Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Determination Concerning the Potential for Energy Conservation Standards for Non-Class A External Power Supplies, 56928-56976 [E9-26192]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
56928
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–DET–0005]
RIN 1904–AB80
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products: Determination
Concerning the Potential for Energy
Conservation Standards for Non-Class
A External Power Supplies
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Proposed determination.
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), as
amended, requires the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE) to issue a final rule by
December 19, 2009, that determines
whether energy conservation standards
for non-Class A external power supplies
(EPSs) are warranted.
In this document, DOE proposes to
determine that energy conservation
standards for non-Class A external
power supplies are warranted. This
document informs interested parties of
the analysis underlying this proposal,
which examines the potential energy
savings and the direct economic costs
and benefits that could result from a
future standard. In this document, DOE
also announces the availability of a
technical support document (TSD),
which provides additional analysis in
support of the determination. The TSD
is available from the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s Web
site at https://www.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
residential/battery_external.html.
DATES: Written comments on this
document and the TSD are welcome and
must be submitted no later than
December 18, 2009. For detailed
instructions, see section VI, ‘‘Public
Participation.’’
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–2009–BT–DET–0005
and/or Regulation Identifier Number
(RIN) 1904–AB80, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: EPS-2009-DET0005@ee.doe.gov. Include docket
number EERE–2009–BT–DET–0005
and/or RIN 1904–AB80 in the subject
line of the message.
• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
Technical Support Document for Non-
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
Class A External Power Supplies, docket
number EERE–2009–BT–DET–0005
and/or RIN 1904–AB80, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please
submit one signed paper original.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda
Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 6th
Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW.,
Washington, DC 20024. Please submit
one signed paper original.
For additional instruction on
submitting comments, see section VI,
‘‘Public Participation.’’
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents, the
technical support document, or
comments received, go to the U.S.
Department of Energy, Resource Room
of the Building Technologies Program,
Sixth Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW.,
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945,
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the
above telephone number for additional
information about visiting the Resource
Room. You may also obtain copies of
certain documents in this proceeding
from the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy’s Web site at https://
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/residential/battery
_external.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Victor Petrolati, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–4549. E-mail:
Victor.Petrolati@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone:
(202) 586–8145. E-mail:
Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit or review public comments,
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Program, EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone (202) 586–2945. E-mail:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of the Proposed Determination
A. Background and Legal Authority
B. Scope
II. Methodology
A. Market Assessment
1. Introduction
2. Shipments, Efficiency Distributions, and
Market Growth
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
3. Product Lifetimes
4. Distribution Channels and Markups
5. Interested Parties
6. Existing Energy Efficiency Programs
B. Technology Assessment
1. Introduction
2. Modes of Operation
3. Functionality and Circuit Designs of
Non-Class A EPSs
4. Product Classes
5. Technology Options for Improving
Energy Efficiency
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Introduction
2. Data Sources
3. Representative Product Classes and
Representative Units
4. Selection of Candidate Standard Levels
5. Methodology and Data Implementation
6. Relationships Between Cost and
Efficiency
D. Energy Use and End-Use Load
Characterization
1. Introduction
2. Modes and Application States
3. Usage Profiles
4. Unit Energy Consumption
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
F. National Impact Analysis
III. Results
A. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
B. National Impact Analysis
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act
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 of 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act of 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Proposed
Determination
EPCA requires DOE to issue a final
rule determining whether to issue
energy efficiency standards for nonClass A EPSs. DOE has tentatively
determined that such standards are
technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result
in significant energy savings. Thus, DOE
proposes to issue a positive
determination.
DOE analyzed multiple candidate
standard levels for non-Class A EPSs
and has determined that it is
technologically feasible to manufacture
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
EPSs at some of these levels because
EPSs with energy efficiencies meeting
these levels are currently commercially
available.
DOE further determined that
standards for non-Class A EPSs could be
economically justified from the
perspective of an individual consumer
and from that of the Nation as a whole.
For all EPSs that DOE analyzed, at least
one standard level could be set that
would reduce the life-cycle cost (LCC)
of ownership for the typical consumer;
that is, any increase in equipment cost
resulting from a standard would be
more than offset by energy cost savings.
Standards could also be cost-effective
from a national perspective. The
national net present value (NPV) of
standards could be as much as $512
million in 2008$, assuming an annual
discount rate of 3 percent. This forecast
considers only the direct financial costs
and benefits to consumers of standards,
specifically the increased equipment
costs of EPSs purchased from 2013 to
2042 and the associated energy cost
savings. In its determination analysis,
DOE did not monetize or otherwise
characterize any other potential costs
and benefits of standards such as
manufacturer impacts or power plant
emission reductions. If the final
determination is positive, then such
impacts would be examined in a future
analysis of the economic feasibility of
particular standard levels in the context
of a standards rulemaking.
DOE’s analysis also indicates that
standards would result in significant
energy savings—as much as 0.14 quads
of energy over 30 years (2013 to 2042).
This is equivalent to the annual
electricity needs of 1.1 million U.S.
homes.
Further documentation supporting the
analyses described in this notice is
contained in a separate technical
support document (TSD), available from
the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy’s Web site at https://
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/residential/
battery_external.html.
This document’s information and
format are unique to this determination
analysis and do not establish a
precedent for future determination
analyses of the Appliance Standards
Program. The unique nature of this
document results from the statutory
requirement that the determination be
published as a rule (i.e., notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and final
rule). In addition, although Congress,
through the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public
Law 110–140 (Dec. 19, 2007), directed
DOE to perform this analysis, some of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
the analyses and information contained
in this document were developed earlier
as part of the determination analysis
required by EPACT 2005.
A. Background and Legal Authority
Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety
of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42
U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than
Automobiles. The Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPACT 2005) amended EPCA to
require DOE to issue a final rule
determining whether to issue efficiency
standards for battery chargers (BCs) and
EPSs. DOE initiated this determination
analysis rulemaking in 2006, which
included a scoping workshop on
January 24, 2007 at DOE headquarters in
Washington, DC. The determination was
under way and on schedule for issuance
by August 8, 2008, as originally required
by EPACT 2005.
However, EISA 2007 also amended
EPCA by setting efficiency standards for
certain types of EPSs (Class A) and
modifying the statutory provision that
directed DOE to perform the
determination analysis (42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I), as amended). EISA
2007 removed BCs from the
determination, leaving only EPSs, and
changed the amount of time allotted to
complete the determination to 2 years
after the date of EISA 2007’s enactment,
i.e., by December 19, 2009.
In addition to the existing general
definition of EPS, EISA 2007 amended
EPCA to define a ‘‘Class A external
power supply’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C))
and set efficiency standards for those
products (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)). As
amended by EISA 2007, the statute
further directs DOE to publish a final
rule by July 1, 2011 to evaluate whether
the standards set for Class A EPSs
should be amended and, if so, include
any amended standards as part of that
final rule. The statute further directs
DOE to publish a second final rule by
July 1, 2015, to again determine whether
the standards in effect should be
amended and to include any amended
standards as part of that final rule.
Because Congress has already set
standards for Class A EPSs and
separately required DOE to perform two
rounds of rulemakings to consider
amending efficiency standards for Class
A EPSs, the determination analysis
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) does
not include these products. Therefore,
DOE is interpreting 42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) as a requirement for a
determination analysis that will
consider in its scope only EPSs outside
of Class A, hence ‘‘non-Class A EPSs.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56929
This determination is scheduled for
issuance by December 19, 2009 and is
the subject of this notice. The
determination will address whether
efficiency standards appear to be
warranted for non-Class A EPSs, i.e.,
whether it appears that such standards
are technologically feasible and
economically justified and would result
in significant conservation of energy (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).
EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA also
require DOE to issue a final rule
prescribing energy conservation
standards for BCs, if technologically
feasible and economically justified, by
July 1, 2011 (42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(II)). This rulemaking has
been bundled with the rulemaking for
Class A EPSs, given the related nature
of such products and the fact that these
provisions share the same statutory
deadline. DOE initiated the energy
conservation standards rulemaking for
BCs and Class A EPSs by publishing a
framework document on June 4, 2009,
and holding a public meeting at DOE
headquarters on July 16, 2009. If DOE
issues a positive determination for EPSs
falling outside of Class A, it may
consider standards for these products
within the context of the energy
conservation standards rulemaking for
BCs and Class A EPSs already
underway.
In addition to the determination and
energy conservation standards
rulemakings, DOE has conducted test
procedure rulemakings for BCs and
EPSs. The test procedure for measuring
the energy consumption of singlevoltage EPSs is codified in 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix Z, ‘‘Uniform
Test Method for Measuring the Energy
Consumption of External Power
Supplies.’’ DOE modified this test
procedure, per EISA 2007, to include
standby and off modes. DOE proposed
a test procedure for measuring the
energy consumption of multiple-voltage
EPSs in its NOPR published in the
Federal Register on August 15, 2008. 73
FR 48054. DOE has set the target date of
October 31, 2010 to finalize the test
procedure for multiple-voltage EPSs.
For more information about DOE
rulemakings concerning BCs and EPSs,
see the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy’s Web site at https://
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/residential/
battery_external.html.
B. Scope
The present determination analysis
considers only those EPSs outside of
Class A, or non-Class A EPSs. EPCA, as
amended by EPACT 2005, defines an
EPS. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A).
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
56930
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
EISA 2007 later amended EPCA,
inserting a definition for Class A EPS.
See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C).
Thus, the determination analysis
concerns those devices that fit the
definition of an EPS (from EPACT 2005)
but do not fit the definition of a Class
A EPS (from EISA 2007).
Considering the above definitions,
DOE identified four types of power
conversion devices on the market to
analyze for its determination on nonClass A EPSs: (1) Multiple-voltage
EPSs—EPSs that can provide multiple
output voltages simultaneously; (2)
high-power EPSs—EPSs with nameplate
output power greater than 250 watts; (3)
medical EPSs—EPSs that power medical
devices and EPSs that are themselves
medical devices; and (4) EPSs for
battery chargers (EPSs for BCs)—EPSs
that power the chargers of detachable
battery packs or charge the batteries of
products that are fully or primarily
motor operated.
Class A EPSs, by definition, may
provide only one output voltage at a
time and have nameplate output power
no greater than 250 watts. Multiplevoltage and high-power EPSs fall
outside this group. Medical EPSs and
EPSs for battery chargers are specifically
excluded from Class A and can be
considered non-Class A EPSs.
DOE considers both EPSs that power
medical devices and EPSs that are
themselves medical devices to be nonClass A EPSs. A literal reading of EPCA
would exclude from Class A only those
EPSs that are themselves medical
devices. As EPCA states, ‘‘The term
‘class A external power supply’ does not
include any device that requires Federal
Food and Drug Administration listing
and approval as a medical device in
accordance with section 513 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 360c).’’ 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)
However, a search of FDA’s product
classification database for ‘‘power
supply’’ reveals only one EPS that is a
medical device—auxiliary power supply
(alternating current (AC) or direct
current (DC)) for external
transcutaneous cardiac pacemakers.
Furthermore, all EPSs used with
medical devices must meet the special
requirements of UL 60601 (Underwriters
Laboratories standard for power
supplies for medical devices), discussed
further in section 2.2.3 of the TSD.
Accordingly, because the exclusion
applies to ‘‘any device’’ covered by the
FDA’s listing and approval
requirements, DOE interprets EPCA to
also exclude from Class A those EPSs
that power medical devices. Consistent
with this approach, DOE analyzed those
EPSs that power medical devices that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:10 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
are consumer products for purposes of
today’s proposed determination.
Lastly, DOE considered EPSs that
power the chargers of detachable battery
packs or charge the batteries of products
that are fully or primarily motor
operated. DOE refers to these two
groups of products collectively as ‘‘EPSs
for BCs.’’ Products that are fully or
primarily motor operated include
portable rechargeable household
appliances such as handheld vacuums,
personal care products such as shavers,
and power tools.
EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007,
defines a detachable battery as ‘‘a
battery that is (A) contained in a
separate enclosure from the product;
and (B) intended to be removed or
disconnected from the product for
recharging.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(52)) The
phrase ‘‘contained in a separate
enclosure from the product’’ appears
earlier within the Class A EPS
definition. In this context, the definition
limits Class A EPSs to devices
‘‘contained in a separate physical
enclosure from the end-use product,’’
i.e., a separate component outside the
physical boundaries of the end-use
consumer product. (42 U.S.C.
6291(36)(C)(i)(IV)) Similarly, when
applied to detachable batteries, this
phrase can also be interpreted to mean
‘‘wholly outside the physical
boundaries of the end-use consumer
product.’’ BCEPS Framework Document,
p. 21 (June 4, 2009), available at
https://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/residential/
battery_external_std_2008.html. This is
in contrast to batteries contained in an
enclosure wholly or partly inside the
physical boundaries of the end-use
consumer product (e.g., inside a battery
compartment).
Further, detachable batteries must be
‘‘intended to be removed or
disconnected from the product for
recharging.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(52)(B))
Thus, even if a battery is not contained
inside the product, it may not be
considered detachable unless it is also
intended to be removed or disconnected
from the product for recharging.
Several popular models of camcorders
employ wall adapters that can be used
to power the camcorder and charge its
battery. Even though these batteries are
not contained inside the product, it is
not necessary to remove them for
charging. Rather, the wall adapter plugs
directly into the camcorder body or into
a cradle that accepts the entire
camcorder. Because the batteries do not
need to be removed for recharging, DOE
does not consider these batteries
detachable. Accordingly, wall adapters
for these camcorders are included in the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Class A EPS definition (42 U.S.C.
6291(36)(C)(ii)(II)) and, therefore, are
not analyzed in this determination.
The statute does not provide clear
guidance for determining which, if any,
of the devices that power batterycharged products are EPSs and leaves
open the issue of how DOE should
classify the wall adapters that are part
of battery charging systems. Because
‘‘external power supply’’ has a specific
legal meaning, the term ‘‘wall adapter’’
is used to refer to the potentially larger
set of external power converters for
consumer products. DOE’s initial review
of these products indicates that some of
these wall adapters for battery chargers
could be electrically equivalent to the
wall adapters that power applications
other than battery chargers. However,
while all wall adapters ‘‘convert
household electric current into DC
current or lower-voltage AC current,’’ as
stated in the statutory definition (42
U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)), at least some wall
adapters for battery chargers also
provide additional charge control
functions necessary for battery charging.
These additional functions may add to
the cost and power consumption of the
wall adapter. These wall adapters
generally are not interchangeable, but
are designed to be components of
specific BCs.
DOE is considering adopting one of
two approaches relevant to this
determination analysis with respect to
when a wall adapter would be
categorized as an EPS. The approaches
differ in their scope of coverage for
EPSs. Under the first approach
(Approach A), DOE would consider
only those wall adapters that do not
provide additional charge control
functions to be EPSs. These EPSs have
constant-voltage output that is
electrically equivalent to Class A EPSs.
Under the other approach (Approach D),
DOE would consider wall adapters with
and without charge control functions to
be EPSs. These include EPSs with
constant-voltage output equivalent to
Class A EPSs as well as those that do not
have constant-voltage output, which
may indicate the presence of charge
control. The approaches are described
in greater detail in section 3.2.3.3 of
DOE’s framework document for the BC
and EPS energy conservation standards
rulemaking (available at https://
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/residential/
battery_external_std_2008.html).
Interested parties are encouraged to
refer to the framework document for
more detail and provide input to DOE
on the approaches. (Other approaches
described in that document are not used
in today’s analysis because either they
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
would conflict with statutory
requirements, i.e., Approach B, or
would be equivalent in scope to
Approach A, i.e., Approach C.) DOE
will consider all comments received in
its selection of an approach.
The present determination analysis
includes only those devices that are
EPSs under Approach A (wall adapters
without charge control). Under
Approach A, this draft determination
finds that energy efficiency standards
are economically justified,
technologically feasible, and would
result in significant energy savings.
Based on the data collected to date, the
set of EPSs under Approach A is a
subset of EPSs under Approach D. Thus,
DOE believes that were it to adopt the
broader Approach D, the energy savings
potential from standards for non-Class A
EPSs would be greater compared to
Approach A. DOE seeks comment on
whether Approach A reasonably
estimates the minimum amount of
significant energy savings under this
analysis.
While the approaches noted above
address the question of what is and is
not an EPS, there are additional scoping
issues unique to non-Class A EPSs. In
particular, there are four criteria under
which an EPS could be considered nonClass A: (1) Multiple output voltages, (2)
high output power, (3) designed for
medical use, and (4) designed for battery
charging. This determination analysis
examines EPSs that meet any one of
these criteria, but not those EPSs that
meet multiple criteria. These EPSs
remain within the scope of the
determination, however. For instance,
this analysis does not evaluate EPSs
such as the Astec Electronics power
supply model DPT54–M, which has
three simultaneous output voltages and
UL 60601 medical certification,
although it does address EPSs with
either multiple output voltages or
medical certification under UL 60601.
Based on its review of the available
data, DOE believes that there are few
products that fall into this ‘‘multiple
criteria’’ category. Accordingly, a
separate analysis for these types of
products was not conducted because the
energy savings potential from
incorporating these devices into the
analysis would again be greater
compared to the analysis under
Approach A.
II. Methodology
A. Market Assessment
1. Introduction
To understand the present and future
market for non-Class A EPSs, DOE
gathered data on these EPSs and their
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
associated applications. DOE also
examined the industry composition,
distribution channels, and regulatory
and voluntary programs for non-Class A
EPSs. The market assessment provides
important inputs to the LCC analysis
and national energy savings (NES)/NPV
estimates.
This notice is not intended to provide
a general background on the market for
all EPSs, but rather to present specific
information for those EPSs outside of
Class A. For additional background
information on EPSs in general, see the
framework document and the
companion draft technical report
published on June 4, 2009.
a. Overview
External power supplies are designed
for use with an associated consumer
product. The market for these consumer
products drives the market for EPSs.
References to an EPS application refer to
the consumer product that the EPS
powers and not the conversion function
of the EPS itself. Energy savings
potential for EPSs is thus a function of
usage and sales volume of applications
powered by EPSs, in addition to EPS
efficiency.
Because EPSs are typically sold with
their end-use application, shipment data
for EPSs alone are not directly available.
Therefore, DOE estimated EPS
shipments based on applications known
to use them. The amount of energy an
application uses over the course of a
year will directly affect the amount of
savings that can be expected by
improving the efficiency of the EPS. The
product application determines the
power requirements, usage profile, and
load profile of the EPS.
For its market analysis, DOE first
identified those applications known to
use non-Class A EPSs. DOE then
analyzed shipments and energy usage
data for those applications to calculate
shipments and energy usage of the
associated EPSs. DOE considered
applications for which publicly
available data exist or for which
industry and other interested parties
provided data.
Applications for each of the four types
of non-Class A EPS DOE identified are
discussed below.
b. Multiple-Voltage External Power
Supplies
The consumer product market for
EPSs with multiple simultaneous
outputs (multiple-voltage EPSs) is
limited. For consumer products that
require multiple voltages, most
manufacturers indicated that it is more
cost effective to specify a single output
EPS and employ local DC–DC
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56931
converters located within the
application rather than a multiplevoltage EPS. Multiple-voltage EPSs are
commonly used in only two
circumstances:
(1) Low-volume applications, such as
lab equipment and product prototypes,
where designing and implementing an
internal splitter would be costprohibitive. Because low-volume
applications are, by definition, limited
in market size, DOE will not consider
EPSs for these products further.
(2) High-volume applications where
space limitations may cause
manufacturers to seek alternatives to an
internal power supply with voltage
splitting circuitry.
DOE has identified three consumer
product applications that sometimes use
multiple-voltage EPSs: Video game
consoles, multi-function devices
(MFDs), and home security systems.
The Xbox 360, manufactured by
Microsoft Corporation, is one video
game console that uses a multiplevoltage EPS. This EPS functions much
like the internal power supply of a
desktop computer, providing separate
voltage levels for standby, monitoring,
and processing functions. Competing
systems such as the Nintendo Wii and
Sony PlayStation 3 use internal power
supplies.
Multi-function devices duplicate the
functions of some or all of the following
devices: Copiers, printers, scanners, and
facsimile machines. These devices are
also commonly referred to as ‘‘all-inone’’ systems or multifunction printers.
MFDs eliminate the need to purchase
and maintain multiple pieces of office
equipment and typically are used in
small- or home-office settings. A single
multiple-voltage EPS design can be used
across multiple MFD models,
eliminating the need to design and build
several different internal splitters. Also,
using a multiple-voltage EPS may allow
the MFD to have a smaller form factor,
which refers to the physical size of the
application.
Security systems in homes may
include entry detection, video and
thermal detection, and emergency and
fire alert systems. Such equipment is
often used in conjunction with a
security subscription through which a
security services company monitors the
equipment for the consumer. In this
way, security equipment is distributed
and used in a similar manner to cable
set-top boxes and Internet modems
provided by telecommunications
companies. In comments submitted to
DOE following the Standby and Off
Mode Test Procedure NOPR Public
Meeting on September 12, 2008, the
Security Industry Association indicated
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
56932
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
that some of these products may be
powered by multiple-voltage EPSs
(Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–TP–0004.
Security Industry Association, No. 7 at
p. 2.). However, in a follow-up
interview on March 19, 2009, SIA
indicated that the equipment powered
by these multiple-voltage EPSs is
limited to fire alarm systems,
specifically to power horns and strobe
light control circuitry in commercial
buildings, not homes. Based on this
information, DOE did not analyze the
multiple-voltage EPSs used to power
security equipment as part of the draft
analysis. DOE encourages interested
parties to submit additional data on the
use of multiple-voltage EPSs with home
security equipment. DOE also
encourages interested parties to submit
information about any other consumer
product applications for multiplevoltage EPSs they are aware of.
c. High Power External Power Supplies
High-power EPSs—those with output
power greater than 250 watts—are rarely
used to power consumer products.
Internal power supplies are generally
preferred for higher powered
applications. Industry experts give three
reasons for this preference. First,
internal power supplies offer increased
ventilation options, including fans, vent
slats, and cooling fins, all of which
would be difficult to include in most
EPS designs without increasing bulk.
Second, most applications that would
require such a high power input will
already be large, which means the
increase in volume from the internal
power supply would have a
proportionally small effect. Third,
power regulation and voltage drop are
much easier to control with an internal
supply due to the shorter transmission
distances.
For these reasons, there are few
circumstances in which an appliance
uses a high-power EPS rather than an
internal power supply. In fact, many
appliances already use internal power
supplies at a wide range of power levels.
Major applications for high power
internal power supplies include audio
amplifiers, televisions, and computers.
Amateur radio equipment is the only
consumer product application DOE
identified as using high-power EPSs.
(Other applications identified include
laboratory testing equipment and other
low-volume applications that were not
considered for analysis.) Amateur radio
operators typically use high-power EPSs
when they need to power multiple
components simultaneously and
transmit at output powers between 100
and 200 watts. (Interview with the with
the American Radio Relay League on
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
August 18, 2008.) Operators typically
use an EPS with nameplate output
power greater than 250 watts to allow
for a cushion should equipment
requiring additional power be added to
the set-up. This is often the case for
portable transmission setups, such as
those used at amateur radio fairs or in
emergency situations. In both cases, the
need to power multiple components
while maintaining sufficient
transmission power requires an EPS
with a suitably high output.
However, in home or office use, most
radio operators use a more standardized
setup. In this environment, most
amateur radio equipment, including
transmission equipment, is designed to
run directly off mains power, using
internal power supplies. In addition,
when transmitting at higher power, a
radio operator will likely use a separate
signal amplifier that contains an
internal power supply. Therefore, EPSs
are seldom used in fixed transmission
setups.
d. External Power Supplies for Medical
Devices
EPSs are used to power a wide variety
of medical devices, from laboratory test
equipment to home care devices. As
discussed further in section 2.2.3 of the
TSD, EPSs are required by the Federal
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
meet labeling, safety and durability
requirements such as those included
under UL 60601. To maintain
certification, the medical device
manufacturer must always use the same
components in the device, including
those used in the EPS. Therefore, once
a device is certified, its EPS cannot be
exchanged for a different EPS model
without re-certification. An EPS model
must also use the same individual
components for the entirety of the
production cycle. These requirements
tend to lengthen the design cycles for
medical device EPSs because after being
designed they must be registered, which
can take up to 2 years. Despite long
design cycles, there are already medical
device EPSs on the market that meet the
energy efficiency standards for Class A
EPSs that took effect on July 1, 2008. (SL
Power Web site (Accessed October 30,
2008) https://www.slpower.com/
ProductDetails.aspx?CategoryID=46.)
For this determination, DOE
examined medical devices designed for
in-home use that employ EPSs,
specifically sleep therapy devices,
nebulizers, portable oxygen
concentrators, blood pressure monitors,
and ventilators. EPSs for these medical
devices exhibit a broad range of
nameplate output powers, similar to
those of Class A EPSs.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Sleep therapy devices include
continuous positive airway pressure
(CPAP), bi-level positive airway
pressure (biPAP), automatic positive
airway pressure (autoPAP), and similar
machines used to treat obstructive sleep
apnea. Some sleep therapy devices are
battery powered, some plug directly into
mains, and others are powered by EPSs,
which typically have nameplate output
power of approximately 30 to 35 watts.
(Schirm, Jeffrey. Personal
Communication. Philips Electronics,
NV. Phone call with Matthew Jones,
D&R International. December 15, 2008.)
Nebulizers administer liquid
medication as a mist that can be inhaled
into the lungs. They are commonly used
to treat asthma and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD). The EPSs
that provide power to nebulizers tend to
have nameplate output power in the
range of 10 to 20 watts. Of the 26
nebulizer models DOE identified, only
four employ EPSs; the remainder use
internal power supplies. (Models using
EPSs include the PARI Trek S, Omron
Comp Air Elite Model NE–C30, Omron
Micro Air Model NE–U22VAC, and John
Bunn Nano-Sonic Nebulizer Model
JB0112–066. An EPS is an option for
Omron Micro Air, which is typically
powered with primary batteries. The
EPS cannot charge these batteries. The
other nebulizers are sold with an EPS to
power the product but offer
rechargeable battery packs as an
optional accessory.)
Portable oxygen concentrators absorb
nitrogen from the air to provide oxygen
to the user at higher concentrations,
eliminating the need for oxygen tanks.
These devices typically use higher
powered wall adapters ranging from 90
to 200 watts. The wall adapters are used
to charge batteries, but can also operate
the device directly.
Blood pressure monitors are used by
those who must take frequent readings
of their blood pressure. Most digital
units operate with primary batteries;
however, some units are also sold with
an EPS or offer an optional EPS. (The
Omron IntelliSense blood pressure
meter, model HEM780, has an EPS rated
at 6V and 500 mA but can also be
powered by primary batteries (‘‘AA,’’
‘‘AAA,’’ ‘‘C,’’ among others).) The EPSs
for blood pressure monitors that DOE
identified have a nameplate output
power of 3 watts.
Though most commonly found in
hospitals, ventilators are also available
for home use. While most models have
internal power supplies, some use EPSs
with output power in the range of
approximately 100 to 150 watts.
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
56933
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
e. External Power Supplies for Certain
Battery Chargers
This group is composed of EPSs for
two types of battery chargers: (1) Battery
chargers used to charge detachable
battery packs, and (2) battery chargers
that charge the batteries of products that
are fully or primarily motor operated.
The term ‘‘detachable battery’’ means a
battery that is (A) contained in a
separate enclosure from the product;
and (B) intended to be removed or
disconnected from the product for
recharging. DOE’s interpretation of
‘‘detachable battery’’ is explained in
section I.B.
Under its interpretation of the term
‘‘detachable battery,’’ DOE has not
identified any non-motor operated
applications with an EPS that powers
the charger of a detachable battery pack.
DOE invites interested parties to submit
any information they have about
applications of this type that use nonClass A EPSs.
DOE identified a number of motoroperated, battery-charged products that
use wall adapters. The applications DOE
identified can be divided into two
groups: rechargeable power tools and
cordless rechargeable household
appliances. The latter can be further
subdivided into kitchen appliances (e.g.,
can openers and electric knives),
personal care appliances (e.g., electric
toothbrushes, shavers, and trimmers),
and floor care appliances (e.g., handheld
vacuums and robotic vacuums).
