Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Determination Concerning the Potential for Energy Conservation Standards for Non-Class A External Power Supplies, 27170-27182 [2010-11592]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
27170
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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: Final Rule.
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE or the Department) has
determined, based on the best
information currently available, that
energy conservation standards for nonClass A external power supplies are
technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result
in significant energy savings. This
determination initiates the process of
establishing, by notice and comment
rulemaking, energy conservation
standards for these products.
DATES: This rule is effective June 14,
2010.
ADDRESSES: This rulemaking can be
identified by docket number EERE–
2009–BT–DET–0005 and/or Regulatory
Identification Number (RIN) 1904–
AB80.
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,
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
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 Determination
A. Background and Legal Authority
B. Scope
1. DC–DC Power Supplies
2. Basic Approaches to Regulating Wall
Adapters for BCs
3. Specific Criteria for Identifying the
Presence of Charge Control
4. Size of the EPS for BC Market
II. Methodology
A. Purpose and Content
B. Test Procedures
C. Market Assessment
D. Technology Assessment
E. Engineering Analysis
F. Energy Use and End-Use Load
Characterization
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
H. National Impact Analysis
III. Analysis Results
A. Engineering Analysis
B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
C. National Impact Analysis
D. Discussion
1. Significance of Energy Savings
2. Impact on Consumers
IV. Conclusion
A. Determination
B. Future Proceedings
V. 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
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Determination
EPCA requires DOE to issue a final
rule determining whether to issue
energy efficiency standards for nonClass A external power supplies (EPSs).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Consistent with this requirement, DOE
has analyzed multiple candidate
standard levels for non-Class A EPSs.
These analyses indicate that it is
technologically feasible to manufacture
EPSs at some of these levels in large part
because EPSs that meet these levels are
already commercially available. DOE
further determined that standards for all
non-Class A EPSs that DOE analyzed
could be set that would reduce the lifecycle 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.
DOE’s analyses also indicate that
energy conservation standards would
also likely be cost-effective from a
national perspective. The national net
present value (NPV) of energy
conservation standards for non-Class A
EPSs could be as much as $512 million
in 2008$, assuming an annual discount
rate of 3 percent. As a result, these
analyses indicate that both individual
consumers and the Nation as a whole
would likely benefit economically from
the imposition of energy conservation
standards for non-Class A EPSs.
Accordingly, DOE has positively
determined that such standards are
technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result
in significant energy savings.
DOE notes that its forecast of
projected savings and national NPV
considers only the direct financial costs
and benefits to consumers of standards,
specifically, the increased equipment
costs of EPSs purchased from 2013 to
2032 and the associated energy cost
savings over the lifetimes of those
products. 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. Such impacts will
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 today’s final rule
is contained in the notice of proposed
determination, published in the Federal
Register on November 3, 2009, (74 FR
56928) and the accompanying technical
support document (TSD), available from
the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy’s Web site at
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/residential/
battery_external.html.
The nature of this document results
from the specific statutory requirements
that DOE issue this notice as a rule. In
accordance with this requirement, DOE
issued its November 2009 notice prior to
today’s final rule notice. In addition,
DOE combined as appropriate the
analysis required by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA 2007), Public Law 110–140 (Dec.
19, 2007), with the analysis that DOE
had already performed as a result of
requirements added previously by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT
2005), Public Law 109–58 (Aug. 8,
2005). EPACT 2005 required DOE to
issue a determination analysis to
address battery chargers and external
power supplies; EISA 2007
subsequently amended this provision by
focusing the analysis solely on external
power supplies.
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.’’ 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 underway 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 allotted time to complete
the determination.
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, to
include any amended standards as part
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
of that final rule. (42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(3)(D)(i)) 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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii))
Because Congress has already set
standards for Class A EPSs and
separately required DOE through a
separate statutory provision to perform
two rounds of rulemakings to consider
amending efficiency standards for Class
A EPSs, see 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3), the
determination analysis under 42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) excluded these
products from this analysis.
Accordingly, the present determination
concerns only EPSs falling outside of
the Class A definition, i.e., ‘‘non-Class A
EPSs.’’
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)). The BC 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. DOE is now developing its
preliminary analysis of standards for
BCs and Class A EPSs. With today’s
positive determination that standards
are warranted for non-Class A EPSs,
standards for these products also will be
considered within the ongoing
standards rulemaking.
The Department began the analysis for
this determination by conducting testing
and teardowns on commercially
available non-Class A EPSs and by
collecting information from
manufacturers of non-Class A EPSs and
original equipment manufacturers that
use non-Class A EPSs. The Department
shared its preliminary findings
regarding efficiency improvements in its
November 2009 notice of proposed
determination (NOPD). 74 FR 56928.
This notice was accompanied by a
technical support document (TSD),
which was published on the EERE Web
site. Subsequently, the Department
received written comments on the
notice and TSD from the Power Tool
Institute, Inc. (PTI); the Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers
(AHAM); Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E); a joint comment from
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27171
the California Energy Commission
(CEC), PG&E, San Diego Gas and Electric
Company, Appliance Standards
Awareness Project, American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy,
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnerships, and Northwest Power and
Conservation Council (hereafter referred
to as the CEC comment); and the
Consumer Electronics Association
(CEA). (PTI, No. 5; AHAM, No. 6; PG&E,
No. 7; CEC et al., No. 8; and CEA, No.
9).
For more information about DOE
rulemakings concerning BCs and EPSs,
see the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy’s Web site at https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/residential/
battery_external.html.
B. Scope
As explained in the NOPD, the scope
of this determination covers all EPSs
falling outside of Class A, which DOE
identifies in this notice as non-Class A
EPSs. EPCA, as amended by EPACT
2005, defines an EPS 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)) EISA 2007 amended
EPCA by, among other things, defining
in 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C) a subset of
external power supplies (i.e. a Class A
EPS).
The analysis underlying DOE’s NOPD
focused on four EPS types: (1) Multiplevoltage 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. 74 FR 56930.
1. DC–DC Power Supplies
CEA asked DOE to clarify whether
DC–DC power supplies are outside the
scope of the EPS definition. (CEA, No.
9 at p. 2) The statutory definition of an
EPS is ‘‘an external power supply circuit
that is used to convert household
electric current into DC current or
lower-voltage AC current to operate a
consumer product.’’ (42 U.S.C.
6291(36)(A)) Household electric current
is nominally 120 volts AC. Thus, under
the statutory definition set by Congress,
wall adapters with DC input power are
not EPSs.
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
27172
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
2. Basic Approaches to Regulating Wall
Adapters for BCs
DOE has identified four possible
approaches to regulating wall adapters
for BCs. These four approaches, referred
to as approaches A, B, C, and D, are
explained in the framework document
referred to in the notice of document
availability DOE published in the
Federal Register on June 4, 2009.1 74 FR
26816. Under Approach A, a wall
adapter would be considered an EPS
only if it lacked charge control (i.e., a
method to control the charge flowing to
the battery). In addition, the EPS could
be subject to both EPS and BC standards
if it were also a part of a battery
charging system. Under Approach B a
wall adapter would not be considered
an EPS as long as it powered a battery
charger (the presence or absence of
charge control being irrelevant).
Approach C is similar to Approach A in
that a wall adapter would be considered
an EPS only if it lacked charge control;
however, under Approach C the EPS
would only be subject to EPS standards
and not BC standards, even if it were
also part of a battery charging system.
Under Approach D a wall adapter that
powers a battery charging system would
always be considered an EPS regardless
of the presence of charge control.
DOE received comments related to
EPSs for BCs in response to the NOPD.
Many of these comments revolved
around two closely related questions: (1)
When is a wall adapter an EPS and (2)
When is an EPS considered part of a
BC? Comments on this issue were
submitted by parties representing a
variety of interests, including industry
and energy efficiency advocates. The
following two paragraphs describe the
comments DOE received related to these
questions, while the third and fourth
paragraphs that follow provide DOE’s
responses to those comments.
The first set of comments concerned
the question of when a wall adapter
should be categorized as an EPS. PG&E
urged DOE to adopt Approach A as it is
described in the framework document,
claiming that this approach ensures a
technically accurate, common sense
approach to defining EPSs and battery
chargers. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 6) PG&E’s
comment echoed its earlier comment
and those of several others, including
FRIWO, PTI, Ecos Consulting, and
Motorola, who stated their support for
1 These approaches are explained 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). The approaches
also address the related question of whether the
wall adapter should be considered part of the BC.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
Approach A in written comments on the
framework document and at the
associated public meeting on July 16,
2009. (FRIWO, EERE–2008–BT–STD–
0005 No. 21 at p. 1; Pub. Mtg. Tr.,
EERE–2008–BT–STD–0005 No. 14 at pp.
62, 116; Motorola, EERE–2008–BT–
STD–0005 No. 25 at p. 1; PG&E et al.,
EERE–2008–BT–STD–0005 No. 20 at p.
3) PTI reiterated its preference for
Approach B and noted that if Approach
B were not available, Approach A
would be the next best option. (PTI, No.
5 at p. 2) AHAM urged DOE to accept
a slight modification of Approach B and
agreed with PTI that of the remaining
approaches, Approach A would be the
next best option. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 4)
The modification to Approach B that
AHAM requested would also exclude
from the set of EPSs all high power wall
adapters that are used to charge batteries
and all wall adapters that are used to
charge batteries for medical devices.
