Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies
Federal RegisterFeb 10, 2014
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005]
RIN 1904-AB57
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies
AGENCY:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY:
Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended, today's final rule amends the energy conservation standards that currently apply to certain external power supplies and establishes new energy conservation standards for other external power supplies that are currently not required to meet such standards. Through its analysis, DOE has determined that these changes satisfy EPCA's requirements that any new and amended energy conservation standards for these products result in the significant conservation of energy and be both technologically feasible and economically justified.
DATES:
The effective date of this rule is April 11, 2014. Compliance with the new and amended standards established for EPSs in today's final rule is February 10, 2016.
The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on April 11, 2014.
ADDRESSES:
The docket, which includes
Federal Register
notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket can be accessed from the regulations.gov homepage by searching for Docket ID EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005. The regulations.gov Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov
.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:
battery_chargers_and_external_power_supplies@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:
This final rule incorporates by reference into part 430 the following industry standard:
International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies, Version 3.0
The above referenced document has been added to the docket for this rulemaking and can be downloaded from Docket EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 on
Regulations.gov.
The document is discussed in section IV.O of this notice.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for EPSs
III. General Discussion
A. Compliance Date
B. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
1. General
2. Definition of Consumer Product
3. Power Supplies for Solid State Lighting
4. Medical Devices
5. Security and Life Safety Equipment
6. Service Parts and Spare Parts
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. 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
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Market Assessment
2. Product Classes
a. Proposed EPS Product Classes
b. Differentiating Between Direct and Indirect Operation EPSs
c. Multiple-Voltage
d. Low-Voltage, High-Current EPSs
e. Final EPS Product Classes
3. Technology Assessment
a. EPS Efficiency Metrics
b. EPS Technology Options
c. High-Power EPSs
d. Power Factor
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Representative Product Classes and Representative Units
2. EPS Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs)
3. EPS Engineering Analysis Methodology
4. EPS Engineering Results
5. EPS Equation Scaling
6. Proposed Standards
a. Product Classes B, C, D, and E
b. Product Class X
c. Product Class H
D. Markups Analysis
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. Shipments Analysis
1. Shipment Growth Rate
2. Product Class Lifetime
3. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Price Trends
2. Unit Energy Consumption and Savings
3. Unit Costs
4. Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit
5. Energy Prices
6. National Energy Savings
7. Discount Rates
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Manufacturer Production Costs
2. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
3. Markup Scenarios
4. Impacts on Small Businesses
K. Emissions Analysis
L. 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
2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
O. Marking Requirements
V. Analytical Results
A. Trial Standards Levels
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 Impact on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Manufacturer Subgroups
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impact on Employment
4. Impact on Utility and Performance of the Products
5. Impact on Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of National Economic Impacts
C. Conclusions
1. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for EPS Product Class B
2. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for EPS Product Class X
3. Benefits and Burdens of Trial Standard Levels Considered for EPS Product Class H
4. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Proposed Standards
5. Stakeholder Comments on Alternatives to Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
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
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits
Today's notice announces the Department of Energy's (DOE's) amended and new energy conservation standards for certain classes of external power supplies (EPSs). These standards, which are based on a series of mathematical equations that vary based on output power, will affect a wide variety of EPSs used in a wide variety of consumer applications.
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.
2
Pursuant to EPCA, any new and amended energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes for certain products, such as EPSs, shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new and amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with these provisions, DOE is amending the standards for certain EPSs—those devices that are already regulated by standards enacted by Congress in 2007—and establishing new standards for EPSs that have not yet been regulated by DOE. These standards, which prescribe a minimum average efficiency during active mode (i.e. when an EPS is plugged into the main electricity supply and is supplying power in response to a load demand from another connected device) and a maximum power consumption level during no-load mode (i.e. when an EPS is plugged into the main electricity supply but is not supplying any power in response to a demand load from another connected device), are expressed as a function of the nameplate output power (i.e. the power output of the EPS). These standards are shown in Table I-1. and will apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on February 10, 2016.
1
For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
2
All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
ER10FE14.002
ER10FE14.003
The new and amended standards being adopted today apply to all direct operation EPSs, both Class A and non-Class A, with the exceptions noted in the footnote to Table I-1. These exemptions are discussed in more detail in Section IV.A.2.d and Section B.5. Note that the standards established by Congress for Class A EPSs will continue in force for all Class A EPSs, including indirect operation EPSs. Therefore, all indirect operation Class A EPSs must continue to meet the standards established by Congress at efficiency level IV (discussed in Section II.B.1), while direct operation Class A EPSs will be required to meet the more stringent standards being adopted today.
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
Table I-2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of today's standards on EPS consumers, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings, the median payback period, and the average lifetime. The average LCC savings are positive and the median payback periods are less than the average lifetimes for all product classes for which consumers are impacted by the standards.
er10fe14.004
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 (2013 to 2044). Using a real discount rate of 7.1 percent, DOE estimates that the industry net present value (INPV) for manufacturers of EPSs is $274.0 million in 2012$. Under today's standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 18.7 percent of their INPV, which is approximately $51.2 million. Additionally, based on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of EPSs no domestic OEM EPS manufacturers were identified and therefore, DOE does not expect any plant closings or significant loss of employment.
C. National Benefits
3
3
All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2012 dollars and are discounted to 2013.
DOE's analyses indicate that today's standards would save a significant amount of energy. The lifetime savings for EPSs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with new and amended standards (2015-2044) amount to 0.94 quads. The annual energy savings in 2030 amount to 0.15 percent of total residential energy use in 2012.
4
4
Total residential energy use in 2012 was 20.195 quads. See:
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/?src=Total-f3# consumption
The estimated cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings of today's standards for EPSs ranges from $1.9 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $3.8 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for products purchased in 2015-2044.
In addition, today's standards are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. The energy savings would result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of approximately 47.0 million metric tons (Mt)
5
of carbon dioxide (CO
2
), 81.7 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO
2
), 15.0 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO
X
) and 0.1 tons of mercury (Hg).
6
Through 2030, the estimated energy savings would result in cumulative emissions reductions of 23.6 Mt of CO
2
.
5
A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for NO
X
and Hg are presented in short tons.
6
DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the
Annual Energy Outlook 2013
(
AEO 2013
) Reference case, which generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations for which implementing regulations were available as of December 31, 2012.
The value of the CO
2
reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO
2
(otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed and recently updated by an interagency process.
7
The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section IV.L. DOE estimates that the net present monetary value of the CO
2
emissions reductions is between $0.4 billion and $4.7 billion. DOE also estimates that the net present monetary value of the NO
X
emissions reductions is $0.014 billion at a 7-percent discount rate and $0.024 billion at a 3-percent discount rate.
8
7
Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866.
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 2013; revised November 2013.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf
8
DOE is currently investigating valuation of avoided Hg and SO
2
emissions.
Table I-3 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits expected to result from today's standards for EPSs.
er10fe14.005
The benefits and costs of today's standards, for products sold in 2015-2044, 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 operating the product (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), plus (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO
2
emission reductions.
9
9
DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present value in 2013, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of costs and benefits using discount rates of three and seven percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO
2
reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as shown in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period (2013 through 2042) that yields the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from which the annualized values were determined is a steady stream of payments.
Although adding the value of consumer savings to the value of emission reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating cost 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 different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of EPSs shipped in 2015-2044. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of all future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one metric ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.
Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of today's standards are shown in Table I-4. 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 average SCC series that uses a 3-percent discount rate, the cost of the standards in today's rule is $147 million per year in increased equipment costs to consumers, while the benefits are $293 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs to consumers, $77 million in CO
2
reductions, and $1.1 million in reduced NO
X
emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $223 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC series, the cost of the standards in today's rule is $162 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $350 million per year in reduced operating costs, $77 million in CO
2
reductions, and $1.2 million in reduced NO
X
emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $266 million per year.
er10fe14.006
er10fe14.007
D. Conclusion
Based on the analyses culminating in this final rule, DOE found the benefits to the Nation of the standards (energy savings, consumer LCC savings, positive NPV of consumer benefit, and emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV and LCC increases for some users of these products). DOE has concluded that the standards in today's final rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant conservation of energy.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying today's final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for EPSs.
A. Authority
Title III, Part B
10
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, a program covering most major household appliances (collectively referred to as “covered products”),
11
which includes the types of EPSs that are the subject of this rulemaking. (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.
11
All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
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. The labeling of EPSs, however, is one of the few exceptions for which either agency may establish requirements as needed. See 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(5)(A). 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) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA.
Id.
The DOE test procedures for EPSs currently appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendix Z. See also 76 FR 31750 (June 1, 2011) (finalizing the most recent amendment to the test procedures for EPSs).
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new and amended standards for covered products. As indicated above, any new and 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, DOE may not adopt 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 EPSs, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the new and amended standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a new and amended 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 a new and amended 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) having 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 product for any group of covered products that have the same function or intended use if DOE determines that 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. 6295(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 to the consumer of such a feature 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 preempt 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). The energy conservation standards established in this rule will preempt relevant State laws or regulations on February 10, 2016.
Also, pursuant to the amendments contained in section 310(3) of EISA 2007, any final rule for new and 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 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 and standards for EPSs address standby mode and off mode energy use, as do the standards adopted in this final rule.
Finally, Congress created a series of energy conservation requirements for certain types of EPSs—those EPSs that meet the “Class A” criteria. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3) (establishing standards for Class A EPSs) and 6291(36)(C) (defining what a Class A EPS is). Congress clarified the application of these standards in a subsequent revision to EPCA by creating an exclusion for certain types of Class A EPSs. In particular, EPSs that are designed to be used with security or life safety alarm or surveillance system that are manufactured prior to 2017 are not required to meet the no-load mode requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E) (detailing criteria for satisfying the exclusion requirements). The standards in today's final rule are consistent with these Congressionally-enacted provisions.
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)). Class A EPSs are types of EPSs defined by Congress that meet certain design criteria and that are not devices regulated by the Food and Drug Administration as medical devices or that power the charger of a detachable battery pack or the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)-(ii). The current standards for Class A EPSs are set forth in Table II.1.
ER10FE14.008
Currently, there are no Federal energy conservation standards for EPSs falling outside of Class A.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for EPSs
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 term “external power supply.” That provision also directed DOE to prescribe test procedures related to the energy consumption of EPSs and to issue a final rule that determines whether
energy conservation standards shall be issued for EPSs or classes of EPSs. (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, including EPSs. 71 FR 71340. See also 10 CFR part 430, Subpart B, Appendix Z (“Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of External Power Supplies”) (codifying the EPS test procedure).
On December 19, 2007, Congress enacted EISA 2007, which, among other things, amended sections 321, 323, and 325 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291, 6293, and 6295). As part of these amendments, EISA 2007 supplemented the EPS definition, which the statute defines 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)) In particular, Section 301 of EISA 2007 created a subset of EPSs called “Class A External Power Supplies,” which consists of, among other elements, 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 Class A definition, as noted earlier, 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. 360(c)) along with devices that power the charger of a detachable battery pack or that charge 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 prescribing 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. To satisfy these requirements, along with those for EPSs, as noted later, DOE chose to bundle the rulemakings for these separate products together into a single rulemaking effort. The rulemaking requirements contained in sections 301 and 309 of EISA 2007 also 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 EPSs or classes of EPSs by no later than two years after EISA 2007's enactment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I)) Because Congress had already set standards for Class A devices, DOE interpreted this determination requirement as applying solely to assessing whether energy conservation standards would be 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 (1) have a nameplate output power greater than 250 watts, (2) are able to convert to more than one AC or DC output voltage simultaneously, and (3) are specifically excluded from coverage under the Class A EPS definition in EISA 2007 by virtue of their application (i.e. EPSs used with medical devices or that power chargers of detachable battery packs or batteries of products that are motor-operated).
12
12
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 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. See 74 FR 13318 (March 27, 2009) DOE later amended its test procedure for EPSs by including a measurement method for multiple-voltage EPSs and clarified certain definitions within the single voltage EPS test procedure. See 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), which explained, among other things, the issues, analyses, and process DOE would follow in developing potential standards for non-Class A EPSs and amended standards for Class A EPSs. See
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0005
. 74 FR 26816 (June 4, 2009). DOE also published a notice of proposed determination regarding the setting of standards for non-Class A EPSs. 74 FR 56928 (November 3, 2009). These notices were followed by a final determination published on May 14, 2010, 75 FR 27170, which concluded that energy conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs appeared 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.
