Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005]

RIN 1904-AB57

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies

AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment, including battery chargers and external power supplies (EPSs). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether more stringent, amended standards for these products are technologically feasible, economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. In this notice, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for Class A EPSs and new energy conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs and battery chargers. The notice also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES:

DOE will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, May 2, 2012 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See section VII, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public meeting, but no later than May 29, 2012. See section VI, “Public Participation,” for details.

ADDRESSES:

The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945. Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures. Any foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting should advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Edwards to initiate the necessary procedures. Please also note that those wishing to bring laptops into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes.

Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies, and provide docket number EE-2008-BT-STD-0005 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AB57. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

1.

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

2.

Email: BC&EPS_ECS@ee.doe.gov.

Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.

3.

Mail:

Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.

4.

Hand Delivery/Courier:

Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC, 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to

Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov.

For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document (Public Participation).

Docket: The docket is available for review at regulations.gov, including

Federal Register

notices, framework documents, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

A link to the docket web page can be found at:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.

This web page will contain a link to the docket for this notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII for information on how to submit comments through regulations.gov.

For further information on how to submit or review public comments or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or email:

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Victor Petrolati, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4549. Email:

Victor.Petrolati@ee.doe.gov.

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email:

michael.kido@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies

III. General Discussion

A. Test Procedures

1. External Power Supply Test Procedures

2. Battery Charger Test Procedures

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

a. External Power Supply Max-Tech Levels

b. Battery Charger Max-Tech Levels

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

b. Life-Cycle Costs

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Products Included in This Rulemaking

a. External Power Supplies

b. Battery Chargers

c. Wireless Power

d. Unique Products

2. Market Assessment

a. Market Survey

b. Non-Class A External Power Supplies

c. Application Shipments

d. Efficiency Distributions

3. Product Classes

a. External Power Supply Product Classes

b. Battery Charger Product Classes

4. Technology Assessment

a. EPS Efficiency Metrics

b. EPS Technology Options

c. High-Power EPSs

d. Power Factor

e. Battery Charger Modes of Operation and Performance Parameters

f. Battery Charger Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Engineering Analysis for External Power Supplies

a. Representative Product Classes and Representative Units

b. EPS Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs)

c. EPS Engineering Analysis Methodology

d. EPS Engineering Results

e. EPS Equation Scaling

2. Engineering Analysis for Battery Chargers

a. Representative Units

b. Battery Charger Efficiency Metrics

c. Calculation of Unit Energy Consumption

d. Battery Charger Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs)

e. Test and Teardowns

f. Manufacturer Interviews

g. Design Options

h. Cost Model

i. Battery Charger Engineering Results

j. Scaling of Battery Charger Candidate Standard Levels

D. Markups to Determine Product Price

E. Energy Use Analysis

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

1. Manufacturer Selling Price

2. Markups

3. Sales Tax

4. Installation Cost

5. Maintenance Cost

6. Product Price Forecast

7. Unit Energy Consumption

8. Electricity Prices

9. Electricity Price Trends

10. Lifetime

11. Discount Rate

12. Sectors Analyzed

13. Base Case Market Efficiency Distribution

14. Compliance Date

15. Payback Period Inputs

G. National Impact Analysis

1. Shipments

2. Shipment Growth Rate

3. Product Class Lifetime

4. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases

5. Product Price Forecast

6. Unit Energy Consumption and Savings

7. Unit Costs

8. Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit

9. Energy Prices

10. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion

11. Discount Rates

12. Benefits From Effects of Standards on Energy Prices

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. EPS MIA

a. EPS GRIM Key Inputs

b. Comments From Interested Parties Related to EPSs

c. High-Power EPS Manufacturer Interviews

3. Battery Charger MIA

a. Battery Charger GRIM Key Inputs

b. Battery Charger Comments From Interested Parties

4. Comments From Interested Parties Related to EPSs and Battery Chargers

a. Cumulative Burden

b. Competition

5. Manufacturer Interviews

a. Product Groupings

b. Competition From Substitutes

c. Test Procedure Concerns

d. Multiple Regulation of EPSs and Battery Chargers

e. Profitability Impacts

f. Potential Changes to Product Utility

J. Employment Impact Analysis

K. Utility Impact Analysis

L. Emissions Analysis

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions

d. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

N. Discussion of Other Comments

O. Marking Requirements

P. Reporting Requirements

V. Analytical Results

A. Trial Standard Levels

1. External Power Supply TSLs

2. Battery Charger TSLs

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Cash-Flow Analysis Results

b. Impacts on Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Sub-Group of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

C. Proposed Standards

1. External Power Supplies

a. Product Class B—Direct Operation External Power Supplies

b. Product Class X—Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies

c. Product Class H—High-Power External Power Supplies

d. Product Class N—Indirect-Operation External Power Supplies

2. Battery Chargers

a. Low-Energy, Inductive Charging Battery Chargers, Product Class 1

b. Low-Energy, Non-Inductive Charging Battery Chargers, Product Classes 2, 3, and 4

c. Medium-Energy Battery Chargers, Product Classes 5 and 6

d. High-Energy Battery Chargers, Product Class 7

e. Battery Chargers With a DC Input of Less Than 9 V, Product Class 8

f. Battery Chargers With a DC Input Greater Than 9 V, Product Class 9

g. AC Output Battery Chargers, Product Class 10

3. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of Proposed Standards for External Power Supplies

4. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of Proposed Standards for Battery Chargers

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities

b. Manufacturer Participation

c. Battery Charger Industry Structure

d. Comparison Between Large and Small Entities

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements

c. Summary of Compliance Impacts

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations

4. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 458

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 459

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

VII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at Public Meeting

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

List of Tables

Table I-1. Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Direct Operation External Power Supplies

Table I-2. Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers

Table I-3. Impacts of Proposed Standards on Consumers of External Power Supplies

Table I-4. Impacts of Proposed Standards on Consumers of Battery Chargers

Table I-5. External Power Supply Product Classes

Table I-6. Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for External Power Supplies Shipped in 2013-2042

Table I-7. Battery Charger Product Classes

Table I-8. Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Battery Chargers Shipped in 2013-2042

Table II-1. Federal Active Mode Energy Efficiency Standards for Class A External Power Supplies

Table II-2. Stakeholders Providing Comments on the Preliminary Analysis

Table III-1 Reduction in Energy Consumption at Max-Tech for Battery Chargers

Table IV-1 Preliminary Analysis Product Classes

Table IV-2 External Power Supply Product Classes Used in the NOPR

Table IV-3 Battery Charger Product Classes

Table IV-4 Summary of EPS CSLs for Product Classes B, C, D, and E

Table IV-5 Summary of EPS CSLs for Product Class X

Table IV-6 Summary of EPS CSLs for Product Class H

Table IV-7 2.5W EPS Engineering Analysis Results

Table IV-8 18W EPS Engineering Analysis Results

Table IV-9 60W EPS Engineering Analysis Results

Table IV-10 120W EPS Engineering Analysis Results

Table IV-11 203W EPS Engineering Analysis Results

Table IV-12 345W EPS Engineering Analysis Results

Table IV-13 The Battery Charger Representative Units for each Product Class

Table IV-14 CSLs Equivalent to California Proposed Standards

Table IV-15 Supplemental Values for Product Classes 10a and 10b

Table IV-16 Product Class 1 (Inductive Chargers) Engineering Analysis Results

Table IV-17 Product Class 2 (Low-Energy, Low-Voltage) Engineering Analysis Results

Table IV-18 Product Class 3 (Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage) Engineering Analysis Results

Table IV-19 Product Class 4 (Low-Energy, High-Voltage) Engineering Analysis Results

Table IV-20 Product Class 5 (Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage) Engineering Analysis Results

Table IV-21 Product Class 6 (Medium-Energy, High-Voltage) Engineering Analysis Results

Table IV-22 Product Class 7 (High-Energy) Engineering Analysis Results

Table IV-23 Product Class 8 (Low-Voltage DC Input) Engineering Analysis Results

Table IV-24 Product Class 9 (High-Voltage DC Input) Engineering Analysis Results

Table IV-25 Product Class 10 (AC Input, AC Output) Engineering Analysis Results

Table IV-26 Summary of Inputs and Key Assumptions Used in the Preliminary Analysis and NOPR LCC Analyses

Table IV-27 EPS Life-Cycle Cost Savings With 4-Year Lifteime Assumptions

Table IV-28 EPS Life-Cycle Cost Savings With Alternative (2-Year) Lifetime Assumptions

Table IV-29 Summary of Inputs, Sources and Key Assumptions for the National Impact Analysis

Table IV-30 Changes to Base Case Efficiency Distributions to Account for CEC Standards

Table IV-31 Social Cost of CO

2

, 2010-2050 (in 2007 Dollars per Metric Ton)

Table IV-32 Proposed Efficiency Marking Protocol for Battery Chargers

Table IV-33 Proposed Location for Battery Charger Marking

Table V-1 Trial Standard Levels for External Power Supplies

Table V-2 Trial Standard Levels for Battery Chargers

Table V-3 LCC Savings and Payback Period for DC Output, Basic-Voltage External Power Supplies

Table V-4 LCC Savings and Payback Period for Non-Class A External Power Supplies

Table V-5 LCC Savings and Payback Period for Battery Chargers

Table V-6 DC Output, Basic-Voltage External Power Supplies: Low-Income Consumer Subgroup

Table V-7 Non-Class A External Power Supplies: Low-Income Consumer Subgroup

Table V-8 Battery Chargers: Low-Income Consumer Subgroup

Table V-9 DC Output, Basic-Voltage External Power Supplies: Small Business Consumer Subgroup

Table V-10 Battery Chargers: Small Business Consumer Subgroup

Table V-11 DC Output, Basic-Voltage External Power Supplies: Top Tier Marginal Electricity Price Consumer Subgroup

Table V-12 Non-Class A External Power Supplies: Top Tier Marginal Electricity Price Consumer Subgroup

Table V-13 Battery Chargers: Top Tier Marginal Electricity Price Consumer Subgroup

Table V-14 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Classes B, C, D, and E—Flat Markup Scenario

Table V-15 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Classes B, C, D, and E—Preservation of Operating Profit Markup Scenario

Table V-16 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class X EPS—Flat Markup Scenario

Table V-17 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class X EPS—Preservation of Operating Scenario

Table V-18 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class H EPS—Flat Markup Scenario

Table V-19 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Product Class H EPS—Preservation of Operating Profit Markup Scenario

Table V-20 Applications in Product Class 1

Table V-21 Cash Flow Results—Product Class 1—Flat Markup Scenario

Table V-22 Cash Flow Results—Product Class 1—Pass Through Markup Scenario

Table V-23 Cash Flow Results—Product Class 1—Constant Price Markup Scenario

Table V-24 Applications in Product Classes 2, 3, and 4

Table V-25 Cash Flow Results—Product Classes 2, 3, and 4—Flat Markup Scenario

Table V-26 Cash Flow Results—Product Classes 2, 3, and 4—Pass Through Markup Scenario

Table V-27 Cash Flow Results—Product Classes 2, 3, and 4—Constant Price Markup Scenario

Table V-28 Cash Flow Results—Product Classes 2, 3, and 4—Pass Through Markup Scenario—Consumer Electronics

Table V-29 Cash Flow Results—Product Classes 2, 3, and 4—Pass Through Markup Scenario—Power Tools

Table V-30 Cash Flow Results—Product Classes 2, 3, and 4—Pass Through Markup Scenario—Small Appliances

Table V-31 Applications in Product Classes 5 and 6

Table V-32 Cash Flow Results—Product Classes 5 and 6—Flat Markup Scenario

Table V-33 Cash Flow Results—Product Classes 5 and 6—Pass Through Markup Scenario

Table V-34 Cash Flow Results—Product Classes 5 and 6—Constant Price Markup Scenario

Table V-35 Applications in Product Class 7

Table V-36 Cash Flow Results—Product Class 7—Flat Markup Scenario

Table V-37 Cash Flow Results—Product Class 7—Pass Through Markup Scenario

Table V-38 Cash Flow Results—Product Class 7—Constant Price Markup Scenario

Table V-39 Applications in Product Class 8

Table V-40 Cash Flow Results—Product Class 8—Flat Markup Scenario

Table V-41 Cash Flow Results—Product Class 8—Pass Through Markup Scenario

Table V-42 Cash Flow Results—Product Class 8—Constant Price Markup Scenario

Table V-43 Applications in Product Class 9

Table V-44 Applications in Product Class 10

Table V-45 Cash Flow Results—Product Class 10—Flat Markup Scenario

Table V-46 Cash Flow Results—Product Class 10—Pass Through Markup Scenario

Table V-47 Cash Flow Results—Product Class 10—Constant Price Markup Scenario

Table V-48 Base Case Manufacturer Impact Analysis for All Battery Charger Product Classes Due to the CEC Standard