Although there are many grades of
cordless-rechargeable power tools—
ranging from entry-level, do-it-yourself
(DIY) tools intended for occasional
homeowner use to high-end tools
designed for frequent use by
professionals—all can be purchased and
used by consumers and, thus, are
considered consumer products.
However, it appears that very few, if
any, professional-grade power tools use
wall adapters. Instead, the charging base
is plugged directly into mains. Thus,
DOE only considered DIY tools.
DOE has included in the present
determination analysis only those
devices that are EPSs under Approach A
(only those wall adapters that do not
provide additional charge control
functions are EPSs), with the
understanding that the set of EPSs
under Approach A is a subset of EPSs
under Approach D (wall adapters with
charge control functions are also EPSs).
Thus, the analysis presents the
minimum level of expected energy
savings from a potential standard for
these products. If DOE were to later
adopt Approach D (i.e., include
coverage of wall adapters with charge
control functions), the energy savings
potential from standards for non-Class A
EPSs would either increase or remain
unchanged, but would not decrease
below the current analysis’ projected
energy savings potential.
2. Shipments, Efficiency Distributions,
and Market Growth
a. Overview
Based on its market analysis, DOE
estimates that 11.3 million non-Class A
EPSs are sold in the United States each
year. For the national impact analysis,
DOE also created forecasts of market
size to 2032, the last year of sales in the
analysis. Table II.1 summarizes DOE’s
estimates of market size and growth rate
for each type of non-Class A EPS. These
estimates are discussed in detail in the
subsections that follow.
TABLE II.1—MARKET SIZE AND GROWTH PROSPECTS FOR NON-CLASS A EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES
Market size
in 2008
(shipments
per year)
Type of external power supply
Annual growth
rate
(percent)
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for Multifunction Devices ....................................................................................................
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for Xbox 360 .......................................................................................................................
High-Power EPSs ....................................................................................................................................................
Medical EPSs ..........................................................................................................................................................
EPSs for Cordless Rechargeable Floor Care Appliances * ....................................................................................
EPSs for Cordless Rechargeable Power Tools * ....................................................................................................
5,085,000
4,000,000
3,000
1,450,000
297,000
499,400
1
3
0
3
1
2
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
11,334,400
........................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
* DOE estimates that a maximum of 5 percent of the wall adapters that ship with products of this type are EPSs under Approach A.
Source: DOE estimated long-run growth rates by examining published shipments growth estimates (both past and projected) from the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) (‘‘U.S. Consumer Electronics Sales and Forecasts 2004–2009’’, Consumer Electronics Association, July
2008), Appliance Magazine (‘‘31st Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance Industry’’, Appliance Magazine, September 2008) the Darnell Group
(External AC–DC Power Supplies Worldwide Forecasts, Third Edition. Special estimate for North America, Darnell Group. May 2008), and
others.
In addition to assessing the size of the
market for each EPS type, DOE also
assessed the efficiency of those EPSs.
DOE defined four candidate standard
levels (CSLs) for each EPS type and
described market distribution in terms
of efficiency across those levels (section
II.C.4) DOE also created two base-case
forecasts of efficiency distribution to
2032. These efficiency distributions
describe the market in the absence of a
standard and are required as a point of
comparison in the national impact
analysis. DOE’s characterizations of
present-day efficiency and its efficiency
forecasts are also discussed in detail in
the following subsections.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
b. Multiple-Voltage External Power
Supplies
EPSs for Multifunction Devices
In field research, DOE found that
Hewlett-Packard (HP) manufactures all
those MFDs that currently use multiplevoltage EPSs. In August 2008, DOE
visited five retail outlets to determine
which MFDs use multiple-voltage EPSs.
DOE inspected 87 unique MFD models
for sale at Best Buy, Circuit City, Office
Depot, Staples, and Target. Of these 87
models, 16 used multiple-voltage EPSs;
the remainder either had internal power
supplies or used single-voltage EPSs.
Many of these models were among the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
top-selling MFDs on Amazon.com,
BestBuy.com, and CircuitCity.com.
In a written comment DOE received in
October 2008 in connection with its
Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure
rulemaking, HP indicated that it plans
to phase out multiple-voltage EPSs. It
stated, ‘‘About 45% of HP’s total current
usage of external-style power supplies is
made up [multiple-voltage output power
supplies (MVOPS)]. HP is planning to
eliminate the use of MVOPS by early
2010. So our product designs will
consist entirely of [single-voltage output
power supplies].’’ (Comment from
Hewlett-Packard dated October 29,
2008. Docket Number EERE–2008–BT–
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
56934
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TP–0004. Comment #30.) Nevertheless,
DOE is including multiple-voltage EPSs
for MFDs in its analysis as some MFDs
may continue to ship with multiplevoltage EPSs after 2010, or new
applications with similar power
requirements may be introduced.
Based on the available data, DOE
estimated that 5,085,000 multiplevoltage EPSs for MFDs shipped for sale
in the United States in 2008. Using data
from Gartner Dataquest and the
Consumer Electronics Association, DOE
estimated that about 20 million inkjet
printers and MFDs shipped in 2008.
(Gartner Dataquest. ‘‘Gartner Says
United States Printer and MFP
Shipments Declined 4 Percent in
Second Quarter of 2006.’’ August 2006.
Last accessed February 27, 2009,
https://www.gartner.com/it/
page.jsp?id=496184&format=print.;
Consumer Electronics Association. U.S.
Consumer Sales and Forecasts, 2004–
2009. July 2008. CEA: Arlington, VA.)
According to Gartner Dataquest, HP
controlled 56.4 percent of the inkjet
printer/MFD market in the second
quarter of 2006. DOE assumed HP’s
market share remained unchanged in
2008, resulting in shipments of 11.3
million HP inkjet printers and MFDs
that year. As HP claimed that 45 percent
of its EPSs are multiple-voltage EPSs,
DOE estimated that 5,085,000 multiplevoltage EPSs for use with MFDs (45
percent of 11.3 million) were shipped in
2008. Given HP’s stated intent to
discontinue use of multiple-voltage
EPSs, DOE assumed in its model a
modest market growth rate of 1 percent
annually.
DOE defined four CSLs for multiplevoltage EPSs for MFDs (Table II.2) DOE
tested two multiple-voltage EPSs for
MFDs, and neither unit tested above
CSL 0. Thus, DOE assumed that all units
on the market today are at CSL 0.
TABLE II.2—EFFICIENCY OF MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES FOR MFDS
Minimum
active mode
efficiency
(percent)
Candidate standard level (CSL)
0.
1.
2.
3.
Maximum
no-load power
(W)
Market share
(percent)
Shipments
Current Level ...............................................................................................
Mid Level .....................................................................................................
High Level ....................................................................................................
Higher Level ................................................................................................
81
86
90
91
0.50
0.45
0.31
0.20
100
0
0
0
5,085,000
0
0
0
All Levels ..................................................................................................
........................
........................
100
5,085,000
DOE estimated the market distribution across CSLs using test data from two units.
DOE examined two base case
efficiency forecasts in its national
impact analysis. In the first, efficiency
does not improve during the period of
analysis. In the second, which
considered spillover effects from
existing Class A EPS standards, nonClass A EPSs for MFDs gradually
become more efficient throughout the
period of analysis, with three-quarters of
the market still at CSL 0 and the
remainder at CSL 1 in 2032, the last year
of sales.
EPSs for the Xbox 360
The NPD group estimates that since
its release of the Xbox 360 in November
2005, more than 14 million units have
been sold in the United States at an
annual average of 4 million units. (NPD
Group, reported from https://
www.joystiq.com archives, last accessed
February 28, 2009.) Because demand for
a specific video game console is
generally driven by novelty, the
majority of shipments for a given model
tend to occur early in its production
cycle, with shipments generally
decreasing over time as newer
competing consoles or next-generation
consoles become available. Therefore,
DOE assumed a market size of 4 million
units in the base year.
The market for video game consoles,
including the Xbox 360, has grown
considerably in recent years, and
analysts expect the market to continue
growing annually at between 5 percent
(‘‘U.S. Consumer Electronics Sales and
Forecasts 2004–2009,’’ Consumer
Electronics Association, July 2008) and
10 percent (‘‘External AC–DC Power
Supplies Worldwide Forecasts, Third
Edition.’’ Special estimate for North
America by the Darnell Group. May
2008.) Because the market for the Xbox
360 represents a subset of the console
market, DOE developed a conservative
growth forecast for this market of 3
percent annual growth.
DOE defined four CSLs for multiplevoltage EPSs for the Xbox 360 (Table
II.3). An estimated 95 percent of units
on the market today—those units sold
with the Xbox 360—have average activemode efficiency of 86 percent and
consume 0.4 watts in no-load mode.
Replacement units, which have poorer
energy performance, comprise the
remaining 5 percent of the market.
TABLE II.3—EFFICIENCY OF MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES FOR XBOX 360
Minimum
active mode
efficiency
(percent)
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Candidate standard level (CSL)
0.
1.
2.
3.
Maximum
no-load power
W
Market share
(percent)
Shipments
Generic Replacement ..................................................................................
Manufacturer Provided ................................................................................
EU Qualified Level .......................................................................................
Higher Level ................................................................................................
82
86
86
89
12.33
0.40
0.30
0.30
5
95
0
0
200,000
3,800,000
0
0
All Levels ..................................................................................................
........................
........................
100
4,000,000
DOE estimates are based on test data and market share of generic replacements for the Xbox 360 EPS.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
DOE examined two base-case
efficiency forecasts in its national
impact analysis. In the first, efficiency
does not improve during the period of
analysis. In the second, EPSs for the
Xbox 360 gradually become more
efficient. No units remain at CSL 0 in
2018, the sixth year after the standard is
assumed to take effect. By 2032, onequarter of the market has moved up to
CSL 2, while the remainder is at CSL 1.
c. High Output Power External Power
Supplies
Due to the highly specialized and
relatively uncommon application of
high power external power supplies,
only about 30,000 units are in use.
(Communication with the American
Radio Relay League (August 2008).
Despite the inherent limitations of highpower EPSs and the increasing use of
internal power supplies for home
amateur radio equipment setups, DOE
expects the market for high-power EPSs
to remain level throughout the analysis
period based on input from the Amateur
Radio Relay League. Given an average
lifetime of 10 years and assuming that
the same number of new units is put
into service each year that is taken out
of service, it follows that approximately
56935
3,000 new units are put into service
each year. (DOE interview with
manufacturer, September 15, 2008.)
Table II.4 shows the four CSLs DOE
defined for high-power EPSs. Line
frequency EPSs account for an estimated
60 percent of the market; switchedmode EPSs comprise the remaining 40
percent. Line frequency EPSs
historically have been preferred over
switched-mode EPSs for amateur radio
applications. However, they are slowly
losing market share to switched-mode
EPSs, which are considerably more
efficient and much less expensive.
TABLE II.4—EFFICIENCY OF HIGH POWER EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES
Minimum
active mode
efficiency
(percent)
Candidate standard level (CSL)
0.
1.
2.
3.
Maximum noload power
(W)
Market share
(percent)
Shipments
Line Frequency ............................................................................................
Switched Mode—Low ..................................................................................
Switched Mode—Mid ...................................................................................
Switched Mode—High .................................................................................
62
81
84
85
15.43
6.01
1.50
0.50
60
40
0
0
1,800
1,200
0
0
All Levels ..................................................................................................
........................
........................
100
3,000
DOE estimates are based on test data and manufacturer interviews.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
In the first base-case efficiency
forecast in its national impact analysis,
efficiency does not improve during the
period of analysis. In the second
forecast, increased consumer preference
for switched-mode high-power EPSs
and spillover effects from existing Class
A EPS standards lead to efficiency
improvements in high-power EPSs. In
this second forecast, high-power EPSs at
CSL 2 are introduced in 2010 and
gradually become more efficient
throughout the period of analysis. By
2032, 38 percent of units remain at CSL
0, 40 percent are at CSL 1, and the
remaining 22 percent have reached CSL
2.
d. External Power Supplies for Medical
Devices
DOE examined those medical devices
that are used in home-care settings and
employ an EPS. An estimated 1.45
million of these devices shipped in
2008. (External AC–DC Power Supplies
Worldwide Forecasts, Third Edition.
Special estimate for North America by
the Darnell Group. May 2008.) This
market is expected to grow at an average
rate of 11.4 percent per year between
2008 and 2013. The reasons for this
growth are numerous. Over this period,
the population aged 65 and older is
expected to grow at 2.5 percent per year,
compared to 0.75 percent per year for
the population under age 65. (U.S.
Population Projections.’’ U.S. Census
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
Bureau. 2008.) Demand for home care
devices is increasing as the high cost of
hospital stays encourages home care.
(‘‘DME Market of the Future.’’ Home
Care Magazine. July 1, 2000.) Patients’
demands for greater portability are also
driving an increase in the number of
medical devices that can operate on
battery power, some of which require
wall adapters. (‘‘Oxygen Concentrator
Market Opportunities, Strategies, and
Forecasts, 2005 to 2011.’’ Wintergreen
Research. 2005.) Finally, in some cases,
medical device manufacturers can bring
new products to market faster by using
an EPS. (Personal communication.
Phone call with Marco Gonzalez,
Director of Supplier Management for
Power. Avnet Inc. September 30, 2008.)
This last trend in particular is
increasing the number of medical
devices using EPSs with output power
greater than 90 watts. DOE forecasts the
long term growth rate of medical device
EPSs for consumer products to be 3
percent per year.
Additionally, the market for sleep
therapy devices shows significant
potential for growth. Based on available
studies, DOE estimates that
approximately 20 million Americans
experience a moderate form of
obstructive sleep apnea, which causes
the afflicted to stop breathing
momentarily during sleep. (‘‘What is
Sleep Apnea?’’ National Heart Lung and
Blood Institute Diseases and Conditions
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Index. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/
dci/Diseases/SleepApnea/SleepApnea_
WhatIs.html.) As the number of
diagnoses of obstructive sleep apnea
increases, demand for sleep therapy
devices, one of the most common
treatments for the condition, increases
as well. DOE estimates that
approximately 50 percent of sleep
therapy devices, or about 1 million new
units annually, are powered by EPSs.
(Schirm, Jeffrey. Personal
communication. Philips Electronics,
NV. Phone call with Matthew Jones,
D&R International. December 15, 2008.)
Nebulizers are commonly used to
treat asthma and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD). An
estimated 22 million Americans have
been diagnosed with asthma, and an
additional 12 million Americans have
been diagnosed with COPD. (‘‘What is
Asthma?’’ National Heart Lung and
Blood Institute Diseases and Conditions
Index. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/
dci/Diseases/Asthma/Asthma_
WhatIs.html.; ‘‘What is COPD?’’
National Heart Lung and Blood Institute
Diseases and Conditions Index. https://
www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/
Copd/Copd_WhatIs.html.) The
prevalence of COPD is increasing as the
population ages. The incidence of
asthma has also increased over time. A
June 2005 report, ‘‘U.S. Nebulizers and
Markets,’’ indicates that portable
nebulizers, which are more likely to
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
56936
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
employ EPSs, have taken market share
from non-portable units. (‘‘U.S.
Nebulizers and Markets.’’ Frost &
Sullivan. June, 2005.) From the
available data, DOE estimates shipments
of nebulizers to be 3 million units per
year. However, DOE observed only a
few examples that use EPSs.
Accordingly, DOE assumes 15 percent
of nebulizers, or 450,000 units per year,
employ an EPS.
DOE did not consider the remaining
three applications—ventilators, blood
pressure monitors, and portable oxygen
concentrators—further in the
determination analysis. Very few
ventilators or blood pressure monitors
employ EPSs. Due to time constraints,
DOE did not analyze or develop costefficiency curves for medical EPSs with
high output power, so portable oxygen
concentrators also were not included in
the analysis. DOE may examine these
products as part of a possible future
standards rulemaking for medical EPSs.
DOE defined four CSLs for medical
EPSs (Table II.5). DOE believes that
roughly 66 percent of medical EPSs sold
into the market today meet the Federal
standard for Class A EPSs and could be
labeled according to the international
efficiency marking protocol with a ‘‘IV’’.
The international efficiency marking
protocol, initiated by the ENERGY
STAR program and adopted by the U.S.,
Australia, China and Europe, provides a
system for power supply manufacturers
to designate the minimum efficiency
performance of an external power
supply, so that finished product
manufacturers and government
representatives can easily determine a
unit’s efficiency. Under this protocol
manufacturers place a roman numeral
from I (less efficient) to V (more
efficient) on an EPS that corresponds to
the EPS’s efficiency. For instance, the
mark of ‘‘IV’’ corresponds to the
efficiency of the EISA 2007 standard.
More information on the protocol can be
found on the ENERGY STAR Web site
at: https://www.energystar.gov/ia/
partners/prod_development/revisions/
downloads/International_Efficiency_
Marking_Protocol.pdf.
DOE based its view regarding the
ability of medical EPSs to satisfy current
Federal Class A standards enacted by
Congress on available test results and its
understanding that SL Power, a leading
manufacturer of medical EPSs, is
designing its EPSs for medical devices
to meet the standard for Class A EPSs.
Competing medical EPS manufacturers
such as Elpac and GlobTek are also
beginning to offer EPSs that meet the
Class A standard. From this
information, DOE assumes that 17
percent of units are less efficient and
that the remaining 17 percent of units
are more efficient.
TABLE II.5—EFFICIENCY OF MEDICAL EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES
Minimum
active mode
efficiency
(percent)
Candidate standard level (CSL)
0.
1.
2.
3.
Maximum
no-load power
W
Market share
(percent)
Shipments
Less than the II Mark ..................................................................................
Meets the IV Mark .......................................................................................
Meets the V Mark ........................................................................................
Higher Level ................................................................................................
66
76
80
85
0.56
0.50
0.30
0.15
17
66
17
0
246,500
957,000
246,500
0
All Levels ..................................................................................................
........................
........................
100
1,450,000
DOE estimated shipment distributions based on test results from six units.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
In the first base-case efficiency
forecast in the national impact analysis,
efficiency does not improve during the
period of analysis. In the second
forecast, additional manufacturers adopt
Class A EPS standards for medical
device EPSs, which are projected to
become gradually more efficient
throughout the period of analysis. By
2032, 5 percent of units remain at CSL
0, 54 percent of the market is at CSL 1,
and the remaining 41 percent of units
are at CSL 2.
e. External Power Supplies for Certain
Battery Chargers
As noted above, DOE identified
several battery-powered applications
that could potentially use non-Class A
EPSs. Many of these applications were
excluded from further consideration
because DOE’s analysis indicated they
accounted for only a trivial amount of
non-Class A EPS energy consumption.
Battery-powered kitchen appliances
were excluded because only a small
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
number of units are sold annually.
Personal care products were excluded
because wall adapters used to power
these products typically incorporate
battery-charging circuitry and are
unlikely to be EPSs under Approach A.
Furthermore, personal care products
that employ EPSs spend the vast
majority of their time unplugged and
stowed. (Comments on the Framework
Document for Battery Chargers and
External Power Supplies (74 FR 26816).
Philips Electronics (Philips, No. 22 at p.
3).) Lawn mowers and yard trimmers
were excluded because those models
that have wall adapters are unlikely to
be EPSs under Approach A. However,
DOE did include two of these
applications in the determination
analysis: Floor care appliances and
power tools.
Floor Care Appliances
DOE estimated that almost 6.5 million
cordless rechargeable floor care
appliances shipped in 2007. (Based on
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
estimates of all stick vacuum and
handheld vacuum shipments in ‘‘31st
Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance
Industry,’’ Appliance Magazine,
September 2008.) DOE further estimates
that approximately 90 percent or 5.9
million of those units use wall adapters.
(Wayne Morris. Personal
Communication. Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers. Letter to
Victor Petrolati (DOE) and Michael
Scholand (Navigant Consulting). August
11, 2006.) DOE lacks reliable data to
determine what fraction of these wall
adapters provide constant voltage and
are therefore EPSs. In the absence of
reliable data, DOE’s preliminary
estimate is that a maximum of 5 percent
of these wall adapters, or 297,000 units
per year, are EPSs (see Table II.6). DOE
welcomes input on the accuracy of these
estimates.
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
56937
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.6—ANNUAL SHIPMENTS OF FLOOR CARE APPLIANCES
Cordless rechargeable units
With wall adapter
Type of floor care appliance
Total
Total
Without
charge control
(EPS)
Total
Handheld Vacuums .........................................................................................
Stick Vacuums .................................................................................................
Robotic Vacuums .............................................................................................
5,580,000
4,500,000
1,000,000
3,683,000
1,800,000
1,000,000
3,315,000
1,620,000
1,000,000
166,000
81,000
50,000
All Types ...................................................................................................
11,080,000
6,483,000
5,935,000
297,000
Despite the stable market for floor
care appliances, improvements in
battery technology and the greater
adoption of robotic vacuums may enable
growth in the cordless rechargeable
segment of the market. (‘‘Robot Home
Vacuum Cleaning, Cooking, Pool
Cleaning, and Lawn Mowing Market
Strategy, Market Shares, and Market
Forecasts, 2008–2014.’’ Electronics.ca
exceed the Federal standard for Class A
EPSs and could be labeled according to
the international efficiency marking
protocol with a ‘‘IV’’ or ‘‘V.’’ DOE
assumes that 8 percent of these units are
somewhat less efficient, but could still
be labeled with a ‘‘II,’’ while the
remaining 17 percent of units are even
less efficient.
Publications. January 2008.) Thus, DOE
forecasts 1 percent annual growth in the
size of the market for cordless
rechargeable floor care appliances.
DOE defined four CSLs for EPSs that
power the BCs of cordless rechargeable
floor care appliances (Table II.7). Based
on test data from 12 EPS units, DOE
believes that three-quarters of EPSs for
floor care appliances sold today meet or
TABLE II.7—EFFICIENCY OF EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES FOR CORDLESS RECHARGEABLE FLOOR CARE APPLIANCES
Minimum
active mode
efficiency
(percent)
Candidate standard level (CSL)
0.
1.
2.
3.
Maximum
no-load power
(W)
Market share
(percent)
Shipments
Less than the II Mark ..................................................................................
Meets the II Mark ........................................................................................
Meets the IV Mark .......................................................................................
Meets the V Mark ........................................................................................
24
45
55
66
1.85
0.75
0.50
0.30
17
8
58
17
50,490
23,760
172,260
50,490
All Levels ..................................................................................................
........................
........................
100
297,000
DOE estimated market distributions based on test data of 12 Class A EPSs.
In the first base-case efficiency
forecast in the national impact analysis,
efficiency does not improve during the
period of analysis. In the second
forecast, EPSs for BCs that power
cordless rechargeable floor care
appliances gradually become more
efficient throughout the period of
analysis. By 2032, 5 percent of units
remain at CSL 0, 20 percent of units are
at CSL 1, 52 percent of units are at CSL
2, and the remaining 23 percent of units
are at CSL 3.
DIY Power Tools
DOE estimates that 499,400 wall
adapters without charge control (EPSs)
are sold annually for use with
rechargeable power tools. This is a
preliminary estimate based on the
assumptions shown in Table II.8. As
noted above, professional tools, which
DOE assumed account for 50 percent of
shipments, do not employ wall
adapters. The remaining 50 percent, the
DIY tools, can be divided into those
with a detachable battery and those with
an integral battery. DOE assumed that
the former account for 30 percent and
the latter 20 percent of the market.
Based on data obtained from the Power
Tool Institute, DOE estimated that 80
percent of DIY tools with detachable
batteries and 100 percent of DIY tools
with integral batteries employed wall
adapters. DOE’s preliminary estimate is
that a maximum of 5 percent of those
9,990,000 wall adapters lack charge
control and, thus, are considered EPSs
under Approach A.
TABLE II.8—SHIPMENTS OF CORDLESS RECHARGEABLE POWER TOOLS
Percent of
shipments
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Type of power tool
With wall
adapter
(percent)
Annual unit
shipments
With wall
adapter
Wall adapter
without charge
control
(percent)
Wall adapter
without charge
control
Professional .............................................
DIY with Detachable Battery ....................
DIY with Integral Battery ..........................
50
30
20
11,350,000
6,810,000
4,540,000
0
80
100
........................
5,450,000
4,540,000
........................
5
5
0
272,400
227,000
All Tools ............................................
100
22,700,000
........................
9,990,000
........................
499,400
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
56938
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
According to forecasts from the
Darnell Group, the market for cordless
rechargeable power tools will continue
to grow at an average annual rate of 10.6
percent until 2013. This growth is
attributed to a falling cost for
increasingly powerful and flexible tools.
DOE believes that short-term growth
will be tempered by the slowdown in
the construction and remodeling
industries. Given these factors, DOE
estimates long-term shipments growth
of 2 percent per year.
DOE defined four CSLs for EPSs that
power the BCs of cordless rechargeable
power tools (Table II.9). Based on test
data from 12 EPS units, DOE believes
that three-quarters of power tool EPSs
sold into the market today meet or
exceed the Federal standard for Class A
EPSs and could be labeled according to
the international efficiency marking
protocol with a ‘‘IV’’ or ‘‘V.’’ DOE
assumes that 8 percent of units are
somewhat less efficient, but could still
be labeled with a ‘‘II,’’ while the
remaining 17 percent of units are even
less efficient.
TABLE II.9—EFFICIENCY OF EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES FOR RECHARGEABLE POWER TOOLS
Minimum
active mode
efficiency
(percent)
Candidate standard level (CSL)
0.
1.
2.
3.
Maximum
no-load power
(W)
Market share
(percent)
Shipments
Less than the II Mark ..................................................................................
Meets the II Mark ........................................................................................
Meets the IV Mark .......................................................................................
Meets the V Mark ........................................................................................
38
56
64
72
1.85
0.75
0.50
0.30
17
8
17
58
84,898
39,952
84,898
289,652
All Levels ..................................................................................................
........................
........................
100
499,400
DOE estimated market distributions based on test data of 12 EPSs.
In the first base-case efficiency
forecast in the national impact analysis,
efficiency does not improve during the
period of analysis. In the second
forecast, the less efficient EPSs for BCs
that power cordless rechargeable power
tools gradually become more efficient
throughout the period of analysis. By
2032, 5 percent of units remain at CSL
0 and the market for units at CSL 1
increases to 20 percent. EPSs at CSL 2
and CSL 3 continue to comprise 17
percent and 58 percent of the market,
respectively.
3. Product Lifetimes
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
a. Overview
DOE considers the lifetime of an EPS
to be from the moment it is purchased
for end-use up until the time when it is
permanently retired from service.
Because the typical EPS is purchased for
use with a single associated application,
DOE assumes that the EPS will remain
in service for as long as the application
does. High-power EPSs are the
exception, as they are purchased
separately, not as part of another enduse consumer product. Table II.10
shows the values for EPS lifetime that
DOE used in its draft analysis. Where
there are multiple applications with
different lifetimes for a single type of
EPS, DOE calculated a weighted-average
lifetime for that EPS type using the
applications’ shipment volumes as
weights. Additional detail on each EPS
type is given in the subsections below.
DOE seeks comments on its
assumptions for product lifetime.
may differ significantly from the length
of time they will actually be used. When
a new console is introduced, the
industry stops developing and releasing
new games for that console’s
predecessor. Consumers then begin
retiring the older system in favor of the
new one. Thus, while the console may
TABLE II.10—LIFETIME OF EXTERNAL in fact remain functional, it will no
longer remain in use.
POWER SUPPLIES BY TYPE
Based on availability dates for video
Average
game consoles from the current leaders
Type of EPS
lifetime
in the console market (Nintendo, Sony,
years
and Microsoft), DOE determined an
average period of 5 years between
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for
MFDs .....................................
5 generations of consoles. Table II.11 lists
these consoles by manufacturer. In each
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for Xbox
360 ........................................
5 line of consoles, DOE assumed that the
High-Power EPSs .....................
10 effective run of a console ended upon
Medical EPSs ...........................
8 release of the next generation of console.
