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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2012-6042

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** March 27, 2012
- **Citation:** 77 FR 18478

## Text

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, 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. As shown in Table IV-1, DOE used four product classes for each combination of power conversion type and voltage level in the preliminary analysis for Class A EPSs, MADB EPSs, and medical EPSs. DOE also considered applying the results of the Class A engineering analysis directly to medical and MADB EPSs, meaning there would be no difference in the cost-efficiency curves or the product class divisions for Class A, medical, or MADB EPSs. DOE believed this was a valid approach because the costs associated with improving the efficiency of a medical or MADB EPS were identical to those associated with the same improvements in a comparable Class A EPS as all three types are technically equivalent. Due to these similarities, DOE believed that Class A, medical, and MADB EPSs should be evaluated identically. Interested parties did not comment on this simplified approach after it was presented during the preliminary analysis public meeting.

Today's NOPR proposes eliminating the disaggregation of Class A, medical, and MADB EPSs in its product class definitions. This consolidation would reduce the number of product classes covering these products from 12 in the preliminary analysis to five (B, C, D, E, and N) in the NOPR. Under this consolidated approach, product class B includes direct operation EPSs that are AC/DC and basic-voltage (i.e. do not qualify as low-voltage); product class C includes direct operation EPSs that are AC/DC and low-voltage (i.e. nameplate output voltage less than 6 volts and nameplate output current greater than or equal to 550 milliamps.); product class D includes direct operation EPSs that are AC/AC and basic-voltage; product class E includes direct operation EPSs that are AC/AC and low-voltage; and product class N includes all indirect operation EPSs.

Table IV—1 Preliminary Analysis Product Classes

Voltage level

Basic
(not low-voltage)

Low
(10V battery chargers) for MADB and non-MADB devices. (PTI, No. 47 at p. 7)

Conversely, the California IOUs supported DOE's decision to group both power tools (i.e. MADB battery chargers) and laptops (i.e. consumer electronics battery chargers) in the same product classes for the purposes of this analysis (California IOUs, No. 45 at p. 6) They also expressed support for DOE's proposal in the preliminary analysis that usage profiles should not be used when creating product classes. (California IOUs, No. 45 at p. 8) In separate comments, Pacific Gas and Electric and others urged DOE to reduce the number of product classes from 10 to 4, and reorganize product classes 2 through 7 (AC in/DC out battery chargers) into one new product class. (PG&E, et al., No. 49 at pp. 2-3)

After considering these comments, DOE re-examined the UEC data from its engineering analysis for product classes 3 and 4. DOE found that when MADB applications were removed from product classes 3 and 4, the UECs generated for the removed group of MADB applications were not significantly different (.

If new EPSs are compatible with a wide range of mobile phone and smartphone models, a consumer may continue to use the EPS from their old phone after upgrading to a new phone. Even though it is currently standard practice to receive a new EPS with a phone upgrade, DOE assumes that in the near future consumers will no longer expect manufacturers to include an EPS with each new phone. DOE requests comment from stakeholders on the reasonableness of this assumption. Tables IV-27 and IV-28 show that assuming a lifetime of 2 years (rather than 4 years) for mobile phone and smartphone EPSs results in lower life-cycle cost savings (or greater net costs) for consumers of those products. However, the net effect on Product Class B as a whole is negligible due to the fact that mobile phones and smartphones together comprise only 7 percent of shipments in Product Class B. LCC results for all other applications in Product Class B are shown in chapter 11 of the TSD.

EP27MR12.037

11. Discount Rate

In the preliminary analysis, DOE derived residential discount rates by identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase and operate products, including household assets that might be affected indirectly. DOE estimated the average shares of the various debt and equity classes in the average U.S. household equity and debt portfolios using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) from 1989 to 2007. DOE used the mean share of each class across the seven sample years as a basis for estimating the effective financing rate for products. DOE estimated interest or return rates associated with each type of equity and debt using SCF data and other sources. The mean real effective rate across the classes of household debt and equity, weighted by the shares of each class, is 5.6 percent.

For the commercial sector, DOE derived the discount rate from the cost of capital of publicly-traded firms falling in the categories of products that involve the purchase of battery chargers or EPSs. To obtain an average discount rate value for the commercial sector, DOE used the share of each category in total paid employees provided by the U.S. Census Bureau
47

and Federal,
48

State, and local
49

governments. By multiplying the discount rate for each category by its share of paid employees, DOE derived a commercial discount rate of 7.0 percent.

47
U.S. Census Bureau. The 2010 Statistical Abstract. Table 607—Employment by Industry.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0607.xls.