Table V-49 External Power Supplies: Cumulative National Energy Savings in Quads

Table V-50 Battery Chargers: Cumulative National Energy Savings in Quads

Table V-51 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for External Power Supplies, 3-Percent Discount Rate (2010$ millions)

Table V-52 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for External Power Supplies, 7-Percent Discount Rate (2010$ millions)

Table V-53 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Battery Chargers, 3-Percent Discount Rate (2010$ millions)

Table V-54 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Battery Chargers, 7-Percent Discount Rate (2010$ millions)

Table V-55 Cumulative Emissions Reduction for 2013-2042 Under External Power Supply TSLs

Table V-56 Cumulative Emissions Reduction for 2013-2042 Under Battery Charger TSLs

Table V-57 External Power Supply Product Class B: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-58 External Power Supply Product Classes B, C, D, and E: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-59 External Power Supply Product Class X: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-60 External Power Supply Product Class H: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-61 Battery Charger Product Class 1: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-62 Battery Chargers Product Classes 2, 3, 4: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-63 Battery Chargers Product Classes 5, 6: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-64 Battery Chargers Product Class 7: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-65 Battery Chargers Product Class 8: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-66 Battery Chargers Product Class 10: Estimates of Global Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-67 External Power Supply Product Class B: Estimates of Domestic Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-68 External Power Supply Product Classes B, C, D, E: Estimates of Domestic Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-69 External Power Supply Product Class X: Estimates of Domestic Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-70 External Power Supply Product Class H: Estimates of Domestic Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-71 Battery Charger Product Class 1: Estimates of Domestic Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-72 Battery Charger Product Classes 2, 3, 4: Estimates of Domestic Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-73 Battery Charger Product Classes 5, 6: Estimates of Domestic Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-74 Battery Charger Product Class 7: Estimates of Domestic Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-75 Battery Charger Product Class 8: Estimates of Domestic Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-76 Battery Charger Product Class 10: Estimates of Domestic Present Value of CO

2

Emissions Reduction Under TSLs

Table V-77 Estimates of Present Value of NO

X

Emissions Reduction Under External Power Supply TSLs

Table V-78 Estimates of Present Value of NO

X

Emissions Reduction Under Battery Charger TSLs

Table V-79 Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings to Present Value of Monetized Benefits from CO

2

and NO

X

Emissions Reductions Under TSL 1 for Battery Chargers Product Classes 2, 3, 4

Table V-80 Results of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings (at 7% Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits from CO

2

and NO

X

Emissions Reductions Under External Power Supply TSLs

Table V-81 Results of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings (at 3% Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits from CO

2

and NO

X

Emissions Reductions External Power Supply TSLs

Table V-82 Results of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings (at 7% Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits from CO

2

and NO

X

Emissions Reductions Under Battery Charger TSLs

Table V-83 Results of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings (at 3% Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits from CO

2

and NO

X

Emissions Reductions Under Battery Charger TSLs

Table V-84 Selected National Impacts of Aligning Federal Standards with California Standards

Table V-85 Summary of Results for Product Class B External Power Supplies

Table V-86 Proposed Standards for EPSs in Product Classes B, C, D, and E

Table V-87 Proposed Standards for Product Class X External Power Supplies

Table V-88 Proposed Standards for Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies

Table V-89 Proposed Standards for High-Power External Power Supplies

Table V-90 Proposed Standards for High-Power External Power Supplies

Table V-91 Applications of Indirect Operation External Power Supplies

Table V-92 Summary of Results for Battery Charger Product Class 1

Table V-93 Proposed Standard for Product Class 1

Table V-94 Summary of Results for Battery Charger Product Classes 2, 3, and 4

Table V-95 Proposed Standard for Product Classes 2, 3, and 4

Table V-96 Summary of Results for Battery Charger Product Classes 5 and 6

Table V-97 Proposed Standard for Product Classes 5 and 6

Table V-98 Summary of Results for Battery Charger Product Class 7

Table V-99 Proposed Standard for Product Class 7

Table V-100 Summary of Results for Battery Charger Product Class 8

Table V-101 Proposed Standard for Product Class 8

Table V-102 Summary of Results for Battery Charger Product Class 10

Table V-103 Proposed Standard for Product Class 10

Table V-104 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for EPSs

Table V-105 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Battery Chargers

Table VI-1 Estimated Capital Conservation Costs for a Typical Small Business (2010$ million)

Table VI-2 Estimated Product Conversion Costs for a Typical Small Business (2010$ million)

Table VI-3 Estimated Total Conversion Costs for a Typical Small Business (2010$ million)

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

Title III, Part B

1

of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes for certain products, such as battery chargers and external power supplies (EPSs), shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)). In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this notice, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for Class A EPSs and new energy conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs and battery chargers. The proposed standards for direct operation EPSs, which are the minimum average efficiency in active mode and the maximum power consumption in no-load mode expressed as a function of the nameplate output power, are shown in Table I.1. The proposed standards for battery chargers, which consist of a set of maximum annual energy consumption levels expressed as a function of battery energy, are shown in Table I-2. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and Table I-2 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after July 1, 2013. In addition to being technologically

feasible and economically justified, DOE's proposed standards were also designed to maximize the net monetized benefits, as explained further below in this notice.

1

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

EP27MR12.000

EP27MR12.001

EP27MR12.002

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I-3 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of EPSs, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the median payback period. The projected economic impacts of the proposed standards on individual consumers are generally positive. For example, the estimated average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings are from −$0.45 to $0.69 for product class B, depending on the representative unit, $2.07 for product class X, and $129.08 for product class H.

2

2

The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of a product, consisting of purchase and installation costs plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product.

3

As explained in V.B.1.a, DOE uses the median payback period rather than the mean payback period to dampen the effect of outliers on the data.

EP27MR12.003

Table I-4 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of battery chargers, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the median payback period. The projected economic impacts of the proposed standards on individual consumers are generally positive. For example, the estimated average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings are $1.52 for product class 1, $0.16 for product class 2, $0.35 for product class 3, $0.43 for product class 4, $33.79 for product class 5, $40.78 for product class 6, $38.26 for product class 7, $3.04 for product class 8, and $8.30 for product class 10.

4

4

The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of a product, consisting of purchase and installation costs plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product.

EP27MR12.004

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2011 to 2042). Using a real discount rate of 7.1 percent, DOE estimates that

the INPV for manufacturers of EPSs is $0.276 billion in 2010$. Under the proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 34.1 percent of their INPV, which is approximately $0.094 billion in 2010$. Based on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of EPSs and because DOE did not identify any domestic EPS production, DOE does not expect any domestic plant closings or any significant change in employment, since the vast majority, if not all EPS production occurs abroad.

For battery chargers, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of applications that include battery chargers is between $53.918 and $53.205 billion in 2010$ using a real discount rate of 9.1 percent. Under the proposed standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 10.2 percent of their INPV, which is approximately $5.428 billion in 2010$. Based on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of battery chargers, DOE does not expect any domestic plant closings or significant change in employment, since DOE only identified one domestic battery charger manufacturer.

C. National Benefits

External Power Supplies

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a significant amount of energy over 30 years (2013-2042)—an estimated 0.99 quads of cumulative energy for EPSs.

The product classes at issue are comprised of the following groupings of EPS products listed below.

EP27MR12.005

The cumulative national net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings of the proposed standards in 2010$ ranges from $0.79 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $1.87 (at a 3-percent discount rate) for EPSs. This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for products purchased in 2013-2042, discounted to 2011.

In addition, the proposed standards would have significant environmental benefits. The energy saved is in the form of electricity, would result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of 46.5 million metric tons (Mt)

5

of carbon dioxide (CO

2

) in 2013-2042. During this period, the proposed standards would result in emissions reductions of 38 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO

X

) and 0.25 tons (t) of mercury (Hg).

6

DOE estimates the net

present monetary value of the CO

2

emissions reduction is between $0.20 and $2.95 billion, expressed in 2010$ and discounted to 2011. DOE also estimates the net present monetary value of the NO

X

emissions reduction, expressed in 2010$ and discounted to 2011, is between $6.11 and $62.79 million at a 7-percent discount rate, and between $10.97 and $112.73 million at a 3-percent discount rate.

7

5

A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for NO

X

and Hg are given in short tons.

6

DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to the most recent version of the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) Reference case forecast. This forecast accounts for regulatory emissions reductions from in-place regulations, including the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), but not the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR, 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005)). Subsequent regulations, including the finalized CAIR

replacement rule, the Cross-State Air Pollution rule issued on July 6, 2011, do not appear in the forecast. On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed CSAPR while ordering EPA to continue administering the also remanded 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, which has a similar structure, but with less stringent budgets and less restrictive trading provisions) and tentatively set a briefing schedule to allow the case to be heard by April 2012.

7

DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the appropriate range of values used in evaluating the potential economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await further guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions before it once again monetizes Hg in its rulemakings.

The benefits and costs of today's proposed standards, for products sold in 2013-2042, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the benefits from consumer operation of products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase and installation costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO

2

emission reductions.

8

The value of the CO

2

reductions, otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO

2

developed by a recent interagency process. The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.M.

8

The process that DOE used to convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values is explained in section V.C.3 of this notice.

Although combining the values of operating savings and CO

2

reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions while the value of CO

2

reductions is based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO

2

savings are performed with different methods that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of EPSs shipped in 2013-2042. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of all future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.

Table I-6 shows the annualized values for today's proposed standards for EPSs. (All monetary values below are expressed in 2010$.) The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO

2

reduction, for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the SCC series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of the standards proposed in today's rule is $251.9 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the annualized benefits are $325.2 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $52.3 million in CO

2

reductions, and $3.2 million in reduced NO

X

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $128.7 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the SCC series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of the standards proposed in today's rule is $247.3 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $348.2 million per year in reduced operating costs, $52.3 million in CO

2

reductions, and $3.3 million in reduced NO

X

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $156.6 million per year.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

EP27MR12.006

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes that products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for all product classes covered by today's proposal for EPSs, other than product class H (high-power EPSs). Based on the analyses described above, DOE has tentatively concluded that the benefits of the proposed standards to the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer LCC savings, and emission reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers and LCC increases for some consumers).

DOE also considered more-stringent and less stringent energy use levels as trial standard levels, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy use levels would outweigh the projected benefits. Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this notice and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy use levels presented in this notice that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

Battery Chargers

DOE's analyses for battery chargers indicate that the proposed standards would save a significant amount of energy over 30 years (2013-2042)—an estimated 1.36 quads of cumulative energy for battery chargers.

The product classes at issue are comprised of the groupings of battery chargers listed in Table I-7. Each product class grouping was established based on the battery charger's input/output type, and further divided into product classes according to battery energy and voltage.

EP27MR12.007

The cumulative national net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings of the proposed standards in 2010$ ranges from $6.04 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $10.96 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate) for battery chargers. This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for products purchased in 2013-2042, discounted to 2011.

In addition, the proposed standards would have significant environmental benefits. The savings would result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of 62.9 Mt of CO

2

in 2013-2042. During this period, the proposed

standards would result in emissions reductions of 52 thousand tons of NO

X

and 0.35 tons of mercury. DOE estimates the net present monetary value of the CO

2

emissions reduction is between $0.27 and $4.04 billion, expressed in 2010$ and discounted to 2011. DOE also estimates the net present monetary value of the NO

X

emissions reduction, expressed in 2010$ and discounted to 2011, is between $8.19 and $84.14 million at a 7-percent discount rate, and between $14.88 and $153.05 million at a 3-percent discount rate.

The benefits and costs of today's proposed standards, for products sold in 2013-2042, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the benefits from consumer operation of products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase and installation costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO

2

emission reductions. The value of the CO

2

reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO

2

developed by a recent interagency process. The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.M.

Although combining the values of operating savings and CO

2

reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market transactions while the value of CO

2

reductions is based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO

2

savings are performed with different methods that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of battery chargers shipped in 2013-2042. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of all future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.