Wall Adapters for Certain BatIn many cases, the older consoles are
tery Chargers ........................
5
still available for purchase, and some
DOE estimates are based on numerous overlap will occur, as consumers
sources. See subsections below for detail.
continue to use older systems. However,
DOE anticipates that within 2 years of
b. Multiple-Voltage External Power
release, the majority of consumers will
Supplies
prefer to use newer consoles. Therefore,
For the Xbox 360, DOE assumed an
DOE considers an estimate of 5 years to
average console lifetime of 5 years,
be a suitable value for the average
which is roughly the time between
effective lifetime for video game
console generations. While consoles,
consoles, including the Xbox 360 and
especially modern consoles, may have
any subsequent console that may use a
extremely long functional lifetimes, this non-Class A EPS.
TABLE II.11—VIDEO GAME CONSOLE RELEASE DATES BY MANUFACTURER
North American
release date
Manufacturer
Console
Nintendo ..............................................................
Nintendo ..............................................................
Super Nintendo ....................................................
Nintendo 64 .........................................................
Game Cube .........................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
1985
1991
1996
2001
03NOP2
Years until subsequent release
6.
5.
5.
5.
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
56939
TABLE II.11—VIDEO GAME CONSOLE RELEASE DATES BY MANUFACTURER—Continued
Manufacturer
North American
release date
Console
Sony .....................................................................
Microsoft ..............................................................
Wii ........................................................................
Playstation ...........................................................
Playstation 2 ........................................................
Playstation 3 ........................................................
Xbox .....................................................................
Xbox 360 .............................................................
2006
1995
2000
2006
2001
2005
Years until subsequent release
Currently available.
5.
6.
Currently available.
4.
Currently available.
Source: https://www.thegameconsole.com/; https://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/video/hov/.
In a recent interview, Robbie Bach,
President of Entertainment and Devices
Division at Microsoft, stated that, ‘‘The
life cycle for this generation of
consoles—and I’m not just talking about
Xbox, I’d include Wii and PS3 as well—
is probably going to be a little longer
than previous generations.’’ (https://
xbox.joystiq.com/2009/01/12/xbox-360life-cycle-to-be-a-little-longer-thanprevious-generat) It is unclear whether
this statement would apply only to this
particular generation of consoles, or to
all future console development cycles
generally. In light of this uncertainty,
DOE considers 5 years to be an
appropriate estimate for console
lifetime.
Multifunction devices are also
assumed to have an average useful
lifetime of 5 years, according to
Appliance Magazine. (‘‘31st Annual
Portrait of the U.S. Appliance Industry,’’
Appliance Magazine, September 2008.)
c. High Output Power External Power
Supplies
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
As described above, DOE normally
calculates the life of an EPS based on
the end-use application that the EPS is
intended to power. High-power EPSs,
however, are sold separately from their
end-use applications. DOE cannot use
the lifetime of the end-use application
as a proxy, as the EPS may power
different and multiple applications.
Therefore, DOE based the lifetime of
these EPSs on the functional lifetime of
the EPS itself. Based on input from
industry experts, DOE estimates that
these EPSs have an average functional
lifetime of 10 years. (Based on
interviews conducted with the
American Radio Relay League (August
2008) and Astron (December 2008).)
d. External Power Supplies for Medical
Devices
DOE assumed an average lifetime of 8
years for medical device EPSs.
According to a representative of SL
Power, medical devices in general have
an average lifetime of 11 years. (Tim
Cassidy, SL Power. Committee
Workshop before the California Energy
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
Resources Conservation and
Development Commission meeting
transcript. 1/30/06 California Energy
Commission.) However, this
determination analysis focused on
medical devices for use in home care
settings, which generally have shorter
lifetimes. Medicare guidelines state that
durable medical equipment must have a
lifetime of at least 5 years before a
replacement is eligible to receive
reimbursement. (Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services. CMS Manual
System Pub. 100–02 Medicare Benefit
Policy, Transmittal 30, Change Request
3693. February 18, 2005.) The length of
product warranties and comments from
users in online discussion forums
suggest that sleep therapy devices can
last 7 to 12 years before replacement is
necessary. (American Sleep Apnea
Association. Apnea Support Forum
discussion amongst users on sleep
therapy device lifetimes. January 25,
2007. https://www.apneasupport.org/
about8124.html.) Given the similarities
in form and function, DOE assumes
nebulizers have a comparable lifespan.
e. External Power Supplies for Certain
Battery Chargers
Based on input from the Association
of Home Appliance Manufacturers and
the Power Tool Institute, DOE estimated
an average lifetime of 5 years for EPSs
for battery chargers for floor care
appliances and DIY power tools. (Data
for floor care products from ‘‘31st
Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance
Industry,’’ Appliance Magazine,
September 2008. Data for power tools
courtesy of the Power Tool Institute.)
4. Distribution Channels and Markups
In the LCC, payback period (PBP), and
national impacts analyses, DOE
compared the energy cost savings from
standards with changes in purchase
price due to increases in initial cost
resulting from standards. DOE estimated
the incremental consumer cost
associated with setting a standard at
CSLs 1–4.
To obtain end-user (consumer)
product prices, DOE started by
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
estimating the efficiency-related
materials cost (ERMC) for each CSL. See
section II.B.5 for a discussion of this
cost. DOE marked up these costs to
obtain factory price or manufacturer
selling price (MSP) estimates, and then
studied the distribution value chain for
EPSs moving from manufacturer to enduser. From that analysis, which
included volume estimates and typical
markups applied by actors in the
distribution chain, DOE calculated a
manufacturer-to-retail markup to
convert MSP estimates to retail price
estimates. DOE then applied a sales tax
estimate to the retail price estimates to
arrive at end-user product prices.
Consumer product manufacturers, or
original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs), initiate the manufacture of
most non-Class A EPSs. An OEM
contracts with an EPS manufacturer to
supply an EPS that meets the
requirements of the OEM’s consumer
product. The EPS manufacturer then
designs and assembles the device from
component parts (e.g., transformers,
diodes, capacitors, semiconductors)
made by various component
manufacturers. The completed EPS is
then sent to the OEM to be packaged
and sold. While this process may be
initially more expensive than using
stock, off-the-shelf EPSs, OEMs prefer it
since the EPS will then exactly fit the
requirements of the intended
application and the up-front design
costs can be amortized over a large
volume of sales. (Collon Lee. Personal
Communication. Astec Power, Carlsbad,
CA. February 16, 2006.) In addition, due
to the special requirements of battery
chargers and the design and registration
process for medical devices, stock EPSs
are not always available to meet the
power requirements of these
applications.
Table II.12 shows total markups for
each type of non-Class A EPS. The total
markup is the ratio of the after-tax
consumer price to the ERMC or after-tax
consumer price as a multiple of ERMC.
The specific distribution channels and
individual markups DOE used in its
analysis for each type of non-Class A
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
56940
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
EPS are discussed in section 1.2 of the
TSD.
TABLE II.12—MARKUPS FOR NON-CLASS A EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES
Total dollar markup
(after-tax consumer
price as a multiple of
ERMC) $
Type of EPS
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for MFDs .........................................................................................................................................
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for Xbox 360 ...................................................................................................................................
High-Power EPSs ................................................................................................................................................................
Medical EPSs ......................................................................................................................................................................
Wall Adapters for Certain Battery Chargers: Floor Care Appliances .................................................................................
Wall Adapters for Certain Battery Chargers: DIY Power Tools ..........................................................................................
5. Interested Parties
DOE has identified several
organizations—mainly trade
associations and energy efficiency
advocates—that may have an interest in
this determination. Energy efficiency
advocacy organizations with a
demonstrated interest in DOE’s
rulemakings on BCs and EPSs include
the Appliance Standards Awareness
Project, the American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, Earthjustice,
Ecos Consulting, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, and Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, among others.
Several trade associations with member
companies manufacture non-Class A
EPSs or the consumer products they
power. Section 1.3 of the TSD lists some
of these associations. Table 1.5 of the
TSD identifies the types of non-Class A
EPSs in which each group is likely to
have an interest. Table 1.6 gives
examples of each association’s member
companies.
6. Existing Energy Efficiency Programs
DOE has identified both voluntary
and regulatory energy efficiency
programs that may affect the efficiency
of non-Class A EPSs sold in the United
States. The five most important
programs, summarized in Table II.13,
include three domestic programs and
3.18
3.15
1.80
3.60
3.69
4.14
two foreign programs. The three
domestic programs are the Federal
mandatory standard for Class A EPSs,
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s voluntary ENERGY STAR
standard for EPSs, and California’s
mandatory standard for so-called ‘‘State
Regulated EPSs.’’ Among the many
foreign programs, two from the
European Union are particularly
noteworthy—the ‘‘Eco-design of Energyusing Products Initiative, Directive
2005/32/EC’’ and the ‘‘Code of Conduct
on Efficiency of External Power
Supplies, EU Standby Initiative.’’ See
section 1.4 of the TSD for a discussion
of these programs.
TABLE II.13—SELECTED ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS FOR EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES
Country/region
Authority
United States .......................
United States .......................
California ..............................
European Union ...................
European Union ...................
Mandatory ..........................
Voluntary ............................
Mandatory ..........................
Mandatory ..........................
Voluntary ............................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Technology Assessment
1. Introduction
This technology assessment examines
the technology behind the design of
non-Class A EPSs and focuses on the
components and subsystems that have
the biggest impact on energy efficiency.
(Note that the term ‘‘technology
assessment’’ is different from ‘‘technical
support document.’’ The TSD is the
supporting document for this notice on
a proposed determination for non-Class
A EPSs. The technology assessment is a
section within both this notice and the
supporting TSD.)
a. Definitions
DOE is conducting a determination
analysis for non-Class A external power
supplies defined by EPCA, as amended
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
Program/institution
Federal standard for Class A EPSs.
ENERGY STAR for EPSs.
State standard for ‘‘State Regulated EPSs’’.
Eco-design of Energy-using Products (EuP) Initiative, Directive 2005/32/EC.
Code of Conduct on Efficiency of External Power Supplies, EU Standby Initiative.
by EPACT 2005. EPCA defines an
external power supply as ‘‘an external
power supply circuit that is used to
convert household electric current into
DC current or lower-voltage AC current
to operate a consumer product’’ (42
U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) but section 301 of
EISA 2007 further amended this
definition by creating a subset of EPSs
called Class A External Power Supplies.
EISA 2007 defined this subset as those
external power supplies that, in
addition to meeting several other
requirements common to all external
power supplies, are ‘‘able to convert to
only 1 AC or DC output voltage at a
time’’ and that have ‘‘nameplate output
power that is less than or equal to 250
watts.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)) EPCA
excludes an EPS from Class A if it
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
‘‘requires Federal Food and Drug
Administration listing and approval as a
medical device’’ or if it ‘‘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)(ii)) This
determination analysis only considers
non-Class A external power supplies.
b. The Role of Power Converters
EPSs are power converters that
support consumer products; hence, their
operation and design is primarily
governed by the consumer products
they support (Figure II.1). Generally, an
EPS supplies power at a constant output
voltage and is interchangeable among
consumer products with similar power
requirements.
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
e. Efficiency Metrics
This section discusses the metrics
used to measure and compare EPS
efficiency.
f. Product Classes
This section discusses how DOE
groups products into ‘‘product classes’’
for different energy-efficiency standards
when a product’s characteristics
constrain its energy efficiency.
g. Technology Options for Efficiency
Improvement
The final section of the technology
assessment evaluates technology
options for improving energy efficiency.
DOE analyzed the components in the
h. Overlapping Terminology
The technology assessment discusses
external power supplies with
terminology that occasionally overlaps.
This is because EPSs are used with a
broad array of products with use in
many different applications. In
particular, ‘‘class’’ is discussed in this
document in four different contexts:
• ‘‘Class A’’ and ‘‘non-Class A.’’
EPCA defines a subset of external power
supplies as ‘‘Class A’’ based on criteria
discussed in section II.B.1.a. External
power supplies outside of the definition
of Class A, are termed ‘‘non-Class A.’’
• ‘‘Product class.’’ DOE uses ‘‘product
class’’ as a term of art in conducting
energy efficiency rulemakings to
delineate groups of products (discussed
further in section II.B.4).
• ‘‘Class I’’ and ‘‘Class II.’’ Safety
rating agencies use Class I and II to
differentiate among products with and
without a connection to ground,
respectively. This issue particularly
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
ηEPS =
Where hEPS is the EPS efficiency,
PEPS_consumption is the power consumed by the
external power supply itself,
Pin is the power from mains into the external
power supply, and
Pout is the power out of the external power
supply to the consumer product.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
P
P
out
out
=
P
P + PEPS consumption
in
out
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2. Modes of Operation
a. Active Mode
For the determination analysis, DOE
used the definition of active mode
codified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix Z: ‘‘Active mode is the mode
of operation when the external power
supply is connected to the main
electricity supply and the output is
connected to a load.’’
In this mode, EPS efficiency is the
conversion efficiency when the load
draws some or all of the maximum rated
output power of the EPS. In addition to
providing that output power, the EPS
also consumes power due to internal
losses as well as overhead circuitry. The
amount of power the EPS consumes
varies with the power demands of the
load; together, those two parameters
define the EPS’s efficiency at a
particular loading point:
Eq. II.1
EPS active mode efficiency varies
with the amount of output power
(Figure II.2). Typically, EPSs are
inefficient at low load (0 percent to 20
percent of maximum rated output power
of the EPS) and more efficient at larger
loads (between 20 and 100 percent of
maximum rated output power), which
PO 00000
affects medical EPSs, discussed in the
TSD.
• ‘‘Class B digital devices.’’ The
Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) regulates products for
electromagnetic interference based on
whether the product is used for nonresidential or residential purposes,
designated as Class A or Class B,
respectively. (For information regarding
the FCC definitions of Class A and Class
B digital devices, see https://
www.arrl.org/tis/info/
part15.html#Definitions.)
Electromagnetic interference
particularly affects high-power EPSs,
discussed in the TSD.
occurs when the consumer product is
fully functional and demanding more
power. The lower efficiency at lower
output current is due to the
proportionally larger power
consumption of internal EPS
components relative to output power. At
higher power, EPS losses are
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
EP03NO09.001</MATH>
d. EPS Circuit Design
This section discusses how EPSs are
designed, with specific consideration to
the functionality requirements of the
consumer applications that they power.
power converter that consume
significant power, such as transformers,
or influence power consumption of
other components, such as integrated
circuits (ICs). By identifying sources of
power loss and possible methods for
improvement, the technology
assessment discusses technology
options that would allow a
manufacturer to design a power
converter with similar design
characteristics to have the same
functionality but with improved
efficiency.
EP03NO09.000</GPH>
c. Functionality and Modes of Operation
The technology assessment begins by
analyzing the modes in which EPSs
operate and their functionality. Of these
modes, active mode has the largest
effect on the power converter’s size and
efficiency because the maximum
amount of power passes through the
EPS in active mode. In no-load mode
the power converter is disconnected
from the load; however, no-load power
consumption is indicative of power
consumption at low load. In each
operational mode, the EPS is designed
to provide certain functionality to the
consumer product.
56941
56942
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
loading points: 25 percent, 50 percent,
75 percent, and 100 percent of
maximum rated output power, which
captures a general picture of EPS
efficiency. Figure II.2 shows an example
of a typical efficiency curve for an EPS
in active mode.
b. No-Load Mode
For the determination analysis, DOE
used the definition of no-load mode
codified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix Z: ‘‘No load mode means the
mode of operation when the external
power supply is connected to the main
electricity supply and the output is not
connected to a load.’’
EPS consumption in no-load is a
measure of EPS internal power
consumption, since the EPS is not
connected to the load. However, the EPS
might provide functionality. For
example, certain consumer products
may require the EPS to deliver output
power within moments of being
connected. Thus, the EPS may consume
power to provide the useful function of
reduced start-up time. Nonetheless, EPS
power consumption can still be low
(less than 1 watt) in no-load mode for
non-Class A EPSs.
address standby and off modes on
March 27, 2009. (74 FR 13318) In those
test procedures, DOE defines standby
mode and off mode. Standby mode is
the condition in which the EPS is in noload mode and, with products equipped
with manual on-off switches, all such
switches are turned on. Off mode is also
only applicable to those EPSs that have
a manual on-off switch, and is defined
as the time when the EPS is (1)
connected to the main electricity
supply; (2) the output is not connected
to any load; and (3) all manual on-off
switches are turned off.
performance-related feature that justifies
different standard levels, such as
features affecting consumer utility. (42
U.S.C. 6295(q)) For example, when
compared with a standard device, a
device with additional functionality that
provides extra utility to the consumer
would be grouped in a separate product
class if the additional functionality
affects its efficiency. DOE then conducts
its analysis and considers establishing
or amending standards to provide
separate standard levels for each
product class. Because output power
and output voltage have the largest
impact on achievable EPS efficiency,
DOE considered both criteria when
developing EPS product classes for the
determination analysis.
c. Standby and Off Modes
As directed by EISA 2007, DOE
amended its test procedures for battery
chargers and external power supplies to
4. Product Classes
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
3. Functionality and Circuit Designs of
Non-Class A EPSs
Non-Class A EPSs are designed to
provide certain types of functionality,
for which they have particular circuit
designs. The TSD discusses these
aspects of non-Class A EPSs in detail.
DOE divides covered products into
classes by the type of energy used, the
capacity of the product, and any other
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
a. Product Class Distinctions for
Multiple-Voltage EPSs
There is a small market for multiplevoltage EPSs, which are primarily used
in printing and video game console
applications. Accordingly, DOE is
considering dividing multiple-voltage
EPSs into two product classes, listed in
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
EP03NO09.002</GPH>
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
proportionally not as great and therefore
have less impact on EPS efficiency. The
EPS test procedure evaluates active
mode conversion efficiency at four
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
56943
Table II.14, to account for these separate
applications.
TABLE II.14—PRODUCT CLASSES FOR MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE EPSS
Nameplate output power
≥100 watts
< 100 watts
Product Class ............................................................................
Multiple-Voltage Product Class 1
relates to multiple-voltage EPSs for
printing applications. These EPSs tend
to have an even distribution of power
between the outputs. Multiple-Voltage
Product Class 2 relates to multiplevoltage EPSs for video game
applications. These EPSs tend to have
an uneven distribution of power
between the outputs, where one output
accounts for most of the output power.
These product classes also have
different nameplate output power
ratings. Multiple-Voltage Product Class
1 is representative of units that are less
than 100 watts. Multiple-Voltage
Product Class 2 is representative of
units that are greater than or equal to
100 watts.
b. Product Class Distinctions for HighPower EPSs
There is a small market for highpower EPSs which have one primary
Multiple-Voltage Product Class 1 .........
application: ham radios. There are few
technical differences among these EPSs
that affect efficiency, none of which are
significant for the current analysis.
Therefore, DOE is considering placing
high-power EPSs into one product class,
listed in Table II.15.
TABLE II.15—PRODUCT CLASSES FOR
HIGH-POWER EPSS
Nameplate output
power
> 250 watts
Product Class ............
High Power Product
Class 1.
High-Power Product Class 1 relates to
high-power EPSs for ham radios, which
all have nameplate output voltage at
13.8 volts. Unlike higher-power Class A
EPSs, High-Power Product Class 1 EPSs
Multiple-Voltage Product Class 2.
typically require more overhead
circuitry. These EPSs often include two
integrated circuits; Class A EPSs often
have one. The second IC generally
becomes necessary for EPSs around 170
watts.
c. Product Class Distinctions for
Medical EPSs
Both medical and Class A EPSs have
diverse markets with many end-use
applications. The primary difference is
that medical EPSs have additional safety
requirements that result in higher costs.
However, those requirements have a
negligible effect on their efficiency.
Therefore, DOE is considering placing
medical EPSs in the same product
classes as Class A EPSs, listed in Table
II.16.
TABLE II.16—PRODUCT CLASSES FOR MEDICAL EPSS
Nameplate output power
Nameplate output voltage
<4 watts
≤12 volts ...........................................
>12 volts ...........................................
4–60 watts
Medical Product Class 1 ..............
Medical Product Class 4 ..............
Medical Product Class 2 ..............
Medical Product Class 5 ..............
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Two variables in combination define
A product class for medical EPSs:
nameplate output voltage and
nameplate output power. There are two
variations on nameplate output voltage
and three variations on nameplate
output power, which results in six total
product classes (Table III.16).
DOE is considering criteria for
product classes for medical EPSs.
Output power and output voltage are
the leading criteria, as with Class A
EPSs. Additional criteria are specific to
medical EPSs, including the number of
output voltages and output cable length.
DOE is aware of very few medical EPSs
with multiple-voltage outputs (section
II.B.5) and is not considering a separate
product class for these EPSs at this time.
Medical device EPSs used with liquids
may require long output cables for
safety reasons, which will constrain EPS
efficiency because longer cables have
higher resistance and are therefore less
efficient.
>60 watts
Medical Product Class 3.
Medical Product Class 6.
d. Product Class Distinctions for EPSs
for BCs
EPSs for BCs and Class A EPSs also
have diverse markets with many enduse applications. The primary difference
is that EPSs for BCs are specifically used
with battery-charging applications.
However, under Approach A, EPSs for
BCs are viewed as electrically
equivalent to Class A EPSs. Therefore,
DOE is considering dividing EPSs for
BCs into the same product classes as
Class A EPSs, listed in Table II.17.
TABLE II.17—PRODUCT CLASSES FOR EPSS FOR BCS
Nameplate output power
Nameplate output voltage
<4 watts
≤12 volts ...........................................
>12 volts ...........................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:10 Nov 02, 2009
4–60 watts
EPS for BC Product Class 1 .......
EPS for BC Product Class 4 .......
EPS for BC Product Class 2 .......
EPS for BC Product Class 5 .......
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
>60 watts
EPS for BC Product Class 3.
EPS for BC Product Class 6.
03NOP2
56944
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Similar to medical EPSs, two
variables in combination define six
product classes for EPSs for BCs:
Nameplate output voltage and
nameplate output power.
5. Technology Options for Improving
Energy Efficiency
DOE considered several technology
options that may improve the efficiency
of Class A and non-Class A EPSs
(discussed in further detail in the TSD):
Improved Transformers. In linefrequency EPSs, the transformer has the
largest effect on efficiency. Transformer
efficiency can be improved by using
cores and windings with lower-loss
material, such as lower electrical
resistance, or by adding extra material.
Switched-Mode Power Supply. Linefrequency EPSs often use linear
regulators to maintain a constant output
voltage. By using a switched-mode
circuit architecture, a designer can limit
both losses associated with the
transformer and the regulator. The
differences between the two EPS types
are discussed in the TSD.
Low-Power Integrated Circuits. The
efficiency of the EPS can be further
improved by substituting low-power IC
controllers to drive the switching
transistor, which can switch more
efficiently in active mode and reduce
power consumption in no-load mode.
For instance, the IC can turn off its startup current (sourced from the primary
side of the power supply) once the
output voltage is stable. This increases
conversion efficiency and decreases noload power consumption. In addition,
when in no-load mode, the IC can turn
off the switching transistor for extended
periods of time (termed ‘‘cycleskipping’’).
Multi-Mode Integrated Circuits. These
ICs combine current limiting,
temperature limiting, over-voltage, and
under-voltage functions, which allow
the controller to adjust to a wide range
of loads. At full loads, the IC works in
a high frequency pulse-width
modulation mode. As the load
decreases, the IC can shift into a
variable frequency mode and at no load
the IC can use a fixed peak current,
multi-cycle modulation scheme.
Schottky Diodes and Synchronous
Rectification. Both line-frequency and
switched-mode EPSs use diodes to
rectify output voltage. Schottky diodes
and synchronous rectification can also
replace standard diodes to reduce
rectification losses, which are
increasingly significant at low output
voltage. Schottky diodes have a lower
voltage drop than standard diodes and
thus result in less power loss.
Synchronous rectification replaces the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
diodes with a transistor for even less
power loss.
Low-Loss Transistors. The switching
transistor dissipates energy due to its
drain-to-source resistance (RDS_ON)
when the current flows through the
transistor to the transformer. Using
transistors with low RDS_ON can reduce
this loss.
Resonant Switching. In addition to
reducing the RDS_ON of the transistor,
power consumption can be lowered
further by the IC controller decreasing
switching voltage transients (the sharp
changes in voltage that come from
opening or closing the circuit with a
transistor) through zero-voltage or zerocurrent switching. The power
consumption of the transistor (as it
switches from on to off or vice versa) is
influenced by the product of the
transitional voltage across the RDS_ON
and the transitional current flowing
through it. An IC can control the timing
of switching to minimize the presence
of significant current and voltage at the
same time, although some components
are typically needed in addition to the
IC to achieve the desired resonance or
quasi resonance.
Resonant (‘‘Lossless’’) Snubbers. In
switched-mode EPSs, a common
snubber protects the switching
transistor from the high voltage spike
that occurs after the transistor turns off
by dissipating that power as heat. A
resonant or lossless snubber recycles
that energy rather than dissipating it.
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Introduction
The purpose of this engineering
analysis is to determine the relationship
between a non-Class A EPS’s efficiency
and its ERMC. (The efficiency-related
materials cost includes all of the
efficiency-related raw materials listed in
the bill of materials but not the direct
labor and overhead needed to create the
final product. The materials cost forms
the basis for the price consumers
eventually pay.) This relationship serves
as the basis for the underlying costs and
benefits to individual consumers
(section II.B) and the Nation (life-cycle
cost analysis and national impacts
analysis). The output of the engineering
analysis provides the ERMC at selected,
discrete levels of efficiency for six EPSs
‘‘representative’’ of non-Class A EPSs.
This section details the development of
this analysis and includes descriptions
of the analysis structure, inputs, and
outputs with supporting material in the
TSD. DOE welcomes comments from
interested parties on all aspects of this
analysis.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
To develop this analysis, DOE
gathered data by interviewing
manufacturers, conducting independent
testing and research, and
commissioning EPS teardowns. Through
interviews, manufacturers provided
information on the relative popularity of
EPS models and the cost of increasing
their efficiency. To validate the
information provided by manufacturers,
DOE performed its own market research
and testing. To independently establish
the cost of some of the tested units, DOE
contracted iSuppli Corp., an industry
leader in the field of electronics cost
estimation. For a detailed discussion of
these data sources, see section II.C.2.
In section II.C.3, DOE presents
representative product classes and
representative units, which allows DOE
to focus its analysis on a few specific
power converters and subsequently
transfer the results to all units. DOE
began the engineering analysis by
identifying the representative product
classes and selecting one representative
unit for analysis from each of the
representative product classes. The
representative product classes are a
subset of the product classes identified
in section II.B. The representative units,
in turn, are theoretical idealized models
of popular or typical devices within the
representative product classes.
Although the efficiency of power
converters in the market forms an
almost continuous spectrum, DOE
focused its analysis at select CSLs
(section II.C.4). In the engineering
analysis, DOE examined the cost of
meeting each CSL for each
representative unit. The resulting
relationship was termed an
‘‘engineering curve’’ or ‘‘cost-efficiency
curve.’’ The outputs of this analysis are
the cost-efficiency points that define
those curves and are presented in
section II.C.6.
2. Data Sources
a. Manufacturer Interviews
In 2008, on behalf of DOE, Navigant
Consulting, Inc. (Navigant Consulting)
interviewed nine manufacturers to
obtain data on what makes non-Class A
EPSs unique in terms of market and
technical requirements as well as their
possible efficiencies and resultant costs.
At the request of some manufacturers,
Navigant Consulting entered into nondisclosure agreements whereby it can
present to DOE general information
about the non-Class A EPS market and
technology, but no confidential data
specific to any individual manufacturer.
These interviews enabled Navigant
Consulting to obtain general information
about the non-Class A EPS market and
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
56945
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
technology to conduct the analysis but
without attributing any particular data
to an individual manufacturer. The
interviews were generally structured to
elicit information similar to the
information DOE presents in the TSD.
DOE continues to seek input from
interested parties regarding all aspects
of the rulemaking, cost and efficiency
data in particular.