48
U.S. Census Bureau. The 2010 Statistical Abstract. Table 484—Federal Civilian Employment and Annual Payroll by Branch.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0484.xls.

49
U.S. Census Bureau. Government Employment and Payroll. 2008 State and Local Government.
http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/08stlall.xls.

For the NOPR analysis, DOE uses the same methodology employed in the preliminary analysis but has changed the calculations to account for the

geometric means for all time-series data. Additionally, the analysis now includes updates to the risk-free rate to use a 40-year average return on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes, as reported by the U.S. Federal Reserve,
50

and the equity risk premium—which now uses the geometric average return on the S&P 500 over a 40-year time period. The new discount rates are estimated to be 5.1 percent and 7.1 percent in the residential and commercial sectors, respectively. For further details on discount rates, see chapter 8 and appendix 8D of the TSD.

50
The Federal Reserve Board, Federal Reserve Statistical Release, Selected Interest Rates, Historical Data, Instrument: Treasury Constant Maturities, Maturity: 10-year, Frequency: Annual, Description: Market yield on U.S. Treasury securities at 10-year constant maturity, quoted on investment basis. Available at:
http://www.federalfederalreserve.gov/releases/H15/data.htm.

12. Sectors Analyzed

In the preliminary analysis, DOE analyzed battery chargers and EPSs in the residential sector for the reference case scenario and presented commercial sector results in appendix 8B. DOE developed several inputs specifically for the commercial sector, such as energy prices, energy price trends, and discount rates. Other application-specific inputs—e.g. UEC, markups, and market distribution—were not altered between the residential sector and commercial sector analyses.

The NOPR analysis includes an examination of a weighted average of the residential and commercial sectors as the reference case scenario. Additionally, all application inputs are specified as either residential or commercial sector data. Using these inputs, DOE then sampled each application based on its shipment weighting and used the appropriate residential or commercial inputs based on the sector of the sampled application. This approach provides more specificity as to the appropriate input values for each sector, and permits an examination of the LCC results for a given representative unit or product class in total. For further details on sectors analyzed, see chapter 8 of the TSD.

13. Base Case Market Efficiency Distribution

For purposes of conducting the LCC analysis, DOE analyzed candidate standard levels relative to a base case (
i.e.,
a case without new federal energy conservation standards). This analysis required an estimate of the distribution of product efficiencies in the base case (
i.e.,
what consumers would have purchased in 2013 in the absence of new federal standards). Rather than analyzing the impacts of a particular standard level assuming that all consumers will purchase products at the baseline efficiency level, DOE conducted the analysis by taking into account the breadth of product energy efficiencies that consumers are expected to purchase under the base case.

The preliminary analysis contained base case market efficiency distributions for each representative unit or product class. The distributions were based on test results, shipment-weighting of applications, and trends in efficiency that DOE identified. Under this approach, the resulting efficiency distribution could be heavily influenced by one or two very common applications associated with a particular product class or representative unit.

In preparing the NOPR analysis, DOE derived base case market efficiency distributions that are specific to each application where it had sufficient data to do so. This approach helped to ensure that the market distribution for applications with fewer shipments was not disproportionately skewed by the market distribution of the applications with the majority of shipments. For battery chargers, DOE also adjusted its efficiency distributions for pending efficiency regulations in California (for more information please see IV.G.4). As a result, the updated analysis more accurately accounts for LCC and PBP impacts.

14. Compliance Date

The compliance date is the date when a new standard becomes operative, i.e., the date by which battery charger and EPS manufacturers must manufacture products that comply with the standard. DOE's publication of a final rule in this standards rulemaking is scheduled for completion by 2013. EPCA had prescribed that DOE complete a rulemaking to amend the Class A EPS standards by July 2011 and had given manufacturers a two-year lead time to satisfy those standards—i.e., July 2013. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(i)(II)(bb). Given the timing in issuing this rule, DOE may choose to retain this prescribed two-year lead time for EPS manufacturers in spite of the compliance date currently provided in EPCA. There are no similar requirements for the compliance date for battery charger and new (non-Class A) EPS standards, but DOE is also targeting a two-year time period between publication and compliance. DOE calculated the LCCs for all consumers as if each would purchase a new product in the year that manufacturers would be required to meet the new standard (2013). However, DOE bases the cost of the equipment on the most recent available data; all dollar values are expressed in 2010$. DOE invites comment on the compliance date it should provide manufacturers in light of the current set of circumstances.