Table I-8 shows the annualized values for today's proposed standards for battery chargers. (All monetary values below are expressed in 2010$.) The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO

2

reduction, for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the SCC series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the standards proposed in today's rule result in $110.0 million per year in equipment costs savings, and the annualized benefits are $447.2 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $71.6 million in CO

2

reductions, and $4.3 million in reduced NO

X

emissions. In this case, the benefit amounts to $633.0 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the SCC series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the standards proposed in today's rule result in $107.9 million per year in equipment costs savings, and the benefits are $485.2 million per year in reduced operating costs, $71.6 million in CO

2

reductions, and $4.5 million in reduced NO

X

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $669.3 million per year.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

9

The incremental product costs for battery chargers are negative because of a shift in technology from linear power supplies to switch mode power for the larger battery chargers in product classes 5, 6, and 7.

EP27MR12.008

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes that products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for all product classes covered by today's proposal for battery chargers, other than product class 10 (AC output). Based on the analyses described above, DOE has tentatively concluded that the benefits of the proposed standards to the Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer LCC savings, and emission reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers and LCC increases for some consumers).

DOE also considered more-stringent and less-stringent energy use levels as trial standard levels, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy use levels would outweigh the projected benefits. Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this notice and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy use levels presented in this notice that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying today's proposal, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for battery chargers and EPSs.

A. Authority

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,

10

a program covering most major household appliances (collectively referred to as “covered products”), which includes battery chargers and EPSs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)) (DOE notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), the agency must periodically review its already established energy conservation standards for a covered product. Under this requirement, the next review that DOE would need to conduct must occur no later than six years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered product.)

10

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered products consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the remainder of the program. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(s). As stated below in Section II.B.2 the DOE test procedures for battery chargers and EPSs currently appear at title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 430, subpart B, appendices Y and Z, respectively.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria when prescribing amended standards for covered products. As indicated above, any amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, EPCA precludes DOE from adopting any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain products, including battery chargers and EPSs, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the proposed standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:

1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;

2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

3. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;

4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and

7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii).

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of products for any group of covered products that have the same function or intended use if DOE determines that covered products within such group (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class) or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard . (42 U.S.C. 6294(q)(1)). In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate.

Id.

Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).

Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in section 310(3) of EISA 2007, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, are required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards in under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into the standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for battery chargers and EPSs already address standby-mode and off-mode energy use. The standards for EPSs also address this energy use; currently there are no standards for battery chargers. In this rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate such energy use into any new or amended energy conservation standards it adopts in the final rule.

DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). EO 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.” For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that today's NOPR is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized.

Consistent with EO 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in this rulemaking, the energy efficiency standards proposed herein by DOE achieves maximum net benefits.

B. Background

1. Current Standards

Section 301 of EISA 2007 established minimum energy conservation standards for Class A EPSs, which became effective on July 1, 2008. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A)) These standards provided an active mode efficiency level and a no-load power consumption rate. The current standards are set forth in Table II.1 and Table II.2, respectively.

EP27MR12.010

Currently, no Federal energy conservation standards apply to non-Class A EPSs or battery chargers.

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies

Section 135 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Public Law 109-58 (Aug. 8, 2005), amended sections 321 and 325 of EPCA by defining the terms “battery charger” and “external power supply.” That provision also directed DOE to prescribe definitions and test procedures related to the energy consumption of battery chargers and external power supplies and to issue a final rule that determines whether energy conservation standards shall be issued for battery chargers and external power supplies or classes of battery chargers and external power supplies. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(A) and (E))

On December 8, 2006, DOE complied with the first of these requirements by publishing a final rule that prescribed test procedures for a variety of products. 71 FR 71340, 71365-71375. That rule, which was codified in multiple sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), included definitions and test procedures for battery chargers and EPSs. As stated above, the test procedures for these products are found in 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix Y (“Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers”) and 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix Z (“Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of External Power Supplies”).

On December 19, 2007, Congress enacted EISA 2007, which, among other things, amended sections 321, 323, and 325 of EPCA. As part of these amendments, EISA 2007 altered the EPS definition. Under the definition previously set by EPACT 2005, the statute defined an EPS as an external power supply circuit “used to convert household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC current to operate a consumer product.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) Section 301 of EISA 2007 amended that definition by creating a subset of EPSs called “Class A External Power Supplies.” This new subset of products consisted of those EPSs that can convert to only 1 AC or DC output voltage at a time and have a nameplate output power of no more than 250 watts (W). The definition excludes any device requiring Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) listing and approval as a medical device in accordance with section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360c) or one that powers the charger of a detachable battery pack or charges the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated. (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)) Section 301 of EISA 2007 also established energy conservation standards for Class A EPSs that became effective on July 1, 2008, and directed DOE to conduct an energy conservation standards rulemaking to review those standards.

Additionally, section 309 of EISA 2007 amended section 325(u)(1)(E) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)) by directing DOE to issue a final rule that prescribes energy conservation standards for battery chargers or classes of battery chargers or to determine that no energy conservation standard is technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE is bundling this battery charger rulemaking proceeding with the requirement to review and consider amending the energy conservation standards for Class A EPSs. The new rulemaking requirements contained in sections 301 and 309 of EISA 2007 effectively superseded the prior determination analysis that EPACT 2005 required DOE to conduct.

Section 309 of EISA 2007 also instructed DOE to issue a final rule to determine whether DOE should issue energy conservation standards for external power supplies or classes of external power supplies no later than two years after EISA 2007's enactment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I)) Because Congress already set standards for Class A devices, DOE interpreted this determination requirement as applying solely to assessing whether energy conservation standards are warranted for EPSs that fall outside of the Class A definition (i.e. non-Class A EPSs). Non-Class A EPSs include those devices that have a nameplate output power greater than 250 watts, are able to convert to more than one AC or DC output voltage simultaneously, and are specifically excluded from coverage under the Class A EPS definition in EISA 2007 by virtue of their application—

e.g.,

EPSs used with medical devices.

11

DOE determined that standards are warranted for non-Class A EPSs. See 75 FR 27170 (May 14, 2010). Given the similarities between battery chargers and non-Class A and Class A EPSs, DOE is handling all three product groups in a single standards rulemaking.

11

To help ensure that the standards Congress set were not applied in an overly broad fashion, DOE applied the statutory exclusion not only to those EPSs that require FDA listing and approval but also to any EPS that provides power to a medical device.

Finally, section 310 of EISA 2007 established definitions for active, standby, and off modes, and directed DOE to amend its existing test procedures for battery chargers and EPSs to measure the energy consumed in standby mode and off mode. (42

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(B)(i)) Consequently, DOE published a final rule incorporating standby- and off-mode measurements into the DOE test procedure. 74 FR 13318, 13334-13336 (March 27, 2009) Additionally, DOE amended the test procedure for battery chargers to include an active mode measurement for battery chargers and made certain amendments to the test procedure for EPSs. 76 FR 31750 (June 1, 2011).

DOE initiated its current rulemaking effort for these products by issuing the Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies (the framework document). See

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/bceps_frameworkdocument.pdf.

The framework document explained the issues, analyses, and process DOE anticipated using to develop energy efficiency standards for those products. DOE also published a notice announcing the availability of the framework document, announcing a public meeting to discuss the proposed analytical framework, and inviting written comments concerning the development of standards for battery chargers and EPSs. 74 FR 26816 (June 4, 2009)

DOE held a public meeting on July 16, 2009, to discuss the analyses and issues identified in the framework document. At the meeting, DOE described the different analyses it would conduct, the methods proposed for conducting them, and the relationships among the various analyses. Manufacturers, trade associations, environmental advocates, regulators, and other interested parties attended the meeting. The comments received at the public meeting and during the subsequent comment period helped DOE identify and resolve issues involved in this rulemaking.

Following the framework document public meeting, DOE published on November 3, 2009, a Notice of Proposed Determination to examine the feasibility and related economic costs and benefits of setting energy conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs. 74 FR 56928. This notice was followed by a final determination published on May 14, 2010, 75 FR 27170, which concluded that energy conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs appear to be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would be likely to result in significant energy savings. Consequently, DOE decided to include non-Class A EPSs in the present energy conservation standards rulemaking for battery chargers and EPSs.

DOE then gathered additional information and performed preliminary analyses for the purpose of developing potential amended energy conservation standards for Class A EPSs and new energy conservation standards for battery chargers and non-Class A EPSs. This process culminated in DOE's announcement in the

Federal Register

on September 15, 2010, of the preliminary analysis public meeting, at which DOE discussed and received comments on the following matters: the product classes DOE analyzed; the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE was using to evaluate potential standards; the results of the preliminary analyses performed by DOE; and potential standard levels under consideration. 75 FR 56021 (the September 2010 notice). DOE also invited written comments on these subjects and announced the availability on its Web site of a preliminary technical support document (preliminary TSD) it had prepared to inform interested parties and enable them to provide comments.

12

Id.

Finally, DOE stated its interest in receiving views concerning other relevant issues that participants believed would affect energy conservation standards for battery chargers and EPSs, or that DOE should address in this NOPR.

Id.

at 56024.

12

The preliminary TSD is available at:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external_preliminaryanalysis_tsd.html.

The preliminary TSD provides an overview of the activities DOE undertook in developing standards for battery chargers and EPSs, and discusses the comments DOE received in response to the framework document. It also describes the analytical framework that DOE used (and continues to use) in this rulemaking, including a description of the methodology, the analytical tools, and the relationships among the various analyses that are part of the rulemaking. The preliminary TSD presents and describes in detail each analysis DOE had performed up to that point, including descriptions of inputs, sources, methodologies, and results. These analyses were as follows:

• A

market and technology assessment

addressed the scope of this rulemaking, identified the potential classes for battery chargers and EPSs, characterized the markets for these products, and reviewed techniques and approaches for improving their efficiency;

• A

screening analysis

reviewed technology options to improve the efficiency of battery chargers and EPSs, and weighed these options against DOE's four prescribed screening criteria: (1) Technological feasibility, (2) practicability to manufacture, install, and service, (3) impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability, (4) adverse impacts on health or safety;

• An

engineering analysis

estimated the increases in manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) associated with more energy-efficient battery chargers and EPSs;

• An

energy use analysis

estimated the annual energy use in the field of battery chargers and EPSs as a function of efficiency levels;

• A

markups analysis

converted estimated manufacturer selling price (MSP) increases derived from the engineering analysis to consumer prices;

• A

life-cycle cost analysis

calculated, at the consumer level, the discounted savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the product, compared to any increase in installed costs likely to result directly from the imposition of a given standard;

• A

payback period (PBP) analysis

estimated the amount of time it would take consumers to recover the higher expense of purchasing more energy efficient products through lower operating costs;

• A

shipments analysis

estimated shipments of battery chargers and EPSs over the 30-year analysis period (2013-2042), which were used in performing the national impact analysis (NIA);

• A

national impact analysis

assessed the national energy savings (NES), and the national net present value of total consumer costs and savings, expected to result from specific, potential energy conservation standards for battery chargers and EPSs; and

• A

preliminary manufacturer impact analysis

took the initial steps in evaluating the effects new or amended efficiency standards may have on manufacturers.

In the September 2010 notice, DOE summarized the nature and function of the following analyses: (1) Engineering, (2) energy use analysis, (3) markups to determine installed prices, (4) LCC and PBP analyses, and (5) national impact analysis.

Id.

at 56023-56024.

DOE held a public meeting on October 13, 2010, to discuss its preliminary analysis. At this meeting, DOE presented the methodologies and results of the analyses set forth in the preliminary TSD. Major topics discussed at the meeting included, among others, the regulation of EPSs for motorized applications and applications

with detachable batteries (MADB EPSs), criteria for establishing separate product classes, and assumptions made by DOE on the usage of certain products. The comments received since publication of the September 2010 notice, including those received at the preliminary analysis public meeting, have contributed to DOE's proposed resolution of the issues noted by interested parties. This NOPR quotes and summarizes many of these comments, and responds to the issues they raised.

13

13

A parenthetical reference at the end of a quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.