Because of the limited markets for
multiple-voltage EPSs, Navigant
Consulting identified two manufacturers
in addition to Microsoft that produce
EPSs for the Xbox 360, but they had
limited availability for interviews.
Although Microsoft speculated on two
discrete steps to improve the efficiency
of multiple-voltage EPSs and their costs,
none of the manufacturers provided
detailed cost-efficiency points for a
wide range of efficiencies. For the other
application of multiple-voltage EPSs,
multiple-function devices, both an OEM
and its EPS supplier provided market
and cost-efficiency data.
For high-power EPSs, DOE identified
10 manufacturers of EPSs for ham
radios. Of these, LHV Power and
Diamond Antenna agreed to be
interviewed; the other manufacturers of
high-power EPSs are based in Asia, and
their U.S.-based sales staff declined to
participate in the interviews. The
manufacturers that did participate
provided discrete cost-efficiency points,
but did not provide comprehensive data
for the high-power EPS CSLs presented
in section II.C.4.
The market for medical EPSs has
various manufacturers and of these, four
agreed to be interviewed, while other
companies were contacted but were not
responsive to requests for an interview.
The interviews focused on the different
technical and legal requirements for
medical EPSs, in contrast to Class A
EPSs. Although none of the
manufacturers provided a complete
cost-efficiency curve, some were able to
cite the differences in technology
options and costs for EPSs that did and
did not meet EISA 2007 standards
(section II.C.6.c). The other
manufacturers discussed the technical
requirements for medical EPSs, but did
not provide cost information.
DOE is analyzing EPSs for BCs that
are wall adapters without charge control
that are used with certain battery
charging applications, as explained in
section I.B and discussed in the TSD.
Navigant Consulting has not yet
identified and interviewed
manufacturers of EPSs for BCs, relying
instead on teardowns of Class A EPSs.
DOE welcomes additional data from
interested parties on any non-Class A
EPSs.
b. Independent Testing and Research
DOE reviewed online distributor
catalogs to independently assess the
market for non-Class A EPSs. DOE used
this information in choosing
representative product classes,
presented in section II.C.3.
To independently verify efficiency
data, DOE obtained and measured the
efficiency of 18 non-Class A EPSs (Table
II.18). All EPSs were bought online
through distributors’ Web sites, except
one multiple-voltage EPS that a
manufacturer loaned to DOE contractors
for testing. For comparison, DOE also
examined 16 Class A EPSs with
characteristics similar to the medical
EPSs and EPSs for BCs under
consideration. EPSs with a single output
voltage were subjected to the DOE test
procedure for EPSs. (10 CFR 430,
subpart B, appendix Z) EPSs with
multiple output voltages were subjected
to the test procedure that DOE had
previously proposed (but has not yet
adopted) for multiple-voltage EPSs. (73
FR 48079–83)
TABLE II.18—NON-CLASS A EPSS TESTED FOR EFFICIENCY BY DOE, SORTED BY TYPE AND EFFICIENCY
Index
Type
Multiple Voltage ..
Multiple Voltage ..
Multiple Voltage ..
Multiple Voltage ..
Multiple Voltage ..
Multiple Voltage ..
High Power .........
High Power .........
High Power .........
High Power .........
Medical ...............
Medical ...............
Class A ...............
Class A ...............
Class A ...............
Class A ...............
Class A ...............
Class A ...............
Class A ...............
Class A ...............
27 ..................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
218 ................
217 ................
216 ................
213 ................
214 ................
203 ................
404 ................
401 ................
402 ................
403 ................
301 ................
302 ................
130 ................
117 ................
120 ................
118 ................
106 ................
105 ................
103 ................
17 ..................
Class A ...............
22 ..................
25 ..................
37 ..................
18 ..................
21 ..................
24 ..................
8 ....................
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
VerDate Nov<24>2008
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Nameplate
output
power
W
Topology
Switched-mode ..
Switched-mode ..
Switched-mode ..
Switched-mode ..
Switched-mode ..
Switched-mode ..
Linear regulated
Linear regulated
Switched-mode ...
Switched-mode ...
Switched-mode ...
Switched-mode ...
Linear regulated
Switched-mode ...
Switched-mode ...
Switched-mode ...
Switched-mode ...
Switched-mode ...
Switched-mode ...
Line-frequency,
linear regulated.
Line-frequency,
switched-mode
regulated.
Switched-mode ..
Switched-mode ..
Switched-mode ..
Switched-mode ..
Switched-mode ..
Switched-mode ..
Switched-mode ...
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
40
40
203
203
203
203
345
345
345
345
18
20
14.4
18
18
18
2.5
2.5
1.75
5
Nameplate
output
voltage
V
No-load
power
W
32
32
12
12
12
12
13.8
13.8
13.8
13.8
12
12
12
12
12
12
5
5
5
5
84
86
81
82
85
86
51
62
81
84
78
80
64
78
78
81
63
67
74
36
0.26
0.27
5.16
12.33
0.40
3.29
12.60
15.43
6.01
6.65
0.33
0.29
0.56
0.65
0.56
0.27
0.13
0.13
0.12
1.85
5
5
49
5
5
5
5
5.2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5.2
5
5
59
66
66
70
71
72
73
Fmt 4701
16,
16,
5,
5,
5,
5,
Average active-mode
efficiency
(percent)
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
Efficiency-related
materials cost
$
Source
$2.77
2.99
DOE.
DOE.
6.45
iSuppli.
9.08
iSuppli.
115.32
33.64
iSuppli.
iSuppli.
2.23
2.27
1.49
2.00
2.22
1.96
1.13
0.75
0.77
1.16
iSuppli.
iSuppli.
DOE.
iSuppli.
iSuppli.
iSuppli.
iSuppli.
iSuppli.
iSuppli.
DOE.
1.42
1.54
DOE.
0.42
0.64
0.66
0.54
0.10
0.11
0.11
1.29
1.45
1.50
1.46
1.63
1.34
1.06
DOE.
DOE.
DOE.
DOE.
DOE.
DOE.
DOE.
03NOP2
56946
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
DOE contracted iSuppli Corp. to tear
down and estimate the materials cost for
select units. For this analysis, DOE only
considered the materials cost of
components related to efficiency: the
ERMC. Direct labor and overhead as
well as non-production costs are
accounted for in the markup from ERMC
to efficiency-related manufacturer’s
selling price (MSP), as in Figure II.3.
These cost estimates also account for the
typical number of units produced by the
manufacturer as well as the
manufacturer’s location (and associated
labor rates). Table II.18 shows the
results of the cost estimates.
iSuppli provided DOE with a
complete list of components, referred to
as the ‘‘bill of materials,’’ for each
product. DOE grouped components into
three categories based on their impact
on cost and efficiency: directly related,
secondarily related, or not related to
efficiency (Table II.19). For example,
components such as transistors and
capacitors are considered to have a
direct effect on efficiency. DOE grouped
enclosures and printed circuit boards
(PCBs) as secondary since they tend to
vary with efficiency, but do not directly
affect it. Components such as labels and
screws that have no relation to
efficiency were considered not related.
DOE used costs for components with a
direct relation to efficiency to generate
cost estimates (listed in Table II.18).
Secondary components are not included
in the efficiency-related cost estimate
because DOE does not believe that they
should be included in the cost of
materials affecting efficiency. In
developing the cost-efficiency curves in
section II.C.3, DOE only considered the
efficiency-related costs.
DOE seeks input on which of the
components listed in Table II.19 should
be included in the efficiency-related
cost estimates, in particular the
secondary components.
c. Teardown Cost Estimates
TABLE II.19—COMPONENT CATEGORIZATION FOR BILL OF MATERIALS ANALYSIS
Component type
Efficiency grouping
Batteries .........................................
Batteries .........................................
Batteries .........................................
Discrete Semiconductor .................
Discrete Semiconductor .................
Discrete Semiconductor .................
Discrete Semiconductor .................
Discrete Semiconductor .................
Discrete Semiconductor .................
Display ...........................................
Display ...........................................
Display ...........................................
Display ...........................................
Display ...........................................
Electro-Mechanical .........................
Electro-Mechanical .........................
Electro-Mechanical .........................
Electro-Mechanical .........................
Electro-Mechanical .........................
Electro-Mechanical .........................
Electro-Mechanical .........................
Mechanical .....................................
Disposable ....................................
Other .............................................
Rechargeable ...............................
Other .............................................
Rectifier .........................................
Thyristor ........................................
Diode ............................................
Diode—Schottky ...........................
Transistor ......................................
Color LCD .....................................
Monochrome LCD ........................
Color OLED ..................................
Monochrome OLED ......................
Other .............................................
Antenna ........................................
Connector .....................................
Connector (output cord only) ........
Other .............................................
PCB ..............................................
Relay .............................................
Switch ...........................................
Plastics & Elastomers—consumer
product parts.
Plastics
&
Elastomers—wall
adapter case only.
Metal .............................................
Metal—case only ..........................
Metal—heatsinks only ..................
Other .............................................
Analog ...........................................
Logic .............................................
Memory .........................................
Multi-Chip IC .................................
Other .............................................
LEDs .............................................
Capacitor ......................................
Battery pack ..................................
Battery pack ..................................
Battery pack ..................................
Electronics ....................................
Electronics ....................................
Electronics ....................................
Electronics ....................................
Electronics ....................................
Electronics ....................................
Other .............................................
Other .............................................
Other .............................................
Other .............................................
Other .............................................
Other .............................................
Other .............................................
Output cord—Secondary ..............
Other .............................................
PCB—Secondary. .........................
Other .............................................
Other .............................................
Other .............................................
Not related.
Not related.
Secondary.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Not related.
Not related.
Not related.
Not related.
Not related.
Not related.
Not related.
Secondary.
Not related.
Secondary.
Not related.
Not related.
Not related.
Case—Secondary .........................
Secondary.
Other .............................................
Case—Secondary .........................
Heatsinks ......................................
Other .............................................
Electronics—IC .............................
Electronics—IC .............................
Electronics—IC .............................
Electronics—IC .............................
Electronics—IC .............................
Electronics ....................................
Electronics ....................................
Not related.
Secondary.
Direct.
Not related.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Mechanical .....................................
Mechanical .....................................
Mechanical .....................................
Mechanical .....................................
Mechanical .....................................
Integrated Circuit ...........................
Integrated Circuit ...........................
Integrated Circuit ...........................
Integrated Circuit ...........................
Integrated Circuit ...........................
Optical Semiconductor ...................
Passive ..........................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
Efficiency impact
03NOP2
EP03NO09.003</GPH>
Component family
56947
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.19—COMPONENT CATEGORIZATION FOR BILL OF MATERIALS ANALYSIS—Continued
Component family
Component type
Efficiency grouping
Passive ..........................................
Passive ..........................................
Passive ..........................................
Passive ..........................................
Passive ..........................................
Passive ..........................................
Passive ..........................................
Passive ..........................................
Passive ..........................................
Passive ..........................................
Passive ..........................................
Passive ..........................................
Passive ..........................................
Miscellaneous ................................
Miscellaneous ................................
Coupler/Balun ...............................
Crystal ...........................................
Filter ..............................................
Isolators/Circulator ........................
Magnetic .......................................
Magnetic (transformer only) .........
Oscillator .......................................
Piezoelectric Component ..............
Resistor .........................................
Resonator .....................................
Sensor ..........................................
Tuner ............................................
Other .............................................
Box Packaging, Printed Matter .....
Other .............................................
Electronics ....................................
Electronics ....................................
Electronics ....................................
Electronics ....................................
Electronics ....................................
Electronics—Transformer .............
Electronics ....................................
Electronics ....................................
Electronics ....................................
Electronics ....................................
Electronics ....................................
Electronics ....................................
Electronics ....................................
Other .............................................
Other .............................................
In addition to the units that iSuppli
tore down, DOE purchased and created
estimated ERMCs for two 40-watt
multiple-voltage EPSs, one 14.4-watt
Class A EPSs, and nine approximately
5-watt Class A EPSs (Table II.18). Rather
than have iSuppli tear down these units,
DOE chose to perform its own
teardowns due to budget and time
constraints. To create the ERMCs, DOE
subject matter experts cataloged the
efficiency-related components to create
a bill of materials. DOE used the bill of
materials and resources on component
prices such as parts catalogs and iSuppli
component prices to develop the ERMCs
(section II.C.5.a and chapter 4 of the
TSD. Lastly, DOE scaled the ERMCs
from the test unit values to
representative unit values using
techniques presented in section II.C.5.d
3. Representative Product Classes and
Representative Units
Based on the product classes for each
type of non-Class A EPS, DOE selected
representative product classes and
representative units. DOE focused on
representative product classes in its
analysis. Results from representative
product classes can be scaled to other
product classes not analyzed.
Representative units are theoretical
versions of EPSs where all of an EPS’s
characteristics are defined, except
efficiency and cost. By varying the
efficiency of the representative units,
DOE can evaluate the resultant costs to
determine the cost-efficiency
relationship.
Table II.20 lists the application,
nameplate output power, nameplate
output voltage(s), and production
volume that specify non-Class A
Efficiency impact
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Direct.
Not related.
Not related.
representative units. Output power
affects both efficiency and cost. At
higher powers, fixed losses in the EPS
are proportionally smaller, making it
cheaper for manufacturers to build EPSs
with higher efficiencies. However, larger
components that are necessary at higher
powers result in higher costs. Output
voltage affects efficiency but not cost,
because EPSs with higher output voltage
have consequently lower output current
and associated losses. Production
volume is the number of units a
manufacturer annually produces for an
EPS design. Higher production volumes
allow manufacturers to leverage greater
economies of scale, resulting in lower
per-component and overall costs for the
EPS. See chapter 4 of the TSD for a
detailed discussion of each
representative unit and its
characteristics.
TABLE II.20—LIST OF NON-CLASS A REPRESENTATIVE UNITS
Output power
W
Type of non-Class A EPS
Application
Multiple Voltage ..............................
Multiple Voltage ..............................
High Power .....................................
Medical ............................................
EPSs for BCs ..................................
EPSs for BCs ..................................
Multi-Function Device .....................
Video Game ...................................
Ham Radio .....................................
Nebulizer * ......................................
Vacuum ..........................................
DIY Power Tool ..............................
Output voltage
V
Second output
voltage
V
16
5
13.8
12
6
24
32
12
........................
........................
........................
........................
40
203
345
18
1.8
4.8
Production
volume
units/year
1,000,000
4,000,000
1,000
10,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
* ‘‘A nebulizer is a device used to administer medication to people in the form of a mist inhaled into the lungs. It is commonly used in treating
cystic fibrosis, asthma, and other respiratory diseases.’’ Wikipedia. ‘‘Nebulizer.’’ 2008. (Last accessed December 17, 2008.) https://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebulizer
4. Selection of Candidate Standard
Levels
Selection of CSLs followed the
identification of representative product
classes and representative units.
Although the ERMC of a unit appears in
the aggregate as a continuous function
of efficiency, for analysis purposes, DOE
focused on discrete CSLs. Note that the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
term ‘‘CSL’’ implies an eventual
standard, although standard setting is
beyond the scope of this determination
analysis. DOE uses the term ‘‘candidate
standard level’’ because it is a term of
art for these discrete levels and because
the CSLs may eventually lead to a
specific standard level. DOE developed
CSLs based on the data sources
discussed in section II.C.2.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
For each of the six representative
units, DOE created four CSLs, although
it may create more levels in future
analysis or in response to comments
from interested parties. These CSLs are
intended to reflect the efficiencies in the
market, although they do not necessarily
include the highest efficiencies. The
CSLs in this analysis are sufficient to
demonstrate whether DOE should
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
56948
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
conduct a standards rulemaking because
they allow DOE to show the possibility
of savings at a CSL above the baseline,
which is the key criterion of the
determination analysis. In future
analysis, DOE may include a max-tech
CSL to reflect the highest achievable
efficiency.
Specifically in this analysis, CSLs are
based on (1) EPSs that have been tested
and torn down, (2) data points provided
in manufacturer interviews, and (3) the
International Efficiency Marking
Protocol for External Power Supplies.
(Energy Star. ‘‘International Efficiency
Marking Protocol for External Power
Supplies.’’ 2008. (Last accessed
November 18, 2008.) https://www.
energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_
development/revisions/downloads/
International_Efficiency_Marking_
Protocol.pdf) In choosing the basis for
CSLs, DOE gave the highest priority to
units that were torn down and tested
because DOE had complete data for
efficiency and cost. If test and teardown
data were not available, then DOE used
data points from manufacturers. If no
data were directly available, DOE
referred to the International Marking
Protocol. DOE presents a detailed
discussion of the CSLs in chapter 3 of
the TSD.
5. Methodology and Data
Implementation
As mentioned previously, DOE
purchased, tested, and tore down EPS
units to obtain data to identify the costefficiency relationship for non-Class A
EPSs. DOE subject matter experts
measured the efficiency of all units
using the appropriate DOE test
procedure and a Yokogawa WT210
power meter. DOE contracted iSuppli
Corporation to determine the ERMC for
most of the tested units. Due to
budgetary and time constraints, DOE
developed a methodology to estimate
the ERMC for other tested units, as
discussed in section II.C.5.a.
In some cases, after DOE obtained cost
and efficiency data for the test units, the
data did not always directly apply
because of differences between the test
unit and the representative unit. DOE
attempted to purchase units for testing
and teardown that have all the
characteristics of the representative
units. Nonetheless, this was not always
possible due to limited product
availability in the market and changes to
the representative units’ characteristics.
As a result, the costs and efficiencies of
certain test units are not directly
applicable to the representative units.
DOE developed a methodology to scale
cost and efficiency data for test units to
estimate what those values would be if
the test units had the characteristics of
the representative units.
Nameplate output power, nameplate
output voltage, and production volume
all influence the cost and efficiency of
an EPS in various degrees. For example,
manufacturers often offer EPSs that
share a common design and have the
same nameplate output power, but
differ in voltage. These differences in
voltage will result in differences in
achievable efficiency, but will not affect
cost. Table II.21 outlines the impacts of
changes to the three characteristics on
cost and efficiency and the models that
were developed to account for them.
TABLE II.21—IMPACT OF EPS CHARACTERISTICS ON COST AND EFFICIENCY
Cost
Efficiency
Output Voltage .........................................
No impact ..............................................................
Output Power ...........................................
Cost increases with power but decreases with
volume; see combined model in section
II.C.5.d.
Cost increases with power but decreases with
volume; see combined model in section
II.C.5.d.
Efficiency increases with voltage; see model in
section II.C.5.c.
Efficiency increases with power; see model in
section II.C.5.b.
Production Volume ..................................
a. DOE Method for Estimating
Efficiency-Related Materials Cost
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
DOE contracted with iSuppli to tear
down and obtain high-volume
production-cost estimates for 12 EPSs
when developing non-Class A costefficiency curves. To obtain further costefficiency points, DOE tore down
additional EPSs and estimated their
high-volume materials costs. DOE used
results from its cost estimates to develop
portions of the cost-efficiency curves for
the 18-watt medical EPS, the 40-watt
multiple-voltage EPS, and the 1.8-watt
No impact.
and 4.8-watt EPSs for BCs representative
units.
To estimate the cost of an EPS, DOE
first created a bill of materials for the
EPS’s efficiency-related components
and estimated the prices of the
components at volumes consistent with
the iSuppli teardown prices. DOE used
two sources of information to develop
its cost estimates: (1) High-volume
component prices from iSuppli bills of
materials, and (2) low-volume
component prices from distributor
catalogs. iSuppli provided DOE with a
spreadsheet containing high-volume
cost estimates for almost 1,000
individual components. To supplement
that data, DOE also reviewed online
catalog prices for components at
volumes of 500 units. Depending on the
information available, DOE used one of
four methods to determine the price for
each component (Table II.22). These
methods allowed DOE to estimate with
reasonable accuracy the high-volume
materials costs for a larger number of
units than would have been possible
using the iSuppli teardowns alone. See
chapter 5 of the TSD for more detailed
information on these methods.
TABLE II.22—ILLUSTRATION OF LOW-VOLUME TO HIGH-VOLUME COMPONENT COST SCALING METHODS USED IN THE
NON-CLASS A ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Component
type
Method
used
0603 Capacitor
Optocoupler ....
1
2
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:10 Nov 02, 2009
Cost estimate for
specific component
High-volume
iSuppli
Low-volume
catalog
Variation of
iSuppli cost
across
component
category
Available .........
Not Available ..
Available .........
Available .........
Acceptable ......
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Categoryaverage for
iSuppli cost
Ratio of averages: iSuppli
cost to
catalog cost
Calculated .......
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
Basis for cost
estimate
Direct iSuppli cost.
Average iSuppli cost.
03NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
56949
TABLE II.22—ILLUSTRATION OF LOW-VOLUME TO HIGH-VOLUME COMPONENT COST SCALING METHODS USED IN THE
NON-CLASS A ENGINEERING ANALYSIS—Continued
High-volume
iSuppli
Low-volume
catalog
Variation of
iSuppli cost
across component
category
3
Not Available ..
Available .........
Excessive .......
4
Not Available ..
Not Available ..
Excessive ........
Method
used
Field-Effect
Transistor.
Unidentified Integrated Circuit.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Component
type
Cost estimate for
specific component
In this example, DOE had a
component cost for the 0603 capacitor
directly from the iSuppli database. The
0603 capacitor is a surface-mount
capacitor often found on printed circuit
boards. DOE used Method 1 (direct
substitution) to estimate the
component’s cost. This method is the
simplest and most accurate because it
relies on a one-to-one match between
components in the two bills of
materials.
DOE did not have iSuppli component
costs for direct substitution for the
optocoupler in Table II.22, but did have
iSuppli cost data for similar
components. To account for this
situation, DOE used Method 2, which
estimated the cost of the optocoupler as
the average iSuppli costs of similar
components. In this method, DOE
grouped the components from the highvolume iSuppli bills of materials into
categories by component family, type,
subtype, and any other relevant
categories, and calculated an average
materials cost for each category. To
ensure that the averages were valid,
DOE only used this approach if there
were more than five cost estimates and
a standard deviation less than $0.02. In
this case, DOE substituted the categoryaverage high-volume cost for the
optocoupler.
DOE also did not have direct iSuppli
component costs for direct substitution
for the field effect transistor (FET).
Further, the average iSuppli component
cost did not meet DOE’s criteria for
validity (sufficient number of data
points and low variation). As a result,
DOE did not estimate the true cost using
the category-average cost because might
not have been accurate. However, DOE
was able to estimate the low-volume
cost of the FET using catalogs. Although
the high-volume cost estimate varied
excessively, the ratios of high-volume to
low-volume cost estimates did not. DOE
averaged these ratios and then scaled
the low-volume cost estimate for the
FET. Using this method, DOE was able
to obtain a more accurate high-volume
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
Category-average for iSuppli
cost
Calculated .......
Calculated .......
cost estimate than would have been
possible through direct substitution of
category-average costs.
In the final example of an
‘‘unidentified integrated circuit,’’ DOE
did not have direct cost information
from iSuppli or component catalogs. In
this case, DOE substituted the categoryaverage costs directly from the highvolume iSuppli bill of materials.
Although this method had the potential
to decrease the accuracy of the EPS cost
estimates, it was used only for a limited
set of components and only for the 40watt multiple-voltage EPS. Chapter 4 of
the TSD contains detailed information
on all of these costing methods.
b. Efficiency Scaling by Output Power
The practically achievable efficiency
of an EPS depends on its nameplate
output power, with lower-power EPSs
tending to exhibit lower active-mode
efficiencies than their higher-power
counterparts. (Changes in output power
do not affect the no-load power
consumption.) However, some of the
EPSs that DOE analyzed for the nonClass A engineering analysis differ in
output power from the representative
units for their product class. This led
DOE to develop a model for estimating
the change in active mode efficiency
when the output power of an EPS shifts
to that of the representative unit.
DOE used market information to
develop its model. By examining the
distribution of Class A EPS efficiencies
in the market, DOE was able to observe
that achievable efficiency increases with
power and that there is a wider range of
efficiency at lower output powers. Any
shift of a manufacturer’s unit to the
representative unit output power should
take into account both effects,
preserving a unit’s relative standing in
terms of efficiency among other units in
the market.
A unit’s relative standing could be
calculated by comparing its efficiency to
the level specified in the ENERGY
STAR EPS Guidelines Version 1.1
(2005), as well as the best-in-market
level, defined as the curve-fit of the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Ratio of averages: iSuppli
cost to
catalog cost
Basis for cost estimate
Scaled low-volume
cost.
Average iSuppli cost.
highest-efficiency units in the ENERGY
STAR qualifying products database for
Class A EPSs. Because of the
fundamental similarities in the design of
Class A and non-Class A EPSs, DOE
extended these same relationships and
datasets to model the impacts on nonClass A EPS efficiency.
The model DOE used in the non-Class
A engineering analysis reflects the
above market dynamics by keeping
constant the ratios among a unit’s
efficiency, the ENERGY STAR level, and
the best-in-market level as the unit’s
output power is shifted to the level of
the representative unit. Because the
ratios are kept constant while the
ENERGY STAR and best-in-market
levels change with output power, the
unit efficiency must also change. This
updated unit efficiency is further
adjusted to account for any differences
in output voltage between the EPS and
the representative unit, as explained in
the following sections. (See chapter 5 of
the TSD for further details on the
mechanics of the model.)
c. Efficiency Scaling by Output Voltage
Together with the nameplate output
power, the nameplate output voltage
constrains a power supply’s achievable
efficiency. Given two EPSs with an
identical design but different output
voltages, the lower-voltage unit will be
less efficient, primarily due to two
factors:
• Resistive losses: Outputting the
same power at a lower voltage requires
higher output current, increasing the
resistive losses, which are proportional
to the square of the current.
• Rectifier losses: The voltage drop
across the output rectifier increases with
higher current, so that at a lower voltage
more power (the amount of current
multiplied by the voltage drop across
the rectifier) will be dissipated,
decreasing the efficiency of the power
supply.
In addition to these losses, the EPS
also experiences fixed losses that do not
depend on the output voltage. These
losses are associated with, for example,
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
56950
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
designs and are equal to the no-load
power consumption of the power
supply. Figure II.4 summarizes the loss
mechanisms described above.
When scaling the efficiency of a
power supply with voltage, DOE first
calculated the typical losses according
to the model presented in Figure II.4.
Because the characteristics of each
component in the loss model were
fixed, the losses calculated using the
model depended only on the output
current and voltage, not the design
specifics of the EPS. In short, the model
returned the same losses for any two
EPSs with the same output
characteristics, regardless of their
designs.
However, because each EPS has its
own specific design, the actual losses of
the power supply differ from those
calculated according to this generic
model. This difference between the
modeled and actual losses does not
depend on the output power or voltage,
but is correlated with the active mode
efficiency and no-load power of the
EPS. Thus, the actual losses of an EPS
can be said to be the sum of two
components: (1) Generic losses,
dependent on output power and voltage
and modeled as described above; and (2)
additional losses, dependent on the
design of the EPS. Because the
additional losses reflect the EPS design
and the purpose of scaling was to
estimate the losses of a particular design
at the representative-unit output power
and voltage, the additional losses were
held constant between the original EPS
and the representative unit to which it
was being scaled.
Having obtained the generic losses for
the original EPS using the model and its
technology-dependent additional losses,
DOE calculated the generic losses for
the representative unit. DOE added the
generic losses to the technologydependent additional losses, resulting
in an estimate of the total losses of the
EPS design at the output power and
voltage of the representative unit. The
efficiency of the representative unit was
finally calculated as the ratio of output
power to the sum of the output power
and the estimated losses.
ERMC of an EPS is roughly a linear
function of output power and a
nonlinear function of sales volume. DOE
used these observations to develop a
statistical model that relates output
powers, ERMCs, and sales volumes of
tested EPSs with the output power and
sales volume of a representative unit in
a product class. The model estimates the
scaled ERMC of the tested unit using the
test unit ERMC, sales volume, and
output power, as well as the
representative unit sales volume and
output power as inputs. See chapter 4
of the TSD for further information.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
d. Efficiency-Related Materials Cost
Scaling by Nameplate Output Power
and Sales Volume
To compare costs and efficiencies in
order to develop cost-efficiency curves,
DOE had to account for variations in
nameplate output power and sales
volume across the EPSs it analyzed. To
do this, DOE developed a scaling model
to determine what the ERMC of a tested
EPS would be if it were produced in the
same sales volume and had the same
nameplate output power as the
representative unit in its product class.