13
13
See
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/23
.
On September 15, 2010, having considered comments from interested parties, 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, DOE announced a public meeting and the availability on its Web site of a preliminary technical support document (preliminary TSD). 75 FR 56021. The preliminary TSD discussed the comments DOE had received in response to the framework document and described the actions DOE had taken up to this point, the analytical framework DOE was using, and the content and results of DOE's preliminary analyses.
Id.
at 56023, 56024. DOE convened the public meeting to discuss and receive comments on: (1) The product classes DOE analyzed, (2) the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE was using to evaluate potential standards, (3) the results of the preliminary analyses performed by DOE, (4) potential standard levels that DOE might consider, and (5) other issues participants believed were relevant to the rulemaking.
Id.
at 56021, 56024. DOE also invited written comments on these matters. The public meeting took place on October 13, 2010. Many interested parties participated by submitting written comments.
DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on March 27, 2012. 77 FR 18478. Shortly after, DOE also published on its Web site the complete TSD for the proposed rule, which incorporated the complete analyses DOE conducted and technical documentation for each analysis. The NOPR TSD included the LCC spreadsheet, the national impact analysis spreadsheet, and the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) spreadsheet—all of which are available in the docket for this rulemaking. In the March 2012 NOPR, in addition to proposing potential standards for battery chargers, DOE
proposed amended energy conservation standards for EPSs as follows:
ER10FE14.009
ER10FE14.010
In the March 2012 NOPR, DOE identified 36 specific issues related to battery chargers and EPSs on which it was particularly interested in receiving comments.
Id.
at 18642-18644. DOE also sought comments and data that would allow DOE to further bring clarity to the issues surrounding battery chargers and EPSs, and determine how the issues discussed in the March 2012 NOPR could be adequately addressed. DOE also held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on May 2, 2012, to solicit comment and information from the public relevant to the proposed rule. Finally, DOE received many written comments on these and other issues in response to the March 2012 NOPR. All commenters, along with their corresponding abbreviations and organization type, are listed in Table II-3. In today's notice, DOE summarizes and addresses the issues these commenters raised that relate to EPSs. The March 2012 NOPR included additional, detailed background information on the history of this rulemaking.
See id.
at 18493- 18495.
Table II-3—List of Commenters
Organization
Abbreviation
Organization type
ARRIS Group, Inc.
ARRIS Group
Manufacturer.
ASAP, ASE, ACEEE, CFA, NEEP, and NEEA
ASAP,
et al.
Energy Efficiency Advocates.
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
AHAM
Industry Trade Association.
Brother International Corporation
Brother International
Manufacturer.
California Energy Commission
California Energy Commission
State Entity.
California Investor-Owned Utilities
CA IOUs
Utilities.
Cobra Electronics Corporation
Cobra Electronics
Manufacturer.
Consumer Electronics Association
CEA
Industry Trade Association.
Delta-Q Technologies Corp.
Delta-Q Technologies
Manufacturer.
Dual-Lite, a Division of Hubbell Lighting, Inc.
Dual-Lite
Manufacturer.
Duracell
Duracell
Manufacturer.
Eastman Kodak Company
Eastman Kodak
Manufacturer.
Flextronics Power
Flextronics
Manufacturer.
GE Healthcare
GE Healthcare
Manufacturer.
Information Technology Industry Council
ITI
Industry Trade Association.
Jerome Industries, a subsidiary of Astrodyne
Jerome Industries
Manufacturer.
Korean Agency for Technology and Standards
Republic of Korea
Foreign Government.
Logitech Inc.
Logitech
Manufacturer.
Microsoft Corporation
Microsoft
Manufacturer.
Motorola Mobility, Inc.
Motorola Mobility
Manufacturer.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
NEMA
Industry Trade Association.
Natural Resources Defense Council
NRDC
Energy Efficiency Advocate.
Nintendo of America Inc.
Nintendo of America
Manufacturer.
Nokia Inc.
Nokia
Manufacturer.
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships
NEEP
Energy Efficiency Advocate.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council
NEEA and NPCC
Energy Efficiency Advocates.
NRDC, ACEEE, ASAP, CFA, Earthjustice, MEEA, NCLC, NEEA, NEEP, NPCC, Sierra Club, SEEA, SWEEP
NRDC,
et al.
Energy Efficiency Advocates.
Panasonic Corporation of North America
Panasonic
Manufacturer.
PG&E and SDG&E
PG&E and SDG&E
Utilities.
Philips Electronics
Philips
Manufacturer.
Plantronics
Plantronics
Manufacturer.
Power Sources Manufacturers Association
PSMA
Industry Trade Association.
Power Tool Institute, Inc.
PTI
Industry Trade Association.
Salcomp Plc
Salcomp
Manufacturer.
Schneider Electric
Schneider Electric
Manufacturer.
Security Industry Association
SIA
Industry Trade Association.
Telecommunications Industry Association
TIA
Industry Trade Association.
Wahl Clipper Corporation
Wahl Clipper
Manufacturer.
III. General Discussion
A. Compliance Date
The compliance date is the date when a new standard becomes operative, i.e., the date by which EPS manufacturers must manufacture products that comply with the standard. EISA 2007 directed DOE to complete a rulemaking to amend the Class A EPS standards by July 1, 2011, with compliance required by July 1, 2013, i.e., giving manufacturers a two-year lead time to satisfy those standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(i)) There are no similar requirements for non-Class A EPSs. DOE used a compliance date of 2013 in the analysis it prepared for its March 2012 NOPR. As a result, some interested parties assumed in their comments to DOE that the compliance date would be July 1, 2013.
Many parties submitted comments on the duration of the compliance period for EPS standards. Nokia and Plantronics requested 18 to 24 months; AHAM, CEA, Eastman Kodak, Flextronics, ITI, Microsoft, and Salcomp requested two years; Panasonic requested a minimum of two years and preferably three years; Nintendo of America requested four years; and Motorola Mobility requested at least five years. These commenters cited the need to make engineering design changes, conduct reliability evaluations, and obtain regulatory approvals for safety, EMC, and other global standards. (Nokia, No. 132 at p. 2; Plantronics, No. 156 at p. 1; AHAM, No. 124 at p. 5; CEA, No. 106 at p. 6; Eastman Kodak, No. 125 at p. 1; Flextronics, No. 145 at p. 1; ITI, No. 131 at p. 6; Microsoft, No. 110 at p. 3; Salcomp, No. 73 at p. 2; Panasonic, No. 120 at p. 5; Nintendo of America, No. 135 at p. 1; Motorola Mobility, No. 121 at p. 2) NEMA also cautioned that the broad scope and severe limits in the proposed rule would force the withdrawal of systems from the marketplace until testing is concluded and threaten the availability of certain consumer products if insufficient lead time is provided. (NEMA, No. 134 at p. 2) CEA and Panasonic later submitted supplemental comments in response to DOE's March 2013 Request for Information requesting that DOE require compliance in 2017, to harmonize with the standards the European Union has proposed adopting. (CEA, No. 208 at p. 4; Panasonic, No. 210 at p. 2)
Consistent with the two-year lead time provided in EPCA, and in light of the passing of the statutorily-prescribed 2013 effective date, DOE will provide manufacturers with a lead-time of the same duration as prescribed by statute to comply with the new and amended standards set forth in today's final rule. EISA 2007 directed DOE to publish a final rule for EPSs by July 1, 2011 and further stipulated that any amended standards would apply to products manufactured on or after July 1, 2013, two years later. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)) In DOE's view, Congress created this two-year interval to ensure that manufacturers would have sufficient time to meet any new and amended standards that DOE may set for EPSs. In effect, DOE is preserving the original compliance period length contained in EISA 2007 and ensuring that manufacturers will have sufficient time to transition to the new and amended standards.
B. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
1. General
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may divide covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that would justify a different standard. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q) (outlining the criteria by which DOE may set different standards for a product). EPS product classes are discussed in section IV.A.2.
An “external power supply” is an external power supply circuit that is used to convert household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC current to operate a consumer product. (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, also prescribes the criteria for a subcategory of EPSs—those classified as Class A EPSs (or in context, “Class A”). Under 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i), a Class A EPS is a device that:
1. Is designed to convert line voltage AC input into lower voltage AC or DC output;
2. is able to convert to only one AC or DC output voltage at a time;
3. is sold with, or intended to be used with, a separate end-use product that constitutes the primary load;
4. is contained in a separate physical enclosure from the end-use product;
5. is connected to the end-use product via a removable or hard-wired male/female electrical connection, cable, cord, or other wiring; and
6. has nameplate output power that is less than or equal to 250 watts.
The Class A definition excludes any device that either (a) requires Federal Food and Drug Administration listing and approval as a medical device in accordance with section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360(c)) or (b) powers the charger of a detachable battery pack or charges the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(ii).
Based on DOE's examination of product information, all EPSs appear to share four of the six criteria under the Class A definition in that all are:
• Designed to convert line voltage AC input into lower voltage AC or DC output;
• sold with, or intended to be used with, a separate end-use product that constitutes the primary load;
• contained in a separate physical enclosure from the end-use product; and
• connected to the end-use product via a removable or hard-wired male/female electrical connection, cable, cord, or other wiring.
Examples of devices that fall outside of Class A (in context, “non-Class A”) include EPSs that can convert power to more than one output voltage at a time (multiple voltage), EPSs that have nameplate output power exceeding 250 watts (high-power), EPSs used to power medical devices, and EPSs that provide power to the battery chargers of motorized
a
pplications and
d
etachable
b
attery packs (MADB). After examining the potential for energy savings that could result from standards for non-Class A devices, DOE concluded that standards for these devices would be likely to result in significant energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified. 75 FR 27170 (May 14, 2010). With today's notice, DOE is amending the current standards for Class A EPSs and adopting new
standards for multiple-voltage and high-power EPSs.
NEMA commented in response to the NOPR that combining battery chargers and EPSs into a single rulemaking created burden on manufacturers in terms of being able to process the standards proposed in the NOPR. NEMA recommended that DOE delay the announcement of new and amended standards for EPSs and begin a new rulemaking process dedicated solely to EPSs after publishing a final rule for battery chargers. According to NEMA, EISA 2007 allows DOE to opt out of amending standards at this time if those standards are not warranted and instead revisit the possibility of amending EPS standards as part of a second rulemaking cycle. (NEMA, No. 134 at p. 6)
With respect to battery chargers, DOE issued a Request for Information (RFI) on March 26, 2013, in which DOE sought additional information. (78 FR 18253) The RFI sought, among other things, information on battery chargers that manufacturers had certified as compliant with the California Energy Commission (CEC) standards that became effective on February 1, 2013. The notice also offered commenters the opportunity to raise for comment any other issues relevant to the proposal.
Several efficiency advocates submitted comments in response to DOE's RFI, requesting that DOE split the combined battery charger and EPS rulemaking into two separate rulemakings and issue EPS standards as soon as possible. (NRDC,
et al.,
No. 209 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 197 at p. 9; California Energy Commission, No. 199 at p. 14; NEEA and NPCC, No. 200 at p. 2) These commenters gave three reasons for quickly finalizing the EPS rule: (1) The significant energy and economic savings expected to result from the EPS standard, (2) the need to move quickly to finalize standards before the underlying technical data become outdated, and (3) the statutory deadline of July 1, 2011 for publishing the EPS final rule. In response to DOE's March 2013 Request for Information, Dual-Lite, a division of Hubbell Lighting, commented that it “challenges the DOE to adopt a bias towards action in rulemakings, whereby initial rules are performed with a cant towards getting a more modest rule out the door in a timely manner, versus chasing every 0.01 watt of potential savings . . . and delaying actual energy savings by months or years.” (Dual-Lite, No. 189 at p. 3)
As explained above, this rulemaking initially addressed both battery chargers and EPSs. After proposing standards for both product types in March 2012, and giving careful consideration to the complexity of the issues related to the setting of standards for battery chargers, DOE has decided to adopt energy conservation standards for EPSs while weighing for further consideration the promulgation of energy conservation standards for battery chargers at a later date. The battery charger rulemaking has been complicated by a number of factors, including the setting of standards by the CEC, which other states have chosen to follow.