DOE received written comments on the preliminary analysis from four industry groups (the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM, No. 42); the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA, No. 46), the Power Tool Institute, Inc. (PTI, No. 45); and the Wireless Power Consortium (WPC, No. 40)), six manufacturers (Cobra Electronics Corp. (Cobra, No. 51); Lester Electrical of Nebraska, Inc. (Lester) (Lester, No. 50); Motorola, Inc. (Motorola, No. 48); Philips Electronics North America Corp. (Philips, No. 41); Stanley Black & Decker (SBD, No. 44); and Wahl Clipper Corporation (Wahl, No. 53)), and several energy efficiency advocates, including a number of utilities (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, and Southern California Edison, collectively organized as the California Investor Owned Utilities (California IOUs, No. 43); Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP, No. 49); and a joint comment from Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and Natural Resources Defense Council (PG&E,

et al.,

No. 47)). These commenters, along with those that provided oral comments at the preliminary analysis public meeting, are summarized in Table II-2.

EP27MR12.011

Following the close of the formal public comment period, DOE also received a clarification statement regarding an earlier submission to which ASAP joined with other commenters (ASAP, No. 55) and a proposal for DOE to adopt an efficiency marking protocol for battery chargers from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC, No. 56).

III. General Discussion

The following section discusses various technical aspects related to this proposed rulemaking. In particular, it addresses aspects involving the test procedures for battery chargers and EPSs, the technological feasibility of potential standards to assign to these products, and the potential energy savings and economic justification for prescribing the proposed amended standards for battery chargers and EPSs.

A. Test Procedures

To help analyze the proposal for the products covered under today's rulemaking, DOE applied the recently amended test procedures for EPSs and battery chargers. The following sections explain how DOE applied these

procedures in evaluating the standards that are being proposed.

1. External Power Supply Test Procedures

DOE used its recently modified EPS test procedure as the basis for evaluating EPS efficiency in the NOPR. This procedure, which was recently codified in appendix Z to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (“Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of EPSs”), includes a means to account for the energy consumption from multiple-voltage EPSs and clarifies the manner in which to test those devices that communicate with their loads. See 76 FR 31750, 31782-31783 (June 1, 2011). The term “load communication” refers to the ability of an EPS to identify whether a given load is compatible with the product that is being powered. See id. at 31752-31753.

The amended test procedure produces two key outputs relevant to today's proposal. In particular, the procedure provides measurements for active mode efficiency and no-load mode power consumption. For single output voltage EPSs, active-mode conversion efficiency is the ratio of output power to input power. DOE averages the efficiency at four loading conditions—25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of maximum rated output current. For multiple-voltage EPSs, the test procedure produces these same four efficiency measurements, but does not average them. For both single-voltage and multiple-voltage EPSs, DOE measures the power consumption of the EPS when disconnected from the consumer product, which is termed no-load power consumption. If the EPS has an on-off switch, the switch is placed in the “on” position when making this measurement.

2. Battery Charger Test Procedures

The initial battery charger test procedure, 71 FR 71340, 71368 (Dec. 8, 2006), included a means to measure battery charger energy consumption in “maintenance” and “no-battery” modes. These are non-active modes of operation for a battery charger and neither mode is the primary (i.e. active) mode of operation for a battery charger. A battery charger is in maintenance mode when the battery it is designed to charge is fully charged, but is still plugged into the charger—i.e. the charger is maintaining the charge in the battery. Standby mode, also known as no-battery mode, occurs when a battery charger is plugged into the wall (or power source), but the battery has been removed. The test procedure was amended to include measurements (or metrics) to account for the energy consumption that takes place in a battery charger during all modes of operation—active (i.e. the energy consumed by a battery charger while charging a battery), maintenance (i.e. the energy consumed to maintain the charge of a battery that has already been fully charged), standby (the energy consumed when a battery charger is plugged in, but the battery is removed from the device), and off (i.e. the energy consumed while a charger is plugged in but is switched off) modes. 76 FR 31750.

In analyzing the various products in preparation of the preliminary analysis, DOE relied on a test procedure that was largely based on a procedure that had been developed by the California Energy Commission (CEC). That procedure also served as the basis for DOE's 2010 proposal to amend the procedure to account for active mode energy consumption during testing. 75 FR 16958 (April 2, 2010).

The proposed procedure DOE employed had two key differences from the CEC procedure. First, it employed a shortened test procedure for battery chargers whose output power to the battery stabilizes within 24 hours. Second, the procedure employed a reversed charge/discharge testing order from that specified in the CEC procedure. DOE proposed switching the order such that the proposal used a preparatory charge, followed by a measured discharge, followed by a measured charge. The final rule dropped this approach in favor of the order prescribed in the CEC procedure—i.e. preparatory discharge, a measured charge, and a measured discharge. DOE applied this amended test procedure when analyzing the potential energy efficiency levels for battery chargers.

B. Technological Feasibility

The following sections address the manner in which DOE assessed the technological feasibility of potential standard levels. Energy conservation standards promulgated by DOE must be technologically feasible. Separate analyses were conducted for EPSs and battery chargers.

1. General

In each standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that have the potential to improve product or equipment efficiency. To conduct the analysis, DOE develops a list of design options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of these means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers a design option to be technologically feasible if it is currently in use by the relevant industry, or if a working prototype exists. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i), which provides that “[t]echnologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible.”

Once DOE has determined that particular design options are technologically feasible, it evaluates each of these design options using the following additional screening criteria: (1) Practicability to manufacture, install, or service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. (10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)). Section IV.B of this notice discusses the results of the screening analysis for battery chargers and EPSs, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the trial standard levels (TSLs) in this rulemaking.

For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the TSD.

Additionally, DOE notes that it has received no interested party comments regarding patented technologies and proprietary designs that would prohibit all manufacturers from achieving the energy conservation standards proposed in today's rule. At this time, DOE believes that the proposed standards for the products covered as part of this rulemaking will not mandate the use of any such technologies, but requests additional information regarding proprietary designs and patented technologies.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When proposing an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, DOE must “determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible” for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)). DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) efficiency level, as required by section 325(o) of EPCA, by interviewing manufacturers, vetting their data with subject matter experts, and presenting the results for public comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)).

a. External Power Supply Max-Tech Levels

DOE conducted several rounds of interviews with manufacturers of EPSs, integrated circuits for EPSs, and

applications using EPSs. All of the manufacturers interviewed identified ways that EPSs could be modified to achieve efficiencies higher than those available with current products. These manufacturers also described the costs of achieving those efficiency improvements, which DOE examines in detail in chapter 5 of the TSD. DOE independently verified the accuracy of the information described by manufacturers.

14

Verifying this information required examining and testing products at the best-in-market efficiency level and determining what design options could still be added to improve their efficiency. By comparing the improved best-in-market designs (using predicted performance and cost) to the estimates provided by manufacturers, DOE was able to assess the reasonableness of the max-tech levels developed.

14

In confirming this information, DOE obtained technical assistance from two subject matter experts—Robert Gourlay of RDG Engineering in Northridge, CA and Jon Wexler, an independent and solo consultant in Los Angeles, CA. These two experts were selected after having been found through the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Together, they have over 30 years of combined experience with power supply design. The experts relied on their years of experience to evaluate the validity of both the design and the general cost of the max-tech efficiency levels provided by manufacturers.

DOE solicited comment on its review of the max-tech CSLs prepared for the preliminary analysis—particularly with respect to its initial view that 2.5W EPSs may be able to achieve a max-tech efficiency of 80% rather than the lower efficiency suggested by manufacturers (See Chapter 5 of the TSD for details on how DOE aggregated manufacturer data). During interviews conducted in preparation for the NOPR, manufacturers confirmed that an 80% efficiency level is achievable for 2.5W EPSs, but not without a decrease in utility. Manufacturers stated that reaching that efficiency level would require an increase in the form factor (i.e. the geometry of the design), which would make these devices larger. The increased size of the EPS would, in the manufacturers' views, constitute a decreased utility that would be undesirable to consumers because of demands for smaller and lighter products. In light of this possibility, DOE used a max-tech efficiency value of 74.8%, which represents the average max-tech efficiency level predicted by manufacturers, to characterize CSL 4. The aggregated responses from manufacturers are discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD.

DOE created the max-tech (CSL 4) equations for average efficiency and no-load power using curve-fits (i.e. creating a continuous mathematical expression to represent the trend of the data as accurately as possible) of the aggregated manufacturer data (see chapter 5 of the TSD for details on curve fits). DOE created the equations for no-load power based on a curve fit of the no-load power among the four representative units. For both the average efficiency and no-load power CSL equations, DOE used equations similar to those for CSL 1, involving linear and logarithmic terms in the nameplate output power. DOE chose the divisions at 1 watt and 49 watts in the CSL 4 equations to ensure consistency with the nameplate output power divisions between the equations for CSL 1.

In the determination for non-Class A EPSs, DOE created CSLs based on test and teardown data as well as manufacturer interview data consistent with the Class A EPS methodology. See 75 FR 27170, 27174-27175. DOE also stated in Chapter 5 of the preliminary analysis TSD that it might further evaluate additional CSLs should that become necessary pending later analysis, including revising the max-tech CSLs for all the representative units.

For the NOPR, DOE has chosen to add a new max-tech CSL for high-power EPSs while the max-tech for multiple-voltage EPSs remains unchanged from the preliminary analysis. Based on its analysis, DOE ascertained that 345W EPSs are able to achieve comparable efficiencies to 120W EPSs because efficiency tends to improve with higher nameplate output power before leveling off regardless of output power. Because of the diminishing returns of this trend, there would be no appreciable difference in the achievable efficiency of a 120W EPS and a 345W EPS. Therefore, DOE scaled its 120W EPS cost-efficiency curve using its voltage scaling method, outlined in Chapter 5 of the TSD, to generate the max-tech CSL for 345W EPSs. The max-tech no-load metric was chosen by assuming that three 120W EPSs could theoretically be connected to deliver 345 watts to a load (i.e. three 120W EPSs yield a 360W load). Consequently, in analyzing the potential cost-efficiency curves for these products, the no-load metric DOE created for CSL 4 is three times greater than the no load used for the 120W equivalent CSL.

b. Battery Charger Max-Tech Levels

The preliminary analysis did not include max-tech efficiency levels for five of the ten product classes that are being addressed today. DOE omitted levels for these product classes because manufacturers did not provide information on levels of performance that would be technologically feasible and more efficient than the current best-in-market devices. DOE's preliminary analyses typically rely heavily on manufacturer input in framing potential max-tech levels for discussion and comment.

In preparing today's NOPR, which includes max-tech levels for the ten classes initially addressed in DOE's preliminary analysis, DOE developed a means to create max-tech levels for those classes that were previously not assigned max-tech levels. For the product classes that DOE was previously unable to generate max-tech efficiency levels, DOE used multiple approaches to develop levels for these classes. DOE once again solicited manufacturers for information and extrapolated performance parameters from its best-in-market efficiency levels. Extrapolating from the best-in-market performance efficiency levels required an examination of the devices. From this examination, DOE determined which design options could be applied and what affects they would likely have on the various battery charger performance parameters. The table below shows the reduction in energy consumption when increasing efficiency from the baseline to the max-tech efficiency level.

Table III-1—Reduction in Energy Consumption at Max-Tech for Battery Chargers

Product class

Max-Tech

unit energy

consumption

(kWh/yr)

Reduction of

energy

consumption relative to the baseline

(percentage)

1 (Low-Energy, Inductive)

1.29

85

2 (Low-Energy, Low-Voltage)

0.81

91

3 (Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage)

0.75

94

4 (Low-Energy, High-Voltage)

3.01

92

5 (Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage)

15.35

82

6 (Medium-Energy, High-Voltage)

16.79

86

7 (High-Energy)

131.44

46

8 (DC to DC, <9V Input)

0.19

79

9 (DC to DC, ≥9V Input)

0.13

83

10a (AC Output, No AVR)

4.95

92

10b (AC Output, AVR)

8.58

92

Additional discussion of DOE's max-tech efficiency levels and comments received in response to the preliminary analysis can be found in the discussion of candidate standard levels in section IV.C.2.d. Specific details regarding which design options were considered for the max-tech efficiency levels (and all other CSLs) can be found in Chapter 5 of the accompanying TSD.

C. Energy Savings

The following discussion addresses the various steps DOE used to assess the potential energy savings that DOE projects will likely accrue from the various standard levels that were examined.

1. Determination of Savings

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from amended standards for the battery chargers and EPS products that are the subject of this rulemaking.

15

For each TSL, DOE forecasted energy savings beginning in 2013, the year that manufacturers would be required to comply with amended standards, and ending in the last year products shipped in 2042 would be retired. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between the standards case and the base case. The base case represents the forecast of energy consumption in the absence of amended mandatory efficiency standards and considers market demand for more-efficient products.

