to the table by manufacturers.  However, the attitude toward the IT industry’s presence on SC77A and its working group is still somewhat negative.  For example, some SC77A members have recently started a campaign against the IT industry saying that it is trying to get special and unfair advantage from various proposed amendments (e.g. 77A/261/CDV and 77A/262/CDV).[5]  

There are several reasons why the European utilities want to limit low frequency emissions from products. The main reason seems to be that European utilities wish to begin delivering high-speed, residential Internet access over power lines. In early 1999, 10 European utilities in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and England began testing the feasibility of such service. If the tests prove successful, so-called digital-power-line service may open a large market in Europe that could put utilities in direct competition with traditional telecommunications companies for voice and data services.[6]  The utilities probably developed IEC/EN 61000-3-2 in order to guard against the theoretical possibility that LFE emitted by electronic/electrical products could impede the development of digital-power-line service. 

IEC/EN 61000-3-2 also solves problems that the older, more inefficient, southern European utilities are having because of the increased use of electronic/electrical products. Instead of upgrading and rebuilding these utilities, the industry sought to remedy the problem via the standard. 

Some electronic/electrical product manufacturers also believe that Electricité de France (EDF) is behind the LFE requirements.  EDF is a world operator in the power field and is pursuing an international strategy based on investment and the sale of services.  Recently, EDF expanded its presence in Europe and strengthened its position as a partner European electrical utility.  It is also one of the leading operators in this market, which is undergoing far-reaching changes and moving toward unification.  One of these far reaching changes may be to not only deliver energy, but Internet services as well.  

II.    Non-Governmental and Quasi-Governmental Institutions  

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)[7]  

For more than 80 years the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has served as administrator and coordinator of the United States private-sector voluntary standardization system.  Since its founding in 1918, the Institute has remained a private, non-profit membership organization supported by a diverse constituency of private and public sector organizations.   

ANSI promotes and facilitates the development and use of voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessments systems; it represents the interests of companies, organizations, government agencies, and institutional and international members.   

ANSI does not itself develop American national standards.  Instead, it facilitates development by working to build consensus among qualified groups. The more than 175 distinct entities currently accredited under one of ANSI’s three methods of accreditation (organization, committee or canvass) are required to follow its guiding principles—consensus, due process, and openness.  

ANSI’s most important role in the context of IEC/EN 61000-3-2 is that it serves as the sole U.S. representative and dues-paying member of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).[8] The U.S. National Committee (USNC), which represents ANSI in the IEC, is one of 12 members on the IEC’s governing Committee of Action. The current president of the IEC is American.   

ANSI participates in 91 percent of all IEC technical committees and administers many key committees and subgroups (17 percent in the IEC).  An important committee established by the USNC is the U.S. Coordinating Committee on Electromagnetic Compatibility (USCCEMC), which has three duties.  It:

• coordinates the U.S. position in the various IEC technical committees, sub-committees and working groups that deal with electromagnetic compatibility matters;

• reviews all positions taken in the Advisory Committee on Electromagnetic Compatibility (ACEC) and advises the USNC on what positions it should take in the Committee of Action with regard to these and other EMC matters; and

• provides advisory information on EMC matters to the U.S. representative (or representatives) serving on ACEC. 

TransAtlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) 

The TABD offers a framework for enhanced cooperation between the transatlantic business community and the governments of the European Union and the United States.  The TABD’s aim is to boost transatlantic trade and investment opportunities by removing costly inefficiencies caused by excessive and redundant regulations, and by differences in the EU and U.S. regulatory systems and customs procedures.  Because the TABD currently is working to place guidelines for regulatory cooperation within the Transatlantic Economic Partnership (TEP) Action Plan, it may be an appropriate forum in which to address the problems associated with IEC/EN 61000-3-2.  

European Power Supply Manufacturers Association (EPSMA)[9]  

The EPSMA was formed to provide a forum for discussing and addressing issues of concern to power supply manufacturers and users.  It represents more than 75 percent of European power supply manufacturers.  Among other functions, EPSMA provides members with information concerning European Commission proposals to harmonize laws, regulations and standards that affect the power-supply industry.  It also acts as a lobbying group during the formation and introduction of new legislation.

EPSMA opposes undermining or changing the EMC Directive.  It specifically opposes any changes to EN 61000-3-2, as well as any postponement of its implementation. EPSMA’s main argument is that power-supply manufacturers have been designing products with the expectation of full conformity to EN 61000-3-2 on January 1, 2001.  If the professional IT industry gets an extension of this deadline, it will seriously disrupt power-supply production.  Also, EPSMA rejects any attempt to label “Professional IT Equipment” as separate from other professional equipment for fear that this will become abused by other manufacturers.  EPSMA is a formidable trade association that will have to be monitored and considered during the implementation of the lobbying strategy.     