DOE indicated in its framework
document that Approach B would be
inconsistent when applied to the Class
A EPS statutory definition, because DOE
cannot limit the scope of the EPS
definition by adding another exclusion
to those already created by Congress.
AHAM also asked DOE to address more
fully its reasons for not selecting
Approach B when applying it to nonClass A EPSs. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 3)
The second set of comments
concerned the closely related question
of when an EPS should be considered
part of a BC. AHAM and PTI expressed
their opposition to overlapping
standards, i.e., requiring an EPS to
comply with an EPS standard and the
BC of which it is part to comply with
a BC standard. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 1;
AHAM, No. 6 at p. 2) Approaches A and
D could potentially lead to the overlap
that AHAM and PTI oppose. PTI
reiterated its contention that ‘‘the proper
way to deal with the efficiency of BCs
is through a comprehensive standard
that treats the charger as [a] whole,
including the wall adapter (if one is part
of the system).’’ (PTI, No. 5 at p. 1)
AHAM agreed, stating that ‘‘we do not
believe it is appropriate conceptually or
technically to separate the testing of any
parts of the battery recharging circuit in
a test procedure for battery chargers.’’
(AHAM, No. 6 at p. 2) AHAM proposed
that DOE create a separate class of BCs
called ‘‘appliance battery chargers’’ that
would encompass both wall adapterbased and cord-connect-based appliance
battery chargers and further noted that
testing a wall adapter first as an EPS and
then as a part of a battery charger system
‘‘would be an extreme burden on all
manufacturers, but particularly on the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
small and medium sized enterprises and
provide no benefit to consumers.’’
(AHAM, No. 6 at p. 3)
DOE used Approach A to define the
scope of its determination analysis. This
is the approach that DOE identified in
the framework document as its preferred
approach to determining which wall
adapters are EPSs. DOE also explained
in the framework document that it
considers Approach B legally
unacceptable for Class A EPSs because
it would create additional exclusions of
products that would otherwise satisfy
the statutory definition of a Class A EPS.
Since Congress already established
specific exclusions to the Class A EPS
definition, DOE has tentatively taken
the position that it does not retain the
authority to create exclusions beyond
that which Congress has established.
See the Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Framework Document for
Battery Chargers and External Power
Supplies, at 32.
However, DOE did not rule out
applying Approach B for non-Class A
EPSs, an approach both AHAM and
Wahl Clipper have requested DOE
consider. (AHAM, EERE–2008–BT–
STD–0005 No. 16 at pp. 2–3; Wahl
Clipper, EERE–2008–BT–STD–0005 No.
23 at p. 1) When viewed in light of these
and similar comments received earlier
during the rulemaking process for these
products, AHAM and PTI’s objections to
overlapping standards appear to focus
on non-Class A EPSs, not Class A EPSs.
If Approach A were used for Class A
EPSs and Approach B were used for
non-Class A EPSs, wall adapters that
power the chargers of detachable battery
packs or charge the batteries of products
that are fully or primarily motor
operated would not be subject to EPS
standards while those wall adapters that
power other battery charged
applications (Class A EPSs) would be
subject to EPS standards. Nevertheless,
DOE is concerned that using Approach
A for Class A EPSs and Approach B for
non-Class A EPSs would create two
distinct definitions of an EPS that
would prevent one from readily
identifying a particular wall adapter as
being an EPS until it is known whether
it powers the charger of a detachable
battery pack or charges the battery of a
product that is fully or primarily motor
operated. DOE intends to make a
decision on this issue as part of the
standards rulemaking.
DOE acknowledges that if it applied
Approach B to non-Class A EPSs, the
total energy savings potential from nonClass A EPS standards would be less
than under Approach A, as EPSs for BCs
would not be covered. However, the
reduction in savings would be small, as
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
EPSs for BCs account for less than 2
percent of the savings estimated in the
present analysis. Furthermore, DOE
believes that these savings would be
captured by BC standards that would
cover the devices of which the wall
adapters were a part.
3. Specific Criteria for Identifying the
Presence of Charge Control
PG&E and AHAM commented on the
criteria for determining whether charge
control is present in a wall adapter.
PG&E strongly urged DOE to remain
consistent with the criteria identified in
the framework document that focus on
electrical equivalency and battery
charger functions. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 3)
PG&E cautioned against using a vague
and undefined ‘‘constant voltage’’
criterion for identifying EPSs, citing
research conducted by Ecos Consulting
that examined the electrical
characteristics of wall adapters that
power the chargers of detachable battery
packs or charge the batteries of products
that are fully or primarily motor
operated. This research found at least
one wall adapter that was electrically
equivalent to Class A EPSs that did not
produce constant voltage output and at
least one wall adapter that was not
electrically equivalent to Class A EPSs
that produced constant voltage output.
(PG&E, No. 7 at pp. 4–5) As a result,
PG&E recommended that DOE ‘‘rely on
physical indications of charge control
circuitry or functionality, such as a
battery-charge indicator or chemistrytype selector switch’’ rather than
‘‘constant voltage’’ for determining
whether charge control is present in a
wall adapter. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 7)
AHAM asked that DOE state clearly the
criteria that will be used to determine
whether charge control is present in a
wall adapter. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 4)
AHAM further urged DOE to accept the
criteria for charge control that were
discussed at the framework document
public meeting on July 16, 2009, as
doing so would lead to ‘‘the vast
majority of AHAM battery chargers
using wall adapters being treated as
complete battery chargers.’’ (AHAM, No.
6 at p. 6)
DOE has not yet established final
criteria for determining which wall
adapters are EPSs. In the framework
document, DOE sought stakeholder
comment on four possible criteria for
identifying charge control in a wall
adapter—short-circuit operation, voltage
regulation, no-load voltage, and nobattery operation, but did not indicate
which criteria it would use going
forward. In the NOPD and today’s
notice, DOE used constant voltage
output as a preliminary criterion for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
establishing the absence of charge
control and thereby identifying EPSs.
Comments submitted in response to the
NOPD questioned whether constant
voltage output would be an appropriate
test when determining whether a
particular product lacks charge control,
and DOE is reconsidering this approach.
The protocol for determining which
wall adapters are EPSs will be finalized
within the standards rulemaking.
4. Size of the EPS for BC Market
DOE received several comments on
the size of the market for EPSs for BCs.
Interested parties disagreed on the size
of the market due to a difference of
opinion as to what proportion of wall
adapters for the BCs under
consideration were EPSs. AHAM agreed
with DOE’s estimate that no more than
5 percent of wall adapters for cordless
rechargeable floor care appliances
provide constant voltage, adding that if
this estimate is used as the basis for the
determination, the same criteria used to
arrive at this estimate must be used in
the standards NOPR and Final Rule as
well. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) AHAM also
agreed with DOE that wall adapters for
rechargeable personal care appliances
use charge control and, therefore, are
not EPSs. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 4) PTI
agreed with DOE’s estimate that
approximately 5 percent of all wall
adapters for powers tool BCs are true
EPSs, adding that if the charge control
criteria were significantly altered in the
future, the validity of the determination
could be eroded. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 2)
PG&E, however, commented that DOE
greatly underestimated the number of
EPSs for BCs. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 7) CEC
concurred and urged DOE to reconsider
its methodology for calculating energy
savings potential from EPSs for BCs,
citing PG&E research that suggests the
potential savings from this group of
products is 20 times higher than DOE
suggested. (CEC et al., No. 8 at p. 1)
Until the protocol for determining
which wall adapters are EPSs is
finalized, the number of EPSs for BCs
cannot be accurately estimated. In light
of the absence of this protocol, DOE
conservatively estimated the size of the
market for EPSs for BCs in the
determination analysis. A larger market
would only serve to increase the
potential energy savings from standards
for these products, which would serve
as additional support for the positive
determination that DOE has already
reached using its more conservative
approach.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27173
II. Methodology
A. Purpose and Content
The Department analyzed the
feasibility of achieving significant
energy savings from energy conservation
standards for non-Class A EPSs. The
NOPD presented the results of this
analysis. As part of the subsequent
standards rulemaking, DOE will perform
more robust analyses. These analyses
will involve more precise and detailed
information that the Department will
develop and receive during the
standards rulemaking process, and will
detail the potential effects of proposed
energy conservation standards for nonClass A EPSs.
To address EPCA requirements that
DOE determine whether energy
conservation standards for non-Class A
EPSs would be technologically feasible
and economically justified and result in
significant energy savings, the
Department’s analysis consisted of six
separate analyses: (1) A market
assessment to better understand where
and how non-Class A EPSs are used, (2)
a technology assessment to better
understand the technology options that
can increase efficiency, (3) an
engineering analysis to estimate how
different design options affect efficiency
and cost, (4) an energy use and end-use
load characterization that describes how
much energy non-Class A EPSs
consume and for how long they operate,
(5) an LCC analysis to estimate the costs
and benefits to users from increased
efficiency of non-Class A EPSs, and (6)
a national impact analysis to estimate
the potential energy savings and the
economic costs and benefits on a
national scale that would result from
improving the energy efficiency of nonClass A EPSs. These separate analyses
are briefly addressed later below.
B. Test Procedures
The test procedure for measuring the
energy consumption of single-voltage
EPSs, which applies to high power
EPSs, medical EPSs, and EPSs for BCs,
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, pursuant
to EISA 2007, to include standby and off
modes.