15

The NIA spreadsheet model is described in section IV.G of this notice.

The NIA spreadsheet model calculates the electricity savings in “site energy” expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Site energy is the energy directly consumed by battery chargers and EPSs at the locations where they are used. DOE reports national energy savings on an annual basis in terms of the aggregated source (primary) energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site energy. (See chapter 10 of the TSD.) To convert site energy to source energy, DOE derived annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA)

Annual Energy Outlook 2010 (AEO2010).

2. Significance of Savings

As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) any standard that DOE sets must result in “significant” energy savings. While the term “significant” is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in

Natural Resources Defense Council

v.

Herrington,

768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended “significant” energy savings in this context to be savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” The energy savings for all of the TSLs considered in this rulemaking are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

D. Economic Justification

This section summarizes the manner in which DOE estimated the economic impacts for the various potential standards that it evaluated. Among the aspects considered by DOE were the economic impacts on both manufacturers and consumers, life cycle costs, the amount of projected energy savings, product utility and performance, impacts on competition, and the general need to conserve energy.

1. Specific Criteria

As noted in section II.B, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of new and amended standards on manufacturers, DOE first determines the quantitative impacts using an annual cash-flow approach. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between the issuance of a regulation and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year analysis period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include INPV (which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows), cash flows by year, changes in revenue and income, and other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of different DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.

For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and the PBP associated with new or amended standards. The LCC, specified separately in EPCA as one of the seven factors to be considered in determining the economic justification for a new or amended standard, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), is discussed in the following section. For consumers

in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts on consumers over the forecast period used in a particular rulemaking.

b. Life-Cycle Costs

The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy and maintenance expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. For each battery charger product class and EPS representative unit, DOE calculated both LCC and LCC savings for various efficiency levels. The LCC analysis required a variety of inputs, such as product prices, electricity prices, product lifetimes, base case efficiency distributions, annual unit energy consumption, and discount rates.

To characterize variability in electricity pricing, DOE established regional differences in electricity prices. To account for uncertainty and variability in other inputs, such as discount rates, DOE used a distribution of values with probabilities assigned to each value. DOE then sampled the values of these inputs from the probability distributions for each consumer. The analysis produced a range of LCCs. A distinct advantage of this approach is that DOE can identify the percentage of consumers achieving LCC savings due to an increased energy conservation standard, in addition to the average LCC savings. DOE presents only average LCC savings in this NOPR; however, additional details showing the distribution of results can be found in chapter 8 and appendix 8B of the TSD.

In the LCC analysis, DOE determined the input values for a wide array of end-use applications that are powered by battery chargers or EPSs. There are typically multiple applications within every representative unit and product class that DOE analyzed. As such, DOE considered a wide array of input values for each unit analyzed. The lifetime, markups, base case market efficiency distribution, and unit energy consumption all vary based on the application. In the analysis, DOE sampled an application based on its shipment-weighting within the representative unit or product class. When an application was sampled, its unique inputs were selected for calculating the LCC and PBP. For further detail regarding application sampling, see appendix 8C of the TSD.

In its written comments, AHAM stated that the MIA and LCC calculations should be the most important considerations when determining where to set the standard level. (AHAM, No. 42 at p. 15) DOE considered many criteria when selecting the proposed standard level, including impacts on manufacturers, consumers, the Nation, and environmental impacts. DOE weighed the impacts from each of these analyses in determining the proposed standard level.

c. Energy Savings

While significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet results in its consideration of total projected energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

In establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE sought to develop standards for EPSs and battery chargers that would not lessen the utility or performance of these products. None of the TSLs presented in today's NOPR would substantially reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in the rulemaking. DOE received no comments that standards for battery chargers and EPSs would increase their size and reduce their convenience, increase the length of time to charge a product, shorten the intervals between chargers, or any other significant adverse impacts on consumer utility. However, based on DOE's preliminary examination of the information before it, including interviews with manufacturers, manufacturers may reduce the availability of features that increase energy use, such as LED indicator lights, in an effort to meet any standard levels promulgated as a result of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Manufacturers indicated that these changes would only be made if their customers would not be averse to the change in utility. DOE requests interested party feedback, including any substantive data, regarding today's proposed standard levels and the potential for lessening of utility or performance related features.

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from standards. It also directs the Attorney General of the United States (Attorney General) to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) DOE has transmitted a copy of today's proposed rule to the Attorney General and has requested that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will address the Attorney General's determination, if any, in the final rule.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

Certain benefits of the proposed standards are likely to be reflected in improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity may also result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity.

Energy savings from the proposed standards are also likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production. DOE reports the environmental effects from the proposed standards for battery chargers and EPSs, and from each TSL it considered, in the environmental assessment contained in chapter 15 of the TSD. DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs in chapter 16 of the TSD.

2. Rebuttable Presumption

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year of energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the payback period of potential standards for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test. However, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to the consumer, manufacturer,

Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level, thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification. The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section V.B.1.c of this NOPR and chapter 8 of the TSD.

IV. Methodology and Discussion

DOE used three spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of today's proposed standards. The first spreadsheet calculates LCCs and payback periods of potential standards. The second provides shipments forecasts, and then calculates national energy savings and net present value impacts of potential standards. Finally, DOE assessed manufacturer impacts, largely through use of the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). All three spreadsheet tools will be made available online at the rulemaking Web site:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.

Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts on utilities and the environment that would be likely to result from the setting of standards for battery chargers and EPSs. DOE used a version of EIA's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility and environmental analyses. The NEMS model simulates the energy sector of the U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to prepare its

Annual Energy Outlook,

a widely known energy forecast for the United States. The version of NEMS used for appliance standards analysis is called NEMS-BT,

16

and is based on the

AEO

version with minor modifications.

17

NEMS-BT offers a sophisticated picture of the effect of standards because it accounts for the interactions between the various energy supply and demand sectors and the economy as a whole.

16

BT stands for DOE's Building Technologies Program.

17

The EIA allows the use of the name “NEMS” to describe only an

AEO

version of the model without any modification to code or data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code modifications and runs the model under various policy scenarios that deviate from

AEO

assumptions, the name “NEMS-BT” refers to the model as used here. For more information on NEMS, refer to

The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview,

DOE/EIA-0581 (98) (Feb.1998), available at:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include a determination of the scope of this rulemaking; product classes and manufacturers; quantities and types of products sold and offered for sale; retail market trends; regulatory and non-regulatory programs; and technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of the product(s) under examination. See chapter 3 of the TSD for further detail.

1. Products Included in This Rulemaking

This section addresses the scope of coverage for today's proposal, stating which products would be subject to new or amended standards. The numerous comments DOE received on the scope of today's proposal are also summarized and addressed in this section.

a. External Power Supplies

The term “external power supply” refers to an external power supply circuit that is used to convert household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC current to operate a consumer product. (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, also prescribes the criteria for a subcategory of EPSs—those classified as Class A EPSs (or in context, “Class A”). A Class A EPS is a device that:

1. Is designed to convert line voltage AC input into lower voltage AC or DC output;

2. is able to convert to only one AC or DC output voltage at a time;

3. is sold with, or intended to be used with, a separate end-use product that constitutes the primary load;

4. is contained in a separate physical enclosure from the end-use product;

5. is connected to the end-use product via a removable or hard-wired male/female electrical connection, cable, cord, or other wiring; and

6. has nameplate output power that is less than or equal to 250 watts.

See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i).

The Class A definition excludes any device that either (a) requires Federal Food and Drug Administration listing and approval as a medical device in accordance with section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360c) or (b) powers the charger of a detachable battery pack or charges the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(ii).

Based on DOE's examination of product information, all EPSs appear to share four of the six criteria under the Class A definition in that all are:

• Designed to convert line voltage AC input into lower voltage AC or DC output;

• Sold with, or intended to be used with, a separate end-use product that constitutes the primary load;

• Contained in a separate physical enclosure from the end-use product; and

• Connected to the end-use product via a removable or hard-wired male/female electrical connection, cable, cord, or other wiring.

DOE refers to an EPS that falls outside of Class A as a non-Class A EPS (or, in context, “non-Class A”). Examples of such devices include EPSs that can convert power to more than one output voltage at a time (multiple voltage), EPSs that have nameplate output power exceeding 250 watts (high-power), EPSs used to power medical devices, and EPSs that provide power to the battery chargers of

m

otorized

a

pplications and

d

etachable

b

attery packs (MADB). After examining the potential for energy savings that could result from standards for non-Class A devices, DOE concluded that standards for these devices would be likely to result in significant energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified. 75 FR 27170 (May 14, 2010). Thus, DOE is examining the possibility of setting standards for all types of EPSs within the scope of today's notice.

In the preliminary analysis, DOE treated only those wall adapters that lacked charge control as EPSs; those with charge control were not considered to be EPSs. (Charge control relates to regulating the amount of current being delivered to a battery.) Under that approach, a given wall adapter without charge control capability could be considered both as an EPS and as a part of a battery charger. If that approach were adopted, such a wall adapter would be subject to whatever EPS standard that DOE may set and would also, indirectly, help the battery charger of which it is a part to meet whatever battery charger standard that DOE may set. In essence, the EPS would need to satisfy a prescribed level of efficiency, which could create certain design restrictions on manufacturers seeking to optimize the overall efficiency of the battery charger.

In the following paragraphs, DOE summarizes and addresses the comments it received on (1) whether to

set EPS standards for wall adapters that are part of battery chargers, (2) whether the absence of charge control circuitry should be the basis for regulating such wall adapters, and (3) if so, appropriate methods for determining whether a given wall adapter contains charge control. DOE received a few comments urging DOE to regulate these types of EPSs—which are part of a battery charger system—as part of the overall battery charger and also as an EPS to help ensure that whatever EPS is used in such a charger system meets a minimum level of efficiency. Several other parties, however, objected to requiring that these EPSs also meet separate EPS standards. Comments focused mainly on MADB EPSs, but some pertained to EPSs generally. In response to these comments, DOE is proposing a new approach, namely, to evaluate whether an EPS can directly operate an end-use consumer product and to create a new product class for those EPSs that cannot directly operate an end-use consumer product. DOE is considering this approach in light of the substantial resistance by the industry to the initial approach presented during the preliminary analysis phase.

Energy efficiency advocates favored requiring certain EPSs that are part of battery chargers to also meet separate EPS standards—in particular, for those EPSs that do not perform charge control functions. PG&E, et al. expressed their strong support for this approach and cited research showing that improving the efficiency of a power supply helps improve the efficiency of a battery charger. In addition, PG&E commented that a single EPS definition (rather than one for Class A and another for non-Class A) would reduce the complexity of compliance and enforcement as well as the potential for loopholes. (PG&E, et al., No. 47 at p. 3-4) NEEP also expressed its support for this approach and added that DOE's initial research shows that there are a limited number of cases where EPSs would be regulated under both standards. (NEEP, No. 49 at pp. 1-2) The California IOUs and PG&E, et al. expressed their support for using the ENERGY STAR EPS definition to determine whether a wall adapter is an EPS. (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 9; PG&E,

et al.,

No. 47 at p. 4)

AHAM, PTI, and Wahl Clipper agreed with DOE and the efficiency advocates that MADB wall adapters should be regulated, but not under multiple efficiency requirements. Instead, they urged DOE to regulate these items as battery charger components but not as EPSs. (AHAM, No. 42 at pp. 2, 3, 13; PTI, No. 45 at p. 4; Wahl, No. 53 at p. 1) PTI argued that a MADB wall adapter cannot be an EPS because it is not used “to operate a consumer product.” According to PTI, a MADB wall adapter operates a battery charger, but a battery charger is not a consumer product because battery chargers are not themselves “distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals.” Thus, in its view, MADB wall adapters are not EPSs. (PTI, No. 45 at pp. 3-4; Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 57 at p. 74) AHAM argued that subjecting a product to multiple energy efficiency requirements (1) “makes no sense,” (2) could cause manufacturers to be in “constant redesign mode” if EPS and battery charger standards change at different times, and (3) would be an undue burden. (AHAM, No. 42 at pp. 4-5) AHAM contended further that the EPS active mode test is inappropriate and inaccurate for MADB wall adapters, as they are never used in the manner tested under that procedure. Consequently, in AHAM's view, requiring that these types of wall adapters be tested under the EPS test procedure would not enable DOE to meet its obligation to test products in a manner representative of their actual use. (AHAM, No. 42 at p. 6) Wahl Clipper echoed AHAM's concerns that the EPS test procedure is inappropriate for MADB wall adapters and noted that unsynchronized battery charger and EPS standards would force manufacturers to constantly redesign their products. Wahl Clipper added that manufacturers “do not know if future standards levels will make it impossible to meet both regulations at the same time since there is no correlation between the two regulations.” (Wahl, No. 53 at p. 1)