European Information and Communications Technology Industries Association[10]   

In 1999, the two relevant European trade associations—the European Association of Manufacturers of Business Machines and Information Technology (EUROBIT)[11] and the European Telecommunications and Professional Electronics Industry (ECTEL)[12]—merged to form the European Information and Communications Technology Industries Association (EICTA). Although EICTA is intended to provide a new and integrated voice for these industries, there has been some dispute between the two groups on how to deal with the EMC issue. EUROBIT has been a strong supporter of the U.S. position and has actively lobbied the European Commission on behalf of the IT industry. ECTEL, on the other hand, has focused its attention on radio emissions and the problems of immunity as prescribed in the EMC Directive.  

EUROBIT (and the rest of the European IT industry) was not involved in the development of EN 61000-3-2. It filed its first protests with CENELEC in the spring of 1995. It was EUROBIT that negotiated with CENELEC and the European Commission to get the initial implementation date for EN 61000-3-2 extended from 1996 to 1998. 

The European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) 

CENELEC is the European Union’s main standard-setting body. It was established in 1973 as a non-profit organization under Belgian Law, but European Commission Directive 83/189 established it as the official European standards organization in its field.  CENELEC’s members have been working together in the interests of European standards harmonization since the late 1950s. It works with 40,000 technical experts from 19 European Union and European Free Trade Area countries to publish standards for the European market.   

The highest-level body within CENELEC is the General Assembly (AG), which makes all policy decisions and is composed of delegations from each of the European Union’s 19 National Committees (NCs). CENELEC’s Administrative Board is made up of eight officers and is led by a president. The Administrative Board supervises all CENELEC work to ensure that it is carried out according to the AG’s resolutions. Technical Boards (BT) coordinate the work of the technical bodies, which include Technical Committees (TCs) and Sub-Committees (SCs), Special Task Forces (BTTFs) and Working Groups (BTWGs).  The BT is made up of one permanent delegate from each NC, and it decides on ratification of draft standards prepared by the technical bodies.   

The majority of initial-standards documents come to CENELEC from the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) (e.g. EN 61000-3-2 was originally IEC 61000-3-2).  Once a suitable draft is available, it is submitted to the NCs for CENELEC inquiry (lasting six months). Comments from the NCs are studied by the appropriate technical body and incorporated into a standard, where justified, before final vote.   

To ratify a standard, the vote must yield: 1) a majority of NCs in favor of the document and 2) at least 71percent of the weighted vote.[13] (The weighted vote is based on population size. The votes of larger countries like France and Germany are weighted more heavily than those of smaller countries).  

The CENELEC committee with primary responsibility for EN 61000-3-2 is CLC/TC 210.  The membership of this committee is very similar to the membership of IEC committees TC77 and SC77A.

  

III.       Government  

A.  European Union 

European Council of Ministers[14] 

The Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers) and the European Commission are the key policymaking bodies within the EU government. The Council of Ministers sets political objectives, coordinates national policies and resolves differences between member states and other institutions.  The Council is the main decision-making body within the EU.  Each Council meeting brings together member states’ representatives, usually ministers.   

The Council of Ministers is also responsible for adopting community law.  It may establish regulations that are directly applied without the need for national measures to implement them or, conversely, it may issue directives that bind member states to achieve specified objectives but allow national authorities to determine how they will achieve these objectives.    

European Commission[15] 

The European Commission lies at the heart of the European Union’s policymaking process. The other institutions of the EU derive much of their energy and purpose from the European Commission. The European Council and Parliament, for example, need a proposal from the Commission in order to pass new legislation.  The Commission is responsible for upholding EU law and policing the integrity of the single market. It also orchestrates research and technological development programs.  

Twenty members of the Commission provide its political leadership and direction.  At the head of the Commission is a president chosen by the European Council.  The Commission meets once a week to conduct its business, which may involve adopting proposals, finalizing policy papers and discussing the evolution of its priority policies.   

The Commission has a staff of 15,000 employees, which makes it the largest of the Union’s institutions.  It is divided into 26 directorates-generals (DGs) with an additional 15 or so specialized services.  Each DG is headed by a director-general who reports to a commissioner with the political and operational responsibility for the work of the DG.  

However, the Commission is not all-powerful. It does not make the main decisions on Union policies and priorities—which is the prerogative of the Council and, in some cases, of the European Parliament.   

The Commission is a primary lobbying target because it is responsible for proposing legislation to the Council of Ministers and the Parliament.  Moreover, because the Commission implements EU policies, it is the Commission that has to be persuaded to postpone implementing EN 61000-3-2 prior to January 1, 2001. The Commission is also important because it can decide to adopt a revised version of the standard or to not implement the standard at all.   

