Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies

Federal RegisterFeb 2, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006]

RIN 1904-AD87

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including external power supplies (“EPSs”). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) to periodically determine whether more-stringent, standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”), DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for EPSs, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES:

Meeting:

DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Wednesday, March 1, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

Comments:

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR no later than April 3, 2023. Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the

ADDRESSES

section on or before March 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at

www.regulations.gov,

under docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006, by any of the following methods:

Email: EPS2020STD006@ee.doe.gov.

Include the docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006 in the subject line of the message.

Postal Mail:

Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (“CD”), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

Hand Delivery/Courier:

Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section VII of this document.

Docket:

The docket for this activity, which includes

Federal Register

notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at

www.regulations.gov

. All documents in the docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov

index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

The docket web page can be found at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006

. The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments through

www.regulations.gov

EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input from market participants and other interested persons with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested persons may contact the Division at

energy.standards@usdoj.gov

on or before the date specified in the

DATES

section. Please indicate in the “Subject” line of your email the title and Docket Number of this proposed rule.

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:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov

Mr. Nolan Brickwood, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4498. Email:

Nolan.Brickwood@hq.doe.gov.

For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the following industry standard in part 430:

International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies, Version 4.0, January, 2023.

The above referenced document has been added to the docket for this rulemaking and can be downloaded from Docket EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006 on

Regulations.gov.

For a further discussion of this standard, see section VI.M of this document.

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits and Costs

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for External Power Supplies

3. Deviation From Appendix A

III. General Discussion

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

B. Materials Incorporated by Reference

C. Test Procedure

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)

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 of Related Comments

A. General Comments and Responses

B. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes

2. Existing Efficiency Programs

3. Technology Options

C. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

2. Remaining Technologies

D. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Analysis

a. Baseline Efficiency

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

2. Cost Analysis

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

E. Markups Analysis

F. Energy Use Analysis

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Product Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy Prices

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs

6. Product Lifetime

7. Discount Rates

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case

9. Payback Period Analysis

H. Shipments Analysis

I. National Impact Analysis

1. Product Efficiency Trends

2. National Energy Savings

3. Net Present Value Analysis

J. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

K. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs

a. Manufacturer Production Costs

b. Shipments Projections

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs

d. Markup Scenarios

3. Discussion of MIA Comments

L. Emissions Analysis

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis

M. Monetizing Emissions Impacts

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

a. Social Cost of Carbon

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide

2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts

N. Utility Impact Analysis

O. Employment Impact Analysis

P. Marking Requirements

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

A. Trial Standard 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 Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results

b. Direct Impacts on Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

8. Summary of Economic Impacts

C. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for EPS Standards

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule

3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities

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

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Information Quality

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

VII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

Title III, Part B

of EPCA,

established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include external power supplies (“EPSs”), the subject of this rulemaking.

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

All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must 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 or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for EPSs. The proposed standards, which are expressed in percentage and Watts (“W”), are shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all EPSs listed in Table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the date 2 years after the publication of the final rule for this rulemaking.

Table I.1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies

Nameplate output power

out

)

Minimum average efficiency in active mode

(expressed as a decimal)

Maximum power

in no-load mode

[W]

Single-Voltage External AC-DC Power Supply, Basic-Voltage

out

≤ 1 W

≥0.5 × P

out

+ 0.169

≤0.075

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥0.071 × ln(P

out

)−0.00115 × P

out

+ 0.67

≤0.075

49 W < P

out

≤ 250 W

≥0.890

≤0.150

out

> 250 W

≥0.890

≤0.150

Single-Voltage External AC-DC Power Supply, Low-Voltage

out

≤ 1 W

≥0.517 × P

out

+ 0.091

≤0.075

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥0.0834 × ln(P

out

)−0.0011× P

out

+ 0.609

≤0.075

49 W < P

out

≤ 250 W

≥0.880

≤0.150

out

> 250 W

≥0.880

≤0.150

Single-Voltage External AC-AC Power Supply, Basic-Voltage

out

≤ 1 W

≥0.5 × P

out

+ 0.169

≤0.075

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥0.0582 × ln(P

out

)−0.00104 × P

out

+ 0.727

≤0.075

49 W < P

out

≤ 250 W

≥0.902

≤0.075

out

> 250 W

≥0.902

≤0.200

Single-Voltage External AC-AC Power Supply, Low-Voltage

out

≤ 1 W

≥0.517 × P

out

+ 0.091

≤0.072

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥0.0834 × ln(P

out

)−0.0011 × P

out

+ 0.609

≤0.072

49 W < P

out

≤ 250 W

≥0.880

≤0.185

out

> 250 W

≥0.880

≤0.500

Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply

out

≤ 1 W

≥0.497 × P

out

+ 0.067

≤0.075

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥0.0782 × ln(P

out

)−0.0013 × P

out

+ 0.643

≤0.075

49 W < P

out

≤ 250 W

≥0.885

≤0.125

out

> 250 W

≥0.885

≤0.125

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of EPSs, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”).

The average LCC savings are positive or nearly zero for all product classes and the PBP is similar to or less than the average lifetime of EPSs, which is estimated to range from 4.2 to 6.2 years (see section IV.G of this document).

The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards. The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product (see section IV.G of this document).

Table I.2—Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of External Power Supplies

Product class

Average

LCC savings

[2021 dollars]

Simple

payback period

[years]

AC-DC, Basic-Voltage

$−0.03

5.0

AC-DC, Low-Voltage

0.01

3.2

AC-AC, Basic-Voltage

0.52

4.1

Multiple-Voltage

0.24

7.0

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on consumers is described in section IV.G of this document.

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 (2022-2056). Using a real discount rate of 7.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of EPSs in the case without amended standards is $847.5 million in 2021 dollars. Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from a decrease of 1.4 percent to a decrease of 0.9 percent, which corresponds to decreases of approximately $11.6 million and $7.9 million. In order to bring products into compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total conversion costs of $17.4 million.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.K of this document. The analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) are presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs

All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021 dollars.

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for EPSs would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for EPSs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the amended standards (2027-2056) amount to 0.11 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.

This represents a savings of 2.9 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without amended standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”).

The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”) energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.I of this document.

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for EPSs ranges from $0.17 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $0.45 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 EPSs purchased in 2027-2056.

In addition, the proposed standards for EPSs are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 3.9 million metric tons (“Mt”)

of carbon dioxide (“CO

”), 26.3 thousand tons of methane (“CH

”), 0.04 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (“N

O”), 6.0 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (“NO

”), 1.7 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO

”), and 0.01 tons of mercury (“Hg”).

A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO

are presented in short tons.

DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the

Annual Energy Outlook 2022

(“

AEO2022”

AEO2022

represents current federal and state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time of its preparation. See section IV.L of this document for further discussion of

AEO2022

assumptions that effect air pollutant emissions.

DOE estimates climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (“GHG”) using four different estimates of the social cost of CO

(“SC-CO

”), the social cost of methane (“SC-CH

”), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (“SC-N

O”). Together these represent the social cost of GHG (“SC-GHG”).

DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG),

as discussed in section IV.M of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are $0.20 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.

On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in

Louisiana

Biden,

No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.

See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, Washington, DC, February 2021 (“February 2021 SC-GHG TSD”).

/www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf

DOE also estimates health benefits from SO

and NO

emissions reductions.

DOE estimates the present value of the health benefits would be $0.16 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.36 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.

DOE is currently monetizing only PM

2.5

precursor health benefits for SO

and NO

and ozone precursor health benefits for NO

, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects, such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions. If any such additional health benefits were monetized, they would only further increase the total benefits of the proposed rule.

DOE estimated the monetized value of SO

and NO

emissions reductions associated with electricity savings using benefit per ton estimates from the scientific literature. See section IV.M of this document for further discussion.

DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.

Table I.3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for EPSs. In the table, total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG cases. The estimated total net benefits using each of the four cases are presented in section IV.M of this document.

Table I.3—Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies

[TSL 4]

Billion

2020 dollars

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

0.82

Climate Benefits *

0.20

Health Benefits **

0.36

Total Benefits †

1.38

Consumer Incremental Product Costs

0.37

Net Benefits

1.01

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

0.40

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

0.20

Health Benefits **

0.16

Total Benefits †

0.76

Consumer Incremental Product Costs

0.23

Net Benefits

0.53

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with EPSs shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-GHG (see section IV.M of this proposed rule). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in

Louisiana

Biden,

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO

and SO

. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.M of this document for more details.

† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. See Table V.24 for net benefits using all four SC-GHG estimates.

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of the benefits of GHG and NO

and SO

emission reductions, all annualized.

The national operating savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of EPSs shipped in 2027-2056. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of EPSs shipped in 2027-2056.

To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2021, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur (

e.g.,

2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2022. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that yields the same present value.

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed standards are shown in Table I.4. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO

and SO

emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in this rule is $24.3 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $42.7 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $11.5 million in climate benefits, and $16.7 million in health benefits. The net benefit would amount to $46.6 per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $21.4 per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $47.3 in reduced operating costs, $11.5 million in climate benefits, and $20.4 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $57.8 million per year.

Table I.4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies

[TSL 4]

Million 2021 dollars/year

Primary

estimate

Low-net-

benefits

estimate

High-net-

benefits

estimate

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

47.3

46.1

48.8

Climate Benefits *

11.5

Health Benefits **

20.4

Total Benefits †

79.2

78.0

80.7

Consumer Incremental Product Costs

21.4

23.4

19.3

Net Benefits

57.8

54.6

61.3

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

42.7

41.8

43.9

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

11.5

Health Benefits **

16.7

Total Benefits †

70.9

70.0

72.1

Consumer Incremental Product Costs

24.3

26.1

22.4

Net Benefits

46.6

43.9

49.6

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with EPSs shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.M of this proposed rule). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in

Louisiana

Biden,

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO

and SO

. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.M of this document for more details.

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.I, IV.L and IV.M of this document.

D. Conclusion

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and that they would result in the significant conservation of energy. Regarding technological feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for all product classes covered by this proposal. Considering economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the proposed standard greatly exceed the burdens of the proposed standards. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NOx and SO

reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for EPSs is $24.3 million per year in increased EPS costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $42.7 million in reduced EPS operating costs, $11.5 million in climate benefits and $16.7 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $46.6 million per year.

The significance of energy savings is evaluated by DOE on a case-by-case basis considering the specific circumstances surrounding a specific rulemaking. The standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 0.11 quads. Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in GHG emissions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis DOE has initially determined the energy savings that would result from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying TSD.

DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits.

Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this document and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for EPSs.

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include EPSs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)) EPCA prescribed the initial energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)), and directed DOE to conduct several future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these initial standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).

Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and 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 EPCA. (

See

42 U.S.C. 6297(d))

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. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) 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 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for EPSs appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix Z (“Appendix Z”).

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including EPSs. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt a standard that DOE determines would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

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 standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory 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 standard;

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

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from 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 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))

Further, EPCA 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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))

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

Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of product that has 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 the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate.

Id.

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

Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Pub. L. 110-140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is 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 a single 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)) DOE's current test procedures for EPSs address standby mode energy use. In this rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended energy conservation standards that it may adopt.

B. Background

1. Current Standards

In a final rule published on February 10, 2014 (“February 2014 Final Rule”), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for EPSs manufactured on and after February 10, 2016. 79 FR 7846. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(w) and are repeated in Table II.1.

Table II.1—Federal Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies

Nameplate output power (P

out

)

Minimum average efficiency in active mode (

expressed as a decimal

)

Maximum power in no-load mode [W]

Single-Voltage External AC-DC Power Supply, Basic-Voltage

out

≤ 1 W

≥ 0.5 × P

out

+ 0.16

≤ 0.100

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥ 0.071 × ln(P

out

)−0.0014 × P

out

+ 0.67

≤ 0.100

49 W < P

out

≤ 250 W

≥ 0.880

≤ 0.210

out

> 250 W

≥ 0.875

≤ 0.500

Single-Voltage External AC-DC Power Supply, Basic-Voltage

out

≤ 1 W

≥ 0.517 × P

out

+ 0.087

≤ 0.100

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥ 0.0834 × ln(P

out

)−0.0014 × P

out

+ 0.609

≤ 0.100

49 W < P

out

≤ 250 W

≥ 0.870

≤ 0.210

out

> 250 W

≥ 0.875

≤ 0.500

Single-Voltage External AC-AC Power Supply, Basic-Voltage

out

≤ 1 W

≥ 0.5 × P

out

+ 0.16

≤ 0.210

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥ 0.071 × ln(P

out

)−0.0014 × P

out

+ 0.67

≤ 0.210

49 W < P

out

≤ 250 W

≥ 0.880

≤ 0.210

out

> 250 W

≥ 0.875

≤ 0.500

Single-Voltage External AC-AC Power Supply, Low-Voltage

out

≤ 1 W

≥ 0.517 × P

out

+ 0.087

≤ 0.210

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥ 0.0834 × ln(P

out

)−0.0014 × P

out

+ 0.609

≤ 0.210

49 W < P

out

≤ 250 W

≥ 0.870

≤ 0.210

out

> 250 W

≥ 0.875

≤ 0.500

Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply

out

≤ 1 W

≥ 0.497 × P

out

+ 0.067

≤ 0.300

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥ 0.075 × ln(P

out

) + 0.561

≤ 0.300

out

> 49 W

≥ 0.860

≤ 0.300

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for External Power Supplies

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 consist 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 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 (hereinafter referred to as “Level IV standards”) that became effective on July 1, 2008, and directed DOE to conduct an energy conservation standards rulemaking to review those standards.

In the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE completed a rulemaking cycle by adopting amended performance standards for EPSs manufactured on or after February 10, 2016. 79 FR 7846. The final rule amended the Level IV standards prescribed by Congress and separated EPSs into two groups regardless of whether they met the Class A criteria—direct operation EPSs and indirect operation EPSs.

79 FR 7846, 7865-7866. The February 2014 Final Rule set new standards that applied only to direct operation EPSs (hereafter referred to as “Level VI standards”), which increased the stringency of the average active-mode and no-load power consumption metrics over the Level IV standards. 79 FR 7846, 7849. Under the February 2014 Final Rule, Class A EPSs that could directly power a consumer product (excluding battery chargers)

became subject to the Level VI standards, whereas Class A EPSs that require the use of a battery to power a consumer product remained subject to the Level IV standards. (

Id.

) Likewise, non-Class A EPSs that could directly power a consumer product (excluding battery chargers) became subject to efficiency standards for the first time (Level VI standards)—non-Class A indirect operation EPSs continued to remain free from any efficiency requirements. 79 FR 7846, 7849, 7865.

An indirect operation EPS is an EPS that cannot power a consumer product (other than a battery charger) without the assistance of a battery. 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.

As part of the current analysis, on May 20, 2020, DOE prepared a Request for Information (“May 2020 RFI”), which solicited information from the public to help DOE determine whether amended standards for EPSs would result in a significant amount of additional energy savings and whether those standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified. 85 FR 30636.

Comments received following the publication of the May 2020 RFI helped DOE identify and resolve issues related to the subsequent preliminary analysis.

DOE published a notice of public meeting and availability of the preliminary technical support document (“TSD”) on February 25, 2022 (“February 2022 Preliminary Analysis”). 87 FR 10719.