DOE first proposed a test procedure
for measuring the energy consumption
of multiple-voltage EPSs in a NOPR
published in the Federal Register on
August 15, 2008. 73 FR 48054. PG&E
suggested that DOE use an internal
power supply test procedure, such as
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
27174
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
the PG&E test procedure for computers,2
to test multiple-voltage EPSs. (PG&E,
No. 7 at p. 2) DOE recently proposed
another test procedure for multiplevoltage EPSs on April 2, 2010. 75 FR
16958. The proposed test procedure,
like its predecessor, is based, in part, on
test procedures for internal power
supplies.
C. Market Assessment
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 impact analysis. DOE
published the details of its market
assessment in the NOPD and
accompanying TSD.
PG&E and CEC both commented that
the number of high power EPSs (those
with nameplate output power greater
than 250 watts) is likely to increase in
the future as applications such as game
consoles, fast chargers, and other home
electronics demand increasing amounts
of power. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 2; CEC et
al., No. 8 at p. 1) In its determination
analysis, DOE assumed the high power
EPS market would not change in size.
While DOE recognizes that the market
for high power EPSs may grow in the
future, a no-growth assumption is
sufficient to form a basis for the
determination since growth in high
power EPSs would only lend further
support in favor of a positive
determination. Nevertheless, DOE will
continue to monitor the market and take
such trends into account in the
standards rulemaking.
AHAM requested more information
on how the markups from efficiencyrelated materials cost to end-user
product prices were calculated (AHAM,
No. 6 at p. 5) Section 1.2 of the TSD
indicates that the sources for the
markups were interviews with EPS
manufacturers, gross margin data for
OEMs and retailers/distributors, and
sales tax data. For each representative
unit, DOE provides a figure that shows
how the products get to market and a
table listing the corresponding markups.
DOE will explain its markup
calculations in greater detail in the
standards rulemaking.
In the NOPD, DOE stated that it was
not aware of any non-motor operated
2 ‘‘Proposed Test Protocol for Calculating the
Energy Efficiency of Internal Ac-Dc Power
Supplies,’’ Revision 6.2, California Energy
Commission Public Interest Energy Research
Program, November 2007.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
applications with an EPS that powers
the charger of a detachable battery pack
and invited interested parties to provide
information about any such
applications. 74 FR 56933. CEA,
however, identified what it believed
were three such applications: bar code
scanners, mobile computers, and
wireless headphones. (CEA, No. 9 at p.
2) A bar code scanner is not a consumer
product as defined by EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6291(1)) The mobile computers that
CEA is referring to may be consumer
products, while wireless headphones
very likely are consumer products. DOE
will research these two potential EPS
applications in the standards
rulemaking.
D. Technology Assessment
The 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.
The technology assessment’s key output
is a list of technology options for
consideration in the engineering
analysis. DOE published the details of
its technology assessment in the NOPD
and accompanying TSD.
PG&E believed that cost-effective
efficiency improvements already
broadly implemented in the Class-A
EPS marketplace can be easily
incorporated into all non-Class A EPSs,
particularly high-efficiency switchedmode power supply topologies and
circuit designs that enable low power
consumption in no-load mode. (PG&E,
No. 7 at p. 1) Specifically, PG&E can
find no technical justification for
treating non-Class A EPSs sold with BCs
differently than Class A EPSs sold with
non-BC products. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 4)
In the NOPD, DOE described technology
options applicable to Class A EPSs that
were also applicable to non-Class A
EPSs. DOE continues to believe that
those technology options are applicable
to non-Class A EPSs.
PG&E commented that U.S. Food and
Drug Administration safety
requirements are compatible with
efficient EPS technology. (PG&E, No. 7
at p. 2) As indicated in the NOPD, DOE
continues to believe that medical EPSs
have the same potential for efficiency
improvements as do Class A EPSs.
E. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering
analysis is to determine the relationship
between a non-Class A EPS’s efficiency
and its efficiency-related materials cost
(ERMC). (The ERMC 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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 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 non-Class A EPS
‘‘representative units’’. The engineering
analysis methodology section in the
NOPD details the development of the
analysis and includes descriptions of
the analysis structure, inputs, and
outputs. Related supporting materials
are also found in the TSD.
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 Corporation
(iSuppli), an industry leader in the field
of electronics cost estimation.
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. Representative units are
theoretical models of popular or typical
devices described in terms of all
characteristics, such as output power
and output voltage, except for efficiency
and cost. DOE evaluates each
representative unit at different
efficiency levels to determine the
associated costs. Although the efficiency
of power converters in the market
ranges over an almost continuous
spectrum, DOE focused its analysis at
select candidate standard levels (CSLs).
In the engineering analysis, DOE
examined the cost of production at each
CSL for each representative unit. The
resulting relationship was termed an
‘‘engineering curve’’ or ‘‘cost-efficiency
curve.’’ The outputs of this analysis,
presented in section III. A, are the costefficiency points that define those
curves.
DOE received comments from AHAM
and PTI regarding the cost-efficiency
relationship described by the results of
the engineering analysis. PTI asserted
that it is unreasonable that cost appears
to be independent of efficiency, and
AHAM questioned the validity of a costefficiency curve that shows flat cost
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
with varying efficiency. (PTI, No. 5 at p.
2; AHAM, No. 6 at p. 6)
In the NOPD, DOE developed costefficiency curves for the six
representative units. Four of the six
cost-efficiency curves have a positive
slope, indicating that an increase in
efficiency is associated with an increase
in cost. (For the 345 W high-power EPS
representative unit, there is an increase
in cost from CSL 1 to CSL 3, although
the baseline CSL is the most expensive.)
Because DOE’s analyses identify a
general link between increased
efficiency and increased cost, DOE
believes that PTI and AHAM were
collectively referring to the two EPS-forBC representative units included in the
analysis. The cost-efficiency curves for
these units projected an increase in cost
from the baseline to CSL 1 but with no
increase in cost from CSL 1 to CSL 3.
As explained in the NOPD, the costefficiency relationship for these
representative units is based on
purchasing 12 EPS units, testing their
efficiency, and estimating their costs
through teardowns, of which three were
performed by iSuppli and the remainder
by DOE. There was no clear relationship
among the 12 units, other than that unit
#17, the lowest-efficiency linear EPS
unit used to characterize the baseline
cost, was cheaper than the average cost
of the switched-mode EPS units used to
characterize the higher CSLs.
Among the switched-mode EPSs, DOE
attempted to hold all factors constant
except for cost and efficiency. For
instance, the nameplate output power
ratings of the EPS test units ranged from
1.75 W to 5.2 W and the nameplate
output voltage ratings ranged from 5 V
to 5.2 V. DOE scaled the efficiencies of
the units to the representative unit
values for nameplate output power and
nameplate output voltage. However,
there may have been other differences
between the EPSs that affected cost and
efficiency that DOE was not able to
normalize, which might affect the
underlying relationship between cost
and efficiency. The available data did
not permit DOE to draw any
conclusions regarding how these
differences would affect the analysis.
DOE believes that examining units
already available in the market is a valid
method for characterizing the costefficiency relationship, that the results
for the units are accurate, and that the
analysis is sufficient to support a
positive determination. In the standards
rulemaking, DOE will consider the
comments from PTI and AHAM as it
develops a more robust engineering
analysis.
AHAM commented on DOE’s ERMC
analysis and raised issues related to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
scope of coverage of EPSs for BCs and
the criteria used to define charge
control. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) First,
AHAM noted that the ERMC analysis of
cost is not applicable to most AHAM
product wall adapters for BCs because
the analysis does not include
components used in charged control,
making the CSLs not applicable to
AHAM products. Second, AHAM does
not believe the cost-efficiency curve for
vacuum cleaners would be the same if
applied to the 95 percent of wall
adapters with charge control. Third,
AHAM asked that DOE demonstrate
how costs can be scaled using a base
volume of 1,000,000 per year. Fourth,
AHAM questioned whether the highvolume EPS ERMCs are applicable to
custom designed, small quantity BCs.
DOE agrees with AHAM’s first two
comments that DOE’s cost-efficiency
curves do not apply to wall adapters
that include charge control. Regarding
AHAM’s third comment, because DOE’s
analysis focused on EPSs that are
interchangeable and do not have charge
control, DOE evaluated their cost at high
volumes that are typical of EPSs.
Finally, as to AHAM’s fourth comment,
low volume EPS costs are inconsistent
with the scope of EPSs for BCs as
currently defined in this determination
and, consequently, were not evaluated.
F. Energy Use and End-Use Load
Characterization
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 estimates unit energy
consumption (UEC), which represents
the typical annual energy consumption
of an EPS in the field. The 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 (i.e., wall outlet) to
power a given load. Outputs from this
analysis feed into the LCC analysis and
NIA.
DOE published the details of its
energy use and end-use load
characterization in the NOPD and
accompanying TSD. In the one comment
DOE received on this analysis, PTI
agreed with the usage profiles DOE
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27175
adopted for EPSs for power tool BCs.
(PTI, No. 5 at p. 2) These usage profiles
can be found in section 4.3.5 of the TSD.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
DOE performed a life-cycle cost and
payback period analysis on each of the
representative units to analyze the
economic impacts of possible energy
efficiency standards on individual
consumers, as detailed in the NOPD.
The effects of standards on individual
consumers 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)
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
expenses. Sometimes more energyefficient equipment can have a lower
purchase price than the less energyefficient equipment that it replaces. In
this case, the consumer realizes an
immediate financial benefit and, thus,
there is no payback period.