14
Because the California standards have already become effective, manufacturers are already required to meet that battery charger standard. DOE has previously indicated that the facts before it did not indicate that it would be likely manufacturers would continue to create separate products for California and the rest of the country. See 77 FR at 18502. The likelihood of this split-approach occurring is even less likely, given that other states have adopted the California standards. As a result, DOE believes that manufacturers are already making efforts to meet the levels set by California. To avoid unnecessary disruptions to the market, provide some level of consistency and stability to affected entities, and to further evaluate the impacts associated with the California-based standards, DOE is deferring the setting of battery charger standards at this time. Consequently, today's notice focuses solely on the standards that are being adopted today for EPSs, along with the detailed product classes that will apply. For further detail, see the March 2013 Request for Information.
14
Oregon has adopted the California standards; Washington, Connecticut and New Jersey are considering doing the same.
2. Definition of Consumer Product
As noted above, the term “external power supply” refers to an external power supply circuit that is used to convert household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC current to operate a consumer product.
DOE received comments from a number of stakeholders seeking clarification on the definition of a consumer product. Schneider Electric commented that the definition of consumer product is “virtually unbounded” and “provides no definitive methods to distinguish commercial or industrial products from consumer products.” (Schneider Electric, No. 119 at p. 2) ITI commented that a more narrow definition of a consumer product is needed to determine which state regulations are preempted by federal standards. (ITI, No. 131 at p. 2) NEMA commented that the FAQ on the DOE Web site is insufficient to resolve its members' questions. (NEMA, No. 134 at p. 2) NEMA further sought clarification on whether EPSs that power building system components are within the scope of this rulemaking. According to NEMA, such EPSs typically are permanently installed in electrical rooms near the electrical entrance to the building and power such things as communication links, central processors for building or lighting management systems, and motorized shades. (NEMA, No. 134 at pp. 6-7) These stakeholders suggested ways that DOE could clarify the definition of a consumer product:
• Adopt the ENERGY STAR battery charger definition.
• Limit the scope to products marketed as compliant with the FCC's Class B emissions limits.
• Define consumer products as “pluggable Type A Equipment (as defined by IEC 60950-1), with an input rating of less than or equal to 16A.”
Lutron Electronics commented that it does not believe that the EPSs that power components of the lighting control systems and window shading systems it manufactures are within the scope of the EPS rulemaking because EPSs that meet the special requirements of such applications and meet the proposed standards are not commercially available. (Lutron Electronics, No. 141 at p. 2) DOE also received comments from NEMA and Philips regarding how DOE would treat illuminated exit signs and egress lighting. (NEMA, No. 134 at p. 6; Philips, No. 128 at p. 2)
EPCA defines a consumer product as any article of a type that consumes or is designed to consume energy and which, to any significant extent, is distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). Manufacturers are advised to use this definition (in conjunction with the EPS definition) to determine whether a given device shall be subject to EPS standards. Additional guidance is contained in the FAQ document that NEMA referred to, which can be downloaded from DOE's Web site.
15
15
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/cce_faq.pdf.
Consistent with the statutory language and guidance noted above, DOE notes that Congress treated EPSs, along with illuminated exit signs, as consumer products. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u) and (w) (provisions related to requirements for EPSs and illuminated exit signs, both of
which are located in Part A of EPCA, which addresses residential consumer products). In light of this treatment, by statute, EPSs are considered consumer products under EPCA. Accordingly, DOE is treating these products in a manner consistent with the framework established by Congress.
3. Power Supplies for Solid State Lighting
NEMA and Philips commented that power supplies for solid state lighting (SSL) should not be included in the scope of this rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 134 at pp. 3-7; Philips, No. 128 at p. 2) They offered the following arguments against the inclusion of SSL power supplies:
• SSL is often used in commercial applications, and therefore should not be considered a consumer product;
• SSL power supplies are considered a part of the system as a whole and typically tested as such;
• SSL power supplies perform other functions in addition to power conversion, such as dimming;
• SSL is an emerging technology and increasing efficiency could lead to costs that are prohibitive to most consumers; and
• Regulating components of SSL could contradict DOE's other efforts, which include promoting the adoption of SSL.
DOE notes that Congress prescribed the criteria for an EPS to meet in order to be considered a covered product. A device meeting those criteria is an EPS under the statute and subject to the applicable EPS standards. DOE has no authority to alter these statutorily-prescribed criteria.
Further, all Class A EPSs are subject to the current Class A EPS standards, and those that are direct operation EPSs will be subject to the amended EPS standards being adopted today. The fact that a given type of product, such as SSL products, is often used in commercial applications does not mean that it is not a consumer product, as explained above. DOE recognizes that many EPSs are considered an integral part of the consumer products they power and may be tested as such; however, this does not obviate the need to ensure that the EPS also meets applicable EPS standards. DOE has determined that there are no technical differences between the EPSs that power certain SSL (including LED) products and those that are used with other end-use applications. And as DOE indicated in its proposal, although it did not initially include these devices as part of its NOPR analysis, DOE indicated that it may consider revising this aspect of its analysis. 77 FR at 18503. Therefore, DOE believes that subjecting SSL EPSs to EPS standards will not adversely impact SSL consumers, since these devices should be able to satisfy the standards. DOE notes that following this approach is also consistent with DOE's other efforts, including those to promote the broader adoption of SSL technologies.
4. Medical Devices
As explained above, EPSs for medical devices are not subject to the current standards created by Congress in December 2007. In its May 2010 determination, DOE initially determined that standards for EPSs used to power medical devices were warranted because they would result in significant energy savings while being technologically feasible and economically justified. As a result, in the March 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed standards for these devices.
DOE subsequently received comments from GE Healthcare and Jerome Industries, which manufactures power supplies for medical devices. These commenters gave several reasons not to apply standards to these products. The commenters noted that the design, manufacture, maintenance, and post-market monitoring of medical devices is highly regulated by the U.S. FDA, and EPS standards would only add to this already quite substantial regulatory burden. They also commented that there are a large number of individual medical device models, each of which must be tested along with its component EPS to ensure compliance with applicable standards; redesign of the EPS to meet DOE standards would require that all of these models be retested and reapproved, at a significant per-unit cost, especially for those devices that are produced in limited quantities. Jerome Industries also expressed concern that the proposed EPS standards are inconsistent with the reliability and safety requirements incumbent on some medical devices,
i.e.,
asserting that an EPS cannot be engineered to meet the proposed standards and these other requirements. Lastly, Jerome Industries noted that medical EPSs are exempt from EPS standards in other jurisdictions, including Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and California. (GE Healthcare, No. 142 at p. 2; Jerome Industries, No. 191 at pp. 1-2)
Given these concerns, DOE has reevaluated its proposal to set energy conservation standards for medical device EPSs. While DOE believes, based on available data, that standards for these devices may result in energy savings, DOE also wishes to avoid any action that could potentially impact reliability and safety. In the absence of sufficient data on this issue, and consistent with DOE's obligation to consider such adverse impacts when identifying and screening design options for improving the efficiency of a product, DOE has decided to refrain from setting standards for medical EPSs at this time. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(b)(i)(VII). See also 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, (4)(a)(4) and (5)(b)(4) (collectively setting out DOE's policy in evaluating potential energy conservation standards for a product).
5. Security and Life Safety Equipment
The Security Industry Association sought confirmation that “security or life safety alarms or surveillance systems” would continue to be excluded from the no-load power requirements that were first established in EISA 2007. (SIA, No. 115 at pp. 1-2) See also 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E). This exclusion applies only to the no-load mode standard established in EISA 2007 for Class A EPSs. Consistent with this temporary exemption, DOE is not requiring these devices to meet a no-load mode requirement. Therefore, life safety and security system EPSs will, until the statutorily-prescribed sunset date of July 1, 2017, not be required to meet a no-load standard. At the appropriate time, DOE will re-examine this exemption and may opt to prescribe no-load standards for these products in the future.
6. Service Parts and Spare Parts
Several commenters requested a temporary exemption from the standards being finalized today for service part and spare part EPSs. (CEA, No. 106 at p. 7; Eastman Kodak, No. 125 at p. 2; ITI, No. 131 at p. 9; Motorola Mobility, No. 121 at p. 11; Nintendo of America, No. 135 at p. 2) Panasonic commented that “a seven-year exemption is necessary for manufacturers to meet their legal and customer service obligations to stock and supply spare parts for sale, product servicing, and warranty claims for existing products.” (Panasonic, No. 120 at p. 6) Panasonic later requested a 9-year exemption, in response to DOE's March 2013 Request for Information. (Panasonic, No. 210 at p. 2) Brother International cited the added cost and unnecessary electronic waste that would result from having to stockpile a sufficient quantity of legacy EPSs to meet future needs for service or spare parts. (Brother International, No. 111 at p. 2)
EPCA exempts Class A EPSs from meeting the statutorily prescribed standards if the devices are manufactured before July 1, 2015, and are made available by the manufacturer as service parts or spare parts for end-use consumer products that were manufactured prior to the end of the compliance period (July 1, 2008). (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(B)) Congress created this limited (and temporary) exemption as part of a broad range of amendments under EISA 2007. The provision does not grant DOE with the authority to expand or extend the length of this exemption and Congress did not grant DOE with the general authority to exempt any already covered product from the requirements set by Congress. Accordingly, DOE cannot grant the relief sought by these commenters.
C. Technological Feasibility
Energy conservation standards promulgated by DOE must be technologically feasible. This section addresses the manner in which DOE assessed the technological feasibility of the new and amended standards being adopted today.
1. General
In each standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i).
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of 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. Section IV.B of this notice discusses the results of the screening analysis for EPSs, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the trial standard levels (TSLs) analyzed in this rulemaking. For further detail, see chapter 4 of the technical support document (TSD), which accompanies this final rule and can be found in the docket on regulations.gov.
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)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for EPSs using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.) The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this final rule.
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the products that are the subject of this rulemaking purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with new and amended standards (2015-2044). The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period.
16
DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the base case. The base case represents a projection of energy consumption in the absence of new and amended mandatory efficiency standards, and considers market forces and policies that affect demand for more efficient products.
16
In the past DOE presented energy savings results for only the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance. In the calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost savings measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has chosen to modify its presentation of national energy savings to be consistent with the approach used for its national economic analysis.
DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from new and amended standards for the products that are the subject of this rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this notice) calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. To calculate this quantity, DOE derives annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA)
Annual Energy Outlook (AEO).
DOE has also begun to estimate full-fuel-cycle energy savings. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). The full-fuel-cycle (FFC) metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels, and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For this final rule, DOE did not include the FFC in the NIA. However, DOE developed a sensitivity analysis that estimates these additional impacts from production activities. DOE's approach is based on calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products.
2. Significance of Savings
As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from adopting a standard for a covered product unless such standard would result in “significant” energy savings. Although the term “significant” is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in
Natural Resources Defense Council
v.
Herrington,
768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended “significant” energy savings in this context to be savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” The energy savings for all of the TSLs considered in this rulemaking (presented in section V.B.3) are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) This section discusses how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a new and amended standard on manufacturers, DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term
assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include industry net present value (INPV), which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; cash flows by year; changes in revenue and income; and other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) associated with new and amended standards. The LCC, which is specified separately in EPCA as one of the seven factors to be considered in determining the economic justification for a new and amended standard, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), is discussed in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking.
b. Life-Cycle Costs
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to a base case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new and amended standards. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and consumer discount rates. For its analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the considered products in the first year of compliance with new and amended standards.
To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value. DOE identifies the percentage of consumers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) DOE received no comments that EPS standards would increase their size and reduce their convenience nor have any other significant adverse impacts on consumer utility. Thus, DOE believes that the standards adopted in today's final rule will not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE transmitted a copy of its proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOJ did not file any comments or determination with DOE on the proposed rule.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
The energy savings from new and amended standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the nation's needed power generation capacity.