Comments are available at

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0001/comment

and

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0008/comment

DOE subsequently held a public meeting on March 24, 2022, to discuss and receive comments on the preliminary TSD. The preliminary TSD that presented the methodology and results of the preliminary analysis is available at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012

. DOE received comments in response to the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis from the interested parties listed in Table II.2.

Table II.2—February 2022 Preliminary Analysis Written Comments

Commenter(s)

Abbreviation

Comment

number

in the

docket

Commenter type

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”), Consumer Technology Association (“CTA”), National Electrical Manufacturers Association (“NEMA”), Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (“OPEI”), Plumbing Manufacturers Institute (PMI), and Power Tool Institute (“PTI”)

Joint Trade Associations

Trade Associations.

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (“ASAP”), National Consumer Law Center (“NCLC”), Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”), and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (“NYSERDA”)

Joint Efficiency Advocates

Efficiency Organizations.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison

CA IOUs

Utility Association.

Information Technology Industry Council

ITI

Trade Association.

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NEEA

Efficiency Organization.

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

NEMA

Trade Association.

Power Sources Manufacturers Association

PSMA

Trade Association.

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

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for EPSs. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006, which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov

). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).

3. Deviation From Appendix A

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“appendix A”), DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(d)(2) of appendix A specifies that the length of the public comment period for a NOPR will vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking, but will not be less than 75 calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE has opted to instead provide a 60-day comment period. DOE requested comment in the May 2020 RFI on the technical and economic analyses and provided stakeholders with a 47-day comment period. 85 FR 30636. Additionally, DOE reopened the comment period for the May 2020 RFI for an additional 32 days. 85 FR 44484. Furthermore, DOE requested comment on the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis for a period of 60 days. 87 FR 10719. DOE has relied on many of the same analytical assumptions and approaches as used in the preliminary assessment and has determined that a 60-day comment period in conjunction with the prior comment periods provides sufficient time for interested parties to review the proposed rule and develop comments.

Section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states that if the Department determines it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. DOE is opting to deviate from this step by publishing a NOPR following the preliminary analysis without a framework document. A framework document is intended to introduce and summarize the various analyses DOE conducts during the rulemaking process and requests initial feedback from interested parties. As discussed, prior to the preliminary analysis and this NOPR, DOE published the May 2020 RFI, in which DOE identified and sought comment on the technical and economic analyses to be conducted in determining whether amended energy conservation standards would be justified. Comments received following publication of the May 2020 RFI assisted DOE in identifying and resolving issues related to the preliminary analyses. As a result, publication of a framework document would be largely redundant with the published RFI and preliminary analysis. As such, DOE is deviating from the procedures provided in appendix A and is not publishing a framework document prior to the publication of this NOPR. The Department has determined that it

is appropriate to proceed with this proposal due to the information obtained through the May 2020 RFI and the preliminary analysis.

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues raised by these commenters.

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used, by capacity, or by other performance-related features that justify differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

EPSs are currently classified as direct operation and indirect operation EPSs. Direct operation EPSs are further divided into the following five single-voltage sub-product classes: AC-DC, Basic-Voltage; 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); 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); AC-AC, Basic-Voltage; AC-AC, Low-Voltage; and Multiple-Voltage.

The February 2014 Final Rule maintained the Level IV standards established by Congress for all Class A

EPSs, including indirect operation EPSs, and adopted more stringent Level VI standards applicable to all direct operation non-Class A EPSs. 79 FR 7846, 7849. A summary of the standards currently applicable to these different types of EPSs are shown in Table III.1.

A Class A EPS means a device that (i) Is designed to convert line voltage AC input into lower voltage AC or DC output; (ii) Is able to convert to only one AC or DC output voltage at a time; (iii) Is sold with, or intended to be used with, a separate end-use product that constitutes the primary load; (iv) Is contained in a separate physical enclosure from the end-use product; (v) Is connected to the end-use product via a removable or hard-wired male/female electrical connection, cable, cord, or other wiring; and (vi) Has nameplate output power that is less than or equal to 250 watts; But, does not include any device that—(i) 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 (ii) Powers the charger of a detachable battery pack or charges the battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated. 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)

Table III.1—Application of Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies

Class A EPS

Non-class A EPS

Direct Operation EPS

Level VI

Level VI.

Indirect Operation EPS

Level IV

No-standards.

In this NOPR, DOE proposes more stringent Level VII standards that would be applicable to all EPSs, including direct and indirect operation Class A and non-Class A EPSs. This approach makes the distinction between these various types of EPSs redundant with respect to the applicability of energy conservation standards. See section IV.B.1 of this document for additional discussion on this point.

B. Materials Incorporated by Reference

The current Level VI standards mandate the labeling of compliant EPSs in accordance with the International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies (“IEMP”), Version 3.

See

10 CFR 430.3(s). DOE proposes to incorporate by reference version 4.0 of IEMP, which will outline the marking requirements for the proposed amendments to the energy conservation standards.

DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference version 4.0 of IEMP for this proposed rulemaking.

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE published a test procedure final rule for EPSs on August 19, 2022 (“August 2022 TP Final Rule”), which amended appendix Z by clarifying the scope of the test procedure more explicitly, providing more specific instructions for testing single-voltage EPSs with multiple-output busses and EPSs shipped without an output cord, providing instructions allowing for functionality unrelated to the external power supply circuit to be disconnected during testing so long as the disconnection does not impact the functionality of the EPS itself, and specifying test requirements for adaptive EPSs. 87 FR 51200. Except where specifically noted, changes from the August 2022 TP Final Rule were incorporated into the methodology used to test EPSs for this NOPR analysis.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General

In each energy conservation 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. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C (“Appendix A”).

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, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. Section IV.C of this document 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 standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it 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. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.D.1.b of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each trial standard level (“TSL”), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to EPSs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the proposed standards ([2027-2056]).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of EPSs purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy conservation standards.

Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 30-year period.

DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet model to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential amended or new standards for EPSs. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.I of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of 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 primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.

DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.I of this document.

The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).

2. Significance of Savings

To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.

For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary energy and FFC effects for different covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.

The numeric threshold for determining the significance of energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14, 2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors. DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. 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)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss each of those seven factors in this proposed rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

EPCA requires DOE to consider the economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the product that would be subject to the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I). In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.K of this document. First, DOE 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 (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) 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 LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the section IV. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers

that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)

EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.

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 analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. 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.

The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.G of this document.

c. Energy Savings

Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are likely to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.E of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

EPCA requires that DOE evaluate whether potential standards would lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) DOE considers this evaluation in establishing product classes and considering design options and the impact of potential standard levels. Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this proposed 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 a proposed 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 proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the

ADDRESSES

section for information to send comments to DOJ.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

DOE is required to consider the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to improve 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, as discussed in section IV.N of this document.

DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and GHGs associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.L of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section IV.L of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section V.B of this document.

g. Other Factors

In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described previously, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.” In this proposed rulemaking, DOE has not identified or considered any other factors for determining whether the proposed standard is economically justified.

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 effects that proposed 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 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 section V.B of this document.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to EPSs. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.

DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates national energy savings and net present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking:

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006

. Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA's”)

Annual Energy Outlook

(“

AEO”

), a widely known energy projection for the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. General Comments and Responses

In response to the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, the Joint Trade Associations and ITI commented that DOE's preliminary analysis clearly demonstrated that amended energy conservation standards for EPSs were not economically justified and instead made a strong case for no new standards. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 23 at pp. 1-3; ITI, No. 20 at p. 2) The Joint Trade Associations noted that for all of the product classes DOE analyzed, the payback periods significantly exceeded the average useful life of the products and that consumers would therefore not recoup the additional cost of the more efficient products over its lifetime, and that this alone could justify not amending standards for EPSs. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 23 at pp. 2-3)

DOE notes that the costs and benefits of amended standards presented in the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis were incomplete and the notice primarily served to provide stakeholders with a preview of the methodology undertaken in evaluating whether amended standards are justified. The preliminary analysis stage of the rulemaking also allows stakeholders an opportunity to help refine the analysis prior to NOPR. The results presented in the preliminary analysis should therefore not be relied upon in determining whether amended standards are economically justified.