DOE categorized inputs to the LCC
and PBP analysis as follows: (1) Inputs
for establishing the consumer purchase
price of an EPS and (2) inputs for
calculating the operating cost. In this
analysis, all dollar amounts are in 2008
dollars.
The primary inputs for establishing
the consumer purchase price are:
• ERMC in 2008 dollars, which is
based on the bill of materials cost of the
efficiency-related components of the
EPS; and
• Markups as scaling factors applied
to the manufacturer production cost to
create the final efficiency-related
consumer purchase price. The primary
inputs for calculating the operating cost
are:
• Unit energy consumption in
kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/year),
which is the annual site energy use of
the EPS;
• Electricity prices in 2008 dollars,
which are the prices paid by consumers
for electricity;
• An electricity price trend, which is
applied to the 2008 electricity price to
forecast electricity prices into the future;
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
27176
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
• Start year, which is the year in
which the EPS and its associated
product are purchased (for the LCC and
PBP analysis, DOE uses 2013 as the start
year for all products);
• Lifetime, which is the age at which
the EPS and its associated product are
retired from service (lifetimes vary by
product); and
• Discount rate, which is the rate at
which DOE discounted future
expenditures to establish their values in
the start year.
Many of the LCC analysis’s inputs are
developed in previous analyses: market
assessment, engineering analysis,
markups, and energy use and end-use
load characterization. Note that future
expenditures are discounted for the LCC
calculation and not the PBP calculation,
as DOE uses a simple PBP.
DOE published the details of its lifecycle cost and payback period analysis
in the NOPD and accompanying TSD.
DOE did not receive comment on the
life-cycle cost and payback period
analysis.
H. 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.
To estimate national energy savings
potential, DOE first calculated unit
energy savings (UES), which is the
difference between the UEC in the
standards 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 was then multiplied
by the national inventory of units to
calculate national energy savings.
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
3 percent and 7 percent and summed
them to obtain the national net present
value.
Additional detail on the national
impact analysis can be found in the
NOPD and accompanying TSD. DOE did
not receive comment on the
methodology employed in the national
impact analysis.
III. Analysis Results
A. Engineering Analysis
Based on the methodology previously
discussed, DOE developed costefficiency curves for each representative
unit by estimating the cost to reach each
CSL. The results of the engineering
analysis for each representative unit are
presented in Table III.1, Table III.2,
Table III.3, Table III.4, Table III.5, and
Table III.6. Additional detail is
contained in the NOPD and
accompanying TSD.
TABLE III.1—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR A 40-WATT MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE EPS FOR A MULTIFUNCTION DEVICE
Level
0
1
2
3
..................
..................
..................
..................
Reference point for level
Minimum active-mode efficiency
%
Maximum noload power consumption
W
Efficiency-related materials
cost
2008$
81
86
90
91
0.5
0.45
0.31
0.2
2.66
2.98
3.54
3.67
Less Than EISA 2007 ..............
Current Market ..........................
High Level .................................
Higher Level ..............................
Basis
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
interview
interview
interview
interview
data.
data.
data.
data.
TABLE III.2—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR A 203-WATT MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE EPS FOR A VIDEO GAME CONSOLE
Level
0
1
2
3
..................
..................
..................
..................
Reference point for level
Minimum active-mode efficiency
%
Maximum noload power consumption
W
Efficiency-related materials
cost
2008$
82
86
86
89
12.33
0.4
0.3
0.3
6.06
8.93
9.05
12.16
Generic Replacement ...............
Manufacturer Provided .............
EU Qualified Level ....................
Higher Level ..............................
Basis
Test and teardown data.
Test and teardown data.
Manufacturer interview data.
Manufacturer interview data.
TABLE III.3—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR A 345-WATT HIGH-POWER EPS FOR A HAM RADIO
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Level
0
1
2
3
..................
..................
..................
..................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Reference point for level
Minimum active-mode efficiency
%
Maximum noload power
consumption
W
Efficiency-related materials
cost
2008$
62
81
84
85
15.43
6.01
1.50
0.50
115.32
33.64
36.64
42.32
Line Frequency ...........................
Switched-Mode—Low Level .......
Switched-Mode—Mid Level ........
Switched-Mode—High Level ......
18:03 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Basis
Test and teardown data.
Test and teardown data.
Manufacturer interview data.
Manufacturer interview data.
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
27177
TABLE III.4—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR AN 18-WATT MEDICAL DEVICE EPS FOR A NEBULIZER
Level
0
1
2
3
..................
..................
..................
..................
Minimum active-mode efficiency
%
Reference point for level
Maximum noload power consumption
W
Efficiency-related materials
cost
2008$
66.0
76.0
80.3
85.0
0.557
0.5
0.3
0.15
2.95
3.62
3.62
5.70
Less Than the IV Mark * ..........
Meets the IV Mark ....................
Meets the V Mark .....................
Higher Level ..............................
Basis
Scaled ERMC of EPS #130.
Average ERMC of switched-mode EPSs.
Average ERMC of switched-mode EPSs.
Manufacturer interview data.
* As explained in section II.C.4 of the NOPD, the marks correspond to the International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies. (Energy Star. ‘‘International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies.’’ 2008. https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/
prod_development/revisions/downloads/International_Efficiency_Marking_Protocol.pdf).
TABLE III.5—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR A 1.8-WATT EPS FOR BC FOR A VACUUM
Level
0
1
2
3
..................
..................
..................
..................
Minimum active-mode efficiency
%
Reference point for level
Maximum noload power
consumption
W
Efficiency-related materials
cost
2008$
24
45
55
66
1.85
0.75
0.50
0.30
$0.83
0.95
0.95
0.95
Less than the II Mark ..................
Meets the II Mark ........................
Meets the IV Mark ......................
Meets the V Mark .......................
Basis
Scaled ERMC of EPS #17.
Average of switched-mode test data.
Average of switched-mode test data.
Average of switched-mode test data.
TABLE III.6—COST-EFFICIENCY POINTS FOR A 4.8-WATT EPS FOR BC FOR A DIY POWER TOOL
Level
0
1
2
3
..................
..................
..................
..................
Minimum active-mode efficiency
%
Reference point for level
Maximum noload power
consumption
W
Efficiency-related materials
cost
2008$
38
56
64
72
1.85
0.75
0.50
0.30
1.04
1.19
1.19
1.19
Less than the II Mark ..................
Meets the II Mark ........................
Meets the IV Mark ......................
Meets the V Mark .......................
B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
Based on the methodology previously
discussed, DOE conducted LCC and PBP
analyses for all six of the EPS
representative units in the residential
sector. The results of these analyses for
each representative unit are presented
Basis
Scaled EPS #17 ERMC.
Average of switched-mode test data.
Average of switched-mode test data.
Average of switched-mode test data.
in Table III.7, Table III.8, Table III.9,
Table III.10, Table III.11, and Table
III.12.
TABLE III.7.—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE 40-WATT EPS
Situation before standards
Standard at CSL
CSL
0
1
2
3
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
Conversion
efficiency
%
No-load
power
W
81
86
90
91
Percent of
market already at CSL
%
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
Standard at CSL
Consumer
purchase
price
2008$
25
50
25
0
8.45
9.49
11.26
11.67
Operating
cost
2008$/year
LCC
2008$
1.86
1.32
0.91
0.78
16.44
15.15
15.15
15.01
Weighted-average lifecycle cost
savings
2008$
Weighted-average payback period
year
......................
1.29
0.43
0.47
......................
1.9
3.8
3.5
TABLE III.8—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE 203-WATT EPS
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Situation before standards
Standard at CSL
CSL
0 .......................
1 .......................
2 .......................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Conversion
efficiency
%
No-load
power
W
82
86
86
18:03 May 13, 2010
Percent of
market already at CSL
%
12.3
0.4
0.3
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Consumer
purchase
price
2008$
5
95
0
Frm 00013
Standard at CSL
Fmt 4700
Operating
cost
2008$/year
LCC
2008$
19.08
28.12
28.49
14.87
3.82
3.76
82.78
44.49
44.62
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
Weighted-average lifecycle cost
savings
2008$
Weighted-average payback period
year
......................
38.28
1.79
......................
0.8
6.1
27178
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE III.8—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR MULTIPLE-VOLTAGE 203-WATT EPS—Continued
Situation before standards
Standard at CSL
CSL
3 .......................
Conversion
efficiency
%
No-load
power
W
89
Percent of
market already at CSL
%
0.3
Standard at CSL
Consumer
purchase
price
2008$
0
38.29
Operating
cost
2008$/year
LCC
2008$
3.14
Weighted-average lifecycle cost
savings
2008$
Weighted-average payback period
year
-5.32
14.2
51.73
TABLE III.9—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR HIGH POWER 345-WATT EPS
Situation before standards
Standard at CSL
CSL
0
1
2
3
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
Conversion
efficiency
%
No-load
power
W
62
81
84
85
Percent of
market already at CSL
%
15.4
6.0
1.5
0.5
Standard at CSL
Consumer
purchase
price
2008$
60
40
0
0
208.10
60.71
66.12
76.37
Operating
cost
2008$/year
LCC
2008$
16.20
6.17
5.09
4.50
331.75
107.81
104.93
110.68
Weighted-average lifecycle cost
savings
2008$
Weighted-average payback period
year
......................