Others had similar concerns about setting standards for Class A devices that are part of battery chargers. CEA, Cobra Electronics, and Motorola objected to regulating any wall adapter as both an EPS and a component of a battery charger. These parties drew attention to the burden that multiple energy efficiency requirements would impose on manufacturers—small businesses in particular. CEA commented that its “foremost concern is DOE's contemplation of a `double jeopardy' regulatory situation whereby a single charging device would be subject to two different test procedures and two different sets of regulatory requirements,” and added that such a situation would be “unreasonable and unnecessary—and would be particularly onerous for small businesses.” (CEA, No. 46 at pp. 1-2) Cobra Electronics, which markets and sells two-way radios and mobile navigation devices, commented that “having to be regulated under two standards for a product which is infrequently used is an unreasonable burden for small companies when added to the burden of other recent regulations.” (Cobra, No. 51 at p. 1) Motorola also agreed with CEA that the energy efficiency of EPSs should not be regulated in two different product categories (battery chargers and EPSs) and added that “given the likely high performance standards that will be set for battery chargers, it would be nearly impossible for an external power supply to comprise part of a [standards-compliant] battery charger if it were not itself highly efficient.” (Motorola, No. 48 at pp. 1-2)

AHAM also asserted that DOE risks overestimating energy savings if it does not determine how to remove the overlap between battery charger and EPS energy savings. AHAM emphasized the importance of accurately quantifying the extent to which energy savings from battery charger and EPS standards might overlap so that DOE can accurately project the potential energy savings from potential standards. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 57 at p. 112)

After carefully considering all of these comments, DOE has tentatively decided to adopt a broad scope and to propose an approach in which EPS standards could apply to all devices that meet the EPS definition prescribed by EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A). Those standards prescribed by Congress, namely, those for Class A devices, will remain in effect, and DOE, despite the objections raised by CEA and others, has no authority to remove these standards, although these standards could be amended to increase their stringency. With regard to non-Class A EPSs that are components of battery chargers, DOE has the option to propose new efficiency standards for these devices, including those devices that perform charge control functions.

To help it ascertain whether a given wall adapter performs charge control functions, DOE sought comment during the preliminary analysis phase on seven methods it presented to determine whether charge control is present in a wall adapter. See Preliminary TSD, appendix 3-C (detailing the methods DOE considered for determining whether a wall adapter contains charge control). In the preliminary analysis, DOE used a method it called “Energy Star Inspection,” which is based on parts (f) and (g) of the ENERGY STAR program's definition of an EPS. (“ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Single Voltage External Ac-Dc and Ac-Ac Power Supplies, Eligibility Criteria (Version

2.0)”

18

) This method considers certain easily observable physical characteristics of the wall adapter. Under this approach, a wall adapter that meets either of the following two criteria would be exempt from having to satisfy separate EPS standards and would instead be treated simply as a battery charger component: (1) The wall adapter has batteries or battery packs that physically attach directly (including those that are removable) to the power supply unit; or (2) the wall adapter has a battery chemistry or type selector switch AND an indicator light or state of charge meter.

18

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/eps_prog_req.pdf.

As noted above, DOE received comments from the California IOUs and PG&E that supported using this method. PTI contended that DOE neglected to include MADB wall adapters in its preliminary assessment of the seven methods and requested that DOE include these products in any future analysis of possible charge control criteria. (PTI, No. 45 at p. 4) AHAM viewed the presence of charge control in a wall adapter as irrelevant. In its view, DOE should ask whether a given wall adapter is a MADB device, as all MADB wall adapters should be excluded from any EPS standards. (AHAM, No. 42 at p. 12) DOE received no other comments on the appropriateness of the Energy Star Inspection method or any of the six other methods it considered for identifying charge control in wall adapters.

At this time, DOE does not believe that such an exclusion from the EPS scope of coverage is warranted. It is DOE's understanding that most, if not all, of the MADB wall adapters that DOE proposes to add to the EPS scope of coverage are already subject to, and satisfy, the EPS standards currently in place in California. The California standard applies the same efficiency level that already applies to Class A EPSs nationwide. See California Energy Commission, “2009 Appliance Efficiency Regulations,” August 2009, CEC-400-2009-013, Table U-1 on p. 134. This efficiency level is referred to as Level IV in the International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies.

19

Comments from manufacturers and the California IOUs also support this finding. (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 9) DOE is not aware of any products powered by battery chargers and EPSs that are not designed, manufactured, and packaged for distribution throughout the country.

19

U.S. EPA, “International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies,” October 2008, available at Docket No. 62.

It is DOE's understanding that products that use EPSs are designed, manufactured and packaged for distribution throughout the United States. Assuming that this understanding is correct, that fact indicates it is highly unlikely that manufacturers are producing one set of products for California and another set for the remaining states.

Notably, California's EPS standards apply only to devices that meet the ENERGY STAR definition of an EPS,

20

but do not meet the Class A definition established by EISA 2007. (California Energy Commission, “2009 Appliance Efficiency Regulations,” August 2009, CEC-400-2009-013) This situation stems in large part from California's adoption of the ENERGY STAR definition of an EPS when it first established energy conservation standards for these devices. Once Congress subsequently established standards for Class A EPSs, these Class A devices were removed from the scope of the California standards, leaving behind a set of devices California now refers to as “state-regulated EPSs.” As a result, these state-regulated EPSs are those devices that meet the ENERGY STAR definition of an EPS but do not fall under the Class A definition—specifically medical and MADB EPSs. (Multiple-voltage and high-power EPSs do not meet the ENERGY STAR definition but satisfy the Federal definition of an EPS.)

20

For the purposes of EPA's ENERGY STAR specification, an external power supply: (a) Is designed to convert line voltage ac input into lower voltage ac or dc output; (b) is able to convert to only one output voltage at a time; (c) is sold with, or intended to be used with, a separate end-use product that constitutes the primary load; (d) is contained in a separate physical enclosure1 from the end-use product; (e) is connected to the end-use product via a removable or hard-wired male/female electrical connection, cable, cord or other wiring; (f) does not have batteries or battery packs that physically attach directly (including those that are removable) to the power supply unit; (g) does not have a battery chemistry or type selector switch AND an indicator light or state of charge meter (

e.g.,

a product with a type selector switch AND a state of charge meter is excluded from this specification; a product with only an indicator light is still covered by this specification); and (h) has nameplate output power less than or equal to 250 watts. (See

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/eps_prog_req.pdf.

)

Due to differences between the ENERGY STAR and Federal statutory definitions of an EPS, there could be MADB devices that meet the Federal statutory definition that are not state-regulated. For example, a MADB EPS that has a battery type selector switch and an indicator light, and thus does not meet the ENERGY STAR definition of an EPS, would not be covered either by the current Federal or California standards. However, as a practical matter, DOE has not identified any MADB products that meet the Federal statutory definition of an EPS but do not also meet the ENERGY STAR definition. Thus, DOE is unaware of any MADB products that are not already subject to California energy efficiency standards that are within the EPS scope of coverage being contemplated today. DOE seeks comment on the accuracy of this belief and specific examples of such products, if they exist.

As noted above, some parties commented that requiring wall adapters that are part of battery chargers to be tested according to the EPS test procedure would impose an undue burden on manufacturers and would be inappropriate and result in inaccurate projections of estimated energy savings. In response to these comments, DOE notes that Congress prescribed the definitions of what constitutes an EPS. It did not provide for any exceptions that would exclude those EPSs that are components of another product. Given this situation, DOE must assume that Congress was aware of the fact that some battery chargers use EPSs and that it structured these statutory provisions to allow for the possibility that all EPSs would be required to meet some minimum level of efficiency that would also improve the efficiency of those products that used these more efficient devices.

As to how to measure the energy performance of these devices, DOE believes that these wall adapters can be evaluated using the existing EPS test procedure. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z (detailing the procedure to follow when measuring the energy consumption of an EPS). In fact, this test procedure already is used to demonstrate compliance with existing Federal standards, in the case of Class A EPSs, and California standards, in the case of most MADB EPSs.

21

The test procedure is designed to assess the energy performance of an EPS while in active mode by measuring its active-mode efficiency at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of nameplate output current and then computing the simple arithmetic average of these four values. DOE believes that this test procedure yields a meaningful and representative measure of an EPS's active-mode efficiency because, along with the no-load mode power measurement, it

covers the full range of outputs the device may be called on to provide in the field. This is true of EPSs that are not part of battery chargers as well as those that are. Thus, the EPS test procedure is appropriately applied to all EPSs, including those that are part of battery chargers.

21

California has adopted the Federal EPS test procedure as part of its regulatory requirements. (California Code of Regulations, Title 20, Section 1604).

Regarding PTI's argument that MADB wall adapters cannot, by definition, be EPSs because they operate battery chargers (which, in its view, are not consumer products), DOE disagrees. First, a battery charger is a consumer product by virtue of its inclusion by Congress under Part A of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6291(32), which addresses the regulation of consumer products. A consumer product is any article of a type that consumes or is designed to consume energy and which, to any significant extent, is distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). The fact that a battery charger is a device that charges batteries for consumer products does not imply that chargers are not themselves consumer products, particularly since the definition contemplates the inclusion of those devices “in other consumer products, ” which indicates that Congress viewed battery chargers as a separate, and individual, consumer product.

Second, EPSs are also consumer products for similar reasons.

Third, a MADB wall adapter satisfies the EPS definition since it “convert[s] household electric current * * *

to operate a consumer product.”

See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A) (emphasis added). Whether the MADB wall adapter is considered to operate a battery charger, which is a consumer product, or is considered to enable the end-use consumer product to operate (by supplying energy to the battery, which in turn operates the end-use product), a MADB wall adapter falls squarely within the EPS definition because it is taking household electric current to operate a consumer product. Accordingly, in DOE's view, MADB wall adapters are EPSs.

However, in view of the concerns raised by industry commenters, DOE believes there may be merit in distinguishing between a direct operation EPS and an indirect operation EPS. In particular, some EPSs are able to directly power an end-use consumer product (e.g., a wireless Internet router), while others cannot. This distinction may be necessary because DOE believes that less stringent EPS standards may be appropriate for indirect operation EPSs, which cannot directly operate an end-use consumer product. As explained later, DOE is proposing a means to differentiate between these two types of EPSs and to set different efficiency standards for them. DOE's proposed approach to regulating these products is described in more detail in sections IV.A.3 and V.C below.

DOE notes that while Congress amended EPCA to exempt certain EPSs used in security and life safety alarms and surveillance systems from the no-load mode power requirements that apply generally to Class A EPSs manufactured prior to July 1, 2017, see Public Law 111-360 (Jan. 4, 2011), such systems would be subject to the proposed active mode standards under consideration in this NOPR. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E)(ii) (exempting security and life safety alarms and surveillance systems solely from no-load requirements).

DOE further notes that it has recently identified an important emerging EPS application: solid-state lighting (SSL). SSL technology is used in both the residential and commercial sectors for desk lamps, under-cabinet lighting, accent lighting, and many other purposes. Most of the SSL luminaires (fixtures) DOE has identified have integral power supplies, but some use power supplies that appear to meet the EPS definition. Some of these EPSs plug into an outlet, while others are hard wired into the electrical system. DOE has not yet identified any relevant technical differences between these EPSs and those for laptops, cell phones, and other electronic equipment that it has analyzed in detail as part of today's notice. DOE did not include SSL technology in its NOPR analysis because so few SSL products with EPSs were sold in 2009, the base year for shipments. However, because of the rapid proliferation of these products, DOE may consider revising its analysis to include SSL products in determining the final standards for EPSs. DOE invites comment on SSL EPSs, specifically on whether there are any differences between SSL EPSs and other EPSs that might warrant treating them as a separate product class.

b. Battery Chargers

A battery charger is a device that charges batteries for consumer products, including battery chargers embedded in other consumer products. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32)) All devices that meet this definition are within the scope of this rulemaking.