15. Payback Period Inputs

The PBP is the amount of time a consumer needs to recover the assumed additional costs of a more-efficient product through lower operating costs. As in the preliminary analysis, DOE used a “simple” PBP for the NOPR, because the PBP does not take into account other changes in operating expenses over time or the time value of money. As inputs to the PBP analysis, DOE used the total installed cost of the product to the consumer for each efficiency level, as well as the first-year annual operating costs for each efficiency level. The calculation requires the same inputs as the LCC, except for energy price trends and discount rates; only energy prices for the year the standard becomes required for compliance (2013 in this case) are needed.

DOE received a single comment addressing its initial PBP analysis. In particular, Philips commented that DOE had underestimated the projected PBP for inductively charged toothbrushes (i.e., battery charger product class 1). (Philips, No. 43 at p. 2) DOE notes that payback periods comprise a metric demonstrating the underlying cost-effectiveness of a standard level. An underestimated PBP could result from an underestimated incremental consumer purchase price or an overestimated amount of operating cost savings. Philips suggested an alternate usage profile for battery charger product class 1 that included time spent in unplugged mode. (Philips, No. 41 at p. 2) In its view, the use of such an adjusted profile would provide a more accurate picture of the projected savings.

DOE agrees with Philips that battery chargers in product class 1 likely spend some time in unplugged mode and adjusted its usage profile accordingly. The usage profile for these products now includes time in unplugged mode, which resulted in a reduction in operating cost savings. In the NOPR, DOE refined many of its estimates for the inputs contributing to purchase price and operating costs. While DOE is confident in the accuracy of these inputs and the accompanying PBP calculations presented in this NOPR, DOE continues to seek comment to help refine its approach as needed.

G. National Impact Analysis

The National Impact Analysis (NIA) assesses the national energy savings (NES) and the net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels. (“Consumer” in this context refers to consumers of the product being regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and NPV based on projections of annual unit shipments, along with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the NOPR analysis, DOE forecasted the energy savings, operating cost savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits for products sold from 2013 through 2042.

DOE evaluates the impacts of new and amended standards by comparing base-case projections with standards-case projections. The base-case projections characterize energy use and consumer costs for each product class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. DOE compares these projections with projections characterizing the market for each product class if DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels (
i.e.,
the TSLs or standards cases) for that class. For the base case forecast, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over time. For the standards cases, DOE also considers how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of efficiencies greater than the standard.

To make the analysis more accessible and transparent to all interested parties, DOE used an MS Excel spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. MS Excel is the most widely used spreadsheet calculation tool in the United States and there is general familiarity with its basic features. Thus, DOE's use of MS Excel as the basis for the spreadsheet models provides interested parties with access to the models within a familiar context. The TSD and other documentation that DOE provides during the rulemaking help explain the models and how to use them, and interested parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses average values as inputs (as opposed to probability distributions).

For the current analysis, the NIA used projections of energy prices from the
AEO2010
Reference case. In addition, DOE analyzed scenarios that used inputs from the
AEO2010
High Economic Growth, Low Economic Growth, and Carbon Cap and Trade cases. These cases have higher or lower energy price trends compared to the Reference case. NIA results based on these cases are presented in appendix 10A to the TSD.

Table IV-29 summarizes the inputs and key assumptions DOE used in its preliminary NIA and the changes to the analysis for the NOPR. Discussion of these inputs and changes follows the table. See chapter 10 of the TSD for further details.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

EP27MR12.038

1. Shipments

Forecasts of product shipments are needed to forecast the impacts standards will have on the Nation. DOE develops shipment forecasts based on an analysis of key market drivers for each considered product. In DOE's shipments model, shipments of products were calculated based on current shipments of product applications powered by battery chargers or EPSs. The inventory model takes an accounting approach, tracking remaining shipments and the vintage of units in the existing stock for each year of the analysis period.

Stakeholders submitted several comments questioning DOE's assumption in the preliminary analysis that shipment volumes would not be affected by new or amended standards. AHAM and PTI stated that certain products, such as hair clippers, cordless vacuum cleaners, electric shavers, and DIY power tools, are discretionary purchases for consumers. Because of the discretionary nature of these purchases, AHAM and PTI claimed, standards that cause significant increases in the end-use product's price may lead some families to forgo purchasing these products and find other means to meet their needs. These parties asked DOE to consider lower shipments in its standards case forecasts. (AHAM, No. 42 at pp. 14-15; PTI, No. 45 at p. 12) In addition, AHAM, CEA, and Cobra Electronics all stated that increases in product price could lead some manufacturers to substitute primary batteries for rechargeable batteries in certain products,
e.g.,
portable navigation devices and portable radios, reducing the number of battery chargers and EPSs for these products. (AHAM, No. 42 at p. 14; CEA, No. 46 at p. 3; Cobra, No. 51 at p. 2) Lastly, Stanley Black & Decker and Lester stated that increases in product price for battery-operated gardening products and golf cars could drive consumers toward their gasoline-powered equivalents. (SBD, No. 44 at p. 2; Lester, No. 50 at p. 3)