The new and amended standards also are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production. DOE reports the emissions impacts from today's standards and from each TSL it considered in section V.B.6 of this notice. DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs.
g. Other Factors
EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII))
2. Rebuttable Presumption
As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential new and amended energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in sections IV.F.15 and V.B.1.c of this final rule.
IV. Methodology and Discussion
A. Market and Technology Assessment
For the market and technology assessment, DOE develops information
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include product classes and manufacturers; quantities and types of products sold and offered for sale; retail market trends; regulatory and non-regulatory programs; and technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of the products under examination. See chapter 3 of the TSD for further detail.
1. Market Assessment
To characterize the market for EPSs, DOE gathered information on the products that use them. DOE refers to these products as end-use consumer products or EPS “applications.” This method was chosen for two reasons. First, EPSs are nearly always bundled with or otherwise intended to be used with a given application; therefore, the demand for applications drives the demand for EPSs. Second, because most EPSs are not stand-alone products, their shipments, lifetimes, usage profiles, and power requirements are all determined by the associated application.
DOE analyzed the products offered by online and brick-and-mortar retail outlets to determine which applications use EPSs and which EPS technologies are most prevalent. The list of applications analyzed and a full explanation of the market assessment methodology can be found in chapter 3 of the TSD.
While DOE identified the majority of EPS applications, some may not have been included in the NOPR analysis. This is due in part because the EPS market is dynamic and constantly evolving. As a result some applications that use EPSs were not found because they either made up an insignificant market share or were introduced to the market after the NOPR analysis was conducted. The EPSs for any other applications not explicitly analyzed in the market assessment will still be subject to the standards announced in today's notice as long as they meet the definition of a covered product outlined in the previous section. That is, DOE's omission of any particular EPS application from its analysis is not by itself an indication that the EPSs that power that application are not subject to EPS standards.
DOE relied on published market research to estimate base-year shipments for all applications. DOE estimated that in 2009 a total of 345 million EPSs were shipped for final sale in the United States.
DOE did not receive any comments on its assumptions for total base year (2009) EPS shipments, but did receive comments on its efficiency distributions. ARRIS Group commented that it is nearly impossible to purchase EPSs at level IV (the current federal standard level) because nearly all products comply with the ENERGY STAR standard (level V); ARRIS Group, however, provided no data in support of this claim.
17
(ARRIS Group, No. 105 at p. 1) To determine the distribution of shipments at different efficiency levels, DOE relied on EPS testing conducted as part of the Engineering Analysis. Of the products DOE tested, 61% were below level V. DOE assumed that half of the EPSs below level V would improve in efficiency up to level V by the beginning of the analysis period in 2015, leaving 30% at level IV and the remaining 70% at level V or higher. When the ENERGY STAR program for EPSs ended in 2010, EPA estimated that over 50% of the market had reached level V efficiency or higher.
18
DOE appreciates ARRIS Group's input on this subject, but has maintained its estimate from the NOPR because it is in line with the available data.
17
By statute, Class A EPSs be marked with a Roman numeral IV. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(C). Since the enactment of that requirement, EPA adopted the Roman numeral V mark for products that meet the ENERGY STAR criteria (version 2.0). These Roman numerals correspond to higher levels of efficiency—i.e. V denotes a higher level of efficiency than IV.
18
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 26, 2010, Accessed at
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/eps_eup_sunset_stakeholder_proposal.pdf?6ec1-54bb
2. Product Classes
When necessary, DOE divides covered products into classes by the type of energy used, the capacity of the product, and any other performance-related feature that justifies different standard levels, such as features affecting consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) DOE then conducts its analysis and considers establishing or amending standards to provide separate standard levels for each product class.
a. Proposed EPS Product Classes
In the NOPR, DOE proposed dividing EPSs into those that can directly operate an end-use consumer product and those that cannot, termed “direct operation EPSs” and “indirect operation EPSs,” respectively. DOE proposed standards only for direct operation EPSs.
There exist both Class A and non-Class A indirect operation 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, product class N.
DOE proposed to divide direct operation EPSs into six product classes. Two of these six product classes were treated as non-Class A EPSs: Product class X for multiple-voltage EPSs (multiple simultaneous output currents) and product class H for high-output power EPSs (nameplate output power > 250 Watts). All other direct operation EPSs were divided among the remaining four product classes (B, C, D, and E) and are largely composed of Class A EPSs.
These classes, however, also contain some non-Class A EPSs, specifically direct operation EPSs for battery charged motorized applications. Medical EPSs were previously included, but have since been removed, as explained in section IV.A.1 above. While these devices are functionally the same as Class A devices, they were excluded from the Class A definition through Congressional action. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36).
The primary criteria for determining which of these four product classes a given EPS falls into are the type of output current (AC or DC) and the nameplate output voltage (low-voltage or basic-voltage). These are the same parameters used by the former ENERGY STAR program, which DOE used to develop a framework for its EPS analysis. DOE proposed adopting the ENERGY STAR definitions for low-voltage and standard voltage EPSs with minor variations. According to these definitions, if a device has a nameplate output voltage of less than 6 volts and its nameplate output current is greater than or equal to 550 milliamps, DOE considers that device a low-voltage EPS. A product that does not meet the criteria for being a low-voltage EPS is classified as a standard-voltage EPS. DOE proposed to use the term “basic voltage” in place of “standard voltage.”
DOE also proposed definitions for AC-DC and AC-AC EPSs. If an EPS converts household electrical current into DC output, DOE classifies that product as an AC-DC EPS. Conversely, a device that converts household electrical current into a lower voltage AC output is an AC-AC EPS. Using these parameters, DOE was able to outline the specific requirements for its
product classes included in the EPS rulemaking.
The next two subsections summarize comments DOE received on the proposed product classes and explain how DOE has addressed these comments. The subsection that follows contains a list of the product classes and definitions being adopted today.
b. Differentiating Between Direct and Indirect Operation EPSs
An indirect operation EPS is 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 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 considers that device 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 to create complications during testing since it frequently requires 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 also considered revising this method to account for removable and integral batteries, but believed it might create an overly burdensome process for manufacturers to follow.
DOE then developed a new method to distinguish between direct and indirect operation EPSs that minimizes both the risk of damage to the application and the complexity associated with the removal of internal batteries. This approach requires manufacturers to determine whether an EPS can operate its end-use product once the associated battery has been fully discharged. Based on its close examination of a variety of products, DOE believes that direct operation EPSs are able to power the application regardless of the state of the battery, while indirect-operation EPSs 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 views this EPS as one that indirectly operates the end-use consumer product and classifies it as part of product class N. Using this methodology, one can readily determine whether a given device is a direct or indirect operation EPS. See Chapter 5 and Appendix 3C of the TSD for further details.
DOE received several comments on its proposed method for identifying indirect operation EPSs. Philips suggested that DOE allow manufacturers to submit data showing that their products are rarely powered directly from the AC mains despite being designed with such capability and asked that the EPSs used with these products be classified as indirect operation EPSs. (Philips, No. 128 at pp. 3-4) AHAM and Wahl Clipper requested that DOE explicitly define what is considered to be a “fully discharged” battery for determining whether a given device is a direct operation EPS. (AHAM, No. 124 at p. 6: Wahl Clipper, No. 153 at p. 2)
The method for determining whether a device is an indirect operation EPS was developed to separate EPSs into direct operation product classes and the indirect operation product class N, with the emphasis specifically on MADB products. It was developed based on the technical capabilities of the EPS and battery charging systems. Any product's classification determination must be based on the observable technical characteristics of that product. The method evaluates whether the EPS can power the product when the battery is depleted to the point that the battery can no longer operate the end-use consumer product as it was intended to be used. DOE considers this point to be when a battery is “fully discharged.”
NRDC commented that DOE's proposed method for determining whether a given device is an indirect operation EPS “incorrectly captures products, such as mobile, smart phones and MP3 players, that have firmware delays on [detection of a] dead battery, but are otherwise capable of operating without the battery.” (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 15) NRDC proposed an alternative method that first checks whether the end-use consumer product has a removable battery, similar to the first approach considered by DOE in evaluating whether a particular device is an indirect operation EPS. If the device to which the EPS connects has a removable battery, NRDC suggested removing the battery, connecting the EPS, and attempting to use the product as it was intended. If it operates, NRDC believes it should be considered a direct operation EPS, but if it does not it should be considered an indirect operation EPS. If the battery in the end-use product is not capable of being removed, NRDC suggested using DOE's proposed method but with one modification. Rather than use the five second delay period DOE proposed in the NOPR, NRDC suggested that the delay period be extended to a longer period of time closer to five minutes to “give enough time for firmware functions to complete and avoid any temptation to game the system by introducing artificial delays.” (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 15)
Based on the stakeholder comments, DOE has chosen to partially adopt NRDC's proposed method for determining indirect operation with the exception that the determination delay remains five seconds in all cases. DOE closely examined the operational behavior of several smart phones, beard trimmers, and shavers in developing the indirect operation determination method it proposed in the March 2012 NOPR. Based on its analysis, DOE believes that five seconds is an acceptable tolerance for the indirect operation determination method because there was a clear dividing point among the test data that reflected the ability of the battery to operate the end-use products based on the operating time. See Appendix 3C for the full test results from the indirect operation determination. During charging, batteries initially enter a bulk charge mode where a float voltage, or fast-charge voltage, is applied to the battery and the initial charge current is high compared to the average charging current throughout the duration of the charge cycle. DOE believes that this initial cycle could be enough to operate the end-use consumer product after a short period of time, but it does not change the fact that the product is still drawing power from the battery rather than drawing power directly from the EPS itself. No product DOE examined that met the indirect operation criteria
under the determination method came close to operating near the five-second buffer. Instead, the indirect operation EPSs took as little as three times longer (15 seconds) to operate after being discharged and much longer in several cases (85 seconds). DOE believes the 5-second buffer accurately distinguishes between indirect and direct operation EPSs. As NRDC did not provide any data supporting its view that a 5-minute delay was necessary, DOE sees no reason to modify its proposed method in the manner suggested by NRDC.
Regarding NRDC's contention that a longer delay would reduce the risk of gaming, DOE will continue to monitor the operation of these products as part of its periodic review of the test procedures required under 42 U.S.C. 6293. Should DOE discover any anomalies suggesting a manufacturer is circumventing the applicable standards, DOE will make the necessary adjustments to prevent this from occurring.
As part of today's final rule, DOE is combining its proposed methods for determining indirect operation into a single method. DOE previously considered such a hybrid approach, but initially believed the testing might become too burdensome for manufacturers. In light of the comments submitted by interested parties, however, DOE believes the hybrid approach will reduce the complexity involved in examining consumer products that contain a removable battery. There may also be side benefits, outside of identifying whether a device is an indirect or direct operation EPS, including reducing possible ambiguity with the test procedure. See appendix 3C to the TSD for the determination method for indirect operation EPSs.
c. Multiple-Voltage
A multiple-voltage EPS is defined as “an external power supply that is designed to convert line voltage AC input into
more than one simultaneous lower-voltage output.”
See 10 CFR Part 430 Subpart B Appendix Z. Direct operation EPSs that meet this definition are considered multiple-voltage EPSs and will be evaluated using the multiple-voltage EPS test procedure. These products must comply with the new standards being adopted today for multiple-voltage EPSs. An EPS cannot be in more than one product class, so such an EPS need not also comply with the standards being adopted today for product classes B, C, D, E, or H.
In response to the NOPR regarding multiple-voltage EPSs, Cobra Electronics commented that an EPS with multiple simultaneous outputs but only one output voltage would be considered both a multiple-voltage EPS and a Class A EPS and, thus, in its view, would have to be tested according to DOE's multiple-voltage and single-voltage EPS test procedures. (Cobra Electronics, No. 130 at p. 3)
Cobra correctly deduced that an EPS with multiple simultaneous outputs, but only one output voltage could be treated either as a multiple-voltage EPS or a Class A EPS. The term “class A external power supply” means a device that, among other things, is able to convert to
only one AC or DC output voltage at a time.