223.95
137.24
131.49
......................
N/A
N/A
N/A
TABLE III.10—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR MEDICAL 18-WATT EPS
Situation before standards
Standard at CSL
CSL
0
1
2
3
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
Conversion
efficiency
%
No-load
power
W
66
76
80
85
Percent of
market already at CSL
%
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.2
Standard at CSL
Consumer
purchase
price
2008$
25
25
50
0
10.62
13.04
13.04
20.53
Operating
cost
2008$/year
LCC
2008$
4.74
2.99
2.28
1.60
40.95
32.13
27.60
30.79
Weighted-average lifecycle cost
savings
2008$
Weighted-average payback period
year
......................
8.82
8.94
1.28
......................
1.4
0.5
7.7
TABLE III.11—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR 1.8-WATT EPS FOR BCS
Situation before standards
Standard at CSL
CSL
0
1
2
3
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
Conversion
efficiency
%
No-load
power
W
24
45
55
66
Percent of
market already at CSL
%
1.9
0.8
0.5
0.3
Standard at CSL
Consumer
purchase
price
2008$
30
50
20
0
3.07
3.52
3.52
3.52
Operating
cost
2008$/year
LCC
2008$
2.15
0.84
0.55
0.35
12.27
7.11
5.89
5.03
Weighted-average lifecycle cost
savings
2008$
Weighted-average payback period
year
......................
5.17
3.15
3.38
......................
0.3
0.1
0.1
TABLE III.12—LCC AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS FOR A 4.8-WATT EPS FOR BCS
Situation before standards
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Standard at CSL
CSL
0
1
2
3
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Conversion
efficiency
%
No-load
power
W
38
56
64
72
18:03 May 13, 2010
Percent of
market already at CSL
%
1.9
0.8
0.5
0.3
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Consumer
purchase
price
2008$
25
50
25
0
Frm 00014
Standard at CSL
Fmt 4700
Operating
cost
2008$/year
LCC
2008$
4.32
4.94
4.94
4.94
0.81
0.39
0.27
0.19
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
7.81
6.61
6.11
5.75
14MYR1
Weighted-average lifecycle cost
savings
2008$
Weighted-average payback period
year
......................
1.19
0.90
1.03
......................
1.5
0.4
0.3
27179
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
C. National Impact Analysis
Based on the methodology previously
discussed, DOE conducted national
impact analyses of standards for each
type of non-Class A EPS. DOE assessed
two base cases, one in which the energy
efficiency of non-Class A EPSs was
assumed to improve over time due to
factors other than a Federal standard
and another in which energy efficiency
was assumed not to improve over time.
In the first case, factors expected to
drive efficiency improvements are
changing consumer preferences and
spillover effects from Class A EPS
standards. These two base cases provide
a lower and upper bound, respectively,
on DOE’s energy savings and NPV
estimates.
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 EPSs
could be as much as 141 trillion Btu or
0.14 quads over 30 years. CSL 3 yields
maximum energy savings and has a
positive NPV (both at 3-percent and 7percent discount rates) for all EPS types
except for the multiple-voltage 203 watt
EPS. For the latter, CSL 2 has a positive
NPV in one base case but a negative
NPV in the other. Thus, to estimate the
energy savings potential across all types
of non-Class A EPS, DOE selected CSL
1 for this one type of EPS. Table III.13
shows the contribution of each EPS type
to total savings potential and the NPV
of a standard set at the selected CSL.
Notably, increasing the efficiency of
EPSs for medical devices and multiplevoltage EPSs for multifunction devices
yields the greatest amount of projected
energy savings.
TABLE III.13—ENERGY SAVINGS POTENTIAL WHEN CSLS ARE SELECTED TO MAXIMIZE ENERGY SAVINGS
Type of EPS
CSL
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 ....................................................................
Total ..................................................................................................................
3
1
3
3
3
3
................
Energy savings potential
2013 to 2042
(trillion BTU*)
52.8–56.9
1.8–30.8
0.33–0.41
42.6–50.6
1.09–1.41
0.63–0.82
99–141
Net present Value 2013 to
2042 ($million)
3% Discount
rate
156–174
13–189
2.4–2.9
81–130
8.0–10.1
4.1–5.1
264–512
7% Discount
rate
76–85
9–101
1.2–1.5
27–50
4.5–5.6
2.3–2.8
120–245
* 1 Quad = 1,000 trillion BTU.
D. Discussion
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
1. Significance of Energy Savings
EPCA requires the Department to
determine whether to pursue energy
conservation standards for non-Class A
EPSs by finding the potential for
significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I)) While the term
‘‘significant’’ is not defined, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, indicated that Congress
intended this term to refer to savings
that were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’
Natural Resources Defense Council v.
Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C.
Cir. 1985) (addressing the meaning of
the term ‘‘significant’’ within the context
of setting energy conservation
standards). Using the Department’s
analysis, the estimated energy savings is
as much as 0.14 quads over a 30-year
period for non-Class A EPSs. This is
equivalent to the annual electricity
needs of 1.1 million U.S. homes. The
Department believes that the estimated
energy savings for the non-Class A EPSs
are not ‘‘genuinely trivial,’’ and are, in
fact, ‘‘significant.’’
2. Impact on Consumers
Using the methods and data described
previously, the Department conducted
an LCC analysis to estimate the net
benefits to users from more efficient
non-Class A EPSs. The Department then
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
aggregated the results from the LCC
analysis to the national level to estimate
national energy savings and national
economic impacts. Given the resultant
energy savings and economic benefits,
the Department concluded that there is
also likely to be reduced emissions from
decreased electricity generation,
decreased demand for the construction
of electricity power plants, and
potentially net indirect employment
benefits from shifting expenditures from
the capital-intensive utility sector to
consumer expenditures. While the
Department did not quantify these
potential benefits, it concluded that the
benefits are likely to be positive based
on the results of the Department’s
analyses of energy conservation
standards for similar products. The
Department will provide detailed
estimates of such impacts as part of the
standards rulemaking process that will
result from this determination.
IV. Conclusion
A. Determination
Based on its analysis of the
information now available, the
Department has determined that energy
conservation standards for non-Class A
EPSs appear to be technologically
feasible and economically justified, and
are likely to result in significant energy
savings. Consequently, the Department
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
will initiate the development of energy
conservation standards for non-Class A
EPSs.
All design options addressed in
today’s determination document are
technologically feasible. The
Department’s test and teardown data, as
well as data provided by manufacturers
during interviews, show that the
considered technologies are available to
all manufacturers. The candidate
standard levels of efficiency examined
in the Department’s analysis show that
there is the potential for significant
energy savings of as much as 0.14
quads.
All of the scenarios evaluated would
result in economic benefits to the
Nation as shown by the positive NPV.
While it is still uncertain whether
further analyses will confirm these
findings, the Department believes that
standards for non-Class A EPSs appear
economically justified based on a
balanced consideration of the
information and analysis available to
the Department at this time.
The Department has not produced
detailed estimates of the potential
adverse impacts of a national standard
on manufacturers or on individual
categories of users. The Department is
instead relying on the presence of
currently available high-efficiency
designs as an indicator of the probable
economic feasibility for manufacturers
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
27180
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
to exclusively produce high-efficiency
designs if required by standards. During
the course of the standards rulemaking
process, the Department will perform a
detailed analysis of the possible impacts
of standards on manufacturers, as well
as a more disaggregated assessment of
their possible impacts on usersubgroups.
B. Future Proceedings
The Department will begin a
proceeding to consider establishment of
energy conservation standards for nonClass A EPSs. During the standards
rulemaking, the Department will review
and analyze the likely effects of
industry-wide voluntary programs, such
as ENERGY STAR. The Department will
collect additional information about
design options, inputs to the
engineering and LCC analyses, and
potential impacts on the manufacturers
and consumers of non-Class A EPSs.
CEC and PG&E both encouraged DOE
to implement standards for all four
types of non-Class A EPSs. (CEC et al.,
No. 8 at p. 1; PG&E, No. 7 at p. 1) PG&E
expressed its desire for standards for
multiple-voltage EPSs in particular to
prevent potential backsliding by
manufacturers in producing more
efficient products. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 2)
PG&E s also noted that if standards are
not created for high-power EPSs,
manufacturers could opt to rate
products higher than 250 W so that they
fit into this category and, thereby,
circumvent standards. (PG&E, No. 7 at
p. 2) DOE will take these comments into
account as it considers standards for all
four types of non-Class A EPSs in the
standards rulemaking.
PG&E commented that medical EPSs
represent a considerable energy-saving
opportunity, but acknowledged that due
to the lengthy and expensive FDA
approval process they may require
special treatment. PG&E suggested two
approaches that would avoid placing
undue burden on manufacturers of
medical EPSs: (1) DOE could place the
effective date of standards for medical
EPSs later than 2013 or 2014, or (2) DOE
could grant an exemption from
standards for EPSs manufactured after
the effective date of the standard that
are used with a medical device that
received FDA approval before the
effective date (or were submitted for
approval before that date). (PG&E, No. 7
at p. 3)
In the standards rulemaking process,
DOE will examine needs particular to
medical EPSs and methods for
addressing those needs when evaluating
the potential for setting standards for
these products. The Department will
also evaluate any proposed standards
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
for medical EPSs to determine whether
they are technologically feasible and
economically justified, and are likely to
result in significant energy savings in
accordance with the requirements of
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) Depending on
the outcome of these analyses, as well
as other factors DOE is required to
consider, the agency will determine,
what, if any, standards would be
appropriate for these products.