DOE began the model development by
assessing two datasets. The first dataset
consisted of confidential production
cost data for EPSs with nameplate
output powers from 5 to 65 watts at a
sales volume of 5,000 units, provided to
Navigant Consulting. From this
information, DOE observed a linear
statistical relationship between EPS
output power and EPS production cost
in the dataset. The second dataset was
public manufacturer data submitted to
the California Energy Commission (CEC)
in support of CEC’s 2006 appliance
standards rulemaking (available at
https://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/
archive/2006rulemaking2/documents/
comments/NRDC.PDF; last accessed
March 2, 2009). This dataset contained
EPS production cost vs. sales volume for
2-watt and 5-watt EPSs. The
relationship between production cost
and sales volume appeared to be
nonlinear.
Based on observed relationships in
the datasets, DOE determined that the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
6. Relationships Between Cost and
Efficiency
Based on the data sources discussed
in section II.C.2, DOE developed costefficiency curves for each representative
unit by estimating the cost to reach each
CSL. The primary data source for these
curves comes from DOE measuring the
efficiencies of 20 units and iSuppli
tearing down and estimating costs for 13
of those units (Table II.18).
a. The Cost-Efficiency Relationships for
Multiple-Voltage EPSs
DOE developed cost-efficiency data
for the 40-watt multiple-voltage
representative unit primarily based on
manufacturer data. To verify and scale
manufacturer interview data, DOE also
tore down two multiple-voltage EPSs for
multiple-function devices. These EPSs
were at the same output power (40
watts) and sales volume (1,000,000 units
per year) as the representative unit.
Their output voltages (16 volts and 32
volts) were also the same as the output
voltages of the representative unit,
which made scaling unnecessary. Table
II.23 shows the characteristics of the
torn-down EPSs.
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
EP03NO09.004</GPH>
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
the quiescent current of the controller IC
for switched-mode designs or the core
magnetization losses for line-frequency
56951
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.23—CHARACTERISTICS OF TORN-DOWN MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE EPSS FOR MULTIPLE-FUNCTION DEVICES
Maximum
output power
Topology
217 ..................
218 ..................
Output
voltages
Average
active-mode
efficiency
Maximum
no-load
power consumption
ERMC
Sales volume
units/year
W
ID
V
%
W
2008$
units/year
Switch Mode ...........................
Switch Mode ...........................
In interviews, manufacturers provided
data for 12 cost-efficiency points. One
manufacturer described specific changes
that would be necessary to improve
active-mode efficiency from 80 to 90
percent and no-load power
consumption from 0.5 watts to 0.2
watts. These components included
different transistors and IC controllers,
Schottky output diodes, different
common-mode chokes, and transformers
with lower losses. Their usage increased
the cost of the EPSs up to 38 percent
over the 80-percent efficient EPS.
The manufacturers stated costs
relative to a baseline value of 1.00X for
40
40
16, 32
16, 32
86
84
the 80-percent efficient EPS up to 90
percent efficiency at relative costs of
1.38X. DOE used the ERMCs from the
test and teardown results for the two
EPSs in Table II.23 to determine the
absolute cost of the manufacturer data.
Specifically, DOE averaged the results
for the EPSs to determine an average
efficiency (85 percent) and ERMC
($2.88). In the manufacturer data, an 85percent efficient EPS had a relative cost
of 1.10X, which DOE set equal to $2.88.
DOE was then able to calculate ERMCs
for all 12 cost-efficiency points obtained
in manufacturer interviews.
0.27
0.26
2.99
2.77
1,000,000
1,000,000
One manufacturer provided matched
pairs of efficiency and no-load power
consumption, which DOE used as the
basis of the four CSLs. See section II.C.4
for further information. The
corresponding ERMCs for these activemode efficiencies are shown in Table
II.24. These costs range from $2.66 at
81-percent efficiency to $3.67 at 91percent efficiency. Figure II.5 shows the
cost-efficiency curve for a multiplevoltage EPS for multiple-function
devices along with the two torn-down
EPSs.
TABLE II.24—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR A 40-WATT MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE EPS FOR A MULTIPLE-FUNCTION DEVICE
Reference point for level
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Maximum noload power
consumption
Efficiency-related materials cost
W
2008$
Less Than EISA 2007 ........................
Current Market ...................................
High Level ..........................................
Higher Level .......................................
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
81
86
90
91
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
0.5
0.45
0.31
0.2
2.66
2.98
3.54
3.67
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
Basis
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
03NOP2
interview
interview
interview
interview
data.
data.
data.
data.
EP03NO09.005</GPH>
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
0
1
2
3
Minimum
active-mode
efficiency
%
Level
56952
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
In addition to the 40-watt multiplevoltage EPS, DOE also estimated costs
for a 203-watt multiple-voltage EPS for
a video game console. DOE based the
cost-efficiency points on test data for
four EPSs, teardown data for two EPSs,
and two data points from manufacturer
interviews. The torn-down EPSs had the
same output voltages (5 volts and 12
volts) and output power (203 watts) as
the representative unit. However, both
EPSs had a different sales volume than
the representative unit (4,000,000 units
per year). Thus, DOE scaled the ERMC
of these EPSs based on the scaling
model in section II.C.5.d. The
characteristics of the torn-down EPSs
before and after scaling are shown in
Table II.25 and Table II.26, respectively.
Scaled characteristics are highlighted in
gray.
For CSL 0 and CSL 1, DOE used the
efficiencies and scaled ERMCs of EPSs
#213 and #203, respectively. DOE
selected an active-mode efficiency of 86
percent for CSL 2 but required a lower
no-load power consumption of 0.3
watts. The reduction in no-load power
consumption can be achieved by
reducing iron losses in the transformer,
changing the switching frequency, and
optimizing other elements of the
circuitry at a cost increase of $0.13 over
the CSL 1 EPS.
DOE chose an active-mode efficiency
of 89 percent for CSL 3. This efficiency
could be achieved using MOSFETs with
reduced RDS_ON and replacing a
particular Schottky diode with a
synchronous circuit at a cost of $3.11
over the CSL 2 EPS. See section II.C.4
for further information on how DOE
chose the CSLs.
Table II.27 shows the cost-efficiency
points for the 203-watt multiple-voltage
EPS for a video game console based on
the cost of making the improvements
described previously. Figure II.6 shows
the corresponding cost-efficiency curve
along with the two torn-down units.
There is a vertical portion of the costefficiency curve between CSL 1 and CSL
2. This corresponds to the decrease in
no-load power consumption from 0.4
watts to 0.3 watts while the conversion
efficiency remains constant at 86
percent between the two CSLs. The two
dashed vertical lines mark the
efficiencies of the torn-down EPSs.
TABLE II.27—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR A 203-WATT MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE EPS FOR A VIDEO GAME CONSOLE
Reference point for level
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Maximum noload power
consumption
Efficiency-related materials cost
W
2008$
Generic Replacement ........................
Manufacturer Provided .......................
EU Qualified Level .............................
Higher Level .......................................
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
82
86
86
89
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12.33
0.4
0.3
0.3
6.06
8.93
9.05
12.16
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
Basis
Test and teardown data.
Test and teardown data.
Manufacturer interview data.
Manufacturer interview data.
03NOP2
EP03NO09.006</GPH>
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
0
1
2
3
Minimum
active-mode
efficiency
%
Level
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
b. The Cost-Efficiency Relationship for
High-Power EPSs
DOE developed cost-efficiency points
for the 345-watt high-power EPS
representative unit based on testing data
for four units, teardown cost data for
two units, and manufacturer interviews.
Table II.28 shows the ERMCs for the
torn-down units. Because they were at
the same output power (345 watts) and
the same sales volume (1,000 units per
year) as the representative unit, DOE did
56953
not need to scale the ERMCs based on
output power or sales volume. DOE also
did not need to scale the efficiencies of
the torn-down units because their
output voltages and powers were the
same as those of the representative unit.
TABLE II.28—CHARACTERISTICS OF TORN-DOWN HIGH-POWER EPSS
Average
active-mode
efficiency
Maximum noload power
consumption
ERMC
Sales volume
V
%
W
2008$
units/year
Line Frequency .......................
Switch Mode ...........................
DOE developed the ERMC for CSL 0
based on the ERMC of the torn-down
line-frequency high-power EPS shown
as EPS #401 in Table II.28. The data
show that this line-frequency EPS is
expensive mainly due to the materials
costs for its transformer. The ERMC at
CSL 1 was developed based on the torndown switched-mode EPS shown as
EPS #402. Because high-power linefrequency transformers need more
material than high-power highfrequency transformers, the ERMC of the
switched-mode EPS used to develop
CSL 1 is significantly lower than the
ERMC of the line-frequency EPS at CSL
0 ($115.32 vs. $33.64).
To develop the ERMC at CSL 2 for
high-power EPSs, DOE used the ERMC
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Output voltage
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
345
345
14
14
62
81
of the torn-down EPS #402 and
manufacturer interview data. One
manufacturer representative stated that
the efficiency and no-load power
consumption of a high-power switchedmode EPS could be improved by 3
percent by changing the IC that controls
the switching, with a cost increase of
approximately $3.00. Thus, DOE created
an ERMC of $36.64 for the EPS at CSL
2.
DOE developed the ERMC at CSL 3
for high-power EPSs by using the EPS
modeled at CSL 2 along with
manufacturer interview data and EPS
test data. A manufacturer representative
stated that additional increases in
average active-mode efficiency beyond
CSL 2 would cause a 10- to 20-percent
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15.43
6.01
115.32
33.64
1,000
1,000
increase in ERMC per efficiency point
due to the usage of Schottky diodes for
rectification. DOE observed that the
average active-mode efficiency of 85
percent can be achieved by products
already on the market by testing the
efficiency of an available EPS. This EPS
was a percentage point higher than the
EPS used for CSL 2, and DOE created its
ERMC accordingly.
The cost-efficiency points for the 345watt high-power EPS ranged from
$115.32 for a 62-percent efficient linefrequency EPS to $42.32 for an 85percent efficient switched-mode EPS. In
the case of high-power EPSs assessed by
DOE, the more efficient switched-mode
EPSs are substantially less expensive
than the least efficient line-frequency
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
EP03NO09.007</GPH>
Topology
401 ..................
402 ..................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Maximum
output power
W
ID
56954
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
efficiency data is shown in Table II.29
and Figure II.7. The vertical lines in the
EPS at CSL 0. However, cost increases
with efficiency among the switchedmode EPSs DOE assessed. The cost-
figure represent the efficiencies of the
two torn-down EPSs.
TABLE II.29—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR A 345-WATT HIGH-POWER EPS FOR A HAM RADIO
Reference point for level
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
DOE developed the cost-efficiency
points for the 18-watt medical device
EPS representative unit based on test
and teardown data for two medical EPSs
and four Class A EPSs, along with five
data points from manufacturer
interviews. DOE included Class A EPSs
in this analysis because the efficiencyrelated materials costs for medical
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Efficiencyrelated
materials
cost
W
2008%
Line Frequency ..................................
Switched-Mode—Low Level ..............
Switched-Mode—Mid Level ...............
Switched-Mode—High Level ..............
c. The Cost-Efficiency Relationship for
Medical Device EPSs
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Maximum noload power
consumption
19:10 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
62
81
84
85
15.43
6.01
1.50
0.50
device EPSs appear to be the same as
Class A EPSs. This situation became
evident during manufacturer interviews.
DOE tore down EPSs at a range of
sales volumes and nameplate output
powers, all close to 18 watts. The
representative unit in the medical
device EPS product class had a
nameplate output power of 18 watts and
a sales volume of 10,000 units per year,
so DOE needed to scale the ERMCs of
the torn-down units based on the model
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Basis
115.32
33.64
36.64
42.32
Test and teardown data.
Test and teardown data.
Manufacturer interview data.
Manufacturer interview data.
described in section II.C.5.d. DOE also
needed to scale the active-mode
efficiencies of the units based on the
model described in section II.C.5.b.
Table II.30 shows characteristics of the
EPSs before scaling, and Table II.31
shows the same EPSs with the scaled
characteristics highlighted in gray. EPSs
#301 and #302 are used in medical
devices; the other EPSs are Class A
EPSs.
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
EP03NO09.008</GPH>
0
1
2
3
Minimum
active-mode
efficiency
%
Level
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
DOE used the scaled ERMC of the
linear-regulated EPS #130 as the ERMC
for CSL 0. This is the only linearregulated EPS that DOE tore down for
this product class. DOE observed the
market of available EPSs and noted the
wide range of efficiencies and lack of
correlations with ERMC over the
efficiency range. In light of this
observation, DOE chose to average the
scaled ERMCs of the switched-mode
EPSs to create the ERMCs for units at
CSL 1 and CSL 2. The average activemode efficiencies of the units at CSL 1
and CSL 2 are 76 percent and 80
percent, respectively. These efficiencies
correspond to the international
efficiency protocol levels Mark IV and
Mark V (see section II.C.4) DOE believes
that ERMC does not increase between
Mark II and Mark V, but selected the
efficiency range between Mark IV and
Mark V to best reflect available EPS
market data.
To develop the ERMC for CSL 3, DOE
interviewed a manufacturer that
described the components needed to
create an EPS with an efficiency of 85
percent and a no-load power
consumption of 0.15 watts. These
design options included a quasiresonant PWM controller, a primary
FET and secondary synchronous
rectifier circuit with low voltage drops,
a planar transformer, and wiring with a
higher gauge. The manufacturer
56955
estimated that these components would
increase the ERMC of the EPS at CSL 2
by approximately $2.36, although DOE
currently has no testing or teardown
data to verify this point.
Table II.32 lists the cost-efficiency
points for the 18-watt medical device
EPS, ranging from $2.95 for a 66percent-efficient EPS to $5.70 for an 85percent-efficient EPS. See section II.C.4
for further information on how the
active-mode efficiency and no-load
power requirements for medical device
EPSs were developed. Figure II.8 shows
the cost-efficiency curve for the 18-watt
medical device EPS along with data
points for the medical device and Class
A EPSs that DOE tore down.
Maximum
no-load power
consumption
W
Efficiencyrelated
materials cost
%
0 .............
Minimum
active-mode
efficiency
%
Reference point
for level
Level
W
2008$
Less Than the IV Mark ........................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
66.0
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
0.557
Sfmt 4702
2.95
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
Basis
Scaled ERMC of EPS #130.
03NOP2
EP03NO09.009</GPH>
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE II.32—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR AN 18-WATT MEDICAL DEVICE EPS FOR A NEBULIZER
56956
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.32—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR AN 18-WATT MEDICAL DEVICE EPS FOR A NEBULIZER—Continued
Minimum
active-mode
efficiency
%
Maximum
no-load power
consumption
W
Efficiencyrelated
materials cost
%
W
2008$
1 .............
Meets the IV Mark ...............................
76.0
0.5
3.62
2 .............
Meets the V Mark ................................
80.3
0.3
3.62
3 .............
Higher Level ........................................
85.0
0.15
5.70
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
d. The Cost-Efficiency Relationships for
EPSs for BCs
DOE developed the cost-efficiency
points for the 1.8-watt and 4.8-watt EPS
for BC representative units based on
efficiency test data and cost estimates
for 12 Class A EPSs. EPSs for BCs
appear to be able to achieve the same
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
range of efficiencies as Class A EPSs at
the same costs. The majority of the torndown EPSs were produced in nameplate
output powers, output voltages, and
sales volumes that differed from those of
the representative unit (1.8 watts, 6
volts, and 1,000,000 units per year,
respectively). Thus, DOE scaled the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Basis
Average ERMC of switched-mode
EPSs.
Average ERMC of switched-mode
EPSs.
Manufacturer interview data.
ERMCs and active-mode efficiencies of
the torn-down EPSs using the models
described in section II.C.3. The original
and scaled characteristics of the torndown EPSs and additional 5-watt EPSs
are shown in Table II.33 and Table II.34,
respectively, with the scaled
characteristics highlighted in gray.
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
EP03NO09.010</GPH>
Reference point
for level
Level
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
ERMCs of all switched-mode units
shown in Table II.34. This is because
DOE observed no clear correlation
between the average active-mode
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
efficiencies of the switched-mode EPSs
and their ERMCs. See section II.C.4 for
more information on how the activemode efficiency and no-load power
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
EP03NO09.012</GPH>
DOE used the scaled ERMC of the
line-frequency EPS #17 as the ERMC for
the CSL 0. For CSLs 1 through 3, DOE
chose to use the average of the scaled
56957
EP03NO09.011</GPH>
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
56958
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
consumption requirements were chosen
for these CSLs.
Table II.35 lists the cost-efficiency
points for the 1.8-watt EPS for a BC for
a vacuum, ranging from $0.83 for a 24percent-efficient EPS to $0.95 for a 66percent-efficient EPS.
Figure II.9 shows the cost-efficiency
curve for the EPS along with data for the
Class A EPSs that DOE analyzed.
TABLE II.35—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR A 1.8–WATT EPS FOR BC FOR A VACUUM
W
2008$
Less than the II Mark ............................
Meets the II Mark ..................................
Meets the IV Mark ................................
Meets the V Mark .................................
For the 4.8-watt EPS used in a BC
designed for use in a DIY power tool,
DOE developed cost-efficiency points by
using the same data it used for the 1.8watt EPS for the BC analysis. The
majority of the torn-down EPSs were
produced in nameplate output powers,
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Efficiencyrelated
materials
cost
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:10 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
24
45
55
66
1.85
0.75
0.50
0.30
output voltages, and sales volumes
different from those of the
representative unit (4.8 watts, 24 volts,
and 1 million units per year,
respectively). Thus, DOE scaled the
ERMCs and active-mode efficiencies of
the torn-down EPSs using the models
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
$0.83
$0.95
$0.95
$0.95
Basis
Scaled ERMC of EPS #17.
Average of switched-mode test data.
Average of switched-mode test data.
Average of switched-mode test data.
described in section II.C.3. Table II.33
shows the original characteristics of the
torn-down EPSs. Table II.36 shows the
scaled characteristics of the torn-down
EPSs with the scaled characteristics
highlighted in gray.
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
EP03NO09.013</GPH>
............
............
............
............
Maximum noload power
consumption
W
%
0
1
2
3
Minimum
active-mode
efficiency
%
Reference point
for level
Level
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
As it did for the 1.8-watt EPS, DOE
used the scaled ERMC of the linefrequency EPS #17 as the ERMC at CSL
0. For CSLs 1 through 3, DOE chose to
use the average of the scaled ERMCs of
all switched-mode units shown in Table
II.36 because no clear correlation could
be observed between the efficiencies of
the switched-mode units and their
ERMCs. See section II.C.4 for
information on how DOE chose the
active-mode efficiency and no-load
power consumption requirements for
these CSLs.
Table II.37 lists the cost-efficiency
points for the 4.8-watt EPS used in a
56959
DIY power tool BC, which range from
$1.04 for a 38-percent-efficient EPS to
$1.19 for a 72-percent-efficient EPS.
Figure II.10 shows the cost-efficiency
curve for the EPS along with data for the
Class A EPSs that DOE analyzed.
TABLE II.37—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR A 4.8-WATT EPS FOR BC FOR A DIY POWER TOOL
.............
.............
.............
.............
Maximum noload power
consumption
W
Efficiencyrelated
materials
cost
W
2008$
Less than the II Mark ......
Meets the II Mark ............
Meets the IV Mark ...........
Meets the V Mark ............
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:10 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
38
56
64
72
PO 00000
Frm 00033
1.85
0.75
0.50
0.30
Fmt 4701
1.04
1.19
1.19
1.19
Sfmt 4725
Basis
Scaled EPS #17 ERMC.
Average of switched-mode test data.
Average of switched-mode test data.
Average of switched-mode test data.
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
EP03NO09.014</GPH>
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
0
1
2
3
Minimum
active-mode
efficiency
%
%
Reference point
for level
Level
56960
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Introduction
The purpose of the energy-use and
end-use load characterization is to
identify how consumers use products
and equipment, and thereby determine
the change in EPS energy consumption
related to different energy efficiency
improvements. For EPSs, DOE’s analysis
focused on the consumer products they
power and on how end-users operate
these consumer products.
The energy-use and end-use load
characterization describes the unit
energy consumption (UEC), which is an
input to the LCC and national impact
analyses. UEC represents the typical
annual energy consumption of an EPS
in the field. UEC for EPSs is calculated
by combining (1) usage profiles, which
describe the time a device spends in
each mode in one year; (2) load, which
measures the power provided by the
EPS to the consumer product in each
mode; and (3) efficiency, which
measures the power an EPS must draw
from mains to power a given load.
Because of the nature of EPSs, the usage
profile of the device will be related to
the usage profile of the associated
application. DOE assumes that usage
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
profiles will not change over the
analysis period.
For most electric appliances, energy
consumption is the energy an
application draws from mains while
performing its intended function(s).
EPSs, however, are power conversion
devices, and their intended function is
to deliver a portion of the energy drawn
from mains to another application. As a
result, EPS energy consumption is more
appropriately characterized as that
portion of the energy that the EPS draws
from mains that is not delivered to the
load. That is, the energy consumption of
an EPS is the difference between the
energy drawn by the EPS from mains
(EIN) and the energy supplied by the EPS
to the attached load (EOUT).
The following sections present the
inputs, methodology, and outputs of the
annual unit energy consumption
calculations. Section II.D.2 explains
how DOE calculated EPS energy
consumption by examining separately
each energy-consuming mode of the
device. Section II.D.3 contains the usage
profiles and load points DOE used for
each type of EPS based on its
applications. Section II.D.4 presents the
annual energy consumption values DOE
calculated for each representative unit
at each CSL.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
DOE seeks comments on the usage
profiles and unit energy consumption
calculations used in the determination
analysis. DOE also seeks alternative
sources, databases, or methodologies for
developing its energy use estimates. See
chapter 4 of the TSD for additional
information on specific calculations.
2. Modes and Application States
When evaluating usage and energy
consumption for a device, it is usually
sufficient to observe only the energyconsuming modes of that device.
Because the function of the EPS is to
power consumer product applications,
however, evaluating the usage and
energy consumption of the EPS also
requires evaluating the usage and energy
consumption of the application itself.
To avoid confusion when describing
usage and energy consumption from the
perspective of the application, DOE uses
the term ‘‘application state.’’ When
describing usage and energy
consumption from the perspective of the
EPS, DOE uses the term ‘‘EPS mode.’’
By definition, all energy-consuming
application states are part of active
mode from the perspective of the EPS.
That is, since any energy-consuming
application state requires the
application to be connected to the EPS,
any energy-consuming application state
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
EP03NO09.015</GPH>
D. Energy Use and End-Use Load
Characterization
56961
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
is part of EPS active mode. These states
vary by the type of application. In the
discussion of usage profile and load
characterization, DOE will provide an
explanation of the application states it
considered when calculating usage and
energy consumption.
An EPS can be in active mode, noload mode, off mode, or unplugged.
Table II.38 gives a summary of these
modes.
TABLE II.38—SUMMARY OF EPS MODES
EPS mode
Status of EPS connection to mains
Status of EPS connection to
application
Active ......................
No Load ..................
Off ...........................
Unplugged ...............
Connected ............................................
Connected ............................................
Connected ............................................
Disconnected.
Connected ............................................
Disconnected ........................................
Disconnected ........................................
Active Mode: EPCA defines active
mode as the condition in which an
energy-using product (I) is connected to
a main power source; (II) has been
activated; and (III) provides one or more
main functions (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(1)(A)(i)). EPCA defines active
mode for EPSs in particular as the mode
of operation when an external power
supply is connected to the main
electricity supply and the output is
connected to a load (42 U.S.C.
6291(36)(B)). Thus, in calculating usage
profiles and energy consumption, DOE
considers active mode to include any
condition where the EPS is connected to
both mains and the application.
Unless otherwise indicated, DOE
assumed that while in active mode, an
application places a load of 80 percent
of nameplate output power on the EPS
when it is operating, and a load of 20
percent when it is idle. DOE further
assumed that an application places a
load of 5 percent of nameplate output
power on the EPS when the application
is off. The following section further
discusses each application.
No-Load Mode: EPCA defines no-load
mode for EPSs as the mode of operation
when an external power supply is
connected to the main electricity supply
and the output is not connected to a
load (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(D)). DOE
determined that for EPSs, no-load mode
is equivalent to standby, as explained in
the ‘‘Final Rule on Test Procedures for
Battery Chargers and External Power
Supplies (Standby Mode and Off
Mode),’’ published in the Federal
Register on March 27, 2009. (74 FR
13318)
Off Mode: Off mode is a mode
applicable only to an EPS with an on/
off switch in which the EPS is
connected to mains, is disconnected
from the load, and the on/off switch is
set to ‘‘off.’’ This definition was
promulgated in the final rule. Of the
EPSs examined for the determination
analysis, only the two high power
representative units included on/off
switches. In both cases, turning off the
switch fully severed the circuit, creating
a situation electrically equivalent to the
EPS being unplugged from mains. To
estimate energy consumption, DOE
treated the time when the EPS switch is
set to off as equivalent to unplugged
time. DOE seeks information on the
prevalence and usage of on/off switches
on all EPSs.
Unplugged Mode: Unplugged mode is
when the EPS is disconnected from
mains power. No energy is consumed in
this state.
3. Usage Profiles
For many applications, usage depends
strongly on the individual user. To
account for the variety of users and their
associated usage profiles, DOE
developed multiple usage profiles
where appropriate. DOE then calculated
a weighted-average usage profile based
on an estimated distribution of user
types. For each user type, DOE provided
a qualitative description of usage to
explain the quantitative usage profile.
The following subsections describe the
EPS on/off switch selection
(if switch is present)
On.
On.
Off.
application states, user types, and usage
profiles for each representative unit.
a. Multiple-Voltage EPS (40-Watt
Multifunction Device)
DOE identified the following
application states for multifunction
devices:
• Printing, photocopying, faxing
(sending and receiving), and scanning:
The multifunction device is on and
performing one of its primary functions.
• Idle: The multifunction device is on
but not performing any printing,
photocopying, faxing, or scanning tasks.
• Off: The multifunction device is off,
whether by automatic shutdown or by a
user-controlled on/off switch.
For multifunction devices, DOE
developed one usage profile, which
describes usage in an in-home office
setting (Table II.39). This profile was
derived from a DOE report, ‘‘U.S.
Residential Information Technology
Energy Consumption in 2005 and
2010,’’ prepared by TIAX LLC in 2006.
(TIAX LLC, ‘‘U.S. Residential
Information Technology Energy
Consumption in 2005 and 2010.’’
Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy,
March 2006.) This usage profile is
explained further in section 4.3.1 of the
TSD. DOE also derived its estimates of
EPS output power from this report,
except for the printing, photocopying,
faxing, and scanning application state,
which DOE assumed to be 80 percent of
nameplate output power. DOE invites
comments on its usage profile and
output power estimates for EPSs for
multifunction devices.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE II.39—USAGE AND OUTPUT POWER OF EPS FOR MULTIFUNCTION DEVICE
Annual
usage
hours/year
EPS mode
Application state
Active ..................................................
Printing, Photocopying, Faxing, Scanning ......................................................
Idle ..................................................................................................................
Off ...................................................................................................................
Disconnected from EPS .................................................................................
Disconnected from EPS .................................................................................
No Load ..............................................
Unplugged ..........................................
52
1,606
7,102
0
0
* DOE estimated EPS output power for printing, photocopying, faxing, and scanning to be 80 percent of nameplate output power.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
EPS output
power
W
* 32
9.1
6.2
0
0
56962
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
b. Multiple-Voltage EPS (203-Watt Xbox
360)
DOE identified the following
application states for the Xbox 360:
• Video game playing: The console is
on and the user is actively playing a
video game.
• Video game idle: The console is on
and a video game disc is inserted, but
the user is not interacting with the
game, i.e., the game is paused,
abandoned, or at the menu screen.