In addition, PSMA urged DOE to publish a roadmap of energy conservation standards over the next 3-5 years, to assist the industry in adapting to any higher tiers of energy conservation standards. (PSMA, No. 19 at p. 3) DOE notes that it is required by EPCA to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend existing standards for EPSs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)) DOE completed the first of the two rulemaking cycles in 2014 by adopting amended performance standards in the February 2014 Final Rule for EPSs manufactured on or after February 10, 2016. 79 FR 7846. DOE is publishing this NOPR to satisfy its obligation to conduct a second rulemaking cycle under EPCA.

EISA 2007 directed DOE to publish an updated final rule for EPSs by July 1, 2021, and further stipulated that any amended standards would apply to products manufactured on or after July 1, 2023, two years later. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii)) 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. Consistent with this two-year lead time provided by EISA 2007, DOE will provide manufacturers with a lead-time of the same two-year duration as prescribed by statute to comply with any amended standards after the publication of a final rule in the

Federal Register

. This aligns with DOE's approach in the February 2014 Final Rule. 79 FR 7846, 7859. The Joint Trade Associations stated that DOE's process decreases the value of early stakeholder engagement. They stated that it would have been more effective and efficient for DOE to use the completed, amended test procedure rather than the currently applicable test procedure to conduct the preliminary analysis. They further commented that DOE provided a shortened 60-day comment period on the preliminary analysis, which significantly overlapped with other comment periods relevant to many of the same stakeholders. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 23 at pp. 4-)

As stated above, the preliminary analysis is primarily intended to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the various methodologies DOE intends to use in the NOPR. DOE again notes that the preliminary analysis results should not be relied upon to assess whether amended standards for EPSs are justified. DOE weighed the arguments for and against delaying the preliminary analysis until after the test procedure final rule had been published and concluded that the contemplated differences between the two test procedures, as it applies to the development of amended standards, were minor. DOE further determined that the benefits of using the revised test procedure did not outweigh the benefits of publishing the preliminary analysis on time. Moreover, as the EPS test procedure had not been finalized at the time the preliminary analysis was published, any analysis based on proposed changes to the test procedure would itself have been subject to change; DOE therefore chose to proceed using its then-current finalized test procedure. Additionally, unless otherwise noted, test results used in support of this NOPR were obtained using the test procedure as finalized in the August 2022 TP Final Rule.

With regards to a shortened comment period, DOE believes the length of time provided to have been sufficient because of extensive stakeholder engagement in prior rulemaking cycles as well as the lengthy 79-day comment period provided for stakeholders to comment on the May 2020 RFI.

ITI commented that given the long payback periods and limited energy savings, DOE must consider the opportunity costs of amended standards. ITI stated that work to increase the efficiency of EPSs with little energy savings would divert original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) resources away from other significant technological developments that could have a bigger impact on society. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 9) DOE considers multiple factors in its analysis when considering amended energy conservation standards, as explained in sections III.D and III.E of this document, including the significance of national energy savings and manufacturer impacts.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned,

including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. 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 (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of EPSs. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes

In the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE did not identify any potential changes to the existing scope of coverage for EPSs. 87 FR 10719, 10723. In the August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE clarified that the EPS test procedure did not apply to commercial and industrial power supplies and devices that provide power conversion as an auxiliary function. DOE additionally provided a definition of commercial and industrial power supplies, and noted that commercial and industrial power supplies are not covered unless distributed in commerce for use with a consumer product. 87 FR 51200, 51206-51207.

NEMA commented in response to the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis that hard-wired AC-outlets traditionally found in residential environments can now be purchased with built-in Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) ports that provide USB services as a secondary function. NEMA stated that such outlets correctly have been omitted from previous DOE analyses for EPSs and recommended that DOE exempt duplex receptacles until such time as a thorough analysis and LCC benefit examination is completed, because the installation of duplex receptacles requires certified professionals and results in a non-negligible cost to the consumer. (NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 1-2) An EPS is defined to be 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. 10 CFR 430.2. In the August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE specified that devices for which the primary load of the

converted

voltage within the device is not delivered to a separate end-use product are not subject to the test procedure. 87 FR 51200, 51207-51208. For the EPS test procedure to be applicable to a power supply, the intended primary load of the converted voltage must be to a separate end-use product.

Id.

DOE believes this to be the case for the hard-wired AC receptacles with USB ports described by NEMA. In these products, the USB ports provide converted power with the intention of delivering that converted power to a separate end-use product. DOE tentatively determines that it would not be appropriate to include the installation costs of these products in its LCC estimates because there are no higher installation costs above the baseline. Because a consumer is willing to accept the installation cost at the baseline, this cost doesn't factor into the determination of LCC savings.

The CA IOUs urged DOE to consider including certain AC-input “combination” products that incorporate convenient charging ports within the scope of this regulation, as the CA IOUs had described in response to the EPS November 2021 test procedure supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking.

(CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 6-7)

DOE responded to CA IOUs comment on the November 2021 TP SNOPR seeking clarification for combination products that internally convert power to supply another product via a “convenience charging port” (for example, lamps and furniture with USB ports). 87 FR 51200, 51208.

DOE addressed the CA IOUs comment in the August 2022 TP Final Rule. 87 FR 51200, 51208. As in that final rule, DOE here maintains that devices for which the primary load of the converted voltage within the device is not a separate end-use product are not subject to the test procedure. As such, only those combination products that meet this criterion would be in scope. As an example, a bedside table lamp with an LED bulb and a USB port may be in scope of EPS regulations if the power provided to a separate end-use load by the USB port constitutes the main load of the converted power inside the lamp. Such a product however would not be in scope if the LED bulb, which is internal to the product, is the primary load.

In the preliminary analysis, DOE tentatively determined that evaluation of separate standards for indirect operation and direct operation product classes would not be warranted. The Joint Efficiency Advocates, the CA IOUs, and NEEA supported DOE's decision to evaluate direct and indirect power supplies together, as these commenters believe the distinction is unnecessary, confusing, and leaves achievable energy savings untapped. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 24 at pp. 1-2; CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 6; NEEA, No. 21 at pp. 5-6) CA IOUs noted the distinction was not warranted based on technological differences and should be eliminated. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 6)

The Joint Trade Associations commented that DOE should retain the current distinction in product classes, citing that there were good reasons for splitting them apart—the main reason being avoiding double-regulation—and nothing has changed to render this conclusion obsolete. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 23 at pp. 3-4) They conceded that indirect operation EPSs make up only .5 percent of certified EPSs, and that 71% of those indirect operation EPSs meet the Level IV and VI standards, but disagreed that this warranted terminating the differentiation. The Joint Trade Associations noted that indirect operation EPSs would be forced to meet both EPS and battery charger standards if subject to the EPS standards, and therefore DOE should retain the current distinction. (

Id.

)

Since the publication of the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE has received many questions regarding EPSs that provide direct operation with one end-use product but may also be used to provide indirect operation with a different consumer product containing batteries and or a battery charging system. In an August 25, 2015 final rule (“August 2015 TP Final Rule”) amending the EPS test procedures, DOE clarified that if an EPS can operate any consumer product directly, that product would be treated as a direct operation EPS. 80 FR 51424, 51434. Of particular importance are EPSs with common output plugs that can be used with products made by different manufacturers. An example of this scenario are EPSs with standard USB connectors. These devices are often sold with end-use products containing batteries, such as a smartphone. Because these same EPSs are also capable of directly operating other end-use products that do not contain batteries (

e.g.,

small LED lamps, external speakers,

etc.