V. 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.
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 rule under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act and the procedures and policies
published on February 19, 2003.
Today’s rule sets no standards; it only
positively determines that future
standards may be warranted and should
be explored in an energy conservation
standards rulemaking. 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 rule has
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 determines that the
development of energy efficiency
standards for non-Class A EPS is
warranted and 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 positively
determines 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 rule only
determines that future standards may be
warranted, but does 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 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 rule
and has determined that it does not
preempt State law or have a substantial
direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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 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.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
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 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
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 rule does 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 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 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 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 does 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
does not result in any takings which
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27181
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.
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 determines
that development of energy efficiency
standards for non-Class A EPS is
warranted and does 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 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
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
27182
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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
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.
VI. Approval of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary
The Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy has
approved publication of this final rule.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 7, 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010–11592 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–CRT–0017]
RIN 1904–AC10
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Energy Conservation Program: WebBased Compliance and Certification
Management System
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule: provides a
new means for manufacturers and third
party representatives to prepare and
submit compliance and certification
reports to the Department of Energy
(DOE) through an electronic Web-based
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:03 May 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
tool, the Compliance and Certification
Management System (CCMS), which
will be the preferred mechanism for
submitting compliance and certification
reports; allows compliance and
certification reports to be submitted via
e-mail; and updates the address and
contact information used to submit
compliance statements and certification
reports through certified mail to DOE.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective June 1, 2010.
ADDRESSES: For access to the docket and
to read background material, visit the
U.S. Department of Energy, Resource
Room of the Building Technologies
Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th
Floor, 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 regarding
visiting the Resource Room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202)
286–2192. E-mail:
Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Betsy Kohl, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of General Counsel,
GC–71, Forrestal Building, GC–71,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202)
586–7796. E-mail:
Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov.
DOE
establishes that compliance statements
and certification reports may be
submitted to DOE through any of the
following means:
1. Compliance and Certification
Management System (CCMS)—via the
Web portal: https://regulations.doe.gov/
ccms. Follow the instructions on the
CCMS Web site for submitting
compliance statements and certification
reports. The CCMS is a tool for
certification of compliance with
applicable energy conservation
standards. Submission of compliance
statements and certification reports via
the CCMS is preferred and will satisfy
compliance and certification reporting
requirements for DOE. For CCMS Help/
Support Contact: Mr. Charles Llenza,
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Building Technologies, EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586–
2192. E-mail:
Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. E-mail—send to:
certification.report@ee.doe.gov and
indicate in the subject line the
manufacturer, the third party
representative if applicable, and the
specific product or equipment for which
the report is being submitted.
3. Certified Mail—send to: Charles
Llenza, Appliances and Commercial
Equipment Standards, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program (EE–2J), Forrestal
Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Include in the address the subject line:
Compliance and Certification
Management System.
Legislative Authority: Part A of Title
III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),
Public Law 94–163, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 6291–6309, established the
‘‘Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than
Automobiles.’’ Similarly, Part A–1 of
Title III of EPCA, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
6311–6317, established an energy
efficiency program for ‘‘Certain
Industrial Equipment,’’ which included
certain commercial equipment.1 EPCA
requires each manufacturer of a covered
product to submit information or reports
to the Secretary with respect to energy
efficiency, energy use, or, in the case of
showerheads, faucets, water closets, and
urinals, water use of such covered
product and the economic impact of any
proposed energy conservation standard,
as DOE determines may be necessary to
establish and revise test procedures,
labeling rules, and energy conservation
standards for such product and to
ensure compliance with the
requirements. In so doing, DOE must
consider existing public sources,
including nationally recognized
certification programs of trade
associations. See 42 U.S.C. 6296(d).
Further, the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPACT 2005), Public Law 109–58,
amended EPCA with respect to
particular consumer products and
commercial and industrial equipment
by providing definitions, test
procedures, labeling provisions, energy
conservation standards, and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers. EPACT
2005 also authorized DOE to require
manufacturers of covered commercial
and industrial equipment to submit
information and reports for a variety of
purposes, including ensuring
1 For editorial reasons, Parts B (consumer
products) and C (commercial equipment) of Title III
of EPCA were re-designated as parts A and A–1,
respectively, in the United States Code.
E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM
14MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 93 (Friday, May 14, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27170-27182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11592]
[[Page 27170]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) has
determined, based on the best information currently available, that
energy conservation standards for non-Class A external power supplies
are technologically feasible and economically justified, and would
result in significant energy savings. This determination initiates the
process of establishing, by notice and comment rulemaking, energy
conservation standards for these products.
DATES: This rule is effective June 14, 2010.
ADDRESSES: This rulemaking can be identified by docket number EERE-
2009-BT-DET-0005 and/or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904-
AB80.
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 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 Determination
A. Background and Legal Authority
B. Scope
1. DC-DC Power Supplies
2. Basic Approaches to Regulating Wall Adapters for BCs
3. Specific Criteria for Identifying the Presence of Charge
Control
4. Size of the EPS for BC Market
II. Methodology
A. Purpose and Content
B. Test Procedures
C. Market Assessment
D. Technology Assessment
E. Engineering Analysis
F. Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
H. National Impact Analysis
III. Analysis Results
A. Engineering Analysis
B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
C. National Impact Analysis
D. Discussion
1. Significance of Energy Savings
2. Impact on Consumers
IV. Conclusion
A. Determination
B. Future Proceedings
V. 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
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Determination
EPCA requires DOE to issue a final rule determining whether to
issue energy efficiency standards for non-Class A external power
supplies (EPSs). Consistent with this requirement, DOE has analyzed
multiple candidate standard levels for non-Class A EPSs. These analyses
indicate that it is technologically feasible to manufacture EPSs at
some of these levels in large part because EPSs that meet these levels
are already commercially available. DOE further determined that
standards for all non-Class A EPSs that DOE analyzed 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.
DOE's analyses also indicate that energy conservation standards
would also likely be cost-effective from a national perspective. The
national net present value (NPV) of energy conservation standards for
non-Class A EPSs could be as much as $512 million in 2008$, assuming an
annual discount rate of 3 percent. As a result, these analyses indicate
that both individual consumers and the Nation as a whole would likely
benefit economically from the imposition of energy conservation
standards for non-Class A EPSs. Accordingly, DOE has positively
determined that such standards are technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings.
DOE notes that its forecast of projected savings and national NPV
considers only the direct financial costs and benefits to consumers of
standards, specifically, the increased equipment costs of EPSs
purchased from 2013 to 2032 and the associated energy cost savings over
the lifetimes of those products. 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. Such impacts will 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 today's
final rule is contained in the notice of proposed determination,
published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2009, (74 FR 56928)
and the accompanying technical support document (TSD), available from
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at
[[Page 27171]]
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
The nature of this document results from the specific statutory
requirements that DOE issue this notice as a rule. In accordance with
this requirement, DOE issued its November 2009 notice prior to today's
final rule notice. In addition, DOE combined as appropriate the
analysis required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA 2007), Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007), with the analysis that
DOE had already performed as a result of requirements added previously
by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Public Law 109-58 (Aug.
8, 2005). EPACT 2005 required DOE to issue a determination analysis to
address battery chargers and external power supplies; EISA 2007
subsequently amended this provision by focusing the analysis solely on
external power supplies.
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.'' 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 underway 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 allotted
time to complete the determination.
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, to include
any amended standards as part of that final rule. (42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(3)(D)(i)) 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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii))
Because Congress has already set standards for Class A EPSs and
separately required DOE through a separate statutory provision to
perform two rounds of rulemakings to consider amending efficiency
standards for Class A EPSs, see 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3), the determination
analysis under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) excluded these products
from this analysis. Accordingly, the present determination concerns
only EPSs falling outside of the Class A definition, i.e., ``non-Class
A EPSs.''
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)). The BC 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. DOE is
now developing its preliminary analysis of standards for BCs and Class
A EPSs. With today's positive determination that standards are
warranted for non-Class A EPSs, standards for these products also will
be considered within the ongoing standards rulemaking.
The Department began the analysis for this determination by
conducting testing and teardowns on commercially available non-Class A
EPSs and by collecting information from manufacturers of non-Class A
EPSs and original equipment manufacturers that use non-Class A EPSs.
The Department shared its preliminary findings regarding efficiency
improvements in its November 2009 notice of proposed determination
(NOPD). 74 FR 56928. This notice was accompanied by a technical support
document (TSD), which was published on the EERE Web site. Subsequently,
the Department received written comments on the notice and TSD from the
Power Tool Institute, Inc. (PTI); the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM); Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E); a joint
comment from the California Energy Commission (CEC), PG&E, San Diego
Gas and Electric Company, Appliance Standards Awareness Project,
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (hereafter referred to as the
CEC comment); and the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA). (PTI, No.
5; AHAM, No. 6; PG&E, No. 7; CEC et al., No. 8; and CEA, No. 9).
For more information about DOE rulemakings concerning BCs and EPSs,
see the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
B. Scope
As explained in the NOPD, the scope of this determination covers
all EPSs falling outside of Class A, which DOE identifies in this
notice as non-Class A EPSs. EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005, defines an
EPS 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)) EISA 2007
amended EPCA by, among other things, defining in 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)
a subset of external power supplies (i.e. a Class A EPS).