See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i). As such, an EPS of this type must meet the current standards for Class A EPSs prescribed by Congress in EISA 2007. DOE notes, however, that the new standards being adopted today for multiple-voltage EPSs are more stringent than the current Class A standards. Therefore, any EPS that is tested and shown to comply with the new multiple-voltage EPS standards will be presumed to also comply with the Class A EPS standards prescribed by Congress in EISA 2007.
d. Low-Voltage, High-Current EPSs
PTI supported DOE's efforts to discern which MADB products should be regulated as EPSs and which should be treated as part of a battery charger. According to PTI, the inclusion of product class N “fulfills one of PTI's longstanding concerns that components of battery chargers and battery chargers themselves should not both be regulated, as this `double indemnity' creates a situation where designs are over-constrained with no incremental consumer benefit.” (PTI, No. 133 at p. 3) AHAM and Wahl Clipper, however, submitted identical comments taking issue with the classification of MADB direct operation EPSs and the CSLs DOE considered for these types of products. Instead, both stakeholders suggested DOE split product class C, where their products would fall, into two classes. The first would encompass all direct operation, low-voltage EPSs with a nameplate output voltage rating of 3-6 volts and a current rating of 550-1000 mA. The second class would include all direct operation, low-voltage EPSs with a nameplate output voltage rating of less than 3 volts and a current rating greater than 1000mA. Under the stakeholders' alternative approach, the first group would need to comply with the standard level established in today's amended EPS standards, and the second class would not. These suggestions were based on the stakeholders' shared concern that the standards DOE proposed for product class C were too stringent and beyond the achievable efficiency for low-voltage, high-current EPSs. (Wahl Clipper, No. 153 at p. 2; AHAM, No. 124 at p. 6) Duracell also commented on the proposed standards for direct operation EPSs, expressing concern that EPSs that charge the batteries of motor-operated products such as shavers, epilators, hair clippers, and stick mixers would not be able to meet the proposed minimum active-mode efficiency requirements. (Duracell, No. 109 at pp. 2-3)
The commenters' concern relates to those EPSs that are designed both to charge multiple low-voltage battery cells in parallel and to directly operate an end-use consumer product such as a shaver or beard trimmer. These are often called “cord-cordless” products. The ability to operate an end-use product directly from mains is a distinct consumer utility, as it enables the consumer to use the end-use product when the battery contains insufficient charge. However, having multiple cells generally means that the charging currents are higher and that these types of MADB EPSs will incur significantly greater resistive power losses than other similar direct operation EPSs, as power consumption grows exponentially with an increase in the output current.
Recognizing this technical difference, DOE has introduced an additional criterion for classifying direct operation EPSs that recognizes that certain devices with low-voltage and high-current outputs have a distinct consumer utility, yet would have extreme difficulty meeting the standards being adopted today. Thus, DOE is subdividing product class C, splitting out certain low-voltage, high-current EPSs into a separate product class, product class C-1.
19
Product classes C and C-1 together encompass all direct operation, AC-DC EPSs with nameplate output voltage less than 6 volts and nameplate output current greater than or equal to 550 milliamps (“low-voltage”). Any product in this group that also has nameplate output voltage less than 3 volts and nameplate output current greater than or equal to 1,000 milliamps and charges the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated is in product class C-1. All others remain in product class C.
19
In the NOPR analysis, DOE mistakenly placed the EPSs for cord-cordless products in product class B, which contains basic-voltage EPSs. Based on public comments, DOE now recognizes that the EPSs in question are low-voltage EPSs and should have been placed in product class C.
Given the differences in these low-voltage, high-current EPSs from the other products falling into product class C, DOE believes there is merit in
treating them as a separate product class and is currently gathering additional information about this subset of EPSs. In the meantime, DOE is not adopting standards for EPSs in product class C-1 today, but intends to study these products further and may elect to propose efficiency standards for them in a future rulemaking. DOE will issue appropriate notices when undertaking studies to evaluate this class of products. To the extent that any products may be regulated as both a battery charger and an EPS, DOE may consider the treatment of those products as part of its further consideration of these energy conservation standards.
e. Final EPS Product Classes
DOE is establishing eight product classes for EPSs for the reasons discussed above. The eight EPS product classes are listed in Table IV-1.
Table IV-1—External Power Supply Product Classes
Class ID
Product class
B
Direct Operation, AC-DC, Basic-Voltage.
C
Direct Operation, AC-DC, Low-Voltage (except those with nameplate output voltage less than 3 volts and nameplate output current greater than or equal to 1,000 milliamps that charge the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated).
C-1
Direct Operation, AC-DC, Low-Voltage with nameplate output voltage less than 3 volts and nameplate output current greater than or equal to 1,000 milliamps and charges the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated.
D
Direct Operation, AC-AC, Basic-Voltage.
E
Direct Operation, AC-AC, Low-Voltage.
X
Direct Operation, Multiple-Voltage.
H
Direct Operation, High-Power.
N
Indirect Operation.
DOE is also adopting definitions for the following terms: Basic-voltage external power supply, direct operation external power supply, indirect operation external power supply, and low-voltage external power supply. These definitions will appear at 10 CFR 430.2. DOE proposed, but is not adopting, definitions for AC-AC external power supply, AC-DC external power supply, and multiple-voltage external power supply because similar terms have already been codified. See definitions for single-voltage external AC-AC power supply, single-voltage external AC-DC power supply, and multiple-voltage external power supply at 10 CFR 430 Subpart B Appendix Z.
3. Technology Assessment
In the technology assessment, DOE identifies technology options that appear to be feasible to improve product efficiency. This assessment provides the technical background and structure on which DOE bases its screening and engineering analyses. The following discussion provides an overview of the technology assessment for EPSs. Chapter 3 of the TSD provides additional detail and descriptions of the basic construction and operation of EPSs, followed by a discussion of technology options to improve their efficiency and power consumption in various modes.
a. EPS Efficiency Metrics
DOE used its EPS test procedures as the basis for evaluating EPS efficiency over the course of the standards rulemaking for EPSs. These procedures, which are codified in appendix Z to subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430 (“Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of EPSs”), include a means to account for the energy consumption from single-voltage EPSs, switch-selectable EPSs, and multiple-voltage EPSs.
On December 8, 2006, DOE codified a test procedure final rule for single output-voltage EPSs. See 71 FR 71340. On June 1, 2011, DOE added a test procedure to cover multiple output-voltage EPSs. See 76 FR 31750. DOE's test procedures yield two measurements: Active mode efficiency and no-load mode (standby mode) power consumption.
Active-mode efficiency is the ratio of output power to input power. For single-voltage EPSs, the DOE test procedure averages the efficiency at four loading conditions—25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of maximum rated output current—to assess the performance of an EPS when powering diverse loads. For multiple-voltage EPSs, the test procedure provides those four metrics individually, which DOE averages to measure the efficiency of these types of devices. The test procedure also specifies how to measure the power consumption of the EPS when disconnected from the consumer product, which is termed “no-load” power consumption because the EPS outputs zero percent of the maximum rated output current to the application.
To develop the analysis and to help establish a framework for setting EPS standards, DOE considered both combining average active-mode efficiency and no-load power into a single metric, such as unit energy consumption (UEC), and maintaining separate metrics for each. DOE chose to evaluate EPSs using the two metrics separately. Using a single metric that combines active-mode efficiency and no-load power consumption to determine the standard may inadvertently permit the “backsliding” of the standards established by EISA 2007. Specifically, because a combined metric would regulate the overall energy consumption of the EPS as the aggregation of active-mode efficiency and no-load power, that approach could permit the performance of one metric to drop below the EISA 2007 level if it is sufficiently offset by an improvement in the other metric. Such a result would, in DOE's view, constitute a backsliding of the standards and would violate EPCA's prohibition from setting such a level. DOE's approach seeks to avoid this result.
The DOE test procedure for multiple-voltage EPSs yields five values: no-load power consumption as well as efficiency at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of maximum load. In the March 2012 standards NOPR, DOE proposed averaging the four efficiency values to create an average efficiency metric for multiple-voltage EPSs, similar to the approach followed for single-voltage EPSs. Alternatively, DOE introduced the idea of averaging the efficiency measurements at 50 percent and 75 percent of maximum load because the only known application that currently uses a multiple-voltage EPS, a video game console, operates most often between those loading conditions. DOE sought comment from interested parties on these two approaches.
Microsoft commented that setting a standard based on arbitrary loads that do not represent the intended loading
point of the end-use application is counterproductive because EPSs are designed to be most efficient under the loading conditions they operate in most frequently. Instead, Microsoft believes that “to optimize energy savings in real life, loading requirements in energy conservation standards should be based on the expected product load.” (Microsoft, No. 110 at p. 2)
Although it is aware of only one currently available consumer product using multiple-voltage EPSs, DOE believes that evaluating multiple-voltage EPSs using an average-efficiency metric (based on the efficiencies at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of each output's normalized maximum nameplate output power) would allow the standard to be applied to a diverse range of future products that may operate under different loading conditions. In addition, DOE's test data of the only product that currently falls into the multiple-voltage product class indicate that there is only a fractional percentage difference in the average active-mode efficiency when comparing DOE's weighting of the efficiency loading measurements and the alternative approach of averaging the efficiencies at 50% and 75% load where the console is most likely to operate. Therefore, DOE evaluated multiple-voltage EPSs using no-load mode power consumption and an average active-mode efficiency metric based on the measured efficiencies at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of rated output power in developing the new energy conservation standards for these products. This loading point averaging methodology is consistent with the calculation of average active-mode efficiency for single-voltage external supplies as outlined in Appendix Z to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430.
b. EPS Technology Options
DOE considered seven technology options, fully detailed in Chapter 3 of the TSD, which may improve the efficiency of EPSs: (1) Improved Transformers, (2) Switched-Mode Power Supplies, (3) Low-Power Integrated Circuits, (4) Schottky Diodes and Synchronous Rectification, (5) Low-Loss Transistors, (6) Resonant Switching, and (7) Resonant (“Lossless”) Snubbers.
During its analysis, DOE found that some technology options affect both efficiency and no-load performance and that the individual contributions from these options cannot be separated from each other in a cost analysis. Given this finding, DOE adopted a “matched pairs” approach for defining the EPS CSLs. This approach used selected test units to characterize the relationship between average active-mode efficiency and no-load power dissipation. In the matched pairs approach, EPS energy consumption decreases as you move from one CSL to the next higher CSL either through higher active mode efficiency, lower no-load mode power consumption, or both. If DOE allowed one metric to decrease in stringency between CSLs, then the cost-efficiency results might have shown cost reductions at higher CSLs and skewed the true costs associated with increasing the efficiency of EPSs. To avoid this result, DOE used an approach that increases the stringency of both metrics for each CSL considered during the process of amending the EISA standard for EPSs.
DOE considered all technology options when developing CSLs for all four EPS representative units in product class B. DOE considered the same efficiency improvements in its analysis for EPSs in product classes X and H as it did for Class A EPSs. Where representative units were not explicitly analyzed (
i.e.,
product classes C, D, and E), DOE extended its analysis from a directly analyzed class. As a result, all design options that could apply to these products were implicitly considered because the efficiency levels of the analyzed product class will be scaled to other product classes, an approach supported by interested parties throughout the rulemaking process. The equations were structured based on the relationships between product classes C, D, and E and representative product class B such that the technology options not implemented by the other classes were accounted for in the proposed candidate standard levels. For example, AC-AC EPSs (product classes C and E) tend to have higher no-load power dissipation than AC-DC EPSs because they do not use switched-mode topologies (see Chapter 3 of the TSD for a full technical description). Therefore, to account for this characteristic in these products, DOE used higher no-load power metrics when generating CSLs for these product classes than are found in the corresponding CSLs for the representative product class B.
c. High-Power EPSs
DOE examined the specific design options for high-power EPSs as they relate to ham radios, the sole consumer application for these EPSs. DOE found that high-power EPSs are unique because both linear and switched-mode versions are available as cost-effective options, but the linear EPSs are more expensive and inherently limited in their achievable efficiency despite sharing some of the same possible efficiency improvements as EPSs in other product classes.
20
Interested parties have expressed concern that setting an efficiency standard higher than a linear EPS can achieve would reduce the utility of these devices because ham radios are sensitive to the electromagnetic interference (EMI) generated by switched-mode EPSs. In some cases, EMI can couple through the EPS to the transmitter of ham radios and be transmitted on top of the intended signal causing distortion.