• DVD playing: The console is on, a
DVD is inserted, and the console is
actively playing a movie.
• DVD idle: The console is on, a DVD
is inserted, and a movie is paused or at
the menu screen.
• No disc: The console is on, but no
disc is inserted.
• Off: The console is switched off.
DOE defined two usage profiles for
the Xbox 360, one for a light user and
one for a heavy user. The usage profiles
were based on in-home usage audits of
video game consoles conducted by The
Nielsen Company in 2006. (The Nielsen
Company, ‘‘The State of the Console,’’
Q4 2006.) DOE assumed 80 percent of
users are light users and 20 percent are
heavy users. DVD usage came from a
TIAX report, ‘‘Energy Consumption by
Consumer Electronics in U.S.
Residences.’’ (TIAX, ‘‘Energy
Consumption by Consumer Electronics
in U.S. Residences,’’ Final Report to the
Consumer Electronics Association,
January 2007.) DOE estimated that DVD
usage did not vary among user types,
and that one-third of video game
consoles would be used as a DVD
player. DOE estimates of EPS output
power for the various application states
were derived from estimates of EPS
input power in a 2008 report from the
Natural Resources Defense Council.
(NRDC, ‘‘Lowering the Cost of Play:
Improving the Energy Efficiency of
Video Game Consoles,’’ November
2008.) DOE invites comments on its
usage profile and output power
estimates for EPSs for the Xbox 360,
summarized in Table II.40. Section 4.3.1
of the TSD contains additional detail.
TABLE II.40—USAGE AND OUTPUT POWER OF EPS FOR XBOX 360
Weightedaverage annual usage
hours/year
EPS mode
Application state
Active ..................................................
EPS output
power *
W
820
560
90
150
150
6,990
0
0
102.62
101.50
95.02
95.02
86.38
2.35
0
0
Playing Video Game .......................................................................................
Idle Video Game .............................................................................................
Playing DVD ...................................................................................................
Idle DVD .........................................................................................................
Idle—No Disc ..................................................................................................
Off ...................................................................................................................
Disconnected from EPS .................................................................................
No Load ..............................................
Unplugged.
* Output power levels for all application states were derived from input power measurements reported in NRDC’s ‘‘Lowering the Cost of Play:
Improving the Energy Efficiency of Video Game Consoles,’’ November 2008, using DOE’s measurements of the efficiency and no-load power
consumption of the EPS that ships with the Xbox 360.
c. High-Power EPS (345-Watt Amateur
Radio Equipment)
DOE identified the following
application states for amateur radio
equipment.
• Transmitting: The radio equipment
is turned on and actively transmitting.
• Receiving: The radio equipment is
turned on and actively receiving.
• Idle: The radio equipment is turned
on but neither transmitting nor
receiving.
DOE defined three usage profiles for
amateur radio equipment based on
conversations with the Amateur Radio
Relay League. The light usage profile is
intended to approximate infrequent use
of a radio system. Light users only use
their equipment for limited periods on
a weekly basis or for an extended period
on a monthly basis. The medium usage
profile is intended to approximate
regular evening or weekend use. The
heavy usage profile is intended to reflect
the usage of a repeater system, which is
a radio setup configured to relay
transmissions automatically, or a similar
continuous use system. Such systems
are typically never switched off. The
light, medium, and heavy usage profiles
were assumed to represent 50 percent,
25 percent, and 25 percent of users,
respectively. Section 4.3.2 of the TSD
discusses these three usage profiles.
DOE assumed EPS power
consumption to be 80 percent of
nameplate in the transmitting
application state and 20 percent of
nameplate in the receiving and idle
application states. DOE also assumed
that while in use, a radio system will be
transmitting, receiving, and idle for 10
percent, 10 percent, and 80 percent of
the time, respectively. DOE seeks
comments on its assumptions about the
usage of high-power EPSs, summarized
in Table II.41.
TABLE II.41—USAGE AND OUTPUT POWER OF EPS FOR AMATEUR RADIO EQUIPMENT
Weightedaverage annual usage
hours/year
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
EPS mode
Application state
Active ..................................................
Transmitting ....................................................................................................
Receiving ........................................................................................................
Idle ..................................................................................................................
Disconnected from EPS .................................................................................
No Load ..............................................
Off or Unplugged. ...............................
EPS output
power
W*
140
140
2,411
0
6,070
276
69
69
0
0
* DOE estimated output power levels at 80 percent of nameplate for transmitting and at 20 percent of nameplate for receiving or idle.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
d. Medical EPS (18-Watt Nebulizers and
35-Watt Sleep Therapy Devices)
DOE identified the following
application states for EPSs for sleep
therapy devices and nebulizers:
• On: The on/off switch is set to on
and the device is in use.
• Off: The on/off switch is set to off
and the device is not in use.
DOE estimated usage for three types
of nebulizer users—light, medium, and
heavy—with an even distribution
among user types. DOE based these user
types around the number of sessions per
day a user employs the nebulizer. From
an energy consumption perspective, a
session involves turning on the
nebulizer, inhaling the aerosolized
medication, and then turning the
nebulizer off. Each session is assumed
to take an average of 10 minutes. The
number of sessions per day ranges from
one in the light usage profile to three in
the heavy usage profile, depending on
the severity of the illness and the type
of medication. DOE also assumed that
because most users require daily
administration of medication, nebulizer
users are unlikely to unplug their
nebulizers (and associated EPSs) from
mains.
Some nebulizers with an EPS offer a
rechargeable battery pack as an optional
accessory. These EPSs lack charge
control because they can power the
product directly without the battery.
The usage profiles do not represent
usage under battery power. Such a
profile would increase EPS energy
56963
consumption because of the losses
inherent in charging and maintaining a
battery. Hence, the nebulizer usage
profiles used in the determination are
conservative estimates of EPS energy
consumption.
DOE estimated that 25 percent of light
users would unplug the EPS and
nebulizer from mains when not in use.
DOE further assumed EPS power
consumption to be 80 percent of
nameplate in the on application state
and 5 percent of nameplate in the off
application state. The usage profiles
DOE developed are contained in section
4.3.3 of the TSD and are summarized in
Table II.42. DOE seeks comments on its
assumptions about the usage of medical
EPSs with nebulizers.
TABLE II.42—USAGE AND OUTPUT POWER OF EPS FOR NEBULIZER
Weighted-average
annual usage
hours/year
EPS mode
Application state
Active ..................................................................
On .......................................................................
Off .......................................................................
Disconnected from EPS .....................................
.............................................................................
No Load ..............................................................
Unplugged ...........................................................
121.7
8,638.3
0
0
EPS output power
W*
14.4
0.9
0
0
* DOE estimated output power levels at 80 percent of nameplate when the application is on and at 20 percent of nameplate when the application is off.
DOE developed one usage profile for
sleep therapy devices that assumes the
user turns on the device when going to
sleep and turns it off after waking 8
hours later. DOE also assumed that
because of the required daily use of the
device, users would likely leave their
sleep therapy devices (and associated
EPSs) plugged into mains. DOE assumed
EPS power consumption to be 80
percent of nameplate in the on
application state and 10 percent of
nameplate in the off application state.
Table II.43 shows this usage profile;
section 4.3.3 of the TSD provides
additional detail. DOE seeks comments
on its assumptions about the use of
medical EPSs with sleep therapy
devices.
TABLE II.43—USAGE AND OUTPUT POWER OF EPS FOR SLEEP THERAPY DEVICE
Annual usage
hours/year
EPS mode
Application state
Active ..................................................................
On .......................................................................
Off .......................................................................
Disconnected from EPS .....................................
.............................................................................
No Load ..............................................................
Unplugged ...........................................................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
e. EPS for Battery Charger (1.8-Watt
Cordless Handheld Vacuum)
DOE identified the following
application states for battery chargers
for cordless handheld vacuums:
• Active charging: The battery is
connected to the battery charger and the
battery is in the process of charging.
• Maintenance: The battery is fully
charged and connected to the battery
charger, and the battery charger remains
connected to mains.
Some cordless handheld vacuums use
cradles to charge the battery. The
cradles that DOE evaluated in its
teardown analysis were found to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
contain no circuitry. The cradle acted as
an extension of the EPS output cord.
Therefore, in representing usage, DOE
treated the time when the vacuum was
detached from the cradle or EPS, and
the EPS was plugged into mains, as noload mode.
DOE seeks comments on these issues
and on the prevalence of detachable
batteries used in household appliances
such as cordless handheld vacuums.
DOE also welcomes comments on
differentiating between wall adapters
and cradles and on the type of circuitry
cradles typically contain.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2,920
5,840
0
0
EPS output power
W
28
3.5
0
0
DOE developed one usage profile for
cordless handheld vacuums with input
from the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers and the Power
Tool Institute. This profile was used to
represent the usage of all the
rechargeable floor care appliances
considered in this determination
analysis. DOE assumed EPS power
consumption to be 80 percent of
nameplate in the active charging
application state and 35 percent of
nameplate in the maintenance
application state. Table II.44 shows this
usage profile; see section 4.3.4 of the
TSD for additional detail. DOE seeks
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
56964
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
comments on its assumptions about the
usage of EPSs with rechargeable floor
care appliances.
TABLE II.44—USAGE AND OUTPUT POWER OF EPS FOR CORDLESS VACUUM
Annual usage
hours/year
EPS mode
Application state
Active ...................................................................
Active Charging ...................................................
Maintenance ........................................................
Disconnected from EPS/Cradle ...........................
..............................................................................
No Load ...............................................................
Unplugged ...........................................................
f. EPS for Battery Charger (4.8-Watt
Power Tool)
DOE identified the following
application states for battery chargers
for power tools:
• Active charging: The battery is
connected to the battery charger and the
battery is in the process of charging. For
power tools, DOE estimated a charge
rate of C/3, i.e., the battery would take
3 hours to charge.
• Maintenance: The battery is
connected to the battery charger and the
battery has been fully charged.
• No battery: The battery is not
connected to the battery charger.
DOE developed two usage profiles for
power tools: One for light usage and one
for heavy usage. Each profile represents
50 percent of users. DOE developed the
heavy usage profile with input from the
Power Tool Institute. DOE developed
the light usage profile based on a scaled-
EPS output power
W
416
8,292
52
0
1.44
0.63
0
0
back user. DOE assumed EPS power
consumption to be 80 percent of
nameplate in the active charging
application state, 35 percent of
nameplate in the maintenance
application state, and 1 watt in the nobattery state. See section 4.3.5 of the
TSD for a discussion of these usage
profiles, which are summarized in Table
II.45. DOE seeks comments on its
assumptions about the usage of EPSs
with rechargeable DIY power tools.
TABLE II.45—USAGE AND OUTPUT POWER OF EPS FOR POWER TOOL
Weighted-average
annual usage
hours/year
EPS mode
Application state
Active ...................................................................
Active Charging ...................................................
Maintenance ........................................................
No-Battery ............................................................
Disconnected from EPS ......................................
..............................................................................
No Load ...............................................................
Unplugged ...........................................................
4. Unit Energy Consumption
EPS power consumption is a function
of three factors: the nameplate output
power of the EPS, the efficiency of the
EPS, and the consumption of the EPS
when it is in no-load mode. To calculate
the energy consumption of an EPS, DOE
combined the time and power
consumption values shown in the usage
profiles above according to a
EPS Output power
W
105
2,093
104
104
6,354
3.84
1.68
1
0
0
methodology explained in section 4.4 of
the TSD. Table II.46 shows the unit
energy consumption values DOE
calculated for each type of EPS at each
CSL.
TABLE II.46—EPS UNIT ENERGY CONSUMPTION (KWH/YEAR)
Type of EPS
Candidate standard level
0
1
2
3
Multiple-voltage EPS for
MFDs
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
15.8
11.2
7.7
6.6
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
This section describes the
methodology that DOE used to analyze
the economic impacts of possible energy
efficiency standards on individual
consumers. DOE performed this analysis
on the same representative units
evaluated in section II.C.3. The effects of
standards on individual consumers
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:10 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
Multiple-voltage EPS for
Xbox 360
High-power
EPS
126.0
32.4
31.9
26.6
103.3
39.5
28.5
24.1
include a change in operating expenses
(usually decreased) and a change in
purchase price (usually increased). DOE
used two metrics to determine the effect
of potential standards on individual
consumers:
• Life-cycle cost is the total consumer
expense over the lifetime of an
appliance, including the up-front cost
(the total price paid by a consumer
before the appliance can be operated)
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
EPS for medical devices
40.2
25.3
19.3
13.6
EPS for
vacuums
12.0
4.6
3.1
2.0
EPS for power
tools
6.9
3.3
2.3
1.6
and all operating costs (including
energy expenditures). DOE discounts
future operating costs to the time of
purchase.
• Payback period represents the
number of years it would take the
customer to recover the assumed higher
purchase price of more energy efficient
equipment through decreased operating
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
56965
systems when buying the video game
systems themselves. Thus, although the
LCC and PBP analyses use the consumer
purchase prices of EPSs, in reality, those
prices are a hidden portion of the prices
that consumers pay for the product.
The energy consumption and
technologies of the non-Class A EPSs
DOE analyzed is assessed in further
detail in section II.B. Chapter 5 of the
TSD contains a description of how DOE
used technology options, energy
consumption, and other input data to
determine life-cycle cost and payback
period.
Unit energy savings (UES) is the
difference between the unit energy
consumption (UEC) in the standard case
and the UEC in the base case. Thus, the
UES represents the reduced energy
consumption of a single unit due to the
higher efficiency generated by a
standard. Once calculated, the UES is
then multiplied by the national
inventory of units to calculate national
energy savings. For each type of EPS,
DOE calculated the shipment-weighted
average UEC of products in that class
sold in a given year. DOE performed
these calculations for each year in the
evaluation period in both the standards
case and the base case. DOE then
calculated UES by taking the difference
between the two cases. Using the
calculated national inventory and UES
for each year of the analysis, DOE
calculated national energy savings by
multiplying the two inputs together.
The national net present value of
energy conservation standards is the
difference between electricity cost
savings and equipment cost increases.
DOE calculated electricity cost savings
for each year by multiplying energy
savings by forecasted electricity prices.
DOE assumed that all of the energy cost
savings would accrue to consumers
paying residential electricity rates. DOE
calculated equipment cost increases for
each year by taking the incremental
price increase per unit between a basecase and a standards-case scenario and
multiplying the difference by the
national inventory. For each year, DOE
took the difference between the savings
and cost to calculate the net savings (if
positive) or net cost (if negative). After
calculating the net savings and costs,
DOE discounted these annual values to
the present time using discount rates of
1 DOE computes a ‘‘simple PBP,’’ which uses only
the first year of operating costs. Thus, operating
costs are not discounted. See section II.E for further
information.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
F. National Impact Analysis
In its determination analysis, DOE
estimated the potential for national
energy savings from energy conservation
standards for non-Class A EPSs, as well
as the net present value of such
standards. Figure II.11 depicts these
analyses, referred to collectively as the
national impact analysis. A brief
description of the national impact
analysis follows.
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
EP03NO09.016</GPH>
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
expenses.1 Sometimes more energy
efficient equipment can have a lower
purchase price than the less energy
efficient equipment that it substitutes.
In this case, the consumer realizes an
immediate financial benefit and thus
there is no payback period.
EPSs are unique appliances because
they are always used in conjunction
with other products of interest. Most
EPSs are packaged with particular
products, so consumers usually do not
buy EPSs directly. For example,
consumers obtain EPSs for video game
56966
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
3 percent and 7 percent and summed
them to obtain the national net present
value. See chapter 6 of the TSD for
additional details.
III. Results
A. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
The tables and figures below present
key results of the LCC and PBP analyses
for all six of the EPS representative
units in the residential sector. All LCC
and PBP results were generated using
the AEO2009 residential sector
reference case electricity price trend, a
start year of 2013, and a nominal EPS
usage pattern. LCC and PBP inputs are
discussed in section II.E. To assess the
impact of a standard on consumers, it is
helpful to compute the LCC savings that
LLCSavingsk → L = LLCk − LCCL
where LCCSavings k→L is the LCC savings
that a consumer would experience when
replacing an EPS at CSL k with an EPS
at CSL L,
LCCk is the life-cycle cost of an EPS at CSL
k,
LCCL is the life-cycle cost of an EPS at CSL
L,
k is the CSL of the EPS being replaced, and
L is the CSL of the EPS being purchased.
a consumer will experience when
replacing an EPS at a particular CSL
with an EPS at a different CSL. Eq. III.1
shows how DOE calculated LCC
savings:
Eq. III.1
Accordingly, DOE calculated a
weighted-average LCC savings based on
how much a potential standard would
affect the market. In calculating the
weighted average, DOE assumed that
consumers below a standard level
would move up to the standard level
and not beyond it when purchasing new
products, while consumers already at
the standard level or above it would
continue purchasing at the same levels.
Thus, the weighted-average LCC savings
represents the LCC savings of the
average consumer affected by standards.
Eq. III.2 shows how DOE calculated the
weighted-average LCC savings:
Eq. III.2
EP03NO09.019</MATH>
product. (Because DOE expects that
there is a wide variety of efficiencies in
the marketplace, it condensed the
efficiencies into the four CSLs for
purposes of analysis.) See Figure III.1
for an example, where (a) shows the
market distribution of efficiencies for
the EPS before standards, and (b) shows
consumers with CSL 0 EPSs replacing
those EPSs with units at CSL 1 due to
the imposition of a standard at CSL 1.
03NOP2
EP03NO09.017</MATH>
DOE assumes that at any given time,
EPSs of a variety of efficiencies can be
found on the market for a particular
product. (For example, there are EPSs of
different efficiencies for radios and
video game systems.) Different
percentages of consumers in the country
own these different EPSs. For example,
DOE believes that 17 percent of the
market may own an EPS at CSL 0 for a
particular vacuum cleaner battery
charger, while 8 percent of the market
may own an EPS at CSL 1 for that same
WeightedLCCSavingsL =
∑ ( LLCSavingsk → L × MARKETk )
k =0
L −1
∑ MARKETk
EP03NO09.018</GPH>
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
L −1
k =0
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
where WeightedLCCSavingsL is the LCC
savings that the average consumer
affected by a standard set at CSL L would
experience, LCCSavingsk→L is the LCC
savings that a consumer would
experience when replacing an EPS at
CSL k with an EPS at CSL L, and
MARKETk is the percentage of the
market already owning EPSs at CSL k.
The same analogy can be drawn for
the weighted-average payback period
calculations; that is, DOE calculated a
weighted-average payback period based
on how much of the market would be
affected by a potential standard. DOE
also assumed that consumers below a
standard level would move up to the
standard level and not beyond it when
56967
purchasing new products, while
consumers already at the standard level
or above it would continue purchasing
at the same levels. Thus, the weightedaverage PBP represents the PBP of the
average consumer affected by standards.
Eq. III.3 shows the equation DOE used
to calculate the weighted-average PBP.
L −1
WeightedPBPL =
∑ ( PBPk → L × MARKETk )
k =0
Eq. III.3
3
L −1
∑ MARKETk
k =0
where WeightedPBPL is the PBP that the
average consumer affected by a standard
set at CSL L would experience, PBPk→L
is the PBP that a consumer would
experience when replacing an EPS at
CSL k with an EPS at CSL L, and
MARKETk is the percentage of the
market already owning EPSs at CSL k.
multiple-function device and had an
output power of 40 watts. Table III.1
and Figure III.2 present the results for
this EPS. Four sets of results are plotted
in the figure:
• ‘‘Weighted Average’’ represents the
average LCC savings weighted by the
percentage of the market already at each
CSL to indicate savings for an ‘‘average’’
affected consumer (Table III.1).
• ‘‘Movement from CSL 0’’ represents
the LCC savings that consumers owning
a. Multiple-Voltage EPS (40-Watt
Multiple-Function Device)
DOE analyzed two multiple-voltage
EPSs. The first was designed for a
the baseline EPS would achieve by
purchasing EPSs at CSLs 1, 2, and 3.
• ‘‘Movement from CSL 1’’ represents
the LCC savings that consumers owning
the CSL 1 EPS would achieve by
purchasing EPSs at CSLs 2 and 3.
• ‘‘Movement from CSL 2’’ represents
the LCC savings that consumers owning
the CSL 2 EPS would achieve by
purchasing the EPS at CSL 3.
TABLE III.1—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE FORTY-WATT EPS
Situation before standards
Standard at CSL
Conversion
efficiency
No-load
power
Percent of
market already at CSL
Consumer
purchase
price
Operating
cost
LCC
Weightedaverage lifecycle cost
savings
Weighted-average payback period
CSL
%
W
%
2008$
2008$/year
2008$
2008$
year
......................
1.29
0.43
0.47
......................
1.9
3.8
3.5
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
0
1
2
3
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
81
86
90
91
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
25
50
25
0
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
8.45
9.49
11.26
11.67
1.86
1.32
0.91
0.78
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
16.44
15.15
15.15
15.01
03NOP2
EP03NO09.020</MATH>
Standard at CSL
56968
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
For the multiple-voltage 40-watt EPS,
all consumers would experience
positive LCC savings if a standard were
set at CSL 1, CSL 2, or CSL 3. The
weighted-average LCC savings for a
standard at CSL 2 is approximately onethird of the weighted-average LCC
savings for a standard at CSL 1 because
50 percent of the market is at a CSL 1
baseline EPS and consumers replacing
CSL 1 EPSs with CSL 2 EPSs would
experience LCC savings of about $0.01.
b. Multiple-Voltage EPS (203-Watt
Video Game)
DOE also analyzed a multiple-voltage
EPS with an output power of 203 watts,
designed for use with a video game
console. Table III.2 and Figure III.3
present the results for this EPS.
TABLE III.2—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE 203-WATT EPS
Situation before standards
Standard at CSL
Conversion
efficiency
No-load
power
Percent of
market already at CSL
Consumer
purchase
price
Operating
cost
LCC
Weightedaverage lifecycle cost
savings
Weightedaverage payback period
CSL
%
W
%
2008$
2008$/year
2008$
2008$
year
......................
38.28
1.79
¥5.32
......................
0.8
6.1
14.2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
0
1
2
3
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
82
86
86
89
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
12.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
5
95
0
0
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
19.08
28.12
28.49
38.29
14.87
3.82
3.76
3.14
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
82.78
44.49
44.62
51.73
03NOP2
EP03NO09.021</GPH>
Standard at CSL
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
All consumers would experience
positive LCC savings if a standard were
set at CSL 1. Consumers replacing CSL
0 EPSs with CSL 2 EPSs realize LCC
savings over 20 times greater than the
weighted-average LCC savings. DOE
believes that 95 percent of the market
currently consists of multiple-voltage
203-watt EPSs at CSL 1, such that
consumers replacing a CSL 1 EPSs with
an EPS at CSL 2 would realize LCC
savings of ¥$0.13. If a standard were set
at CSL 3, only consumers replacing CSL
0 EPSs with CSL 3 EPSs would
experience positive LCC savings.
Because 95 percent of the market would
experience negative LCC savings
(¥$7.24) under a CSL 3 standard,
however, the majority of consumers
would not recover the increased
efficiency-related consumer purchase
price in reduced energy costs over the
expected lifetime of the product.
Note that the weighted-average PBP of
a standard at CSL 2 is greater than the
EPS lifetime of 5 years, even though the
weighted-average LCC savings are
positive. This is because 95 percent of
the market (those replacing EPSs at CSL
1 with EPSs at CSL 2) would experience
56969
a PBP of 6.4 years if a standard were
imposed at CSL 2, while 5 percent of the
market (those replacing EPSs at CSL 0
with EPSs at CSL 2) would experience
a PBP of 0.8 years.
c. High-Power EPS (345-Watt Ham
Radio)
DOE analyzed a high-power EPS that
is used in amateur radio applications
and has an output power of 345 watts.
Table III.3 and Figure III.4 presents the
results for this EPS.
TABLE III.3—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR HIGH POWER 345-WATT EPS
Situation before standards
Standard at CSL
No-load
power
Percent of
market already at CSL
Consumer
purchase
price
Operating
cost
LCC
Weightedaverage lifecycle cost
savings
Weightedaverage payback period
%
W
%
2008$
2008$/year
2008$
2008$
year
......................
223.95
137.24
131.49
......................
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
1
2
3
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
62
81
84
85
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
15.4
6.0
1.5
0.5
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
60
40
0
0
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
208.10
60.71
66.12
76.37
Sfmt 4702
16.20
6.17
5.09
4.50
331.75
107.81
104.93
110.68
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
EP03NO09.022</GPH>
Conversion
efficiency
CSL
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Standard at CSL
56970
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Based on market research, DOE
estimated that no consumers own highpower EPSs at CSL 2 or CSL 3. Note also
that there is no weighted-average PBP at
any CSL because consumers replacing
EPSs at CSL 0 would immediately
realize savings due to the lower
efficiency-related consumer purchase
prices of the EPSs at higher CSLs. DOE
assumed that consumers owning EPSs at
CSL 0 are 60 percent of the market.
d. Medical EPS (18-Watt Nebulizer)
DOE analyzed a medical EPS that is
used with a nebulizer and has an output
voltage of 18 watts. Table III.4 and
Figure III.5 present the results for this
EPS.
TABLE III.4—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR MEDICAL 18-WATT EPS
Situation before standards
Standard at CSL
Standard at CSL
Conversion
efficiency
No-load
power
Percent of
market already at CSL
Consumer
purchase
price
Operating
cost
LCC
Weightedaverage lifecycle cost
savings
Weightedaverage payback period
CSL
%
W
%
2008$
2008$/year
2008$
2008$
year
......................
8.82
8.94
1.28
......................
1.4
0.5
7.7
0
1
2
3
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
66
76
80
85
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
25
25
50
0
10.62
13.04
13.04
20.53
4.74
2.99
2.28
1.60
40.95
32.13
27.60
30.79
Situation before standards
Conversion
efficiency
Percent of
market already at CSL
No-load
power
Consumer
purchase
price
Operating
cost
LCC
Weightedaverage lifecycle cost
savings
Weightedaverage payback period
CSL ..................
%
W
%
2008$
2008$/year
2008$
2008$
year
0
1
2
3
66
76
80
85
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
25
25
50
0
10.62
13.04
13.04
20.53
4.74
2.99
2.28
1.60
40.95
32.13
27.60
30.79
......................
8.82
8.94
1.28
......................
1.4
0.5
7.7
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
03NOP2
EP03NO09.023</GPH>
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Standard at CSL
Standard at CSL
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
All consumers purchasing medical
18-watt EPSs would experience positive
LCC savings if a standard were set at
CSL 1 or CSL 2. The least weightedaverage LCC savings would be
experienced under a standard at CSL 3.
This is because if a standard were set at
CSL 3, consumers replacing CSL 2 EPSs
with EPSs at CSL 3 would experience
negative LCC savings of ¥$3.19,
lowering the weighted average.
56971
e. EPSs for BCs (1.8-Watt Vacuum)
DOE analyzed two EPSs for BCs; one
of them is designed for a rechargeable
hand-vacuum and has an output power
of 1.8 watts. Table III.5 and Figure III.6
present the results for this EPS.
TABLE III.5—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR 1.8-WATT EPS FOR BCS
Situation before standards
Standard at CSL
Conversion
efficiency
No-load
power
Percent of
market already at CSL
Consumer
purchase
price
Operating
cost
LCC
Weighted-average lifecycle cost
savings
Weighted-average payback
period
CSL
%
W
%
2008$
2008$/year
2008$
2008$
year
......................
5.17
3.15
3.38
......................
0.3
0.1
0.1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
0
1
2
3
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
24
45
55
66
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
1.9
0.8
0.5
0.3
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
30
50
20
0
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
3.07
3.52
3.52
3.52
2.15
0.84
0.55
0.35
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
12.27
7.11
5.89
5.03
03NOP2
EP03NO09.024</GPH>
Standard at CSL
56972
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Consumers would experience positive
LCC savings for a 1.8-watt EPS for BCs
if a standard were set at any CSL.