In response to these comments, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis to

examine how increases in end-use product prices resulting from standards might affect shipment volumes. To DOE's knowledge, elasticity estimates are not readily available in existing literature for battery chargers, EPSs, or the end-use consumer products that DOE is analyzing in this rulemaking. Because some applications using battery chargers and EPSs, such as smartphones and videogame consoles, could be considered more discretionary than home appliances, which have an estimated relative price elasticity of −0.34 (See—
http://ees.ead.lbl.gov/bibliography/an_analysis_of_the_price_elasticity_of_demand_for_household_appliances
), DOE believed a higher elasticity of demand was possible. In its sensitivity analysis, DOE assumed a price elasticity of demand of −1, meaning a given percentage increase in the final product price would be accompanied by that same percentage decrease in shipments.

Even under this relatively high assumption for price elasticity of demand, the standards being proposed today are unlikely to have a significant effect on the shipment volumes of those battery charger applications mentioned by stakeholders, with forecasted effects ranging from a decrease of 0.03 percent for electric shavers to a decrease of 1.46 percent for DIY power tools with detachable batteries. Results for all battery charger applications are contained in appendix 9A to the TSD. The corresponding impacts on NES and NPV are included in appendix 10A. DOE did not conduct a similar analysis for EPS applications due to the small size of the price increases (relative to the price of EPS applications) expected to result from the EPS standards being proposed today.

2. Shipment Growth Rate

In the preliminary analysis, DOE noted that the market for battery chargers and EPSs has grown tremendously in the past 10 years. Additionally, DOE found that many market reports have predicted enormous future growth for the applications that employ battery chargers and EPSs. However, in forecasting the size of these markets over the next 32 years, DOE considered the possibility that much of the market growth associated with these products has already occurred. In many reports predicting growth of applications that employ battery chargers or EPSs, DOE noted that growth was predicted for new applications, but older applications were generally not included. That is, the demand for battery chargers and EPSs had not grown, but rather the products that use such devices had transitioned to a new product mix. (See chapter 9 of the Preliminary TSD.)

With this in mind, DOE took a conservative approach in its forecast and estimated that while the specific applications that use battery chargers or EPSs will change, the overall number of individual units that use battery chargers or EPSs will grow slowly, with new applications replacing some current applications, but with little change in per-capita consumption of battery chargers or EPSs over time.

To estimate future market size while assuming no change in the per-capita battery charger and EPS purchase rate, DOE used population growth rate as the compound annual market growth rate. DOE presented this approach to stakeholders for comment and received no comments objecting to its use. Population growth rate values were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau 2009 National Projections, which forecast population through 2050. DOE took the average annual population growth rate, 0.75 percent, and applied this rate to all battery charger and EPS product classes. For the NOPR analysis, DOE continues to apply this scenario.

3. Product Class Lifetime

For the preliminary analysis, DOE calculated product class lifetime profiles using the percentage of shipments of applications within a given product class, and the lifetimes of those applications. These values were combined to estimate the percentage of units remaining in use for each year following the initial year in which those units were shipped. For the NOPR analysis, DOE continued to apply this scenario.

For more information on the calculation of product class lifetime profiles, see chapter 10 of the TSD.

4. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases

A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency forecasted for the base case (without new or amended standards) and each of the standards cases. Section IV.A.2 above explains how DOE developed efficiency distributions (which yield shipment-weighted average efficiency) for battery charger and EPS product classes for the first year of the forecast period. To project the trend in efficiency over the entire forecast period, DOE considered recent standards, voluntary programs such as ENERGY STAR, and other trends.