), they are not treated as indirect operation EPSs under DOE's regulations. As such, only a small percentage of EPSs are considered to be true indirect operation EPSs. DOE noted in section 2.3.1.2 of the preliminary TSD that indirect operation EPSs make up a small percentage of certified EPSs in the Compliance Certification Database (“CCD”). According to the CCD, indirect operation EPSs comprise 0.5 percent of all certified EPSs, and of

those units, 71 percent meet DOE Level VI standards. Therefore, different standards would not be justified for indirect EPSs. Furthermore, since the February 2014 Final Rule, questions received by DOE enquiring how to effectively classify products into these categories demonstrates that the indirect/direct operation classification complicates the readability of regulations. This observation, coupled with limited prevalence of true indirect operation EPSs in the marketplace (

i.e.,

they do not become direct operation EPSs when used in another application) and their ability to meet Level VI standards with ease, suggests that continuing to treat these EPSs separately is unwarranted. As such, in this NOPR, DOE proposes to remove the distinction in the standards between direct and indirect operation EPSs, and to require indirect operation EPSs to meet the same standards as for their direct operation counterparts.

As noted in section II.B.2, the February 2014 Final Rule required direct operation EPSs, including Class A and non-Class A direct operation EPS, to be subject to the Level VI standards and maintained the Level IV standards established by EISA for indirect operation Class A EPSs. DOE retained the use of the term Class A to ensure that DOE's regulations reflected that indirect operation EPSs meeting the definition of a Class A EPS remained subject to the Level IV standards established by EISA. However, at this time, DOE notes that continued use of the terms Class A and non-Class A would not be necessary and may be confusing to maintain in the regulations if all EPSs became subject to standards that are more stringent than Level IV. In addition to removing the distinction between indirect and direction operation EPS, DOE therefore also proposes to remove use of the terms Class A and non-Class A in the amended standards for EPSs.

ITI recommended DOE create new product classes for adaptive EPSs, stating that it is harder to achieve a given efficiency level in an adaptive design than in a fixed voltage design, and that DOE should track different adaptive technologies within adaptive EPS classes to avoid stifling innovation. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 2-3) In addition, ITI expressed that for USB-C adaptive EPSs rated above 65W, there is typically a regulatory requirement to provide power factor correction circuitry, which it commented can significantly decrease average efficiency for low-voltage outputs (3.3 volts (“V”) or 5V). ITI urged DOE to make a distinction between single output EPSs and adaptive EPSs, with adaptive EPSs having a less stringent efficiency limit for 3.3V and 5V outputs. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 7)

According to the CCD, over 85 percent of adaptive EPS models rated above 65W meet or exceed the first candidate standard level (“CSL”) above the baseline, CSL1, that DOE analyzed in the preliminary analysis, and over 60 percent of such models meet or exceed CSL2 analyzed in the preliminary analysis. This indicates that any added redesign burden or efficiency penalty from factoring in power factor correction is already accounted for with current adaptive EPS designs. Accordingly, DOE does not propose a new product class or separate standards for adaptive EPSs.

The CA IOUs commented that the four size bins (less than or equal to 1 W; greater than one to 49 W; greater than 49 to 250 W; and greater than 250 W) may limit DOE's ability to capture cost-effective savings. Therefore, the CA IOUs recommended using more granular wattage bins to capture cost-effective savings; more specifically, DOE should consider delineating the current wattage bin for the largest EPS products. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 3-4)

The equations representing the different efficiency levels analyzed in this rulemaking are presented in three groups simply for ease of readability and accuracy. In the preliminary TSD as well as this NOPR TSD, DOE describes in detail the derivation of these equations, noting that the process considers far more granular output wattage “bins” than the 0 to 1W, 1W to 49W, and greater than 49W bins described by the CA IOUs. While the multiple regression analysis can be used to generate any number of equations spanning the entire output power range, DOE settled on three groups because doing so allowed the equations to be expressed in the same “a*ln(P) + b*P + c” format found in DOE's current standards at 10 CFR 430.32(w). Therefore, the number of bins used to present the proposed active mode efficiency equations did not limit DOE's ability to capture cost-effective savings.

ITI stated that it was unclear how DOE determined market share and noted that EPSs are sold both bundled and unbundled, but that DOE does not explain how this is accounted for in its analysis. In addition, ITI encouraged DOE to start collecting data on cable length and gauge to assist the analyses, as well as require reporting in the CCD the type of adaptive technologies used in adaptive EPSs. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 1-2)

DOE estimates market share by using model counts for products registered in the CCD as a proxy. For example, DOE observed that many models were clustered around 24W in the AC-DC Basic-Voltage product class, which DOE estimated was indicative of 24W EPSs having a significant market share of the AC-DC Basic-Voltage product class. DOE clarifies that its analysis is agnostic regarding bundling and unbundling, as the cost of the EPS carries through to the consumer regardless. With regards to collecting data on adaptive EPS topologies, DOE notes that it typically requires reporting of only those product characteristics that would be necessary to determine the applicable energy conservation standards. Given that the information about the topologies employed is not required for either of these determinations, DOE is not proposing to require such a reporting requirement in this NOPR.

2. Existing Efficiency Programs

When evaluating the potential for amended energy conservation standards, DOE considers other relevant efficiency programs. Most notably for EPSs, DOE has established one of its CSLs based on the proposed, but never implemented, European Union Code of Conduct Version 5 Tier 2 standards (“EU CoC”). A more detailed description of this program can be found in chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD.

ITI commented that DOE should consider international harmonization and consider that testing with a 115V input (U.S. requirement) will yield different results than testing with a 230V input (EU/United Kingdom “UK” requirement). Because EPSs are designed for the global market, ITI stated most models would have less margin if tested at 230V input. Furthermore, ITI requested that DOE obtain more details on EU/UK green initiatives with regards to adaptive EPSs and how efficiency would be impacted. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 7-8)

Switched-mode power supplies (“SMPSs”) designed to operate on 115V AC input will typically demonstrate marginally lower active mode efficiency when compared to those designed to operate on 230VAC. Nonetheless, DOE's analysis indicates that nearly 75 percent of all EPSs currently certified to DOE can meet CSL1, the EU CoC Tier 2 equivalent in DOE's analysis. It should also be noted that CSL1 was evaluated as part of TSL 3 using the full cost-benefit analysis, ensuring that, if adopted, amended standards at that level would be technologically feasible and economically justified in the United States.

3. Technology Options

In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified 11 technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of EPSs, as measured by the DOE test procedure:

Table IV.1—Preliminary Analysis Technology Options for External Power Supplies

Improved Transformers.

Switched-Mode Power Supplies.

Low-Power Integrated Circuits.

Diodes with Low Forward Voltage and Synchronous Rectification.

X-Capacitor Discharge Control.

Improved Shunt Regulators in Flyback SMPSs that use Optocouplers.

Low-Loss Transistors.

Resonant Switching.

Resonant (“Lossless”) Snubbers.

Active and Bridgeless Power Factor Correction (“PFC”).

Use of Emerging Semiconductor Technologies.

DOE did not receive any comments regarding the inclusion or exclusion of any technology options presented in the preliminary analysis, and evaluated the same set of technology options for this NOPR.

C. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:

(1) Technological feasibility.

Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not be considered further.

(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.

If it is determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further.

(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability.

If it is determined that a technology would have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product for 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 be considered further.

(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety.

If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further.

(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies.

If a design option utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.

Sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b) of appendix A.

If DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis.

1. Screened-Out Technologies

DOE did not screen out any of the technology options identified for EPSs based on the five criteria listed in section IV.B.3 of this document.

2. Remaining Technologies

Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.B.3 of this document met all five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's NOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options:

Table IV.2—NOPR Technology Options for External Power Supplies

Improved Transformers.

Switched-Mode Power Supplies.

Low-Power Integrated Circuits.