Key EU Government Offices and Officials  

Within the European Commission, the Enterprise Directorate-General (DG), under Commissioner Erkki Liikanen, is responsible for Industry, Information Technology and Telecommunications (and thus the EMC Directive).  The key objective of the Enterprise DG is to promote the competitiveness of European industry. 

  The Enterprise DG is the directorate responsible for electronic/electrical products and has issued the recommendations for regulations that protect power-supply networks from disturbances caused by LFE.  The specific unit responsible for LFE concerns is DGIII/B/2.  Mr. Cornelius Brekelmans is the deputy head of this unit.   

B.  United States 

Key U.S. Government Offices and Officials  

Various offices and people within the U.S. Departments of Commerce and State and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) will be important in resolving this issue.  

In the Department of Commerce (DOC), the main office concerned with the EMC issue is the European Office.  The person to contact within that office is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Europe Charles Ludolph.  Another important DOC office is the Office of European Union and Regional Affairs, and the key contact there is Victoria A. Kader. 

The key official to contact within the Department of State is Marc Grossman, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs.  

Within USTR, the key contact is Catherine Novelli, Assistant United States Trade Representative for Europe and the Mediterranean.  

Another important member of the U.S. government is Ambassador Charles Ford of the U.S. Mission in the EU.

Congress  

The following list includes members of Congress that have major IT plants in their districts, as well as the chairs of relevant House committees. The list rates each member based on how high-tech friendly he or she is. The higher the number (100 is the highest), the more high-tech friendly the representative. The scale is based on yes and no votes on high tech legislation. 

Representatives:

F. James Sensenbrenner (R-9^th-WI)
Charles H. Talyor (R-11^th NC) - 67  
Robert A. Weygand (D-19^th FL) - ?  
William Clay (D-1^st MO) - 22  
Zoe Lofgren (D-16^th CA) - 100  
Sam Farr (D-17^th CA) - 90  
Thomas M. Reynolds (R-27^th NY) - ?  
Louise Slaughter (D-28^th NY) - 80  
Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-11^th OH) - ?  
Christopher Shays (R-4^th CT) – 90  
Steven T. Kuykendall (R-36^th CA) - ?  
Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-23^rd NY) - ?  
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-30^th TX) - 70  

Recommendations

The Problem  

The European Union’s standard (EN 61000-3-2) for controlling harmonic emissions has become a serious issue of dispute between utility companies and electronic/electrical equipment manufacturers.  

The crux of the problem is that, although there is no agreement on the severity of existing harmonic emissions, the severity of potential future problems, and therefore, the need to control harmonic emissions, EN 61000-3-2 places the entire burden of preventing harmonic interference on product manufacturers. It doesn’t make the utilities industry take any responsibility for cleaning noise from its power lines.  

The IT industry is also concerned with the difficult and ambiguous language of EN 61000-3-2, and the fact that by conforming to EN 61000-3-2, some products will come into conflict with other European standards. 

Recommendations 

1.      Short Run: Persuade the European Union to postpone the implementation of EN 61000-3-2 until after the IEC and CENELEC rewrite and review, respectively, the standard and allow for ample time for the electronic/electrical industry to conform.  

2.      Long Run: The IT industry needs to participate more actively in IEC committees TC77and SC77A as they prepare the revised version of EN 61000-3-2 and as they draft future standards.   

The short-run step is essential for avoiding unnecessary costs. If the European Union doesn’t postpone implementation until after the IEC rewrites the standard, electronic/electrical manufacturers will have to first conform to the current version and then, a few years later, will likely have to conform to a new version of EN 61000-3-2.  

In the long run, it is essential that the IT industry participate in the redrafting of IEC/EN 61000-3-2 to ensure, at a minimum, that the redrafted standard takes full account of the IT industry’s concerns. Active participation in the redrafting process also will provide the industry with an opportunity to try to remove IT equipment from the LFE requirements.  

The IT industry will need to stake out a strong presence in IEC/SC77A to offset the influence and greater representation of the European utilities industry.  Additionally, the IT industry will need to ensure that the United States National Committee will support its efforts. 

A good standard will: 

• establish explicit and unambiguous methods for demonstrating compliance;

• be based on scientific evidence and encourage a dialogue between governments on precautionary measures;

• reflect the cost/benefit realities for all industries concerned;

• minimize imposition of mandatory requirements;

• properly balance competing economic interests;

• be implemented slowly to avoid rapid obsolescence of products and compliance test instruments; and

• encourage utilization of “best practices” on a worldwide basis.  

By participating fully in the rewriting of IEC/EN 61000-3-2, the U.S. IT industry should be able to ensure that its interests are met.  The main goal of the U.S. IT industry is to have easy-to-follow and understand standards that ease the flow of trade instead of creating barriers to it.

continue to next page