Consumers replacing CSL 0 EPSs would
consistently experience the greatest LCC
savings. For a standard at CSL 2, the
weighted-average LCC savings would be
approximately half as great as the
savings experienced by consumers
replacing CSL 0 EPSs with EPSs at CSL
2. This is because the majority of the
market owns CSL 1 baseline EPSs, and
consumers replacing CSL 1 EPSs with
CSL 2 EPSs would experience LCC
savings that are several times lower
($1.21) than consumers replacing CSL 0
EPSs with CSL 2 EPSs ($6.38). The
situation would be similar for a
standard set at CSL 3.
f. EPSs for BCs (4.8-Watt DIY Power
Tool)
The second EPS for BCs that DOE
analyzed was designed for a
rechargeable power tool and had an
output power of 4.8 watts. Table III.6
and Figure III.7 present the results for
this EPS.
TABLE III.6—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR A 4.8-WATT EPS FOR BCS
Situation before standards
Standard at CSL
Conversion
efficiency
No-load
power
Percent of
market already at CSL
Consumer
purchase
price
Operating
cost
LCC
Weightedaverage lifecycle cost
savings
Weightedaverage payback
period
CSL
%
W
%
2008$
2008$/year
2008$
2008$
year
......................
1.19
0.90
1.03
......................
1.5
0.4
0.3
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
0
1
2
3
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
38
56
64
72
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
1.9
0.8
0.5
0.3
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
25
50
25
0
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
4.32
4.94
4.94
4.94
0.81
0.39
0.27
0.19
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
7.81
6.61
6.11
5.75
03NOP2
EP03NO09.025</GPH>
Standard at CSL
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
All consumers would realize positive
LCC savings if a standard were set at
any CSL. Consumers of 4.8-watt EPS for
BCs replacing CSL 0 EPSs would
experience the greatest LCC savings. For
a standard at CSL 2, the weightedaverage LCC savings would be
approximately half as great ($0.90) as
the savings that would be experienced
by consumers replacing CSL 0 EPSs
with CSL 2 EPSs ($1.70). This is because
the majority of the market owns a
baseline EPS at CSL 1, and consumers
replacing CSL 1 EPSs with EPSs at CSL
2 would experience LCC savings that are
several times lower ($0.51) than
consumers replacing CSL 0 EPSs with
CSL 2 EPSs. The situation would be
similar for a standard set at CSL 3.
B. National Impact Analysis
Table III.7 gives a range of values for
energy savings potential for each type of
EPS at each CSL. These ranges show the
sensitivity of the simulation model to
varying assumptions about the future.
56973
The lower energy savings estimates
assume that the energy efficiency of
non-Class A EPSs would improve over
time due to factors other than a Federal
standard. Conversely, the higher
estimates assume energy efficiency
would not improve over time. DOE also
estimated the net present value of
energy savings and incremental
consumer costs, assuming discount rates
of 3 percent and 7 percent. These
estimates of NPV are shown in chapter
6 of the TSD.
TABLE III.7—NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS POTENTIAL FROM STANDARDS
Cumulative primary energy savings potential 2013 to 2042
(trillion BTU*)
Type of EPS
CSL 1
Multi-Voltage for Multifunction Devices ...............................................................
Multi-Voltage for Xbox 360 ..................................................................................
High Power (>250 W) ..........................................................................................
For Medical Devices ............................................................................................
For Battery Chargers for Floor Care Appliances ................................................
For Battery Chargers for Power Tools ................................................................
CSL 2
26.21–28.2
1.8–30.8
0.25–0.32
5.3–9.7
0.39–0.69
0.24–0.44
46.3–50.4
6.0–34.7
0.30–0.38
21.4–28.7
0.60–0.90
0.42–0.61
CSL 3
52.8–56.9
39.9–69.5
0.33–0.41
42.6–50.6
1.09–1.41
0.63–0.82
If a CSL is selected for each type of
EPS to maximize energy savings, subject
to the constraint that the NPV be nonnegative, total primary energy savings
across all types of non-Class A EPS
could be as much as 141 trillion Btu or
0.14 quads over 30 years. CSL 3 yields
maximum energy savings and has a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
positive NPV (both at the 3-percent and
7-percent discount rates) for all EPS
types except multiple-voltage EPSs for
the Xbox 360. For multiple-voltage EPSs
for the Xbox 360, CSL 2 has a positive
NPV in one base case but a negative
NPV in the other. Thus, to estimate
energy savings potential across all types
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of non-Class A EPS, DOE selected CSL
1 for this one type of EPS. Table III.8
shows the contribution of each EPS type
to total savings potential and the NPV
of a standard set at the selected CSL.
Notably, most of the energy savings
comes from increasing the efficiency of
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
EP03NO09.026</GPH>
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
* 1 Quad = 1,000 trillion BTU.
56974
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
EPSs for medical devices and multiplevoltage EPSs for multifunction devices.
TABLE III.8—ENERGY SAVINGS POTENTIAL WHEN CSLS ARE SELECTED TO MAXIMIZE ENERGY SAVINGS
Type of EPS
Energy savings
potential
2013 to 2042
(trillion BTU*)
CSL
Net present value 2013 to 2042
($ million)
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Multi-Voltage for Multifunction Devices ...........................................
Multi-Voltage for Xbox 360 ..............................................................
High Output Power (>250 W) ..........................................................
For Medical Devices ........................................................................
For Battery Chargers for Cordless Handheld Vacuums ..................
For Battery Chargers for Power Tools ............................................
3
1
3
3
3
3
52.8–56.9
1.8–30.8
0.33–0.41
42.6–50.6
1.09–1.41
0.63–0.82
156–174
13–189
2.4–2.9
81–130
8.0–10.1
4.1–5.1
76–85
9–101
1.2–1.5
27–50
4.5–5.6
2.3–2.8
Total ..........................................................................................
............................
99–141
264–512
120–245
* 1 Quad = 1,000 trillion BTU.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the
Office of Management and Budget has
determined that today’s regulatory
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under section 3(f)(1) of
Executive Order 12866. Therefore, this
action is not subject to OIRA review
under the Executive Order.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis for any rule that by law must
be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. As required by
Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of General
Counsel’s Web site, https://
www.gc.doe.gov.
DOE reviewed today’s proposed rule
under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19,
2003.
Today’s proposed rule, if
promulgated, would set no standards; it
would only positively determine that
future standards may be warranted and
should be explored in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:10 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
Economic impacts on small entities
would be considered in the context of
such a rulemaking. On the basis of the
foregoing, DOE certifies that the
proposed rule, if promulgated, would
have no significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
regulatory flexibility analysis for this
rulemaking. DOE will transmit this
certification and supporting statement
of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for review under 5
U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act
This rulemaking, which proposes to
determine that the development of
energy efficiency standards for nonClass A EPS is warranted, will impose
no new information or record keeping
requirements. Accordingly, OMB
clearance is not required under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act
In this notice, DOE proposes to
positively determine that future
standards may be warranted and should
be explored in an energy conservation
standards rulemaking. DOE has
determined that review under the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA) is
not required at this time. NEPA review
can only be initiated ‘‘as soon as
environmental impacts can be
meaningfully evaluated’’ (10 CFR
1021.213(b)). Because this proposed rule
would only determine that future
standards may be warranted, but would
not itself propose to set any standard,
DOE has determined that there are no
environmental impacts to be evaluated
at this time. Accordingly, neither an
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes
certain requirements on agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have Federalism implications. The
Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive Order also requires agencies
to have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications. On March
14, 2000, DOE published a statement of
policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR
13735. DOE has examined today’s
proposed rule and has determined that
it would not preempt State law or have
a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. EPCA governs and
prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations as to energy conservation for
the products that are the subject of
today’s proposed rule. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent, and based on
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6297) No further action is required by
Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform’’ (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996)
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and
(3) provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard and promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that Executive agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction; (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section
3(b) to determine whether they are met
or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to
the extent permitted by law, this
proposed rule meets the relevant
standards of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)
(UMRA) requires each Federal agency to
assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. For
a proposed regulatory action likely to
result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires
a Federal agency to publish a written
statement that estimates the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),(b))
The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected
officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate,’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
affect small governments. On March 18,
1997, DOE published a statement of
policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under
UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available at
https://www.gc.doe.gov).
Today’s proposed rule, if
promulgated, would not result in
expenditures of $100 million or more in
a given year by the external power
supply industries affected by this
rulemaking. This is because today’s
proposed rule sets no standards; it only
positively determines that future
standards may be warranted and should
be explored in an energy conservation
standards rulemaking. The proposed
rule also does not contain a Federal
intergovernmental mandate. Thus, DOE
is not required by UMRA to prepare a
written statement assessing the costs,
benefits, and other effects of the
proposed rule on the national economy.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
rule would not have any impact on the
autonomy or integrity of the family as
an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to
prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive
Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988), that this regulation
would not result in any takings which
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 2001
The Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
(44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for
agencies to review most disseminations
of information to the public under
guidelines established by each agency
pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. The OMB’s guidelines were
published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22,
2002), and DOE’s guidelines were
published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7,
2002). DOE has reviewed today’s notice
under the OMB and DOE guidelines and
has concluded that it is consistent with
applicable policies in those guidelines.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56975
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to the OIRA a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
proposed significant energy action. A
‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as
any action by an agency that
promulgates or is expected to lead to
promulgation of a final rule, and that (1)
is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor
order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is
designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today’s regulatory action proposing
to determine that development of energy
efficiency standards for non-Class A
EPS is warranted would not have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The OIRA
Administrator has also not designated
this rulemaking as a significant energy
action. Therefore, DOE has determined
that this proposed rule is not a
significant energy action. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a Statement of
Energy Effects.
L. Review Under the Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in
consultation with the Office of Science
and Technology (OSTP), issued its Final
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer
Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664.
(January 14, 2005) The Bulletin
establishes that certain scientific
information shall be peer reviewed by
qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal
government, including influential
scientific information related to agency
regulatory actions. The purpose of the
bulletin is to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Government’s
scientific information. Under the
Bulletin, the energy conservation
standards rulemaking analyses are
‘‘influential scientific information.’’ The
Bulletin defines ‘‘influential scientific
information’’ as ‘‘scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine
will have, or does have, a clear and
substantial impact on important public
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
56976
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
policies or private sector decisions.’’ 70
FR 2667 (January 14, 2005).
In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE
conducted formal in-progress peer
reviews of the energy conservation
standards development process and
analyses and has prepared a Peer
Review Report pertaining to the energy
conservation standards rulemaking
analyses. The ‘‘Energy Conservation
Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report,’’ dated February 2007, has been
disseminated and is available at https://
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/peer_review.html.
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this notice or any
aspect of the rulemaking no later than
the date provided at the beginning of
this notice. After the close of the
comment period, DOE will review the
comments received and determine, by
December 19, 2009, whether energy
conservation standards for non-Class A
EPSs are warranted.
Comments, data, and information
submitted to DOE’s e-mail address for
this rulemaking should be provided in
WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or
text (ASCII) file format. Submissions
should avoid the use of special
characters or any form of encryption,
and wherever possible comments
should include the electronic signature
of the author. Comments, data, and
information submitted to DOE by mail
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:20 Nov 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
or hand delivery/courier should include
one signed original paper copy. No
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
According to 10 CFR part 1004.11,
any person submitting information that
he or she believes to be confidential and
exempt by law from public disclosure
should submit two copies: one copy of
the document including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document with the
information believed to be confidential
deleted. DOE will make its own
determination as to the confidential
status of the information and treat it
according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include (1) a
description of the items; (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known or available from
public sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made
available to others without obligation
concerning its confidentiality; (5) an
explanation of the competitive injury to
the submitting person which would
result from public disclosure; (6) a date
after which such information might no
longer be considered confidential; and
(7) why disclosure of the information
would be contrary to the public interest.
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comments
Comments are welcome on all aspects
of this rulemaking. DOE is particularly
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
interested in receiving comment from
interested parties on the following
issues as they relate to non-Class A
EPSs:
• Applications not included in this
determination analysis,
• Product lifetimes,
• Present-year shipments estimates,
• Present-year efficiency
distributions,
• Market growth forecasts,
• Usage profiles,
• Technology options for increasing
efficiency,
• Costs related to increasing
efficiency,
• Unit energy consumption
calculations and values,
• Prevalence of on/off switches,
• Prevalence of charge control in wall
adapters for motor-operated, batterycharged products,
• Circuitry designs used in cradle
chargers, and
• Alternative sources, databases, and
methodologies for the analyses and
inputs used in this determination.
VI. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 23,
2009.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. E9–26192 Filed 11–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\03NOP2.SGM
03NOP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 3, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56928-56976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-26192]
[[Page 56927]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 430
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Determination
Concerning the Potential for Energy Conservation Standards for Non-
Class A External Power Supplies; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 56928]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-DET-0005]
RIN 1904-AB80
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Determination
Concerning the Potential for Energy Conservation Standards for Non-
Class A External Power Supplies
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Proposed determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), as
amended, requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to issue a final
rule by December 19, 2009, that determines whether energy conservation
standards for non-Class A external power supplies (EPSs) are warranted.
In this document, DOE proposes to determine that energy
conservation standards for non-Class A external power supplies are
warranted. This document informs interested parties of the analysis
underlying this proposal, which examines the potential energy savings
and the direct economic costs and benefits that could result from a
future standard. In this document, DOE also announces the availability
of a technical support document (TSD), which provides additional
analysis in support of the determination. The TSD is available from the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at https://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
DATES: Written comments on this document and the TSD are welcome and
must be submitted no later than December 18, 2009. For detailed
instructions, see section VI, ``Public Participation.''
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE-2009-BT-DET-0005 and/or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
1904-AB80, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: EPS-2009-DET-0005@ee.doe.gov. Include docket
number EERE-2009-BT-DET-0005 and/or RIN 1904-AB80 in the subject line
of the message.
Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, Technical Support
Document for Non-Class A External Power Supplies, docket number EERE-
2009-BT-DET-0005 and/or RIN 1904-AB80, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed paper original.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department
of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024. Please submit one signed paper
original.
For additional instruction on submitting comments, see section VI,
``Public Participation.''
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, the
technical support document, or comments received, go to the U.S.
Department of Energy, Resource Room of the Building Technologies
Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024,
(202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the above
telephone number for additional information about visiting the Resource
Room. You may also obtain copies of certain documents in this
proceeding from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's
Web site at https://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Victor Petrolati, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4549. E-mail:
Victor.Petrolati@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. E-mail: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to submit or review public comments,
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone
(202) 586-2945. E-mail: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of the Proposed Determination
A. Background and Legal Authority
B. Scope
II. Methodology
A. Market Assessment
1. Introduction
2. Shipments, Efficiency Distributions, and Market Growth
3. Product Lifetimes
4. Distribution Channels and Markups
5. Interested Parties
6. Existing Energy Efficiency Programs
B. Technology Assessment
1. Introduction
2. Modes of Operation
3. Functionality and Circuit Designs of Non-Class A EPSs
4. Product Classes
5. Technology Options for Improving Energy Efficiency
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Introduction
2. Data Sources
3. Representative Product Classes and Representative Units
4. Selection of Candidate Standard Levels
5. Methodology and Data Implementation
6. Relationships Between Cost and Efficiency
D. Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization
1. Introduction
2. Modes and Application States
3. Usage Profiles
4. Unit Energy Consumption
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
F. National Impact Analysis
III. Results
A. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
B. National Impact Analysis
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
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 of 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Proposed Determination
EPCA requires DOE to issue a final rule determining whether to
issue energy efficiency standards for non-Class A EPSs. DOE has
tentatively determined that such standards are technologically feasible
and economically justified, and would result in significant energy
savings. Thus, DOE proposes to issue a positive determination.
DOE analyzed multiple candidate standard levels for non-Class A
EPSs and has determined that it is technologically feasible to
manufacture
[[Page 56929]]
EPSs at some of these levels because EPSs with energy efficiencies
meeting these levels are currently commercially available.
DOE further determined that standards for non-Class A EPSs could be
economically justified from the perspective of an individual consumer
and from that of the Nation as a whole. For all EPSs that DOE analyzed,
at least one standard level could be set that would reduce the life-
cycle cost (LCC) of ownership for the typical consumer; that is, any
increase in equipment cost resulting from a standard would be more than
offset by energy cost savings.
Standards could also be cost-effective from a national perspective.
The national net present value (NPV) of standards could be as much as
$512 million in 2008$, assuming an annual discount rate of 3 percent.
This forecast considers only the direct financial costs and benefits to
consumers of standards, specifically the increased equipment costs of
EPSs purchased from 2013 to 2042 and the associated energy cost
savings. In its determination analysis, DOE did not monetize or
otherwise characterize any other potential costs and benefits of
standards such as manufacturer impacts or power plant emission
reductions. If the final determination is positive, then such impacts
would be examined in a future analysis of the economic feasibility of
particular standard levels in the context of a standards rulemaking.
DOE's analysis also indicates that standards would result in
significant energy savings--as much as 0.14 quads of energy over 30
years (2013 to 2042). This is equivalent to the annual electricity
needs of 1.1 million U.S. homes.
Further documentation supporting the analyses described in this
notice is contained in a separate technical support document (TSD),
available from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's
Web site at https://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
This document's information and format are unique to this
determination analysis and do not establish a precedent for future
determination analyses of the Appliance Standards Program. The unique
nature of this document results from the statutory requirement that the
determination be published as a rule (i.e., notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) and final rule). In addition, although Congress,
through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007),
Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007), directed DOE to perform this
analysis, some of the analyses and information contained in this
document were developed earlier as part of the determination analysis
required by EPACT 2005.
A. Background and Legal Authority
Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309)
provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products
Other Than Automobiles. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005)
amended EPCA to require DOE to issue a final rule determining whether
to issue efficiency standards for battery chargers (BCs) and EPSs. DOE
initiated this determination analysis rulemaking in 2006, which
included a scoping workshop on January 24, 2007 at DOE headquarters in
Washington, DC. The determination was under way and on schedule for
issuance by August 8, 2008, as originally required by EPACT 2005.
However, EISA 2007 also amended EPCA by setting efficiency
standards for certain types of EPSs (Class A) and modifying the
statutory provision that directed DOE to perform the determination
analysis (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I), as amended). EISA 2007 removed
BCs from the determination, leaving only EPSs, and changed the amount
of time allotted to complete the determination to 2 years after the
date of EISA 2007's enactment, i.e., by December 19, 2009.
In addition to the existing general definition of EPS, EISA 2007
amended EPCA to define a ``Class A external power supply'' (42 U.S.C.
6291(36)(C)) and set efficiency standards for those products (42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(3)). As amended by EISA 2007, the statute further directs DOE
to publish a final rule by July 1, 2011 to evaluate whether the
standards set for Class A EPSs should be amended and, if so, include
any amended standards as part of that final rule. The statute further
directs DOE to publish a second final rule by July 1, 2015, to again
determine whether the standards in effect should be amended and to
include any amended standards as part of that final rule.
Because Congress has already set standards for Class A EPSs and
separately required DOE to perform two rounds of rulemakings to
consider amending efficiency standards for Class A EPSs, the
determination analysis under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) does not
include these products. Therefore, DOE is interpreting 42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) as a requirement for a determination analysis that
will consider in its scope only EPSs outside of Class A, hence ``non-
Class A EPSs.'' This determination is scheduled for issuance by
December 19, 2009 and is the subject of this notice. The determination
will address whether efficiency standards appear to be warranted for
non-Class A EPSs, i.e., whether it appears that such standards are
technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in
significant conservation of energy (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).
EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA also require DOE to issue a final rule
prescribing energy conservation standards for BCs, if technologically
feasible and economically justified, by July 1, 2011 (42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(II)). This rulemaking has been bundled with the
rulemaking for Class A EPSs, given the related nature of such products
and the fact that these provisions share the same statutory deadline.
DOE initiated the energy conservation standards rulemaking for BCs and
Class A EPSs by publishing a framework document on June 4, 2009, and
holding a public meeting at DOE headquarters on July 16, 2009. If DOE
issues a positive determination for EPSs falling outside of Class A, it
may consider standards for these products within the context of the
energy conservation standards rulemaking for BCs and Class A EPSs
already underway.
In addition to the determination and energy conservation standards
rulemakings, DOE has conducted test procedure rulemakings for BCs and
EPSs. The test procedure for measuring the energy consumption of
single-voltage EPSs is codified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix
Z, ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of
External Power Supplies.'' DOE modified this test procedure, per EISA
2007, to include standby and off modes. DOE proposed a test procedure
for measuring the energy consumption of multiple-voltage EPSs in its
NOPR published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2008. 73 FR 48054.
DOE has set the target date of October 31, 2010 to finalize the test
procedure for multiple-voltage EPSs.
For more information about DOE rulemakings concerning BCs and EPSs,
see the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at
https://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
B. Scope
The present determination analysis considers only those EPSs
outside of Class A, or non-Class A EPSs. EPCA, as amended by EPACT
2005, defines an EPS. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A).
[[Page 56930]]
EISA 2007 later amended EPCA, inserting a definition for Class A
EPS. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C).
Thus, the determination analysis concerns those devices that fit
the definition of an EPS (from EPACT 2005) but do not fit the
definition of a Class A EPS (from EISA 2007).
Considering the above definitions, DOE identified four types of
power conversion devices on the market to analyze for its determination
on non-Class A EPSs: (1) Multiple-voltage EPSs--EPSs that can provide
multiple output voltages simultaneously; (2) high-power EPSs--EPSs with
nameplate output power greater than 250 watts; (3) medical EPSs--EPSs
that power medical devices and EPSs that are themselves medical
devices; and (4) EPSs for battery chargers (EPSs for BCs)--EPSs that
power the chargers of detachable battery packs or charge the batteries
of products that are fully or primarily motor operated.
Class A EPSs, by definition, may provide only one output voltage at
a time and have nameplate output power no greater than 250 watts.
Multiple-voltage and high-power EPSs fall outside this group. Medical
EPSs and EPSs for battery chargers are specifically excluded from Class
A and can be considered non-Class A EPSs.
DOE considers both EPSs that power medical devices and EPSs that
are themselves medical devices to be non-Class A EPSs. A literal
reading of EPCA would exclude from Class A only those EPSs that are
themselves medical devices. As EPCA states, ``The term `class A
external power supply' does not include any device that requires
Federal Food and Drug Administration listing and approval as a medical
device in accordance with section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360c).'' 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C) However, a
search of FDA's product classification database for ``power supply''
reveals only one EPS that is a medical device--auxiliary power supply
(alternating current (AC) or direct current (DC)) for external
transcutaneous cardiac pacemakers. Furthermore, all EPSs used with
medical devices must meet the special requirements of UL 60601
(Underwriters Laboratories standard for power supplies for medical
devices), discussed further in section 2.2.3 of the TSD. Accordingly,
because the exclusion applies to ``any device'' covered by the FDA's
listing and approval requirements, DOE interprets EPCA to also exclude
from Class A those EPSs that power medical devices. Consistent with
this approach, DOE analyzed those EPSs that power medical devices that
are consumer products for purposes of today's proposed determination.
Lastly, DOE considered EPSs that power the chargers of detachable
battery packs or charge the batteries of products that are fully or
primarily motor operated. DOE refers to these two groups of products
collectively as ``EPSs for BCs.'' Products that are fully or primarily
motor operated include portable rechargeable household appliances such
as handheld vacuums, personal care products such as shavers, and power
tools.
EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, defines a detachable battery as ``a
battery that is (A) contained in a separate enclosure from the product;
and (B) intended to be removed or disconnected from the product for
recharging.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(52)) The phrase ``contained in a separate
enclosure from the product'' appears earlier within the Class A EPS
definition. In this context, the definition limits Class A EPSs to
devices ``contained in a separate physical enclosure from the end-use
product,'' i.e., a separate component outside the physical boundaries
of the end-use consumer product. (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)(IV))
Similarly, when applied to detachable batteries, this phrase can also
be interpreted to mean ``wholly outside the physical boundaries of the
end-use consumer product.'' BCEPS Framework Document, p. 21 (June 4,
2009), available at https://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external_std_2008.html. This is in
contrast to batteries contained in an enclosure wholly or partly inside
the physical boundaries of the end-use consumer product (e.g., inside a
battery compartment).
Further, detachable batteries must be ``intended to be removed or
disconnected from the product for recharging.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(52)(B))
Thus, even if a battery is not contained inside the product, it may not
be considered detachable unless it is also intended to be removed or
disconnected from the product for recharging.
Several popular models of camcorders employ wall adapters that can
be used to power the camcorder and charge its battery. Even though
these batteries are not contained inside the product, it is not
necessary to remove them for charging. Rather, the wall adapter plugs
directly into the camcorder body or into a cradle that accepts the
entire camcorder. Because the batteries do not need to be removed for
recharging, DOE does not consider these batteries detachable.
Accordingly, wall adapters for these camcorders are included in the
Class A EPS definition (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(ii)(II)) and, therefore,
are not analyzed in this determination.
The statute does not provide clear guidance for determining which,
if any, of the devices that power battery-charged products are EPSs and
leaves open the issue of how DOE should classify the wall adapters that
are part of battery charging systems. Because ``external power supply''
has a specific legal meaning, the term ``wall adapter'' is used to
refer to the potentially larger set of external power converters for
consumer products. DOE's initial review of these products indicates
that some of these wall adapters for battery chargers could be
electrically equivalent to the wall adapters that power applications
other than battery chargers. However, while all wall adapters ``convert
household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC
current,'' as stated in the statutory definition (42 U.S.C.
6291(36)(A)), at least some wall adapters for battery chargers also
provide additional charge control functions necessary for battery
charging. These additional functions may add to the cost and power
consumption of the wall adapter. These wall adapters generally are not
interchangeable, but are designed to be components of specific BCs.
DOE is considering adopting one of two approaches relevant to this
determination analysis with respect to when a wall adapter would be
categorized as an EPS. The approaches differ in their scope of coverage
for EPSs. Under the first approach (Approach A), DOE would consider
only those wall adapters that do not provide additional charge control
functions to be EPSs. These EPSs have constant-voltage output that is
electrically equivalent to Class A EPSs. Under the other approach
(Approach D), DOE would consider wall adapters with and without charge
control functions to be EPSs. These include EPSs with constant-voltage
output equivalent to Class A EPSs as well as those that do not have
constant-voltage output, which may indicate the presence of charge
control. The approaches are described in greater detail in section
3.2.3.3 of DOE's framework document for the BC and EPS energy
conservation standards rulemaking (available at https://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external_std_2008.html). Interested parties are encouraged
to refer to the framework document for more detail and provide input to
DOE on the approaches. (Other approaches described in that document are
not used in today's analysis because either they
[[Page 56931]]
would conflict with statutory requirements, i.e., Approach B, or would
be equivalent in scope to Approach A, i.e., Approach C.) DOE will
consider all comments received in its selection of an approach.
The present determination analysis includes only those devices that
are EPSs under Approach A (wall adapters without charge control). Under
Approach A, this draft determination finds that energy efficiency
standards are economically justified, technologically feasible, and
would result in significant energy savings. Based on the data collected
to date, the set of EPSs under Approach A is a subset of EPSs under
Approach D. Thus, DOE believes that were it to adopt the broader
Approach D, the energy savings potential from standards for non-Class A
EPSs would be greater compared to Approach A. DOE seeks comment on
whether Approach A reasonably estimates the minimum amount of
significant energy savings under this analysis.
While the approaches noted above address the question of what is
and is not an EPS, there are additional scoping issues unique to non-
Class A EPSs. In particular, there are four criteria under which an EPS
could be considered non-Class A: (1) Multiple output voltages, (2) high
output power, (3) designed for medical use, and (4) designed for
battery charging. This determination analysis examines EPSs that meet
any one of these criteria, but not those EPSs that meet multiple
criteria. These EPSs remain within the scope of the determination,
however. For instance, this analysis does not evaluate EPSs such as the
Astec Electronics power supply model DPT54-M, which has three
simultaneous output voltages and UL 60601 medical certification,
although it does address EPSs with either multiple output voltages or
medical certification under UL 60601. Based on its review of the
available data, DOE believes that there are few products that fall into
this ``multiple criteria'' category. Accordingly, a separate analysis
for these types of products was not conducted because the energy
savings potential from incorporating these devices into the analysis
would again be greater compared to the analysis under Approach A.