Like EPSs, battery chargers are used in conjunction with other end-use consumer products, such as cell phones and digital cameras. However, unlike EPSs, the battery charger definition prescribed by Congress is not limited solely to products powered from AC mains, i.e., those products that are plugged into a wall outlet. Further, battery chargers may be wholly embedded in another consumer product, wholly separate from another consumer product, or partially inside and partially outside another consumer product.

The California IOUs commented that they “agree with DOE's wide-reaching consumer battery charger scope proposed in the preliminary [TSD],” as they believe “it will ultimately enable DOE to identify more cost-effective savings opportunities.” (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 2) Several other parties requested that DOE exclude golf car chargers and in-vehicle chargers from potential battery charger regulations.

Lester argued that “golf cars do not meet the definition of a consumer product” because they are primarily purchased by businesses rather than individuals, adding that the leading golf car manufacturer in the United States sells the vast majority of its golf cars to businesses rather than individuals—specifically 96 percent in 2009 and 97.5 percent in 2010. (Lester, No. 50 at p. 1)

As indicated above, the statutory definition of “consumer product” is a broad one. The extent of that breadth indicates that Congress had contemplated that this definition would encompass a wide variety of products. DOE's research indicates that approximately 10.6 percent of all new battery-powered golf cars sold each year in the United States are sold to individuals.

22

While DOE has no reason to question Lester's claim that the leading golf car manufacturer sells almost all of its golf cars to businesses, there are clearly manufacturers that sell a significant number of golf cars to individuals. Further, there is no identifiable difference between battery chargers for golf cars sold to individuals and those for golf cars sold to golf courses and other businesses. Thus, DOE continues to believe that golf cars are a type of consumer product. The distinction between consumer products and industrial equipment has been previously addressed by DOE. See

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/cce_faq.pdf.

22

International Market Solutions,

Golf Car-Type Vehicles and the Emerging Market for Small, Task-Oriented Vehicles in the United States; Trends 2000-2006, Forecasts to 2012,

December 2007. For more information about this report or to purchase a copy, email

icaworld@optonline.net.

Lester also commented that in certain industrial applications the benefits of less energy-efficient, transformer-based

battery chargers outweigh those of more energy-efficient, switch mode battery chargers and that business managers are skilled in making the proper choice of battery charger based on a consideration of all the relevant factors. (Lester, No. 50 at pp. 2-3) In this context, Lester argued that businesses that purchase golf cars should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding the energy performance of the battery chargers they purchase, implying that there is no need for energy conservation standards for this product.

DOE notes that, in general, the energy conservation standards that it sets must satisfy a series of criteria. See generally 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Among these criteria is the need to ensure the continued utility of the regulated product. Consistent with this requirement, DOE will take this factor into account when setting standards for battery chargers.

CEA commented that because in-vehicle chargers do not consume energy from the utility grid, they should not be covered by DOE. (CEA, No. 46 at p. 3) Motorola made similar statements and concluded that electronics that do not connect to the utility grid should be excluded from coverage. Motorola added that since DOE could not demonstrate cost savings associated with the potential efficiency standards that were under consideration for these products, these devices should not be regulated. (Motorola, No. 48 at pp. 2, 3) Cobra also expressed concerns over this product class and stated that quantifying the effect of battery chargers that obtain energy from 12V car batteries seems inaccurate and urged DOE to drop this product class from consideration. Cobra added that it was too difficult to accurately assess the economic impact of standards on 12V in-vehicle chargers because of difficulties inherent in accurately estimating gasoline savings. (Cobra, No. 51 at p. 3)

DOE is aware that consumer products “designed solely for use in recreational vehicles and other mobile equipment” are, by law, specifically excluded from coverage as consumer products. (42 U.S.C. 6292) Thus, a battery charger designed solely for use in recreational vehicles (RVs) and other mobile equipment would not be subject to battery charger standards. DOE has identified several consumer products—most prominently portable GPS navigators—that are commonly sold with 12V power adapters. However, DOE is not aware of any battery-operated consumer products that operate within a vehicle that cannot also be charged by alternate means, specifically from a 5V USB power source or from mains through a wall adapter. (For example, a GPS device may be plugged into a home computer via a USB port to receive power and to download data updates to the device's memory.) In other words, these products are not designed solely for use in recreational vehicles and other mobile equipment. DOE seeks comment on whether any products exist that can only be operated on 12V. DOE also seeks comment on whether a device that can be powered only from a 12V power outlet can be assumed to be designed solely for use in recreational vehicles (RVs) and other mobile equipment, or whether other 12V power sources exist that could power battery chargers. Lastly, DOE seeks comment on whether there are battery chargers with DC inputs other than 5V and 12V.

DOE also considered whether the above exclusion also applies to battery chargers that charge mobile equipment such as golf cars, wheelchairs, and electric scooters. DOE has preliminarily determined that this exclusion does not apply to those types of battery chargers, for two reasons. First, the statute, by specifying that a device be “designed solely for use in” a recreational vehicle or mobile equipment, appears to exclude only those devices that

obtain power from

recreational vehicles and other mobile equipment, not those that

provide power to

recreational vehicles and other mobile equipment. For example, a refrigerator designed solely for use in an RV obtains its power from the RV and, thus, is not a covered product, whereas a battery charger that is designed solely to charge the batteries of an electric bicycle obtains its power from another power source external to the bicycle (e.g., AC mains) and, thus, is a covered product. Second, EPCA excludes from coverage those consumer products “designed solely for use

in

recreational vehicles and other mobile equipment.” DOE has found that many battery chargers that charge mobile equipment are not contained entirely within that equipment, but rather operate only partly within, or entirely outside of, that equipment. (Examples of such chargers include those for many wheelchairs and lawn mowers.) In DOE's view, such a device is not operated solely

in

the mobile equipment and, thus, is not excluded from coverage. DOE welcomes comment on whether its understanding of how these devices operate is accurate.

As to the general concern regarding the calculation of potential benefits and savings from standards for in-vehicle chargers, DOE notes that it is no longer considering these savings in order to avoid any potential conflict with the exclusions set out in EPCA.

c. Wireless Power

The Wireless Power Consortium (WPC), which represents companies engaged in the emerging technology of wireless transfer of energy to both power and charge consumer products, commented that it does not believe that a “wireless power transducer is either an EPS or a battery charger” and recommended that a new category of inductive power supply be introduced for power supplies having inductive output. WPC explained that it is possible for the various components needed for these products, such as the transmitter transducers and receiver transducers, to be manufactured by different companies and sold separately. WPC further noted that it has not yet been determined how to address the independence of transmitter and receiver transducers in regards to overall system efficiency. As a result, “requirements for efficiency should be deferred until the technology is better understood and methods for accurately measuring the efficiency are developed.” (WPC, No. 42 at p. 2) Similarly, CEA requested that DOE categorize wireless power systems independently of battery chargers or EPSs to avoid regulatory mandates that could harm innovation in the emerging area of wireless power. CEA cited the technology's ability to charge or interact with multiple devices for multiple purposes simultaneously and to provide real-time power to appliances without batteries at a variety of power levels and transmitting efficiencies. (CEA, No. 46 at pp. 2-3) Philips, in reference to wireless power, expressed concern that DOE “might inadvertently take regulatory action that could have the unintended effect of stifling this new technology.” (Philips, No. 41 at p. 3).

DOE has observed that a number of new products have entered the marketplace in recent years that use wireless power technology in order to charge small consumer electronics products such as digital music players and mobile phones. Some of these products transfer power using induction while others use conduction or a galvanic (

i.e.,

current-carrying) connection. Products are also sold in a variety of different configurations, as noted in WPC's comment, with some transmitters and receivers sold separately, while others are sold together as a system.

There are a number of different types of products under the broad umbrella of “wireless power,” including both battery chargers and EPSs. DOE

analyzed one type, namely inductive battery chargers for wet environments (product class 1), and is proposing standards for these products today. In the preliminary analysis, DOE did not differentiate any other wireless power battery chargers from their conventional wired counterparts. DOE continues to believe that wireless power products that meet the definition of a battery charger, whether inductive or galvanic, are covered products.

However, DOE also agrees with CEA that the ability to charge multiple devices simultaneously and wirelessly offers a unique utility to consumers that could adversely and inadvertently be affected by standards. Because of this fact, and the immaturity of the technology, which collectively explain the absence of energy efficiency performance data on these products, DOE is not proposing standards for these types of products. Instead, DOE is proposing to create a separate product class for these products and to defer analysis of these products to a later standards rulemaking. Therefore, in today's rulemaking, DOE has reserved a section in the CFR for an 11th battery charger product class for products that use wireless power, in a dry environment, to charge consumer products.

With regard to the applicability of EPS standards to wireless power products, DOE reiterates that, by definition, an EPS “is used to convert household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC current to operate a consumer product.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) Some wireless power transmitter pads are sold by themselves and, thus, are consumer products in their own right. Other wireless power transmitter pads are sold along with a power receiver. Such a product constitutes a battery charger or a large portion of a battery charger, which also is a consumer product. Hence, in both cases, a wall adapter that provides power to the wireless power transmitter pad is an EPS.

d. Unique Products

Through additional market study of battery chargers and external power supplies since the preliminary analysis, DOE has found certain “unique” products that exhibit characteristics spanning several of the proposed BCEPS product classes, which make them difficult to classify within the scope of this rulemaking. These products possess traits inherent to both battery chargers and external power supplies and/or were designed for multiple simultaneous end-use consumer applications. In one example, a product DOE examined supplied power to an answering machine equipped with two charging stations for a wireless headset and a cordless handset. The power converter itself provided two separate outputs at the same nameplate output voltage, but with different current limits on each. One output was dedicated to charging the wireless headset and one output was used to power the answering machine and charge the cordless handset. Under the definitions DOE has used to classify battery chargers and EPSs to this point, this product could be considered a multiple-voltage EPS, a multi-port battery charger, or even a distinct single-voltage EPS and a battery charger depending on how the terms are applied.

DOE has invested considerable effort in properly analyzing the design tendencies of battery chargers and EPSs and believes that the vast majority of these products can be classified under the definitions of this proposed rule. DOE also believes that manufacturers, who are most familiar with how their products function and their intended use, should be able to appropriately determine what type of product they are selling and therefore which standard is appropriate based on DOE's proposed definitions. DOE requests any interested party information regarding products that may seem to fall into multiple product classes.

2. Market Assessment

a. Market Survey

To characterize the market for battery chargers and EPSs, DOE gathered information on the products that use them. DOE refers to these products as end-use consumer products or battery charger and EPS “applications.” This method was chosen for two reasons. First, battery chargers and EPSs are nearly always integrated into, bundled with, or otherwise intended to be used with a given application; therefore, the demand for applications drives the demand for battery chargers and EPSs. Second, because most battery chargers and EPSs are not stand-alone products, their usage profiles, energy consumption, and power requirements are all determined by the associated application.

DOE began the development of the preliminary analysis by analyzing online and brick-and-mortar retail outlets to determine which applications use battery chargers and EPSs and which battery charger and EPS technologies are most prevalent. Because the market for battery charger and EPS applications continues evolving, DOE updated the market survey to identify new applications and determine whether any relevant attributes of existing applications had changed significantly between the preliminary analysis and NOPR phases of the rulemaking.

In order to more accurately characterize the market for battery chargers and EPSs, DOE analyzed the following new applications: Media tablets, mobile Internet hotspots, smartphones, and wireless charging stations. To simplify the analysis, DOE removed external media drives, radio-controlled cars (hobby grade), and electronic pest repellents, all of which had low or unsupported shipments estimates. Battery chargers and EPSs for such applications and any other applications not explicitly analyzed in the market assessment would still be subject to the standards proposed in today's notice as long as they meet the definition of a covered product outlined in sections A.1.a and A.1.b, above. DOE also combined Wi-Fi access points with LAN equipment and merged weed trimmers and hedge trimmers into a single application (rechargeable garden care products). Finally, DOE identified EPS applications that now also commonly contain rechargeable batteries and use battery chargers, including LAN equipment and video game consoles. Chapter 3 of the TSD discusses all of these market assessment updates in further detail.

As noted in section IV.A.1.a above, DOE is considering including EPSs for SSL luminaires when it updates its analysis prior to issuing a final rule. DOE welcomes comment on the size of the market for these products, what proportion of SSL luminaires use EPSs, the efficiency of those EPSs, and usage patterns.