20
A linear mode or linear regulated EPS is an EPS that has its resistance regulated and results in a constant output voltage. In contrast, a switched mode EPS is an EPS that switches on and off to maintain an average value of output voltage.
DOE sought comment on the impacts of excessive EMI in amateur radio applications using EPSs with switched-mode topologies. PTI acknowledged that EMI generated from switched-mode power supplies is more of a factor in radio applications, but could not definitively attest to any adverse impacts on consumer utility due to the changeover from linear power supplies. (PTI, No. 133 at p. 4)
DOE believes there is no reduction in utility because EPSs used in telecommunication applications are required to meet the EMI regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (47 CFR part 15, subpart B), regardless of the underlying technology. These regulations specifically limit the amount of EMI for “unintentional radiators”, which are devices that are not intended to generate radio frequency signals but do to some degree due to the nature of their design. Many such devices limit the amount of EMI coupled to the end use product through EMI filters and proper component arrangement on the printed circuit board (PCB). As part of its engineering analysis, DOE constructed the high power cost-efficiency curves using two teardown units including one that utilized switched-mode technology and made use of similar EMI-limiting techniques. This switched-mode design complied with the FCC requirements with no reduction in utility or performance despite a higher efficiency than the baseline design DOE analyzed. Given the presence of switched-mode designs that comply with the FCC regulations and the existence of EMI-limiting technology, DOE does not believe that the new standard will negatively affect the consumer utility of high-power EPSs.
d. Power Factor
Power factor is a relative measure of transmission losses between the power plant and a consumer product or the
ratio of real power to the total power drawn by the EPS. Due to nonlinear and energy-storage circuit elements such as diodes and inductors, respectively, electrical products often draw currents that are not proportional to the line voltage. These currents are either distorted or out of phase in relation to the line voltage, resulting in no real power drawn by the EPS or transmitted to the load. However, although the EPS itself consumes no real power, these currents are real and cause power dissipation from conduction losses in the transmission and distribution wiring. For a given nameplate output power and efficiency, products with a lower power factor cause greater power dissipation in the wiring, an effect that also becomes more pronounced at higher input powers. DOE examined the issue of power factor in section 3.6 of the May 2009 framework document for the present rulemaking and noted that certain ENERGY STAR specifications limit power factor.
DOE notes that regulating power factor includes substantial challenges, such as quantifying transmission losses that depend on the length of the transmission wires, which differ for each residential consumer. Further, DOE has not yet conclusively analyzed the benefits and burdens from regulating power factor. While DOE plans to continue analyzing power factor and the merits of its inclusion as part of a future rulemaking, it is DOE's view that the above factors weigh in favor of not setting a power factor-based standard at this time.
B. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which design options are suitable for further consideration in a standards rulemaking:
1.
Technological feasibility.
DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible.
2.
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.
If mass production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial products could be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time the standard comes into effect, then DOE considers that technology practicable to manufacture, install, and service.
3.
Adverse impacts on product utility or product availability.
If DOE determines a technology would have significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not consider this technology further.
4.
Adverse impacts on health or safety.
If DOE determines that a technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not consider this technology further. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, (4)(a)(4) and (5)(b).
For EPSs, DOE did not screen out any technology options after considering the four criteria. For additional details, see chapter 4 of the TSD.
Brother International commented that the design options DOE considered for lowering no-load power consumption could adversely impact the health and safety of consumers as manufacturers might eliminate existing safety controls to comply with the amended standards. Specifically, citing to one example, Brother pointed to the lack of a device to discharge residual charge from one of their candidate EPS designs, which they believed was removed in order to comply with the proposed no-load requirements from the NOPR. Brother believes this omission could impact safety to consumers and that DOE should not lower the no-load requirements for EPSs below the current federal maximum of 0.5 watts. However, they did not elaborate on the component involved or state that removing said component was the only design option in order to meet the proposed standard. (Brother International, No. 111 at p. 3)
DOE conducts a screening analysis on all the technology options it identifies during the technology assessment portion of the rulemaking by applying a strict set of statutory criteria. At no point during interviews with manufacturers or DOE's independent testing, was there concern expressed over the no-load levels DOE was analyzing. The no-load power metric for each CSL DOE considered was supported by data compiled from already commercially available units, which posed no such health or safety risk to consumers. While Brother International did not expand on its concerns, DOE is aware of certain components in general EPS design, such as X capacitors and bleeder resistors. EPS designers typically use X capacitors on the input filter stages to protect the EPS against line voltage spikes and bleeder resistors to bleed off the residual charge from the devices when the EPS is disconnected. It is common design to practice to include these components; however, should the resistor be omitted, the capacitors will still discharge within seconds of the power being removed. In any case, based on its examination of this issue, DOE does not believe these design practices present any shock hazard to consumers provided they do not attempt to physically tear down or otherwise destroy the EPS under live power conditions. As a result, DOE did not screen out any additional technology options based on adverse impacts to health and safety associated with decreasing the no-load power consumption through the amended EPS standards.
Additionally, DOE notes that it has received no comments from interested parties regarding patented technologies and proprietary designs that would inhibit manufacturers from achieving the energy conservation standards adopted in today's rule. DOE believes that those standards will not mandate the use of any such technologies.
C. Engineering Analysis
In the engineering analysis (detailed in chapter 5 of the TSD), DOE describes the relationship between the manufacturer selling price (MSP) and increases in EPS efficiency. The efficiency values range from that of an inefficient EPS sold today (the baseline) to the maximum technologically feasible efficiency level. For each efficiency level examined, DOE determines the MSP; this relationship is referred to as a cost-efficiency curve.
DOE structured its engineering analysis around two methodologies: (1) Test and teardowns, which involves testing products for efficiency and determining cost from a detailed bill of materials derived from tear-downs and (2) the efficiency-level approach, where the cost of achieving increases in energy efficiency at discrete levels of efficiency are estimated using information gathered in manufacturer interviews supplemented by, and verified through, technology reviews and subject matter experts (SMEs). When analyzing the cost of each CSL—whether based on existing or theoretical designs—DOE distinguishes between the cost of the EPS and the cost of the associated end-use product.
1. Representative Product Classes and Representative Units
DOE selected representative product class B (AC to DC conversion, basic-voltage EPSs), which contains most Class A EPSs and some MADB EPSs that can directly power an application, as the focus of its engineering analysis because it constituted the majority of shipments and national energy
consumption related to EPSs. Within product class B, DOE analyzed four representative units with output powers of 2.5 watts, 18 watts, 60 watts, and 120 watts because the associated consumer applications for these, and similar, EPSs constitute a significant portion of shipments and energy consumption. Based on DOE's analysis of product class B, DOE was able to scale the results for product classes C, D, and E. EPSs in each have inherent technical limitations that prevent them from meeting the same efficiency and no-load levels as EPSs in product class B. The lower-voltage product classes C and E typically have higher loss ratios than EPSs in product class B due to their lower nameplate output voltages and higher nameplate output currents. Therefore, it was necessary for DOE to scale down the efficiency levels established in product class B to more technically achievable levels for product classes C and E.
Similarly, EPSs in product class D do not possess control circuitry to lower the no-load power consumption. DOE found that including such circuitry would increase the no-load consumption while increasing the overall cost of EPSs in product class D. DOE subsequently scaled the no-load power consumption results established from the analysis of product class B to adjust for this limitation of EPSs in product class D. Despite the comparatively small percentage of EPSs in product classes C, D, and E compared to those in product class B, DOE has taken steps to ensure that the standards for each class are technically feasible for EPSs in each product class. More detail on DOE's scaling methodology can be found in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.
Some interested parties supported DOE's approach in creating and analyzing representative product classes and representative units during the rulemaking process. The California IOUs agreed with using product class B as the representative product class and scaling to other product classes because of their inherent similarities. (CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 13) Although no specific data were provided, the California IOUs also commented in support of the four representative units within the product class, noting that their own research
21
into the power supply market corroborates DOE's selections. (CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 13) ARRIS Group, however, claimed that “by analyzing EPSs at the 18W representative unit, DOE overstates annual power cost savings” and suggested that averaging energy savings across output powers is more accurate. (ARRIS Group, No. 105 at p. 2) Both of the methodologies DOE presented during the NOPR public meeting were identical to those originally drafted as part of the preliminary analysis.
21
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/archive/2004rulemaking/documents/case_studies/CASE_Power_Supplies.pdf
.
The representative units DOE selected align with a wide range of EPS output powers for consumer applications. The purpose was to select units that capture the most common output voltages and output powers available on the market. In most cases, as output power increases, nameplate output voltage also increases, but DOE found that most EPS designs tended to cluster around certain common output voltage and output power levels. DOE used this trend in EPS design to categorize its four representative units. DOE was also able to test several EPS units that exactly met the representative units' specifications and scaled units with small variations based on output power, output voltage, cord length, and/or cost as described in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. While the costs are analyzed on an individual unit basis, the standard levels considered by DOE, and ultimately the energy savings, are examined across the entire range of EPSs. National energy savings (NES) and consumer NPV are calculated for an entire product class, not an individual representative unit. To date, stakeholders have supported this approach and the overall engineering analysis methodology. Therefore, DOE elected to maintain its selections for the EPS representative units and its methodology for estimating the cost savings from the standards adopted today.
2. EPS Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs)
DOE applied the same methodology to establish CSLs in today's final rule as it did for its proposal and preliminary analysis. DOE created CSLs as pairs of EPS efficiency metrics for each representative unit with increasingly stringent standards having higher-numbered CSLs. The CSLs were generally based on (1) voluntary (e.g. ENERGY STAR) specifications or mandatory (
i.e.,
those established by EISA 2007) standards that either require or encourage manufacturers to develop products at particular efficiency levels; (2) the most efficient products available in the market; and (3) the maximum technologically feasible (“max tech”) level. These CSLs are summarized for each representative unit in Table IV-2. In section IV.C.5, DOE discusses how it developed equations to apply the CSLs from the representative units to all EPSs.
Table IV-2—Summary of EPS CSLs for Product Classes B, C, D, and E
CSL
Reference
Basis
0
EISA 2007
EISA 2007 equations for efficiency and no-load power.
1
ENERGY STAR 2.0
ENERGY STAR 2.0 equations for efficiency and no-load power.
2
Intermediate
Interpolation between test data points.
3
Best-in-Market
Most efficient test data points.
4
Max Tech
Maximum technologically feasible efficiency.
DOE conducted several rounds of interviews with manufacturers who produce 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.
22
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.
22
In confirming this information, DOE obtained technical assistance from two subject matter experts—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 experience to evaluate the validity of both the design and the general cost of the max-tech efficiency levels provided by manufacturers.
DOE created the max-tech candidate standard level (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.
DOE evaluated EPSs using the two EPS efficiency metrics, no-load power consumption and active-mode average efficiency, which it grouped into “matched pairs.” Under the matched pairs approach, each CSL would increase in stringency in at least one of the metrics and no metric would ever be lowered in moving to a higher CSL. DOE's goal in using this approach was to ensure that when it associated costs with the CSLs, that the costs would reflect the complete costs of increased efficiency. If DOE followed an approach that permitted a decrease in stringency for a given metric, the result might be a projected reduction in EPS cost, which would mask the full cost of increasing EPS efficiency.