Diodes with Low Forward Voltage and Synchronous Rectification.

X-Capacitor Discharge Control.

Improved Shunt Regulators in Flyback SMPSs that use Optocouplers.

Low-Loss Transistors.

Resonant Switching.

Resonant (“Lossless”) Snubbers.

Active and Bridgeless Power Factor Correction (“PFC”).

Use of Emerging Semiconductor Technologies.

DOE has initially determined that these technology options are technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria (

i.e.,

practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

D. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and the cost of

EPSs. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (

i.e.,

the “efficiency analysis”) and the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (

i.e.,

the “cost analysis”). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency products, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency “curves” that are used in downstream analyses (

i.e.,

the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).

1. Efficiency Analysis

DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed efficiency levels in the market (

i.e.,

the efficiency-level approach), or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (

i.e.,

the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using the design option approach to “gap fill” levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market).

DOE currently measures active-mode efficiency by averaging the efficiencies at the 100, 75, 50, and 25-percent loading conditions. Section 5(a)(1)(vi) and Section 5(b)(1)(vi) of appendix Z. In their comments responding to the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, PSMA, NEEA, Joint Efficiency Advocates, and the CA IOUs urged DOE to incorporate a 10-percent loading condition in the EPS test procedure and energy conservation standards, stating that such a loading condition would be more representative of real-world use. (PSMA, No. 19 at p. 2-3; CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 7; NEEA, No. 21 at pp. 4-5; Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 24 at p. 3) NEEA noted that 10% is a unique loading condition and that the higher mode efficiencies may not guarantee that the lower loading points between 0% and 25% in actual use would also be efficient, and therefore the 10% loading condition was justified. (NEEA, No. 21 at p. 5) NEEA and the CA IOUs also noted that the EU Code of Conduct used an efficiency measurement and efficiency target at the 10% loading level, and that efficiency gains at the 10% level were possible. ((NEEA, No. 21 at p. 5; (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 7) The CA IOUs claimed that a separate 10-percent loading condition standard would be most effective in producing energy savings and would add no additional burden to manufacturers who sell EPSs in the EU. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 7) NEEA and Joint Efficiency Advocates encouraged DOE to incorporate the 10-percent loading condition in the active-mode efficiency metric. (NEEA, No. 21 at pp. 4-5; Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 24 at p. 3) While PSMA encouraged a separate 10-percent loading condition standard to assist in harmonizing with EU Ecodesign requirements, PSMA recommended incorporation of the 10-percent loading condition into the active-mode efficiency metric if a separate standard is not possible. (PSMA, No. 19 at pp. 2-3)

In the August 2015 TP Final Rule, DOE concluded that a voluntary or optional reporting of a 10-percent loading condition would result in very few certifications at that loading condition. 80 FR 51424, 51433. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) As such, DOE must weigh the representativeness of test results with the associated test burden in evaluating any amendments to its test procedures. Regarding representativeness, the commenters have not provided specific data, nor is DOE aware of any specific data, demonstrating how a 10-percent loading condition improve representativeness of test results for EPSs. In addition, DOE's test procedure does not differentiate between specific end-use applications; as such, load profiles specific to certain applications (

e.g.,

charging a smartphone versus powering an LED lamp) may not be representative of overall average use of EPSs across all end-use applications. If DOE were to consider a 10-percent load condition, DOE is not aware of any data to suggest what corresponding weighting factor should be used to combine this loading condition with the other defined loading conditions comprising the overall efficiency metric. Consequently, DOE is tentatively proposing not to modify the specified loading conditions to include a measurement at 10-percent load.

a. Baseline Efficiency

For each product/equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model in each product/equipment class represents the characteristics of a product/equipment typical of that class (

e.g.,

capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.

In its preliminary analysis, DOE evaluated the current energy conservation standards as baseline efficiency level for all product classes.

DOE did not receive any comments regarding the baseline levels in response to the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, and DOE evaluated the same baseline levels for this NOPR's analysis.

See Chapter 5 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document for External Power Supplies. (Available at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012

) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022).

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

DOE defined several higher efficiency levels at which to evaluate manufacturer production costs (“MPCs”) for this NOPR. The first level, Efficiency Level 1 (“EL1”), corresponds to the proposed EU CoC Tier 2 standards. Higher efficiency levels were defined using an analysis of active-mode efficiencies and no-load power draws reported in the CCD. For the AC-DC Basic- and Low-Voltage product classes, EL2 and EL3 were defined on the basis of pass rates of 50 percent and 10-20 percent (termed “best in market”), respectively. As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is the highest efficiency unit currently available on

the market. DOE defined the “max-tech” efficiency level, EL4, as the efficiency and no-load power draw which result in a 5 percent pass rate of all AC-DC Basic-Voltage EPS models on the market. For the AC-AC product classes, DOE did not derive separate ELs based on pass rates. DOE maintained the same active mode efficiency equations as their AC-DC counterparts, with a slightly higher no-load allowance to account for the higher typical no-load consumption seen in AC-AC power supplies.

DOE notes that there are no EU COC Tier 2 equivalent standards for multiple-voltage EPSs. Therefore, DOE defined EL1 for this product class on the basis of a 70 percent pass rate. This pass rate aligns with the EL1 pass rate of 72% for AC-DC basic voltage products. EL2, EL3 and EL4 were subsequently defined based on a 40 percent, 10 percent, and 1 percent pass rate.

In summary, DOE analyzed the following efficiency levels for this proposal:

Table IV.3—Efficiency Levels for AC-DC, Basic-Voltage External Power Supplies

Nameplate output power

out

)

Minimum average efficiency in active mode

(expressed as a decimal)

Maximum power

in no-load mode

[W]

EL0: Current Standards

out

≤1 W

≥0.5 × P

out

+ 0.16

≤0.100

1 W < P

out

≤49 W

≥0.071 × ln(P

out

)−0.0014 × P

out

+ 0.67

≤0.100

49 W < P

out

≤250 W

≥0.880

≤0.210

out

> 250 W

≥0.875

≤0.500

EL1: EU CoC Tier 2 Standards

out

≤1 W

≥0.5 × P

out

+ 0.169

≤0.075

1 W < P

out

≤49 W

≥0.071 × ln(P

out

)−0.00115 × P

out

+ 0.67

≤0.075

49 W < P

out

≤250 W

≥0.890

≤0.150

out

> 250 W

≥0.890

≤0.150

EL2: Top 50 Percent

out

≤1 W

≥0.5 × P

out

+ 0.169

≤0.065

1 W < P

out

≤49 W

≥0.0617 × ln(P

out

)−0.00105 × P

out

+ 0.704

≤0.065

49 W < P

out

≤250 W

≥0.895

≤0.130

out

> 250 W

≥0.900

≤0.130

EL3: Best In Market

out

≤1 W

≥0.5 × P

out

+ 0.169

≤0.050

1 W < P

out

≤49 W

≥0.0582 × ln(P

out

)−0.00104 × P

out

+ 0.727

≤0.050

49 W < P

out

≤250 W

≥0.902

≤0.110

out

> 250 W

≥0.907

≤0.110

EL4: Max-Tech

out

≤1 W

≥0.52 × P

out

+ 0.170

≤0.039

1 W < P

out

≤49 W

≥0.0654 × ln(P

out

)−0.00149 × P

out

+ 0.732

≤0.039

49 W < P

out

≤250 W

≥0.916

≤0.089

out

> 250 W

≥0.916

≤0.120

Table IV.4—Efficiency Levels for AC-DC, Low-Voltage External Power Supplies

Nameplate output power

out

)

Minimum average efficiency in active mode

(expressed as a decimal)

Maximum power

in no-Load mode [W]