The California IOUs suggested that DOE consider two additional products for inclusion in battery charger product class 10 (AC output): emergency uninterruptible power supplies (UPSs) for cordless phones and emergency backup for security systems. (California IOUs, No. 43 at p. 7) Battery charger product class 10 is reserved for products that output AC power from the battery. UPSs were the only applications that met this criterion. Due to the small number of UPSs for cordless phones shipped annually, DOE did not include this application in its quantitative analysis for product class 10, despite its inclusion in this class. DOE recognizes that many home security systems contain rechargeable emergency backup batteries; however, because those backup batteries output DC power in order to operate the electronics in the security system, DOE placed these

chargers in product class 2. Although DOE recognizes that there are battery charger and EPS applications that it did not analyze, it tentatively believes that it has included within its analysis all major applications and, thus, has accurately characterized battery charger and EPS energy consumption and savings potential for each product class.

b. Non-Class A External Power Supplies

In addition, DOE expanded its analysis of applications that use non-Class A EPSs, including multiple-voltage and high-power EPSs, those EPSs that are used with medical devices, and EPSs used with (1) motor-operated battery charger applications and (2) the chargers of detachable batteries (i.e. collectively, MADB devices). In the preliminary analysis, DOE relied upon market information it had collected prior to publishing the notice of proposed determination for non-Class A EPSs in November 2009. Because updated information was available following the preliminary analysis, DOE revisited non-Class A EPSs while conducting its NOPR-phase market survey.

DOE found that multiple-voltage EPSs are used in fewer applications today than they were at the time of the first survey. Specifically, DOE removed inkjet imaging equipment from the multiple-voltage EPS product class, leaving the Xbox 360 (a video game console) as the only application for these devices.

DOE also reclassified medical EPSs based on the power requirements stated on retailer Web sites and updated lifetime and shipments estimates for medical devices. Philips commented that medical devices are expected to last longer than other consumer products and suggested using expected lifetimes of six to ten years for these products. (Philips, No. 41 at pp. 2-3) In the preliminary analysis, DOE estimated the product lifetimes for all medical devices analyzed to be greater than six years based on input from medical EPS manufacturers. Philips' comment, combined with independent market research, helped DOE to confirm its preliminary estimates for the NOPR. All of DOE's shipment and lifetime assumptions are documented in the market workbook that accompanies chapter 3 of the TSD.

c. Application Shipments

DOE relied on published market research to estimate base-year shipments for all applications. The base-year was changed from 2008 to 2009 for the NOPR, and application shipments were updated wherever supporting data were available. DOE estimated that in 2009 a total of 345 million EPSs and 437 million battery chargers shipped for final sale in the United States. Philips commented that DOE understated the shipments estimate for products in battery charger product class 1—inductive chargers for use in wet environments. In the preliminary analysis DOE assumed annual shipments of 5.35 million units, but Philips recommended using an estimate that is “closer to 15 million” units. (Philips, No. 41 at p. 2) Philips later explained how it derived this estimate from proprietary market data and its knowledge of the toothbrush market. In the NOPR-stage analysis, DOE used the shipments estimate recommended by Philips.

One significant update to the market assessment methodology was to estimate the proportion of battery chargers and EPSs used exclusively in the commercial sector. Commercial users pay commercial electricity rates, which are lower than residential electricity rates, and, therefore, the cost savings they would enjoy from an energy conservation standard would be lower. DOE identified applications that were likely to be used in office buildings, restaurants, or commercial construction sites, for example, in order to more accurately estimate energy cost savings in the life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis and national impact analysis. Data on commercial shipments were not readily available for most applications; therefore, DOE assumed similar commercial market shares among similar office and telecommunications applications. In the case of power tools, DOE assumed that commercial and residential spaces have similar repair and maintenance needs and, thus, used the ratio of commercial to residential floor space in the United States as a proxy for each sector's share of total power tool shipments. DOE seeks comment on which battery charger and EPS applications are used in the commercial sector, what fraction of shipments are to the commercial sector, and how product lifetimes and usage may differ between residential and commercial settings. (See Issue 2 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section VII.E of this notice.) See chapter 3 of the TSD for more information on DOE's commercial sector market share estimates.

d. Efficiency Distributions

In the preliminary analysis, DOE estimated separate base-case market efficiency distributions for each battery charger product class and a single efficiency distribution for all Class A EPSs analyzed in the LCC and national impact analyses. AHAM commented that there are currently more EPSs in the market with efficiencies at levels higher than the EISA standard than what DOE estimated in the preliminary analysis; however, AHAM did not provide any specific data to support its claim. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 57 at p. 121) On the other hand, Cobra Electronics commented that most manufacturers of lower cost products use linear EPSs that just meet the current Federal standard rather than more efficient switch mode power supplies because of the higher costs involved with using that more efficient technology. (Cobra, No. 51 at p. 3) DOE incorporated these stakeholder comments into its updated efficiency distribution estimates but largely relied upon product testing and other market research to estimate base-case efficiency distributions. Further detail is contained in TSD chapter 3 and the accompanying analytical spreadsheet models.

In preparing today's NOPR, DOE revised its methodology for calculating efficiency distributions from test data. Instead of weighting results for each individual tested unit based on the shipments of the associated application, DOE gave equal weight to the results for each unit. For battery chargers and EPSs, DOE compared each test result to the proposed compliance curves for each candidate standard level (CSL). DOE then divided the number of units at a given CSL by the total number of tested units to estimate the percentage of units in the market. For select applications, DOE adjusted these distributions to reflect additional data or other market research about these applications. For EPSs, DOE also calculated the distribution of tested units within the ranges of nameplate output power corresponding to the representative units of analysis. Finally, DOE continued to calculate the distribution of tested units within each battery charger product class. DOE assigned an efficiency distribution profile to each EPS and battery charger application based on application-specific data where possible. For applications that DOE did not test, DOE relied on product class (for battery chargers) or representative unit (for EPSs) distributions for use in the energy use analysis and LCC analysis. DOE calculated a shipment-weighted average efficiency distribution for each product class for use in the national impact analysis. For more detail, see sections IV.E, IV.F, and IV.G below, which discuss the energy use, life-cycle cost, and national impact analyses, respectively.

3. Product Classes

When necessary, DOE divides covered products into classes by the type of energy used, the capacity of the product, and any other performance-related feature that justifies different standard levels, such as features affecting consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) DOE then conducts its analysis and considers establishing or amending standards to provide separate standard levels for each product class.

At the preliminary analysis public meeting, DOE presented its rationale for creating 15 product classes for EPSs and 10 product classes for battery chargers. The product classes established for EPSs and battery chargers were based on various electrical characteristics shared by particular groups of products. As these electrical characteristics change, so does the utility and efficiency of the devices.

a. External Power Supply Product Classes

In the preliminary analysis, DOE raised the possibility of creating product classes based on nameplate output power and nameplate output voltage. This approach was based on the framework set by EISA 2007 and ENERGY STAR 2.0, which, collectively, grouped EPSs in this manner. DOE also divided EPS product classes based on whether a device met the Class A definition, its application type (motorized or medical), its output power, its output current type, its output voltages, and the battery type (detachable) of the associated application.

For Class A EPSs, the preliminary analysis divided these products into product classes A1, A2, A3, and A4 based on ENERGY STAR 2.0 criteria, which classify EPSs based on the type of power conversion (i.e., AC to DC or AC to AC) used and nameplate output voltage (i.e., low-voltage or basic-voltage). Each of these four product classes (A1-A4) from the preliminary analysis was created using these same criteria. The Class A EPS product classes were defined using the identical power conversion type and nameplate output voltage parameters as the ENERGY STAR program for EPSs.

Consistent with this initial approach, DOE is proposing to adopt the ENERGY STAR definition for low-voltage EPSs. DOE received no comments on these class structures when it first raised them during the preliminary analysis phase. As a result, DOE is proposing to adopt these class structures as part of today's proposal. Particularly, if a device has a nameplate output voltage of less than 6 volts and its nameplate output current is greater than or equal to 550 milliamps, DOE is proposing to classify that device as a low-voltage EPS. Additionally, a product that does not meet the criteria for being a low-voltage EPS would be classified as a basic-voltage EPS. DOE is also proposing definitions for AC to DC and AC to AC EPSs. If an EPS converts household electrical current to a lower voltage DC, DOE is proposing to classify that product as an AC to DC EPS. Similarly, DOE is proposing to classify a device that converts household electrical current to a lower voltage AC output as an AC to AC EPS.

DOE's preliminary analysis also explained how DOE was planning to organize non-Class A EPSs, which include medical, MADB, multiple-voltage, and high-power (nameplate output power >250 Watts) EPSs, into product classes. In the preliminary analysis, DOE created product classes M1, M2, M3, and M4 for medical EPSs and B1, B2, B3, and B4 for MADB EPSs. As with Class A EPSs, DOE considered four product classes for these two groups of devices based on combinations of power conversion type and voltage level. Additionally, for MADB products, DOE determined whether a wall adapter for a MADB application lacked charge control, as defined in appendix 3C of the preliminary TSD, and therefore was a MADB EPS. For multiple-voltage EPSs, DOE considered the creation of two product classes—X1 and X2—and for high-power EPSs, it considered only one, H1. In response to the preliminary analysis, DOE received comments on the product class definitions presented for MADB and multiple-voltage EPSs. The issues raised are discussed below.

Indirect Versus Direct Operation External Power Supplies

As noted in section IV.A.1, interested parties raised concerns with DOE's proposed approach in the preliminary analysis regarding MADB EPSs. Based on these comments, DOE revised its approach and is no longer using the charge control method it had considered using during the preliminary analysis. Instead, DOE is proposing a simpler approach, which would require a manufacturer to determine whether an EPS can only “indirectly operate” an application.

DOE is proposing to define an indirect operation EPS as an EPS that cannot power a consumer product (other than a battery charger) without the assistance of a battery. In other words, if an end-use product only functions when drawing power from a battery, the EPS associated with that product is classified as an indirect operation EPS. Because the EPS must first deliver power and charge the battery before the end-use product can function as intended, DOE considers this device an indirect operation EPS and has defined a separate product class, N, for all such devices. Conversely, if the battery's charge status does not impact the end-use product's ability to operate as intended and the end-use product can function using only power from the EPS, DOE is proposing to treat that wall adapter as a direct operation EPS.

DOE's initial approach for determining whether a given EPS has direct operation capability involved removing the battery from the application and attempting to operate the application using only power from the EPS. While this approach gave the most definitive EPS classifications, this procedure had the potential of creating complications during testing since it can frequently necessitate the removal of integral batteries prior to testing. The removal of such batteries can often require access to internal circuitry via sealed moldings capable of shattering and damaging the application.

DOE then developed a new method of testing to help minimize both the risk of damage to the application and the accompanying complexity associated with the removal of the internal batteries while ensuring testing accuracy. This approach would require product testers to determine whether an EPS can operate an end-use product once the associated battery has been fully discharged. Based on product testing results, DOE believes that direct operation EPSs will be able to power the application regardless of the state of the battery while indirect-operation EPSs will need to charge the battery before the application can be used as intended. Comparing the time required for an application to operate once power is applied during fully discharged and fully charged battery conditions would provide a reliable indication of whether a given EPS is an indirect or direct operation device. Recording the time for the application to reach its intended functionality is necessary because certain applications, such as smartphones, contain firmware that can delay the EPS from operating the end-use product as expected. If the application takes significantly longer to operate once the battery has been fully discharged, DOE would view this EPS as one that indirectly operates the end-use consumer product and classify it as part of product class N. Using this methodology, DOE was also able to evaluate a given product's EPS as it was

intended to be used while limiting the burden of the test. The full procedure is detailed in Appendix 3C of the TSD and in the rule language section of today's notice.

Product class N that DOE is proposing in today's notice contains both Class A and non-Class A EPSs. DOE believes that these two groups of devices are technically equivalent, i.e., there is no difference in performance-related features between the two groups that would justify different standard levels for the two groups. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) Because of this technical equivalency, DOE grouped these EPSs into one product class for analysis. DOE seeks comment on whether there are any performance-related features characteristic of either Class A or non-Class A devices (but not both) in product class N that would help justify analyzing the two groups separately.

If a product is capable of directly operating its end-use consumer product, other characteristics must be examined to determine the appropriate product class. In its preliminary analysis, DOE separated product classes based on combinations of their power conversion type and voltage level. DOE is proposing to use these class definitions based on those combinations but with one change

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.