II. Methodology
A. Market Assessment
1. Introduction
To understand the present and future market for non-Class A EPSs,
DOE gathered data on these EPSs and their associated applications. DOE
also examined the industry composition, distribution channels, and
regulatory and voluntary programs for non-Class A EPSs. The market
assessment provides important inputs to the LCC analysis and national
energy savings (NES)/NPV estimates.
This notice is not intended to provide a general background on the
market for all EPSs, but rather to present specific information for
those EPSs outside of Class A. For additional background information on
EPSs in general, see the framework document and the companion draft
technical report published on June 4, 2009.
a. Overview
External power supplies are designed for use with an associated
consumer product. The market for these consumer products drives the
market for EPSs. References to an EPS application refer to the consumer
product that the EPS powers and not the conversion function of the EPS
itself. Energy savings potential for EPSs is thus a function of usage
and sales volume of applications powered by EPSs, in addition to EPS
efficiency.
Because EPSs are typically sold with their end-use application,
shipment data for EPSs alone are not directly available. Therefore, DOE
estimated EPS shipments based on applications known to use them. The
amount of energy an application uses over the course of a year will
directly affect the amount of savings that can be expected by improving
the efficiency of the EPS. The product application determines the power
requirements, usage profile, and load profile of the EPS.
For its market analysis, DOE first identified those applications
known to use non-Class A EPSs. DOE then analyzed shipments and energy
usage data for those applications to calculate shipments and energy
usage of the associated EPSs. DOE considered applications for which
publicly available data exist or for which industry and other
interested parties provided data.
Applications for each of the four types of non-Class A EPS DOE
identified are discussed below.
b. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies
The consumer product market for EPSs with multiple simultaneous
outputs (multiple-voltage EPSs) is limited. For consumer products that
require multiple voltages, most manufacturers indicated that it is more
cost effective to specify a single output EPS and employ local DC-DC
converters located within the application rather than a multiple-
voltage EPS. Multiple-voltage EPSs are commonly used in only two
circumstances:
(1) Low-volume applications, such as lab equipment and product
prototypes, where designing and implementing an internal splitter would
be cost-prohibitive. Because low-volume applications are, by
definition, limited in market size, DOE will not consider EPSs for
these products further.
(2) High-volume applications where space limitations may cause
manufacturers to seek alternatives to an internal power supply with
voltage splitting circuitry.
DOE has identified three consumer product applications that
sometimes use multiple-voltage EPSs: Video game consoles, multi-
function devices (MFDs), and home security systems.
The Xbox 360, manufactured by Microsoft Corporation, is one video
game console that uses a multiple-voltage EPS. This EPS functions much
like the internal power supply of a desktop computer, providing
separate voltage levels for standby, monitoring, and processing
functions. Competing systems such as the Nintendo Wii and Sony
PlayStation 3 use internal power supplies.
Multi-function devices duplicate the functions of some or all of
the following devices: Copiers, printers, scanners, and facsimile
machines. These devices are also commonly referred to as ``all-in-one''
systems or multifunction printers. MFDs eliminate the need to purchase
and maintain multiple pieces of office equipment and typically are used
in small- or home-office settings. A single multiple-voltage EPS design
can be used across multiple MFD models, eliminating the need to design
and build several different internal splitters. Also, using a multiple-
voltage EPS may allow the MFD to have a smaller form factor, which
refers to the physical size of the application.
Security systems in homes may include entry detection, video and
thermal detection, and emergency and fire alert systems. Such equipment
is often used in conjunction with a security subscription through which
a security services company monitors the equipment for the consumer. In
this way, security equipment is distributed and used in a similar
manner to cable set-top boxes and Internet modems provided by
telecommunications companies. In comments submitted to DOE following
the Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure NOPR Public Meeting on
September 12, 2008, the Security Industry Association indicated
[[Page 56932]]
that some of these products may be powered by multiple-voltage EPSs
(Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004. Security Industry Association, No. 7
at p. 2.). However, in a follow-up interview on March 19, 2009, SIA
indicated that the equipment powered by these multiple-voltage EPSs is
limited to fire alarm systems, specifically to power horns and strobe
light control circuitry in commercial buildings, not homes. Based on
this information, DOE did not analyze the multiple-voltage EPSs used to
power security equipment as part of the draft analysis. DOE encourages
interested parties to submit additional data on the use of multiple-
voltage EPSs with home security equipment. DOE also encourages
interested parties to submit information about any other consumer
product applications for multiple-voltage EPSs they are aware of.
c. High Power External Power Supplies
High-power EPSs--those with output power greater than 250 watts--
are rarely used to power consumer products. Internal power supplies are
generally preferred for higher powered applications. Industry experts
give three reasons for this preference. First, internal power supplies
offer increased ventilation options, including fans, vent slats, and
cooling fins, all of which would be difficult to include in most EPS
designs without increasing bulk. Second, most applications that would
require such a high power input will already be large, which means the
increase in volume from the internal power supply would have a
proportionally small effect. Third, power regulation and voltage drop
are much easier to control with an internal supply due to the shorter
transmission distances.
For these reasons, there are few circumstances in which an
appliance uses a high-power EPS rather than an internal power supply.
In fact, many appliances already use internal power supplies at a wide
range of power levels. Major applications for high power internal power
supplies include audio amplifiers, televisions, and computers.
Amateur radio equipment is the only consumer product application
DOE identified as using high-power EPSs. (Other applications identified
include laboratory testing equipment and other low-volume applications
that were not considered for analysis.) Amateur radio operators
typically use high-power EPSs when they need to power multiple
components simultaneously and transmit at output powers between 100 and
200 watts. (Interview with the with the American Radio Relay League on
August 18, 2008.) Operators typically use an EPS with nameplate output
power greater than 250 watts to allow for a cushion should equipment
requiring additional power be added to the set-up. This is often the
case for portable transmission setups, such as those used at amateur
radio fairs or in emergency situations. In both cases, the need to
power multiple components while maintaining sufficient transmission
power requires an EPS with a suitably high output.
However, in home or office use, most radio operators use a more
standardized setup. In this environment, most amateur radio equipment,
including transmission equipment, is designed to run directly off mains
power, using internal power supplies. In addition, when transmitting at
higher power, a radio operator will likely use a separate signal
amplifier that contains an internal power supply. Therefore, EPSs are
seldom used in fixed transmission setups.
d. External Power Supplies for Medical Devices
EPSs are used to power a wide variety of medical devices, from
laboratory test equipment to home care devices. As discussed further in
section 2.2.3 of the TSD, EPSs are required by the Federal Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) to meet labeling, safety and durability
requirements such as those included under UL 60601. To maintain
certification, the medical device manufacturer must always use the same
components in the device, including those used in the EPS. Therefore,
once a device is certified, its EPS cannot be exchanged for a different
EPS model without re-certification. An EPS model must also use the same
individual components for the entirety of the production cycle. These
requirements tend to lengthen the design cycles for medical device EPSs
because after being designed they must be registered, which can take up
to 2 years. Despite long design cycles, there are already medical
device EPSs on the market that meet the energy efficiency standards for
Class A EPSs that took effect on July 1, 2008. (SL Power Web site
(Accessed October 30, 2008) https://www.slpower.com/ProductDetails.aspx?CategoryID=46.)
For this determination, DOE examined medical devices designed for
in-home use that employ EPSs, specifically sleep therapy devices,
nebulizers, portable oxygen concentrators, blood pressure monitors, and
ventilators. EPSs for these medical devices exhibit a broad range of
nameplate output powers, similar to those of Class A EPSs.
Sleep therapy devices include continuous positive airway pressure
(CPAP), bi-level positive airway pressure (biPAP), automatic positive
airway pressure (autoPAP), and similar machines used to treat
obstructive sleep apnea. Some sleep therapy devices are battery
powered, some plug directly into mains, and others are powered by EPSs,
which typically have nameplate output power of approximately 30 to 35
watts. (Schirm, Jeffrey. Personal Communication. Philips Electronics,
NV. Phone call with Matthew Jones, D&R International. December 15,
2008.)
Nebulizers administer liquid medication as a mist that can be
inhaled into the lungs. They are commonly used to treat asthma and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The EPSs that provide
power to nebulizers tend to have nameplate output power in the range of
10 to 20 watts. Of the 26 nebulizer models DOE identified, only four
employ EPSs; the remainder use internal power supplies. (Models using
EPSs include the PARI Trek S, Omron Comp Air Elite Model NE-C30, Omron
Micro Air Model NE-U22VAC, and John Bunn Nano-Sonic Nebulizer Model
JB0112-066. An EPS is an option for Omron Micro Air, which is typically
powered with primary batteries. The EPS cannot charge these batteries.
The other nebulizers are sold with an EPS to power the product but
offer rechargeable battery packs as an optional accessory.)
Portable oxygen concentrators absorb nitrogen from the air to
provide oxygen to the user at higher concentrations, eliminating the
need for oxygen tanks. These devices typically use higher powered wall
adapters ranging from 90 to 200 watts. The wall adapters are used to
charge batteries, but can also operate the device directly.
Blood pressure monitors are used by those who must take frequent
readings of their blood pressure. Most digital units operate with
primary batteries; however, some units are also sold with an EPS or
offer an optional EPS. (The Omron IntelliSense blood pressure meter,
model HEM780, has an EPS rated at 6V and 500 mA but can also be powered
by primary batteries (``AA,'' ``AAA,'' ``C,'' among others).) The EPSs
for blood pressure monitors that DOE identified have a nameplate output
power of 3 watts.
Though most commonly found in hospitals, ventilators are also
available for home use. While most models have internal power supplies,
some use EPSs with output power in the range of approximately 100 to
150 watts.
[[Page 56933]]
e. External Power Supplies for Certain Battery Chargers
This group is composed of EPSs for two types of battery chargers:
(1) Battery chargers used to charge detachable battery packs, and (2)
battery chargers that charge the batteries of products that are fully
or primarily motor operated. The term ``detachable battery'' means a
battery that is (A) contained in a separate enclosure from the product;
and (B) intended to be removed or disconnected from the product for
recharging. DOE's interpretation of ``detachable battery'' is explained
in section I.B.
Under its interpretation of the term ``detachable battery,'' DOE
has not identified any non-motor operated applications with an EPS that
powers the charger of a detachable battery pack. DOE invites interested
parties to submit any information they have about applications of this
type that use non-Class A EPSs.
DOE identified a number of motor-operated, battery-charged products
that use wall adapters. The applications DOE identified can be divided
into two groups: rechargeable power tools and cordless rechargeable
household appliances. The latter can be further subdivided into kitchen
appliances (e.g., can openers and electric knives), personal care
appliances (e.g., electric toothbrushes, shavers, and trimmers), and
floor care appliances (e.g., handheld vacuums and robotic vacuums).
Although there are many grades of cordless-rechargeable power
tools--ranging from entry-level, do-it-yourself (DIY) tools intended
for occasional homeowner use to high-end tools designed for frequent
use by professionals--all can be purchased and used by consumers and,
thus, are considered consumer products. However, it appears that very
few, if any, professional-grade power tools use wall adapters. Instead,
the charging base is plugged directly into mains. Thus, DOE only
considered DIY tools.
DOE has included in the present determination analysis only those
devices that are EPSs under Approach A (only those wall adapters that
do not provide additional charge control functions are EPSs), with the
understanding that the set of EPSs under Approach A is a subset of EPSs
under Approach D (wall adapters with charge control functions are also
EPSs). Thus, the analysis presents the minimum level of expected energy
savings from a potential standard for these products. If DOE were to
later adopt Approach D (i.e., include coverage of wall adapters with
charge control functions), the energy savings potential from standards
for non-Class A EPSs would either increase or remain unchanged, but
would not decrease below the current analysis' projected energy savings
potential.
2. Shipments, Efficiency Distributions, and Market Growth
a. Overview
Based on its market analysis, DOE estimates that 11.3 million non-
Class A EPSs are sold in the United States each year. For the national
impact analysis, DOE also created forecasts of market size to 2032, the
last year of sales in the analysis. Table II.1 summarizes DOE's
estimates of market size and growth rate for each type of non-Class A
EPS. These estimates are discussed in detail in the subsections that
follow.
Table II.1--Market Size and Growth Prospects for Non-Class A External
Power Supplies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market size
in 2008 Annual growth
Type of external power supply (shipments rate
per year) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for Multifunction 5,085,000 1
Devices................................
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for Xbox 360...... 4,000,000 3
High-Power EPSs......................... 3,000 0
Medical EPSs............................ 1,450,000 3
EPSs for Cordless Rechargeable Floor 297,000 1
Care Appliances *......................
EPSs for Cordless Rechargeable Power 499,400 2
Tools *................................
-------------------------------
Total............................... 11,334,400 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE estimates that a maximum of 5 percent of the wall adapters that
ship with products of this type are EPSs under Approach A.
Source: DOE estimated long-run growth rates by examining published
shipments growth estimates (both past and projected) from the Consumer
Electronics Association (CEA) (``U.S. Consumer Electronics Sales and
Forecasts 2004-2009'', Consumer Electronics Association, July 2008),
Appliance Magazine (``31st Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance
Industry'', Appliance Magazine, September 2008) the Darnell Group
(External AC-DC Power Supplies Worldwide Forecasts, Third Edition.
Special estimate for North America, Darnell Group. May 2008), and
others.
In addition to assessing the size of the market for each EPS type,
DOE also assessed the efficiency of those EPSs. DOE defined four
candidate standard levels (CSLs) for each EPS type and described market
distribution in terms of efficiency across those levels (section
II.C.4) DOE also created two base-case forecasts of efficiency
distribution to 2032. These efficiency distributions describe the
market in the absence of a standard and are required as a point of
comparison in the national impact analysis. DOE's characterizations of
present-day efficiency and its efficiency forecasts are also discussed
in detail in the following subsections.
b. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies
EPSs for Multifunction Devices
In field research, DOE found that Hewlett-Packard (HP) manufactures
all those MFDs that currently use multiple-voltage EPSs. In August
2008, DOE visited five retail outlets to determine which MFDs use
multiple-voltage EPSs. DOE inspected 87 unique MFD models for sale at
Best Buy, Circuit City, Office Depot, Staples, and Target. Of these 87
models, 16 used multiple-voltage EPSs; the remainder either had
internal power supplies or used single-voltage EPSs. Many of these
models were among the top-selling MFDs on Amazon.com, BestBuy.com, and
CircuitCity.com.
In a written comment DOE received in October 2008 in connection
with its Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure rulemaking, HP indicated
that it plans to phase out multiple-voltage EPSs. It stated, ``About
45% of HP's total current usage of external-style power supplies is
made up [multiple-voltage output power supplies (MVOPS)]. HP is
planning to eliminate the use of MVOPS by early 2010. So our product
designs will consist entirely of [single-voltage output power
supplies].'' (Comment from Hewlett-Packard dated October 29, 2008.
Docket Number EERE-2008-BT-
[[Page 56934]]
TP-0004. Comment 30.) Nevertheless, DOE is including multiple-
voltage EPSs for MFDs in its analysis as some MFDs may continue to ship
with multiple-voltage EPSs after 2010, or new applications with similar
power requirements may be introduced.
Based on the available data, DOE estimated that 5,085,000 multiple-
voltage EPSs for MFDs shipped for sale in the United States in 2008.
Using data from Gartner Dataquest and the Consumer Electronics
Association, DOE estimated that about 20 million inkjet printers and
MFDs shipped in 2008. (Gartner Dataquest. ``Gartner Says United States
Printer and MFP Shipments Declined 4 Percent in Second Quarter of
2006.'' August 2006. Last accessed February 27, 2009, https://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=496184&format=print.; Consumer
Electronics Association. U.S. Consumer Sales and Forecasts, 2004-2009.
July 2008. CEA: Arlington, VA.) According to Gartner Dataquest, HP
controlled 56.4 percent of the inkjet printer/MFD market in the second
quarter of 2006. DOE assumed HP's market share remained unchanged in
2008, resulting in shipments of 11.3 million HP inkjet printers and
MFDs that year. As HP claimed that 45 percent of its EPSs are multiple-
voltage EPSs, DOE estimated that 5,085,000 multiple-voltage EPSs for
use with MFDs (45 percent of 11.3 million) were shipped in 2008. Given
HP's stated intent to discontinue use of multiple-voltage EPSs, DOE
assumed in its model a modest market growth rate of 1 percent annually.
DOE defined four CSLs for multiple-voltage EPSs for MFDs (Table
II.2) DOE tested two multiple-voltage EPSs for MFDs, and neither unit
tested above CSL 0. Thus, DOE assumed that all units on the market
today are at CSL 0.
Table II.2--Efficiency of Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies for MFDs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
active mode Maximum no- Market share
Candidate standard level (CSL) efficiency load power (percent) Shipments
(percent) (W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Current Level................................ 81 0.50 100 5,085,000
1. Mid Level.................................... 86 0.45 0 0
2. High Level................................... 90 0.31 0 0
3. Higher Level................................. 91 0.20 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
All Levels.................................. .............. .............. 100 5,085,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated the market distribution across CSLs using test data from two units.
DOE examined two base case efficiency forecasts in its national
impact analysis. In the first, efficiency does not improve during the
period of analysis. In the second, which considered spillover effects
from existing Class A EPS standards, non-Class A EPSs for MFDs
gradually become more efficient throughout the period of analysis, with
three-quarters of the market still at CSL 0 and the remainder at CSL 1
in 2032, the last year of sales.
EPSs for the Xbox 360
The NPD group estimates that since its release of the Xbox 360 in
November 2005, more than 14 million units have been sold in the United
States at an annual average of 4 million units. (NPD Group, reported
from https://www.joystiq.com archives, last accessed February 28, 2009.)
Because demand for a specific video game console is generally driven by
novelty, the majority of shipments for a given model tend to occur
early in its production cycle, with shipments generally decreasing over
time as newer competing consoles or next-generation consoles become
available. Therefore, DOE assumed a market size of 4 million units in
the base year.
The market for video game consoles, including the Xbox 360, has
grown considerably in recent years, and analysts expect the market to
continue growing annually at between 5 percent (``U.S. Consumer
Electronics Sales and Forecasts 2004-2009,'' Consumer Electronics
Association, July 2008) and 10 percent (``External AC-DC Power Supplies
Worldwide Forecasts, Third Edition.'' Special estimate for North
America by the Darnell Group. May 2008.) Because the market for the
Xbox 360 represents a subset of the console market, DOE developed a
conservative growth forecast for this market of 3 percent annual
growth.
DOE defined four CSLs for multiple-voltage EPSs for the Xbox 360
(Table II.3). An estimated 95 percent of units on the market today--
those units sold with the Xbox 360--have average active-mode efficiency
of 86 percent and consume 0.4 watts in no-load mode. Replacement units,
which have poorer energy performance, comprise the remaining 5 percent
of the market.
Table II.3--Efficiency of Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies for Xbox 360
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
active mode Maximum no- Market share
Candidate standard level (CSL) efficiency load power W (percent) Shipments
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Generic Replacement.......................... 82 12.33 5 200,000
1. Manufacturer Provided........................ 86 0.40 95 3,800,000
2. EU Qualified Level........................... 86 0.30 0 0
3. Higher Level................................. 89 0.30 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
All Levels.................................. .............. .............. 100 4,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimates are based on test data and market share of generic replacements for the Xbox 360 EPS.
[[Page 56935]]
DOE examined two base-case efficiency forecasts in its national
impact analysis. In the first, efficiency does not improve during the
period of analysis. In the second, EPSs for the Xbox 360 gradually
become more efficient. No units remain at CSL 0 in 2018, the sixth year
after the standard is assumed to take effect. By 2032, one-quarter of
the market has moved up to CSL 2, while the remainder is at CSL 1.
c. High Output Power External Power Supplies
Due to the highly specialized and relatively uncommon application
of high power external power supplies, only about 30,000 units are in
use. (Communication with the American Radio Relay League (August 2008).
Despite the inherent limitations of high-power EPSs and the increasing
use of internal power supplies for home amateur radio equipment setups,
DOE expects the market for high-power EPSs to remain level throughout
the analysis period based on input from the Amateur Radio Relay League.
Given an average lifetime of 10 years and assuming that the same number
of new units is put into service each year that is taken out of
service, it follows that approximately 3,000 new units are put into
service each year. (DOE interview with manufacturer, September 15,
2008.)
Table II.4 shows the four CSLs DOE defined for high-power EPSs.
Line frequency EPSs account for an estimated 60 percent of the market;
switched-mode EPSs comprise the remaining 40 percent. Line frequency
EPSs historically have been preferred over switched-mode EPSs for
amateur radio applications. However, they are slowly losing market
share to switched-mode EPSs, which are considerably more efficient and
much less expensive.
Table II.4--Efficiency of High Power External Power Supplies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
active mode Maximum no- Market share
Candidate standard level (CSL) efficiency load power (percent) Shipments
(percent) (W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Line Frequency............................... 62 15.43 60 1,800
1. Switched Mode--Low........................... 81 6.01 40 1,200
2. Switched Mode--Mid........................... 84 1.50 0 0
3. Switched Mode--High.......................... 85 0.50 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
All Levels.................................. .............. .............. 100 3,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimates are based on test data and manufacturer interviews.
In the first base-case efficiency forecast in its national impact
analysis, efficiency does not improve during the period of analysis. In
the second forecast, increased consumer preference for switched-mode
high-power EPSs and spillover effects from existing Class A EPS
standards lead to efficiency improvements in high-power EPSs. In this
second forecast, high-power EPSs at CSL 2 are introduced in 2010 and
gradually become more efficient throughout the period of analysis. By
2032, 38 percent of units remain at CSL 0, 40 percent are at CSL 1, and
the remaining 22 percent have reached CSL 2.
d. External Power Supplies for Medical Devices
DOE examined those medical devices that are used in home-care
settings and employ an EPS. An estimated 1.45 million of these devices
shipped in 2008. (External AC-DC Power Supplies Worldwide Forecasts,
Third Edition. Special estimate for North America by the Darnell Group.
May 2008.) This market is expected to grow at an average rate of 11.4
percent per year between 2008 and 2013. The reasons for this growth are
numerous. Over this period, the population aged 65 and older is
expected to grow at 2.5 percent per year, compared to 0.75 percent per
year for the population under age 65. (U.S. Population Projections.''
U.S. Census Bureau. 2008.) Demand for home care devices is increasing
as the high cost of hospital stays encourages home care. (``DME Market
of the Future.'' Home Care Magazine. July 1, 2000.) Patients' demands
for greater portability are also driving an increase in the number of
medical devices that can operate on battery power, some of which
require wall adapters. (``Oxygen Concentrator Market Opportunities,
Strategies, and Forecasts, 2005 to 2011.'' Wintergreen Research. 2005.)
Finally, in some cases, medical device manufacturers can bring new
products to market faster by using an EPS. (Personal communication.
Phone call with Marco Gonzalez, Director of Supplier Management for
Power. Avnet Inc. September 30, 2008.) This last trend in particular is
increasing the number of medical devices using EPSs with output power
greater than 90 watts. DOE forecasts the long term growth rate of
medical device EPSs for consumer products to be 3 percent per year.
Additionally, the market for sleep therapy devices shows
significant potential for growth. Based on available studies, DOE
estimates that approximately 20 million Americans experience a moderate
form of obstructive sleep apnea, which causes the afflicted to stop
breathing momentarily during sleep. (``What is Sleep Apnea?'' National
Heart Lung and Blood Institute Diseases and Conditions Index. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/SleepApnea/SleepApnea_WhatIs.html.) As the number of diagnoses of obstructive sleep apnea
increases, demand for sleep therapy devices, one of the most common
treatments for the condition, increases as well. DOE estimates that
approximately 50 percent of sleep therapy devices, or about 1 million
new units annually, are powered by EPSs. (Schirm, Jeffrey. Personal
communication. Philips Electronics, NV. Phone call with Matthew Jones,
D&R International. December 15, 2008.)
Nebulizers are commonly used to treat asthma and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). An estimated 22 million Americans
have been diagnosed with asthma, and an additional 12 million Americans
have been diagnosed with COPD. (``What is Asthma?'' National Heart Lung
and Blood Institute Diseases and Conditions Index. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Asthma/Asthma_WhatIs.html.;
``What is COPD?'' National Heart Lung and Blood Institute Diseases and
Conditions Index. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Copd/Copd_WhatIs.html.) The prevalence of COPD is increasing as the
population ages. The incidence of asthma has also increased over time.
A June 2005 report, ``U.S. Nebulizers and Markets,'' indicates that
portable nebulizers, which are more likely to
[[Page 56936]]
employ EPSs, have taken market share from non-portable units. (``U.S.
Nebulizers and Markets.'' Frost & Sullivan. June, 2005.) From the
available data, DOE estimates shipments of nebulizers to be 3 million
units per year. However, DOE observed only a few examples that use
EPSs. Accordingly, DOE assumes 15 percent of nebulizers, or 450,000
units per year, employ an EPS.
DOE did not consider the remaining three applications--ventilators,
blood pressure monitors, and portable oxygen concentrators--further in
the determination analysis. Very few ventilators or blood pressure
monitors employ EPSs. Due to time constraints, DOE did not analyze or
develop cost-efficiency curves for medical EPSs with high output power,
so portable oxygen concentrators also were not included in the
analysis. DOE may examine these products as part of a possible future
standards rulemaking for medical EPSs.
DOE defined four CSLs for medical EPSs (Table II.5). DOE believes
that roughly 66 percent of medical EPSs sold into the market today meet
the Federal standard for Class A EPSs and could be labeled according to
the international efficiency marking protocol with a ``IV''. The
international efficiency marking protocol, initiated by the ENERGY STAR
program and adopted by the U.S., Australia, China and Europe, provides
a system for power supply manufacturers to designate the minimum
efficiency performance of an external power supply, so that finished
product manufacturers and government representatives can easily
determine a unit's efficiency. Under this protocol manufacturers place
a roman numeral from I (less efficient) to V (more efficient) on an EPS
that corresponds to the EPS's efficiency. For instance, the mark of
``IV'' corresponds to the efficiency of the EISA 2007 standard. More
information on the protocol can be found on the ENERGY STAR Web site
at: https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/International_Efficiency_Marking_Protocol.pdf.
DOE based its view regarding the ability of medical EPSs to satisfy
current Federal Class A standards enacted by Congress on available test
results and its understanding that SL Power, a leading manufacturer of
medical EPSs, is designing its EPSs for medical devices to meet the
standard for Class A EPSs. Competing medical EPS manufacturers such as
Elpac and GlobTek are also beginning to offer EPSs that meet the Class
A standard. From this information, DOE assumes that 17 percent of units
are less efficient and that the remaining 17 percent of units are more
efficient.
Table II.5--Efficiency of Medical External Power Supplies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
active mode Maximum no- Market share
Candidate standard level (CSL) efficiency load power W (percent) Shipments
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Less than the II Mark........................ 66 0.56 17 246,500
1. Meets the IV Mark............................ 76 0.50 66 957,000
2. Meets the V Mark............................. 80 0.30 17 246,500
3. Higher Level................................. 85 0.15 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
All Levels.................................. .............. .............. 100 1,450,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated shipment distributions based on test results from six units.
In the first base-case efficiency forecast in the national impact
analysis, efficiency does not improve during the period of analysis. In
the second forecast, additional manufacturers adopt Class A EPS
standards for medical device EPSs, which are projected to become
gradually more efficient throughout the period of analysis. By 2032, 5
percent of units remain at CSL 0, 54 percent of the market is at CSL 1,
and the remaining 41 percent of units are at CSL 2.
e. External Power Supplies for Certain Battery Chargers
As noted above, DOE identified several battery-powered applications
that could potentially use non-Class A EPSs. Many of these applications
were excluded from further consideration because DOE's analysis
indicated they accounted for only a trivial amount of non-Class A EPS
energy consumption. Battery-powered kitchen appliances were excluded
because only a small number of units are sold annually. Personal care
products were excluded because wall adapters used to p