The analysis underlying DOE's NOPD focused on four EPS types: (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. 74 FR 56930.
1. DC-DC Power Supplies
CEA asked DOE to clarify whether DC-DC power supplies are outside
the scope of the EPS definition. (CEA, No. 9 at p. 2) The statutory
definition of an EPS is ``an external power supply circuit that is used
to convert household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage
AC current to operate a consumer product.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A))
Household electric current is nominally 120 volts AC. Thus, under the
statutory definition set by Congress, wall adapters with DC input power
are not EPSs.
[[Page 27172]]
2. Basic Approaches to Regulating Wall Adapters for BCs
DOE has identified four possible approaches to regulating wall
adapters for BCs. These four approaches, referred to as approaches A,
B, C, and D, are explained in the framework document referred to in the
notice of document availability DOE published in the Federal Register
on June 4, 2009.\1\ 74 FR 26816. Under Approach A, a wall adapter would
be considered an EPS only if it lacked charge control (i.e., a method
to control the charge flowing to the battery). In addition, the EPS
could be subject to both EPS and BC standards if it were also a part of
a battery charging system. Under Approach B a wall adapter would not be
considered an EPS as long as it powered a battery charger (the presence
or absence of charge control being irrelevant). Approach C is similar
to Approach A in that a wall adapter would be considered an EPS only if
it lacked charge control; however, under Approach C the EPS would only
be subject to EPS standards and not BC standards, even if it were also
part of a battery charging system. Under Approach D a wall adapter that
powers a battery charging system would always be considered an EPS
regardless of the presence of charge control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These approaches are explained 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).
The approaches also address the related question of whether the wall
adapter should be considered part of the BC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received comments related to EPSs for BCs in response to the
NOPD. Many of these comments revolved around two closely related
questions: (1) When is a wall adapter an EPS and (2) When is an EPS
considered part of a BC? Comments on this issue were submitted by
parties representing a variety of interests, including industry and
energy efficiency advocates. The following two paragraphs describe the
comments DOE received related to these questions, while the third and
fourth paragraphs that follow provide DOE's responses to those
comments.
The first set of comments concerned the question of when a wall
adapter should be categorized as an EPS. PG&E urged DOE to adopt
Approach A as it is described in the framework document, claiming that
this approach ensures a technically accurate, common sense approach to
defining EPSs and battery chargers. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 6) PG&E's
comment echoed its earlier comment and those of several others,
including FRIWO, PTI, Ecos Consulting, and Motorola, who stated their
support for Approach A in written comments on the framework document
and at the associated public meeting on July 16, 2009. (FRIWO, EERE-
2008-BT-STD-0005 No. 21 at p. 1; Pub. Mtg. Tr., EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005
No. 14 at pp. 62, 116; Motorola, EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 No. 25 at p. 1;
PG&E et al., EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 No. 20 at p. 3) PTI reiterated its
preference for Approach B and noted that if Approach B were not
available, Approach A would be the next best option. (PTI, No. 5 at p.
2) AHAM urged DOE to accept a slight modification of Approach B and
agreed with PTI that of the remaining approaches, Approach A would be
the next best option. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 4) The modification to
Approach B that AHAM requested would also exclude from the set of EPSs
all high power wall adapters that are used to charge batteries and all
wall adapters that are used to charge batteries for medical devices.
DOE indicated in its framework document that Approach B would be
inconsistent when applied to the Class A EPS statutory definition,
because DOE cannot limit the scope of the EPS definition by adding
another exclusion to those already created by Congress. AHAM also asked
DOE to address more fully its reasons for not selecting Approach B when
applying it to non-Class A EPSs. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 3)
The second set of comments concerned the closely related question
of when an EPS should be considered part of a BC. AHAM and PTI
expressed their opposition to overlapping standards, i.e., requiring an
EPS to comply with an EPS standard and the BC of which it is part to
comply with a BC standard. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 1; AHAM, No. 6 at p. 2)
Approaches A and D could potentially lead to the overlap that AHAM and
PTI oppose. PTI reiterated its contention that ``the proper way to deal
with the efficiency of BCs is through a comprehensive standard that
treats the charger as [a] whole, including the wall adapter (if one is
part of the system).'' (PTI, No. 5 at p. 1) AHAM agreed, stating that
``we do not believe it is appropriate conceptually or technically to
separate the testing of any parts of the battery recharging circuit in
a test procedure for battery chargers.'' (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 2) AHAM
proposed that DOE create a separate class of BCs called ``appliance
battery chargers'' that would encompass both wall adapter-based and
cord-connect-based appliance battery chargers and further noted that
testing a wall adapter first as an EPS and then as a part of a battery
charger system ``would be an extreme burden on all manufacturers, but
particularly on the small and medium sized enterprises and provide no
benefit to consumers.'' (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 3)
DOE used Approach A to define the scope of its determination
analysis. This is the approach that DOE identified in the framework
document as its preferred approach to determining which wall adapters
are EPSs. DOE also explained in the framework document that it
considers Approach B legally unacceptable for Class A EPSs because it
would create additional exclusions of products that would otherwise
satisfy the statutory definition of a Class A EPS. Since Congress
already established specific exclusions to the Class A EPS definition,
DOE has tentatively taken the position that it does not retain the
authority to create exclusions beyond that which Congress has
established. See the Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework
Document for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies, at 32.
However, DOE did not rule out applying Approach B for non-Class A
EPSs, an approach both AHAM and Wahl Clipper have requested DOE
consider. (AHAM, EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 No. 16 at pp. 2-3; Wahl Clipper,
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 No. 23 at p. 1) When viewed in light of these and
similar comments received earlier during the rulemaking process for
these products, AHAM and PTI's objections to overlapping standards
appear to focus on non-Class A EPSs, not Class A EPSs. If Approach A
were used for Class A EPSs and Approach B were used for non-Class A
EPSs, wall adapters that power the chargers of detachable battery packs
or charge the batteries of products that are fully or primarily motor
operated would not be subject to EPS standards while those wall
adapters that power other battery charged applications (Class A EPSs)
would be subject to EPS standards. Nevertheless, DOE is concerned that
using Approach A for Class A EPSs and Approach B for non-Class A EPSs
would create two distinct definitions of an EPS that would prevent one
from readily identifying a particular wall adapter as being an EPS
until it is known whether it powers the charger of a detachable battery
pack or charges the battery of a product that is fully or primarily
motor operated. DOE intends to make a decision on this issue as part of
the standards rulemaking.
DOE acknowledges that if it applied Approach B to non-Class A EPSs,
the total energy savings potential from non-Class A EPS standards would
be less than under Approach A, as EPSs for BCs would not be covered.
However, the reduction in savings would be small, as
[[Page 27173]]
EPSs for BCs account for less than 2 percent of the savings estimated
in the present analysis. Furthermore, DOE believes that these savings
would be captured by BC standards that would cover the devices of which
the wall adapters were a part.
3. Specific Criteria for Identifying the Presence of Charge Control
PG&E and AHAM commented on the criteria for determining whether
charge control is present in a wall adapter. PG&E strongly urged DOE to
remain consistent with the criteria identified in the framework
document that focus on electrical equivalency and battery charger
functions. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 3) PG&E cautioned against using a vague
and undefined ``constant voltage'' criterion for identifying EPSs,
citing research conducted by Ecos Consulting that examined the
electrical characteristics of wall adapters that power the chargers of
detachable battery packs or charge the batteries of products that are
fully or primarily motor operated. This research found at least one
wall adapter that was electrically equivalent to Class A EPSs that did
not produce constant voltage output and at least one wall adapter that
was not electrically equivalent to Class A EPSs that produced constant
voltage output. (PG&E, No. 7 at pp. 4-5) As a result, PG&E recommended
that DOE ``rely on physical indications of charge control circuitry or
functionality, such as a battery-charge indicator or chemistry-type
selector switch'' rather than ``constant voltage'' for determining
whether charge control is present in a wall adapter. (PG&E, No. 7 at p.
7) AHAM asked that DOE state clearly the criteria that will be used to
determine whether charge control is present in a wall adapter. (AHAM,
No. 6 at p. 4) AHAM further urged DOE to accept the criteria for charge
control that were discussed at the framework document public meeting on
July 16, 2009, as doing so would lead to ``the vast majority of AHAM
battery chargers using wall adapters being treated as complete battery
chargers.'' (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 6)
DOE has not yet established final criteria for determining which
wall adapters are EPSs. In the framework document, DOE sought
stakeholder comment on four possible criteria for identifying charge
control in a wall adapter--short-circuit operation, voltage regulation,
no-load voltage, and no-battery operation, but did not indicate which
criteria it would use going forward. In the NOPD and today's notice,
DOE used constant voltage output as a preliminary criterion for
establishing the absence of charge control and thereby identifying
EPSs. Comments submitted in response to the NOPD questioned whether
constant voltage output would be an appropriate test when determining
whether a particular product lacks charge control, and DOE is
reconsidering this approach. The protocol for determining which wall
adapters are EPSs will be finalized within the standards rulemaking.