EL0: Current Standards

out

≤ 1 W

≥0.517 × P

out

+ 0.087

≤0.100

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥0.0834 × ln(P

out

)−0.0014 × P

out

+ 0.609

≤0.100

49 W < P

out

≥ 250 W

≥0.870

≤0.210

out

< 250 W

≥0.875

≤0.500

EL1: EU CoC Tier 2 Standards

out

≤ 1 W

≥0.517 × P

out

+ 0.091

≤0.075

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥0.0834 × ln(P

out

)−0.0011 × P

out

+ 0.609

≤0.075

49 W < P

out

≤ 250 W

≥0.880

≤0.150

out

> 250 W

≥0.880

≥0.150

EL2: Top 50 Percent

out

≤ 1 W

≥0.517 × P

out

+ 0.091

≤0.065

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥0.0741 × ln(P

out

)−0.00105 × P

out

+ 0.643

≤0.065

49 W < P

out

< 250 W

≥0.885

≤0.130

out

< 250 W

≥0.900

≤0.150

EL3: Best In Market

out

≤ 1 W

≥0.517 × P

out

+ 0.091

≤0.050

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥0.0706 × ln(P

out

)−0.00104 × P

out

+ 0.666

≤0.050

49 W < P

out

< 250 W

≥0.892

≤0.110

out

< 250 W

≥0.907

≤0.130

EL4: Max-Tech

out

≤ 1 W

≥0.537 × P

out

+ 0.097

≤0.039

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥0.0778 × ln(P

out

)−0.00149 × P

out

+ 0.671

≤0.039

49 W < P

out

≤ 250 W

≥0.906

≤0.089

out

< 250 W

≥0.916

≤0.120

Table IV.5—Efficiency Levels for AC-AC, Basic-Voltage External Power Supplies

Nameplate output power

out

)

Minimum average efficiency in active mode

(expressed as a decimal)

Maximum power

in no-load mode

[W]

EL0: Current Standards

out

≤ 1 W

≥0.5 × P

out

+ 0.16

≤0.210

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥0.071 × ln(P

out

)−0.0014 × P

out

+ 0.670

≤0.210

49 W < P

out

≤ 250 W

≥0.880

≤0.210

out

< 250 W

≥0.875

≤0.500

EL1: EU CoC Tier 2 Standards

out

≤ 1 W

≥0.5 × P

out

+ 0.169

≤0.185

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥0.071 × ln(P

out

)−0.00115 × P

out

+ 0.670

≤0.185

49 W < P

out

≤ 250 W

≥0.890

≤0.185

out

< 250 W

≥0.890

≤0.500

EL2

out

≤ 1 W

≥0.5 × P

out

+ 0.169

≤0.150

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥0.0617 × ln(P

out

)−0.00105 × P

out

+ 0.704

≤0.150

49 W < P

out

≤ 250 W

≥0.895

≤0.150

out

< 250 W

≥0.895

≤0.300

EL3: Best In Market

out

≤ 1 W

≥0.5 × P

out

+ 0.169

≤0.075

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥0.0582 × ln(P

out

)−0.00104 × P

out

+ 0.727

≤0.075

49 W < P

out

≤ 250 W

≥0.902

≤0.075

out

≤ 250 W

≥0.902

≤0.200

EL4: Max-Tech

out

≤ 1 W

≥0.520 × P

out

+ 0.170

≤ 0.039

1 W < P

out

≤ 49 W

≥0.0654 × ln(P

out

)−0.00149 × P

out

+ 0.732

≤ 0.039

49 W < P

out

≤ 250 W

≥0.916

≤0.089

out

≤ 250 W

≥0.916

≤0.100

Table IV.6—Efficiency Levels for AC-AC, Low-Voltage External Power Supplies

Nameplate output power

out

)

Minimum average efficiency in active mode

(expressed as a decimal)

Maximum power

in no-load mode

[W]

EL0: Current Standards

out

≥ 1 W

≥0.517 × P

out

+ 0.087

≥0.210

1 W < P

out

≥ 49 W

≥0.0834 × ln(P

out

)−0.0014 × P

out

+ 0.609

≥0.210

49 W < P

out

≥ 250 W

≥0.870

≥0.210

out

> 250 W

≥0.875

≥0.500

EL1: EU CoC Tier 2 Standards

out

≥ 1 W

≥0.517 × P

out

+ 0.091

≥0.072

1 W < P

out

≥ 49 W

≥0.0834 × ln(P

out

)−0.0011 × P

out

+ 0.609

≥0.072

49 W < P

out

≥ 250 W

≥0.880

≥0.185

out

> 250 W

≥0.880

≥0.500

EL2

out

≥ 1 W

≥0.517 × P

out

+ 0.091

≥0.060

1 W < P

out

≥ 49 W

≥0.0741 × ln(P

out

)−0.00105 × P

out

+ 0.643

≥0.060

49 W < P

out

≥ 250 W

≥0.885

≥0.150

out

> 250 W

≥0.900

≥0.300

EL3: Best In Market

out

≥ 1 W

≥0.517 × P

out

+ 0.091

≥0.050

1 W < P

out

≥ 49 W

≥0.0706 × ln(P

out

)−0.00104 × P

out

+ 0.666

≥0.050

49 W < P

out

≥ 250 W

≥0.892

≥0.075

out

> 250 W

≥0.907

≥0.200

EL4: Max-Tech

out

≥ 1 W

≥0.537 × P

out

+ 0.097

≥0.039

1 W < P

out

≥ 49 W

≥0.0778 × ln(P

out

)−0.00149 × P

out

+ 0.671

≥0.039

49 W < P

out

≥ 250 W

≥0.906

≥0.089

out

> 250 W

≥0.916

≥0.100

Table IV.7—Efficiency Levels for Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies

Nameplate output power

out

)

Minimum average efficiency in active mode

(expressed as a decimal)

Maximum power

in no-load mode

[W]

EL0: Current Standards

out

≥ 1 W

≥0.497 × P

out

+ 0.067

≥0.300

1 W < P

out

≥ 49 W

≥0.075 × ln(P

out

) + 0.561

≥0.300

out

> 49 W

≥0.860

≥0.300

EL1: Top 65 Percent

out

≥ 1 W

≥0.497 × P

out

+ 0.067

≥0.100

1 W < P

out

≥ 49 W

≥0.0703 × ln(P

out

)−0.000406 × P

out

+ 0.628

≥0.100

out

> 49 W

≥0.880

≥0.150

EL2: Top 40 Percent

out

≥ 1 W

≥0.497 × P

out

+ 0.067

≥0.075

1 W < P

out

≥ 49 W

≥0.0782 × ln(P

out

)−0.0013 × P

out

+ 0.643

≥0.075

out

> 49 W

≥0.885

≥0.125

EL3: Best In Market

out

≥ 1 W

≥0.497 × P

out

+ 0.067

≥0.050

1 W < P

out

≥ 49 W

≥0.0861 × ln(P

out

)−0.00169 × P

out

+ 0.642

≥0.050

out

> 49 W

≥0.895

≥0.075

EL4: Max-Tech

out

≥ 1 W

≥0.497 × P

out

+ 0.067

≥0.030

1 W < P

out

≥ 49 W

≥0.0758 × ln(P

out

)−0.00132 × P

out

+ 0.674

≥0.030

out

> 49 W

≥0.905

≥0.050

2. Cost Analysis

The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the

product on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:

•

Physical teardowns:

Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.

•

Catalog teardowns:

In lieu of physically deconstructing a product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) to develop the bill of materials for the product.

•

Price surveys:

If neither a physical nor catalog teardown is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise impractical (

e.g.,

large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and other commercial channels.

In this NOPR, DOE conducted the analysis using all three methods of analysis (physical teardowns, catalog teardowns, and price surveys) to determine manufacturing costs relating to the efficiency of a power supply. Representative units for teardown were selected from the CCD based on reported active mode efficiency and no-load power. Several units were selected as representative units for each EL. In addition to units from the CCD, DOE purchased evaluation boards from semiconductor manufacturers to evaluate generic designs likely to be used in a wide variety of power supplies on the market. DOE received additional cost data from manufacturer interviews and from stakeholder feedback, which were incorporated in the cost modeling.