Interested parties supported DOE's matched pairs approach for EPS CSLs. Stakeholders, such as the California Energy Commission, commented that DOE's approach focused directly on what is measured rather than introducing usage assumptions to weight the values of standby mode and active-mode power consumption. The California Energy Commission believes that regulating active-mode efficiency and no-load power consumption rather than a combined unit energy consumption (UEC) metric is the most appropriate course of action for DOE (California Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 17). While supportive of DOE's approach, interested parties, including the California IOUs, also cautioned DOE to avoid setting levels for no-load power that were too stringent when compared to active-mode efficiency improvements. (CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 13)
DOE received additional comments regarding its EPS CSLs. NRDC and ASAP both urged DOE to “evaluate an intermediate level for EPS product class B between CSL 3 and CSL 4”, suggesting that there may be a more stringent standard that is cost-effective between DOE's estimates for the best-in-market and maximum technologically feasible CSLs. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 12; ASAP,
et al.,
No. 136 at p. 10)
As discussed above, DOE's CSL equations are a function of nameplate output power and are based on existing standards, incentive programs, the most efficient tested units on the market, intermediate levels between those points, and a maximum technologically feasible or “max-tech” level. No-load requirements were carefully considered consistent in light of the submitted comments. The difference in performance between the CSLs noted by NRDC corresponds to the difference between the best-in-market level, which is supported by test data, and the “max-tech” level, which is theoretical and based on estimates from manufacturers and industry experts. DOE's comprehensive engineering analysis selected specific CSLs based on real world data and discussions with manufacturers. NRDC did not provide any additional data to support its recommendation that DOE examine more stringent standard. Instead, it asserted that DOE did not find more efficient EPSs on the market above the CSL proposal because market demand is shaped primarily by the efficiency marking protocol and there is currently little incentive for the market to demand efficiencies higher than Level V. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 12)
In DOE's view, adopting NRDC's approach would create a standard based entirely on theoretical design improvements to the most efficient EPSs already on the market today. Such an approach would not be supportable by any actual data—whether market-based or through the testing of available products. DOE notes that since a second determination is required in 2015, any further analysis of efficiency levels beyond the current best-in-market CSL would likely occur as part of that effort. As a result, based on currently available information, DOE chose to maintain its CSLs in the engineering analysis for today's final rule.
Brother International expressed concern that requiring more efficient EPSs in line with the proposed minimum efficiency active-mode limits would disrupt the stable product supply due to the lack of non-proprietary semiconductors (Brother International, No. 111 at p. 3). It noted that there is one key component needed to meet the proposed efficiency levels for EPSs, and that it has been told by EPS suppliers that there are a small number of component manufacturers that can produce this patented technology. Brother International did not provide any evidence to support this. However, during manufacturer interviews, DOE was consistently told the candidate standard levels (CSLs) analyzed for EPSs were technically achievable without the use of patented technologies. Each component manufacturer, original design manufacturer (ODMs), or those that design and manufacturer EPSs based on a set of specifications, and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), or those that purchase EPSs from ODMs to be solid in retail markets, interviewed had different pathways to achieving the proposed standard suggesting there are multiple design options to lower EPS energy consumption. At no point in discussions with manufacturers has DOE been told that a patented technology would be required to meet a CSL for any of the product classes, even at the maximum technologically feasible level.
DOE also maintained the same CSLs for multiple-voltage EPSs (product class X) as it proposed in the NOPR because it received no comments and has no new information that would merit a change in the CSLs for this product class. The CSLs are shown in Table IV-3.
Table IV-3—Summary of EPS CSLs for Product Class X
CSL
Reference
Basis
0
Market Bottom
Test data of the least efficient unit in the market.
1
Mid-Market
Test data of the typical unit in the market.
2
Best-in-Market
Manufacturer's data.
3
Max Tech
Maximum technologically feasible efficiency.
DOE received no comments concerning the CSLs for high-power EPSs in response to the NOPR. Therefore, DOE maintained its selections for CSLs from the NOPR in the engineering analysis for today's final rule. The CSLs for product class H are listed in Table IV-4.
Table IV-4—Summary of EPS CSLs for Product Class H
CSL
Reference
Basis
0
Line Frequency
Test data of a low-efficiency unit in the market.
1
Switched-Mode Low Level
Test data of a high-efficiency unit in the market.
2
Switched-Mode High Level
Manufacturers' theoretical maximum efficiency.
3
Scaled Best-in-Market
Scaled from 120W EPS CSL 3.
4
Scaled Max Tech
Scaled from 120W EPS CSL 4.
3. EPS Engineering Analysis Methodology
DOE relied upon data gathered from manufacturer interviews to construct its engineering analysis for EPSs. DOE's cost-efficiency analysis for each of the representative units in product class B was generated using aggregated manufacturer cost data. DOE attempted to corroborate these estimates by testing and tearing down several EPSs on the market. For those products that did not exactly match its representative units, DOE scaled the test results for output power, output voltage, and cord length as necessary to align with the representative unit specifications. The units were then torn down by iSuppli to estimate the manufacturer selling price (MSP) and create a unique cost-efficiency curve entirely based on measurable results. The test and teardown data were inconclusive and generally showed decreasing costs with increasing efficiency. DOE previously presented both sets of cost-efficiency data to stakeholders for comment and consistently received support for using the manufacturer data as the basis for any standard setting action. Stakeholders argued that the negative cost-efficiency trends seen in the teardown data were not representative of the EPS market and that the manufacturer data was much more consistent and reliable since the data were more comprehensive. Stakeholders indicated that the data collected from manufacturer interviews better reflected the industry trends because it was derived from the estimates of manufacturers who produce EPSs in volume rather than backed out from an overall BOM cost by iSuppli. Therefore, in section IV.C of the NOPR, DOE proposed to use only the data gathered from manufacturers for its engineering analysis.
With respect to the scaled test results, Salcomp disagreed with DOE's results, stating that the “scaled average efficiency results in the reference data are not in line with theoretical calculations related to 5V/1A EPSs” and that “it appears that the real effects of the cable have not been taken into account.” Salcomp also proposed that USB-A EPS products be measured without the cable, as EPS manufacturers do not know anything about the cables that are ultimately supplied with the product. (Salcomp, No. 73 at p. 1)
NRDC suggested that the teardowns commissioned by DOE for the cost-efficiency curves were not conducted on EPSs of comparable utility, but commented that up-to-date manufacturer data should be sufficient to conduct an accurate cost-efficiency analysis going forward. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 11)
As stated in DOE's test procedure for single-voltage EPSs, “power supplies must be tested in their final, completed configuration in order to represent their measured efficiency on product labels or specification sheets.” (74 FR 13318) USB-A EPSs must, therefore, be tested with the USB cable, as supplied by the manufacturer of the EPS, connected. DOE took this into account as part of its engineering analysis methodology and established a representative DC cable length to help scale the measured efficiency of an EPS based on its nameplate output power and output voltage. As described in chapter 5 of the TSD, the resistivity of a wire is dependent on the resistivity of the copper used, the length of the wire, and the cross-sectional area of the wire. With all other factors the same, a longer cord length would increase the resistivity of the wire and subsequently increase the losses associated with the output cord, ultimately lowering the conversion efficiency of the EPS. Scaling the measured efficiency using a standard cable length meant that DOE needed to factor in any expected resistive losses associated with the current provided by the EPS in question. However, the scaling was applied not to correct for potential cable losses, but to take efficiency data measured with the manufactured cable and adjust it to the standard length. In all cases, the output cord loss was taken into account in the efficiency results of the EPSs DOE tested. Ultimately, these data were only used to support DOE's CSLs and not directly factored into the cost-efficiency curves DOE used to select standard levels for EPSs. DOE relied only on manufacturer interview data in its cost-efficiency analysis.
4. EPS Engineering Results
DOE characterized the cost-efficiency relationship of the four representative units in product class B as shown in Table IV-5, Table IV-6, Table IV-7, and Table IV-8. During interviews, manufacturers indicated that their switched-mode EPSs currently meet CSL 1, the ENERGY STAR 2.0 specification level. This factor is reflected in the analysis by setting the incremental MSP for the 18W, 60W, and 120W EPSs to $0 at CSL 1, which means that there is no incremental cost above the baseline to achieve CSL 1. Costs for the 2.5W EPS, however, are estimated at $0.15 for CSL 1. This result occurs because of DOE's assumption (based on available information) that the lowest cost solution for improving the efficiency of the 2.5W EPS is through the use of linear EPSs, which are manufactured both at the EISA 2007
level as well as the ENERGY STAR 2.0 level. Specifically, as commenters suggested, DOE examined linear EPSs and found that they might be a cost-effective solution at CSL 0 and CSL 1 for 2.5W EPSs. Thus, $0.15 indicates the incremental cost for a 2.5W linear EPS to achieve higher efficiency. For all four representative units, the more stringent CSLs—CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4—correspond to switched-mode EPSs designed during the same design cycle, which would cause their costs to increase with increased efficiency as more efficient designs require more efficient and more expensive components.
ER10FE14.011
NRDC had a number of comments on DOE's cost-efficiency results from the NOPR. In general, NRDC asserted that DOE had overestimated the cost of efficiency improvements for the 2.5 watt, 18 watt, and 60 watt representative units, based on NRDC's own discussions with industry professionals. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 11) In some cases, DOE's estimates for the incremental MSPs are nearly three times greater than NRDCs estimates. ASAP, who echoed these concerns, stated that the costs of highly efficient EPSs are rapidly declining and that DOE should reevaluate its estimates to reflect the most recent price trends. (ASAP,
et al.,
No. 136 at p. 10)
While ASAP and NRDC had comments concerning the cost-efficiency relationships of several representative units, many stakeholders mentioned the 60 watt representative unit cost-efficiency curves as being particularly skewed. NRDC stated that the fact that the 60 watt costs were higher than the 120 watt costs for most CSLs was not accurate, as higher power EPSs require higher material costs. They noted that perhaps DOE's analysis of the 60 watt unit included features unrelated to efficiency, which would explain the higher than expected costs for the lower order CSLs. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 11) The PSMA submitted similar comments stating that the incremental costs for EPSs increase “steadily and predictably with power supply size” such that the 60 watt incremental costs should be lower than those for the 120 watt
representative unit. (PSMA, No. 147 at p. 2) NEEP commented that the LCC results derived from the cost-efficiency curves for the 60 watt representative unit show unexplained irregularities that were attributed to manufacturer-provided cost data and suggested DOE conduct an additional independent engineering analysis on the 60 watt discrepancy. (NEEP, No. 160 at p. 2) These comments were based on the negative weighted-average LCC savings for the 60W representative unit at all CSLs above the baseline. DOE believes these results were due to the large incremental cost associated with moving from CSL 1 to CSL 2 and the relatively small increases in cost for the higher order CSLs.
DOE aggregated costs from OEMs, ODMs and component manufacturers to reflect the costs associated with incremental improvements in the energy efficiency of four representative units within product class B. Those costs were presented as the manufacturer selling price (MSP), or the price that the OEM pays the ODM for an EPS that meets its specifications. These costs were estimated through a series of manufacturer interviews to establish a range of average markups and incremental costs for efficiency improvements. The MSPs gleaned from interviews included only improvements to efficiency-related components over the manufacturer's baseline EPS model. Therefore, the incremental costs in DOE's analyses are only representative of improvements to the energy efficiency of EPSs.
DOE took the stakeholder comments into consideration when revising its engineering analysis for today's final rule. NRDC's assertion that the costs are overestimated for the 2.5W EPS representative unit fails to acknowledge that certain linear power supplies are still cost-effective and technically feasible for efficiencies up to CSL 1 for low power EPSs. The final cost-efficiency curve incorporates not only changes to switched-mode designs for higher efficiencies, but costs incurred by manufacturers of linear power supplies to improve the efficiency over the current designs. The result of this aggregation shows higher overall costs than estimated by NRDC for this representative unit.
In revisiting the cost-efficiency curves, DOE noted that the 60W cost aggregation contained the largest concentration of data from manufacturer interviews conducted during the preliminary analysis. Since the LCC results for the 60W representative unit largely depend on the cost changes between the CSLs and the efficiency distribution of the current products on the market, DOE decided to revise its aggregation using only the most recent data gathered from manufacturer interviews to generate the cost-efficiency curves presented in today's final rule. DOE believes that these curves better reflect the cost impacts of improving the efficiency of 60W EPSs and notes they align with NRDC's incremental MSP estimates for achieving the efficiency level of the amended standard. The resulting cost-efficiency curve shows a substantially smaller incremental cost at the proposed standard level of $0.33 compared to $1.29 in the NOPR. This modification caused the life-cycle cost savings at the proposed standard level for the 60W representative unit to turn strongly positive from the negative result depicted in the NOPR. The full LCC impacts can be found in Section V.B.1.a. For the 2.5W, 18W, and 120W representative units, DOE maintained its cost estimates from the NOPR because they represent the aggregated results from DOE's most recent data gathering efforts.