DOE received two comments regarding the effect of European Union (EU) energy efficiency standards on the efficiency of battery chargers and EPSs in the U.S. market. AHAM commented that the EU is planning to begin a series of battery charger efficiency standards in 2011 that could have an effect on some non-wall-adapter battery chargers. (AHAM, No. 42 at p. 15) Similarly, Cobra Electronics commented that the EU's most recent energy efficiency standard for EPSs was established at international efficiency marking protocol level V. (Cobra, No. 51 at p. 3)

In the preliminary analysis, DOE found two programs that would influence EPS efficiency in the short term. The first is the ENERGY STAR program for EPSs (called “external power adapters”), which specified that EPSs be at or above CSL 1 in order to qualify. This voluntary program was very active, with more than 3,300 qualified products as of May 2010.
51

The second program influencing EPS efficiency is the European Union Ecodesign requirements on Energy Using Products, which includes legislation on EPSs that requires that EPSs sold in the EU be at or above CSL 1, effective April 2011. Europe currently represents approximately one-third of the global EPS market. DOE did not identify any programs that required efficiency above CSL 1. These factors apply to Class A EPSs.

51
EPA, “ENERGY STAR External Power Supplies AC-DC Product List,” May 24, 2010 and EPA, “ENERGY STAR External Power Supplies AC-AC Product List,” May 24, 2010. Both documents last retrieved on May 28, 2010 from
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=ext_power_supplies.power_supplies_consumers
.

DOE agrees that standards established by the EU will affect the U.S. market, due to the global nature of EPS design, production, and distribution. With these programs in mind, DOE estimated that approximately half of the Class A EPS market at CSL 0 in 2009 would transition to CSL 1 by 2013. In updating its analysis for the NOPR, DOE reviewed these two programs for any changes. DOE found that no new European standards had been announced during the time between the preliminary analysis and the NOPR. However, in regard to the ENERGY STAR program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that its program for EPSs would be cancelled effective December 31, 2010.
52

In preparing today's notice, DOE also noted that the European mobile phone industry agreed to adhere to the GSMA Universal Charging Solution, which incorporates a no-load (“standby”) power consumption

requirement that is stricter than both the current Federal standard and ENERGY STAR version 2.0 criteria.

52
EPA, “ENERGY STAR EPS EUP Sunset Decision Memo,” July 19, 2010. Last retrieved on July 8, 2011 from
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/eps_eup_sunset_decision_july2010.pdf.

In summary, DOE found no new evidence to support the long-term improvement of EPSs beyond the initial improvement of units as estimated during the preliminary analysis. Thus, DOE has maintained its earlier assumption that EPSs will not improve in efficiency after 2013 in the base case.

For battery charger efficiency trends, DOE considered three key factors: European standards, the EPA's ENERGY STAR program, and the recently approved battery charger standards in California.

The EU included battery chargers in a preparatory study on eco-design requirements that it published in January 2007. However, it has not yet announced plans to regulate battery chargers. Thus, DOE did not adjust the efficiency distributions that it calculated for battery chargers between the present-day and the compliance date in 2013 to account for European standards.

DOE examined the ENERGY STAR voluntary program for battery charging systems and found that as of January 22, 2010, less than 150 battery charging systems had been qualified. As of July 1, 2011, only 241 battery charging systems had been qualified.
53

(Contrast this with the more than 3,300 EPSs that were ENERGY STAR-qualified as of May 2010.) Given the small number of qualified products, DOE also did not adjust its battery charger efficiency distributions to account for any potential market effects of the ENERGY STAR program.

53
EPA, “Qualified Product (QP) List for ENERGY STAR Qualified Battery Charging Systems.” Retrieved on July 8, 2011 from
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/prod_lists/BCS_prod_list.xls
.

In the preliminary analysis, DOE found no battery charger standards slated to take effect by 2013. Subsequently, the California Energy Commission (CEC) approved battery charger standards on January 12, 2012 that will take effect on February 1, 2013 for most, if not all, of the battery chargers within the scope of DOE's rulemaking. Hence, DOE adjusted its base case efficiency distributions for battery chargers to account for these standards by assuming that in the absence of Federal standards all battery chargers sold in California would meet the CEC standards. In the absence of market share data, DOE assumed that California's share of the U.S. battery charger market is equivalent to its share of U.S. GDP (13 percent). Table IV-30 contrasts the resultant base case efficiency distributions, used in preparing today's notice, with those used in the preliminary analysis.

EP27MR12.039

DOE recognizes that the CEC standards may also raise the efficiency of battery chargers sold outside of California. However, the magnitude of this effect cannot be determined. Nevertheless, to explore the full range of possibilities DOE also evaluated the potential impacts of Federal standards under the assumption that the CEC standards become the
de facto
standard for the nation, i.e., all battery chargers sold in the United States just before the Federal standard takes effect in 2013 meet the CEC standards. The base case efficiency distributions assumed in this sensitivity case are shown in Table IV-30. This scenario represents an upper bound on the possible impacts of the CEC standards and a lower bound on the energy savi

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2012-6042. Public record. Not legal advice.