Prior to testing and teardown of CCD units and evaluation boards, test units were prepared to reduce application-specific variables present in some units that might skew test results. Preparation included removal of circuitry not related to EPS functionality and installation of new, standardized cables. Prepared units were tested in accordance with DOE test procedures.

After testing, DOE performed physical teardowns of CCD units and catalog teardowns of evaluation boards. DOE developed estimates of MPCs for each unit in the teardown sample to develop a set of MPCs at each efficiency level. DOE selected most of its units from the AC-DC Basic-Voltage product class, as a significant number of models and shipments of EPSs belong to this class. Additional units belonging to the AC-DC Low-Voltage and Multiple-Voltage product classes were also torn down. Further, price survey data was collected in manufacturer interviews and from stakeholder feedback for units at each efficiency level. Data was combined to generate cost/efficiency relationships at each evaluated power level, to which exponential curve fits were applied. Finally, incremental MPCs were calculated at each efficiency level using the fit equations. A further discussion of the cost analysis can be found at chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

DOE received several comments about the cost analysis performed during the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis.

ITI expressed concern about the broad amount of extrapolation used during the preliminary analysis, and encouraged DOE to study more representative models in each product class. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 2) Additionally, ITI encouraged DOE to use less extrapolation and more representative units when estimating MPCs. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 3) NEEA encouraged DOE to conduct detailed teardowns of the AC-DC low-voltage product class, citing the prevalence of such EPSs in the market and the potential for differing technology options among them. (NEEA, No. 21 at pp. 3-4)

The Joint Efficiency Advocates and the CA IOUs urged DOE to conduct additional product testing and teardowns on representative units for AC-DC Basic-Voltage and Low-Voltage product classes. The Joint Efficiency Advocates acknowledged DOE's method of extrapolating and interpolating from known AC-DC basic-voltage units but stated concerns about the accuracy of the methods. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 24 at p. 2) Furthermore, the Joint Efficiency Advocates and the CA IOUs stated that DOE should test and teardown more AC-DC low-voltage EPSs because these are estimated to have greater shipments than AC-DC basic-voltage EPSs. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 24 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 4-5) The CA IOUs urged DOE to expand the current analysis scope to analyze potential savings of updated standards levels more thoroughly. In addition to products with high shipments, the CA IOUs commented that “high-energy-impact products” should be further examined, such as those with Power over Ethernet (“PoE”) technology. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 4-5)

DOE agreed that an increased number of teardowns from the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis would improve its analysis. As such, DOE performed additional teardowns for this NOPR, including teardowns across other product classes (AC-DC Low-Voltage and Multiple-Voltage), to validate both the representative unit MPC values as well as those obtained using extrapolation methods. With regards to the CA IOUs' suggestion to evaluate “high-energy-impact products,” DOE's analysis adequately captures all major applications of EPSs, especially high-energy-impact-products, and pairs each application with a usage profile to calculate total energy consumption with and without amended standards.

The Joint Efficiency Advocates, NEEA, and PSMA urged DOE to update its cost assumptions about the CSLs presented in the preliminary analysis, especially CSL4 (max-tech). PSMA also stated that certain technologies can deliver efficiencies higher than those listed for CSL4, and the incremental costs DOE cited in its Preliminary Analysis were greatly overstated compared to what PSMA observes in the marketplace, and in some cases were over twice the marketplace incremental costs. (PSMA, No. 19 at p. 2) PSMA noted there was minimal cost overhead due to the high volume manufacturing and claimed that with more representative pricing, raising standards to at the very least CSL1 should be justifiable, but that CSL2 or higher would be preferable looking to where power supply efficiencies will be in the future. (

Id.

) According to PSMA, current semiconductors already meet both CSL2 and CSL3, and therefore currently available technologies could meet those standards. (

Id.

) Similarly, both NEEA and the Joint Efficiency Advocates claimed they obtained manufacturer-reported max-tech incremental cost data that differed significantly from DOE's estimates in the preliminary analysis and that DOE overestimated the incremental costs. The Joint Efficiency Advocates and NEEA further encouraged DOE to perform manufacturer interviews and additional tear-downs to improve estimated cost values. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 24 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 21 at pp. 1-4)

After presenting its initial methodology and preliminary engineering analysis in the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE conducted manufacturer interviews to obtain feedback and updated the engineering analysis as presented in this NOPR. The information received during these interviews as well as additional data from further teardowns has resulted in updated incremental costs, which can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

More detail about the selection process and extrapolation methods can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (MSP) is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE, throughout its analysis, is using the average manufacturer markup presented in the February 2014 Final Rule TSD.

This markup was determined based on information collected during the manufacturer interviews preceding that rulemaking. More detail on the manufacturer markup is given in section IV.E of this document.

See Chapter 12 of the 2014 Final Rule Technical Support Document for External Power Supplies. (Available at:

www.https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217

) (last accessed Sept. 28, 2022).

DOE requests comment on its cost analysis approach performed for this NOPR.

3. Cost-Efficiency Results

The results of the engineering analysis are presented as cost-efficiency data for each of the efficiency levels for each of the product classes that were analyzed at popular power output levels, as well as those extrapolated from a product class with similar capabilities and features. Tables and plots with MPC results, as well as extrapolation methods used both within and across each product class, are presented below as well as in greater detail in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. The results of the engineering analysis are reported as cost-efficiency data (or “curves”) in the form of daily energy consumption (DEC) (in kWh) versus MSP (in dollars). DOE developed six curves representing the two equipment classes and three different size machines in each equipment class. The methodology for developing the curves started with determining the energy consumption for baseline equipment and MPCs for this equipment. Above the baseline, DOE implemented design options using the ratio of cost to savings, and implemented only one design option at each level. Design options were implemented until all available technologies were employed (

i.e.,

at a max-tech level). See TSD Chapter 5 for additional detail on the engineering analysis and TSD Appendix 5B for complete cost-efficiency results.

DOE requests comment on the incremental MPCs from the NOPR engineering analysis.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

EP02FE23.001

EP02FE23.002

EP02FE23.003

EP02FE23.004

EP02FE23.005

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

E. Markups Analysis

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (

e.g.,

retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis and in the manufacturer impact analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit margin.

For EPSs, the main parties in the distribution chain are EPS Manufacturers, End-Use Product Original Equipment Manufacturers, Consumer Product Retailers, and Consumers.

DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor in the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended standards.

Because the projected price of standards-compliant products is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.

In the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used the same baseline and incremental markups that were used in the February 2014 Final Rule.

DOE did not receive any comments regarding the markups or distribution channels in the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis. Therefore, DOE used the same markups in this NOPR.

See Chapter 6 of the 2014 Final Rule Technical Support Document for External Power Supplies. (Available at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217

) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). See also Chapter 6 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document for External Power Supplies. (Available at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012

) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022).

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's development of markups for EPSs.

DOE requests comment on the estimated increased manufacturer markups and incremental MSPs that result from the analyzed energy conservation standards from the NOPR engineering analysis.

F. Energy Use Analysis

The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of EPSs at different efficiencies in representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, and commercial buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased EPS efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of EPSs in the field (

i.e.,

as they are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE performs, particularly assessments of the energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of amended or new standards.

In the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used usage profiles that were developed in the February 2014 Final Rule, along with efficiency data at different load conditions to calculate the UECs for EPSs for a variety of applications.

Usage profiles are

estimates of the average time a device spends in each mode of operation.

See

Appendix 7A of the 2014 Final Rule Technical Support Document for External Power Supplies. (Available at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217

) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022).