Unlike product class B, DOE analyzed only a single 203W representative unit for multiple-voltage EPSs. In Chapter 5 of the TSD, DOE outlines the cost-efficiency relationship for 203W multiple-voltage EPSs that it developed as part of the non-Class A EPS determination analysis. DOE received no comments on its engineering results for this product class and, therefore, maintained the same results in today's final rule. The results for the 203W multiple-voltage EPS product class are shown in Table IV-9.
ER10FE14.012
Similar to the analysis of multiple-voltage EPSs, DOE analyzed one 345W representative unit for high-power EPSs. In chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD, DOE indicated that it was considering applying the cost-efficiency relationship for 345W high-power single-voltage EPSs that it developed as part of the non-Class A EPS determination analysis to high-power EPSs. In the determination analysis, DOE derived costs for CSL 0 and CSL 1 from test and teardown data, whereas costs for CSL 2 and CSL 3 came from manufacturer and component supplier interviews. DOE did not receive comments on this aspect of its approach in the NOPR. Hence, DOE used the results from the determination analysis to characterize the costs of the less-efficient CSLs for 345W high-power EPSs (CSL 0 and CSL 1) for today's final rule.
After discussions with its subject matter experts (SMEs), DOE believes that a 345W EPS can achieve higher efficiencies based on a theoretical model of a 360W EPS that exhibits the properties of three 120W EPSs connected in parallel. This model essentially demonstrates a “black box” approach that supplies the representative unit output voltage at a higher output current than a single 120W unit would be able to provide. As each EPS in this system would be operating at an identical efficiency, the system as a whole would meet the same efficiency as any one EPS and, therefore, the 345W unit can be modeled as several 120W EPSs connected in parallel.
These higher output devices are typically used with amateur radio equipment, which often transmit at power levels between 100 and 200 watts while simultaneously providing power to other components. DOE developed its costs for the higher-efficiency CSLs (CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4) based on its 120W EPS analysis. DOE received no comments on this approach and thus retained the cost-efficiency relationship for the 345W EPS shown in Table IV-10 for today's final rule.
ER10FE14.013
5. EPS Equation Scaling
In support of the NOPR, DOE presented an approach to deriving the average efficiency and no-load power consumption requirements for each CSL over the full range of output power for Class A EPSs in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. Mathematical equations define each CSL as a pair of relationships that are functions of nameplate output power: (1) Average active-mode efficiency and (2) no-load mode power consumption. These equations allowed DOE to describe a CSL for any nameplate output power and served as the basis for its proposed standards. A complete description of the equations can be found in chapter 5 of the TSD.
For the baseline CSL and CSL 1, DOE relied on equations from EISA 2007 and ENERGY STAR 2.0, respectively, rather than developing new equations. DOE took this approach because EISA created a mandatory standard that established a baseline for DOE's analysis while the ENERGY STAR voluntary program served as an incentive for manufacturers to produce more efficient products in order to brand their products as ENERGY STAR compliant, a quality that that many consumers recognize and seek. Both equations are defined over ranges of output power, although the divisions between ranges are slightly different. EISA 2007 created divisions by establishing efficiency equations with breakpoints at 1 watt and 51 watts; ENERGY STAR 2.0 creates similar divisions at 1 watt and 49 watts. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A) (creating nameplate output categories of under 1 watt, 1 watt to not more than 51 watts, and over 51 watts) and “ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Single Voltage External AC-DC and AC-AC Power Supplies” (creating nameplate output categories of less than or equal to 1 watt, 1 watt to not more than 49 watts, and greater than 49 watts). DOE developed equations for all other CSLs and for consistency and simplicity used the ENERGY STAR 2.0 divisions at 1 watt and 49 watts for all CSLs. These divisions were created in conjunction with the EPS product classes discussed in section IV.A.2.a as part of a complete analysis by the EPA when it drafted the ENERGY STAR program requirements for single-voltage external AC-DC and AC-AC power supplies.
DOE derived CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4 by fitting equations to the efficiency values of their respective manufacturer and test data points for each representative unit. DOE used an equation of the form Y = a*ln(P
out
) + b*P
out
+ c, for each of the nameplate output power ranges, where Y indicates the efficiency requirement; P
out
indicates the nameplate output power; and a, b, and c represent variables defined for each CSL. DOE ensured that the equations met three conditions:
(1) The distance to each point was minimized.
(2) The equation did not exceed the tested efficiencies.
(3) DOE further restricted the parameter choice in order to ensure that the CSL curves adhered to a matched pairs approach fully detailed in chapter 5 of the TSD.
For the NOPR, DOE derived a revised max-tech scaling equation from data points obtained during manufacturer interviews as noted in section III.B.2.a. DOE received no comments averse to the revised max tech CSL equation. Therefore, DOE has maintained all of its CSL equations from the NOPR in today's final rule.
As in the NOPR, DOE scaled the CSL equations from product class B to the product classes representing low-voltage AC-DC and all AC-AC EPSs (product classes C, D, and E). See Chapter 5 of the TSD to today's final rule for more information regarding DOE's scaling methodology. The scaling for these equations was based on ENERGY STAR 2.0, which separates AC-DC conversion and AC-AC conversion into “basic-voltage” and “low-voltage” categories. ENERGY STAR 2.0 sets less stringent efficiency levels for low-voltage EPSs because they cannot typically achieve the same efficiencies as basic-voltage EPSs due to inherent design limitations. Similarly, ENERGY STAR 2.0 sets less stringent no-load standards for AC-AC EPSs because the devices do not use the overhead circuitry found in AC-DC EPSs to limit no-load power dissipation. As previously stated, the power consumed by the additional AC-AC EPS circuitry would actually increase their no-load power consumption. DOE used this approach to develop CSLs other than the baseline CSL for product classes C, D, and E. Because the EISA 2007 standard applies to all Class A EPSs, which comprise most of product classes B, C, D, and E, the baseline CSL is exactly the same for all four product classes.
As described throughout the EPS rulemaking, DOE created less stringent CSLs for product classes C, D, and E based on the technical differences outlined in Section III.A. The efficiency equations for CSL 1 come directly from the ENERGY STAR 2.0 low-voltage equation because of the impact the ENERGY STAR 2.0 levels had on the EPS market. The low-voltage curves for CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4 were created by using their respective CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4 basic-voltage efficiency curves, and altering all equation parameters by the difference in the coefficients between the CSL 1 basic-voltage and low-voltage equations. This approach had the effect of shifting the CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4 low-voltage curves downward from their corresponding basic-voltage CSL 2, CSL 3, and CSL 4 curves, by a similar amount as the shift seen in the ENERGY STAR 2.0 equations. Today's amended standards for product classes C, D, and E were established using this methodology.
Eastman Kodak commented that the no-load equations should be a continuous function of output power for EPSs with nameplate output powers less than 250 watts. (Eastman Kodak, No. 125 at p. 2) However, as explained, DOE's approach is consistent with the EISA 2007 standards and the former ENERGY STAR 2.0 program for EPSs. In both cases, the no-load power requirement is a step function based on
the power output of the EPS. Using that assumption, DOE conducted an engineering analysis and found no strong correlation between no-load power and output power that would warrant deviating from the analytical structure of these programs. The equations for no-load power and active-mode efficiency formed the foundation of DOE's standards analysis, and the approach has been largely supported by stakeholders throughout the course of the rulemaking. Therefore, DOE maintained its step function equations for no-load power in amending the standards for EPSs in today's final rule.
After applying the approach described above and analyzing the products at issue, DOE believes that the ENERGY STAR 2.0 low-voltage standard equation for AC-DC conversion is an appropriate standard for multiple-voltage EPSs because lower power EPSs tend to be less efficient. DOE took into account that fact and has created an equation that scales with output power, should any low-power multiple-voltage EPSs enter the market in the future. As detailed in chapter 5 of the TSD, the ENERGY STAR 2.0 low-voltage equation matches the CSL equation DOE is adopting for the multiple-voltage EPS standard at the representative unit's output power of 203 watts, but also sets less stringent efficiency standards for lower power EPSs. DOE applied the same constraints when fitting the equation to the test data as it did for product classes B, C, D, and E. DOE received no comments on this approach in setting a standard for multiple-voltage EPSs.
For product class H (high-power EPSs), DOE set a discrete standard for all EPSs greater than 250 watts. DOE believes this is appropriate for two main reasons: (1) DOE is aware of only one application for high-power EPSs (amateur radios) and (2) this approach is consistent with the standard for product class B, which is a discrete level for all EPSs with nameplate output powers greater than 49 watts. In light of these facts, setting a single efficiency level as the standard for all EPSs with output power greater than 250 watts (high-power EPSs) appears to be a reasonable approach to ensure a minimal level of energy efficiency while minimizing the overall level of burden on manufacturers. DOE received no comments on this approach in setting a standard for high power EPSs.
6. Proposed Standards
a. Product Classes B, C, D, and E
In the NOPR, DOE proposed standard levels for all the product classes that were analyzed as part of the EPS engineering analysis. For product classes B, C, D, and E, which contained Class A, medical, and some MADB EPSs broken out by type of power conversion and nameplate output voltage, DOE proposed CSL 3, or the best-in-market CSL. To develop the proposed standard level, DOE “curve fit” an equation to test results of the most efficient EPSs it could find on the market at each representative output power.
23
DOE announced its intention to designate the proposed level “Level VI” in a revised and updated version of the International Efficiency Marking Protocol for EPSs. DOE received many comments on the proposed standard levels for product classes B, C, D, and E.
23
The term “curve fit” refers to generating an equation based on a set of data in order to describe the information mathematically.
Panasonic, Cobra Electronics, ITI, Salcomp, Duracell, the Republic of Korea, and Eastman Kodak all commented that DOE should forgo setting an EPS standard at level VI and adopt the current level V requirement as the Federal standard to harmonize with the E.U. and other international efficiency programs. (Panasonic, No. 120 at p. 2; Cobra Electronics, No. 130 at p. 8; ITI, No. 131 at p. 4, Salcomp, No. 73 at p. 2; Duracell, No. 109 at p. 4; Republic of Korea, No. 148 at p. 1; Eastman Kodak, No. 125 at p. 2) ITI stated that DOE's proposed standard “breaks away from global harmonization efforts and would require significant industry-wide redesign,” and called it “unjustifiable.” (ITI, No. 131 at p. 4) AHAM also supported harmonization efforts and asserted that level V is “the most stringent level that is technologically feasible.” (AHAM, No. 124 at p. 7) These statements were supported by Philips, which suggested that DOE should adopt Level V, which is known to be technologically feasible, and contemplate higher levels in a later rule. (Philips, No. 128 at p. 3) ITI also suggested such a phased approach, in which DOE would first adopt a standard at Level V for Class A EPSs and later investigate mandatory or voluntary standards for non-Class A EPSs. (ITI, No. 131 at p. 5) Nokia claimed that the DOE standards proposal “lacks sufficient economic justification to warrant such swift and demanding changes.” (Nokia, No. 132 at p. 2) For all the reasons suggested by other stakeholders, the CEA noted that “further analysis is needed before DOE promulgates an amended energy conservation standard for Class A external power supplies.” (CEA, No. 106 at p. 5)
Some interested parties made specific comments about the no-load power equation of the proposed standard. Flextronics claimed that with a compliance date two years from the publication of today's final rule, DOE should decrease the no-load power proposal from 100mW to 50mW for EPSs for mobile phones. (Flextronics, No. 145 at p. 1) Conversely, Logitech argued that they had just undergone costly design improvements to meet the no-load power requirement for the former ENERGY STAR program for EPSs and the E.U., which is 300 mW. (Logitech, No. 157 at p. 1)
DOE received support from energy efficiency advocates in favor of the standards proposed in the NOPR. NEEP noted that DOE's proposal represents a strong push toward rapidly increasing the energy efficiency of EPSs. (NEEP, No. 160 at p. 2) ARRIS Group also supported DOE's conclusion that “changing to a code V energy efficiency requirement will have little to no material cost impact since the majority of EPS products already comply.” (ARRIS Group, No. 105 at p. 1)
In any efficiency standards rulemaking, DOE seeks to identify the most stringent standard that is economically justified and technically feasible. In the NOPR for EPSs, DOE proposed to amend the EISA 2007 regulations and increase the minimum efficiency standards to the best-in-market levels identified in the engineering analysis.
The com
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.