4. Size of the EPS for BC Market
DOE received several comments on the size of the market for EPSs
for BCs. Interested parties disagreed on the size of the market due to
a difference of opinion as to what proportion of wall adapters for the
BCs under consideration were EPSs. AHAM agreed with DOE's estimate that
no more than 5 percent of wall adapters for cordless rechargeable floor
care appliances provide constant voltage, adding that if this estimate
is used as the basis for the determination, the same criteria used to
arrive at this estimate must be used in the standards NOPR and Final
Rule as well. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) AHAM also agreed with DOE that wall
adapters for rechargeable personal care appliances use charge control
and, therefore, are not EPSs. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 4) PTI agreed with
DOE's estimate that approximately 5 percent of all wall adapters for
powers tool BCs are true EPSs, adding that if the charge control
criteria were significantly altered in the future, the validity of the
determination could be eroded. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 2)
PG&E, however, commented that DOE greatly underestimated the number
of EPSs for BCs. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 7) CEC concurred and urged DOE to
reconsider its methodology for calculating energy savings potential
from EPSs for BCs, citing PG&E research that suggests the potential
savings from this group of products is 20 times higher than DOE
suggested. (CEC et al., No. 8 at p. 1)
Until the protocol for determining which wall adapters are EPSs is
finalized, the number of EPSs for BCs cannot be accurately estimated.
In light of the absence of this protocol, DOE conservatively estimated
the size of the market for EPSs for BCs in the determination analysis.
A larger market would only serve to increase the potential energy
savings from standards for these products, which would serve as
additional support for the positive determination that DOE has already
reached using its more conservative approach.
II. Methodology
A. Purpose and Content
The Department analyzed the feasibility of achieving significant
energy savings from energy conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs.
The NOPD presented the results of this analysis. As part of the
subsequent standards rulemaking, DOE will perform more robust analyses.
These analyses will involve more precise and detailed information that
the Department will develop and receive during the standards rulemaking
process, and will detail the potential effects of proposed energy
conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs.
To address EPCA requirements that DOE determine whether energy
conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs would be technologically
feasible and economically justified and result in significant energy
savings, the Department's analysis consisted of six separate analyses:
(1) A market assessment to better understand where and how non-Class A
EPSs are used, (2) a technology assessment to better understand the
technology options that can increase efficiency, (3) an engineering
analysis to estimate how different design options affect efficiency and
cost, (4) an energy use and end-use load characterization that
describes how much energy non-Class A EPSs consume and for how long
they operate, (5) an LCC analysis to estimate the costs and benefits to
users from increased efficiency of non-Class A EPSs, and (6) a national
impact analysis to estimate the potential energy savings and the
economic costs and benefits on a national scale that would result from
improving the energy efficiency of non-Class A EPSs. These separate
analyses are briefly addressed later below.
B. Test Procedures
The test procedure for measuring the energy consumption of single-
voltage EPSs, which applies to high power EPSs, medical EPSs, and EPSs
for BCs, 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, pursuant to EISA
2007, to include standby and off modes.
DOE first proposed a test procedure for measuring the energy
consumption of multiple-voltage EPSs in a NOPR published in the Federal
Register on August 15, 2008. 73 FR 48054. PG&E suggested that DOE use
an internal power supply test procedure, such as
[[Page 27174]]
the PG&E test procedure for computers,\2\ to test multiple-voltage
EPSs. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 2) DOE recently proposed another test
procedure for multiple-voltage EPSs on April 2, 2010. 75 FR 16958. The
proposed test procedure, like its predecessor, is based, in part, on
test procedures for internal power supplies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Proposed Test Protocol for Calculating the Energy
Efficiency of Internal Ac-Dc Power Supplies,'' Revision 6.2,
California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research
Program, November 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Market Assessment
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
impact analysis. DOE published the details of its market assessment in
the NOPD and accompanying TSD.
PG&E and CEC both commented that the number of high power EPSs
(those with nameplate output power greater than 250 watts) is likely to
increase in the future as applications such as game consoles, fast
chargers, and other home electronics demand increasing amounts of
power. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 2; CEC et al., No. 8 at p. 1) In its
determination analysis, DOE assumed the high power EPS market would not
change in size. While DOE recognizes that the market for high power
EPSs may grow in the future, a no-growth assumption is sufficient to
form a basis for the determination since growth in high power EPSs
would only lend further support in favor of a positive determination.
Nevertheless, DOE will continue to monitor the market and take such
trends into account in the standards rulemaking.
AHAM requested more information on how the markups from efficiency-
related materials cost to end-user product prices were calculated
(AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) Section 1.2 of the TSD indicates that the sources
for the markups were interviews with EPS manufacturers, gross margin
data for OEMs and retailers/distributors, and sales tax data. For each
representative unit, DOE provides a figure that shows how the products
get to market and a table listing the corresponding markups. DOE will
explain its markup calculations in greater detail in the standards
rulemaking.
In the NOPD, DOE stated that it was not aware of any non-motor
operated applications with an EPS that powers the charger of a
detachable battery pack and invited interested parties to provide
information about any such applications. 74 FR 56933. CEA, however,
identified what it believed were three such applications: bar code
scanners, mobile computers, and wireless headphones. (CEA, No. 9 at p.
2) A bar code scanner is not a consumer product as defined by EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6291(1)) The mobile computers that CEA is referring to may be
consumer products, while wireless headphones very likely are consumer
products. DOE will research these two potential EPS applications in the
standards rulemaking.
D. Technology Assessment
The 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. The technology
assessment's key output is a list of technology options for
consideration in the engineering analysis. DOE published the details of
its technology assessment in the NOPD and accompanying TSD.
PG&E believed that cost-effective efficiency improvements already
broadly implemented in the Class-A EPS marketplace can be easily
incorporated into all non-Class A EPSs, particularly high-efficiency
switched-mode power supply topologies and circuit designs that enable
low power consumption in no-load mode. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 1)
Specifically, PG&E can find no technical justification for treating
non-Class A EPSs sold with BCs differently than Class A EPSs sold with
non-BC products. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 4) In the NOPD, DOE described
technology options applicable to Class A EPSs that were also applicable
to non-Class A EPSs. DOE continues to believe that those technology
options are applicable to non-Class A EPSs.
PG&E commented that U.S. Food and Drug Administration safety
requirements are compatible with efficient EPS technology. (PG&E, No. 7
at p. 2) As indicated in the NOPD, DOE continues to believe that
medical EPSs have the same potential for efficiency improvements as do
Class A EPSs.
E. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to determine the
relationship between a non-Class A EPS's efficiency and its efficiency-
related materials cost (ERMC). (The ERMC 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 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 non-Class A EPS ``representative units''. The engineering
analysis methodology section in the NOPD details the development of the
analysis and includes descriptions of the analysis structure, inputs,
and outputs. Related supporting materials are also found in the TSD.
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 Corporation (iSuppli), an industry leader in the
field of electronics cost estimation.
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.
Representative units are theoretical models of popular or typical
devices described in terms of all characteristics, such as output power
and output voltage, except for efficiency and cost. DOE evaluates each
representative unit at different efficiency levels to determine the
associated costs. Although the efficiency of power converters in the
market ranges over an almost continuous spectrum, DOE focused its
analysis at select candidate standard levels (CSLs). In the engineering
analysis, DOE examined the cost of production at each CSL for each
representative unit. The resulting relationship was termed an
``engineering curve'' or ``cost-efficiency curve.'' The outputs of this
analysis, presented in section III. A, are the cost-efficiency points
that define those curves.
DOE received comments from AHAM and PTI regarding the cost-
efficiency relationship described by the results of the engineering
analysis. PTI asserted that it is unreasonable that cost appears to be
independent of efficiency, and AHAM questioned the validity of a cost-
efficiency curve that shows flat cost
[[Page 27175]]
with varying efficiency. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 2; AHAM, No. 6 at p. 6)
In the NOPD, DOE developed cost-efficiency curves for the six
representative units. Four of the six cost-efficiency curves have a
positive slope, indicating that an increase in efficiency is associated
with an increase in cost. (For the 345 W high-power EPS representative
unit, there is an increase in cost from CSL 1 to CSL 3, although the
baseline CSL is the most expensive.) Because DOE's analyses identify a
general link between increased efficiency and increased cost, DOE
believes that PTI and AHAM were collectively referring to the two EPS-
for-BC representative units included in the analysis. The cost-
efficiency curves for these units projected an increase in cost from
the baseline to CSL 1 but with no increase in cost from CSL 1 to CSL 3.
As explained in the NOPD, the cost-efficiency relationship for these
representative units is based on purchasing 12 EPS units, testing their
efficiency, and estimating their costs through teardowns, of which
three were performed by iSuppli and the remainder by DOE. There was no
clear relationship among the 12 units, other than that unit
17, the lowest-efficiency linear EPS unit used to characterize
the baseline cost, was cheaper than the average cost of the switched-
mode EPS units used to characterize the higher CSLs.
Among the switched-mode EPSs, DOE attempted to hold all factors
constant except for cost and efficiency. For instance, the nameplate
output power ratings of the EPS test units ranged from 1.75 W to 5.2 W
and the nameplate output voltage ratings ranged from 5 V to 5.2 V. DOE
scaled the efficiencies of the units to the representative unit values
for nameplate output power and nameplate output voltage. However, there
may have been other differences between the EPSs that affected cost and
efficiency that DOE was not able to normalize, which might affect the
underlying relationship between cost and efficiency. The available data
did not permit DOE to draw any conclusions regarding how these
differences would affect the analysis. DOE believes that examining
units already available in the market is a valid method for
characterizing the cost-efficiency relationship, that the results for
the units are accurate, and that the analysis is sufficient to support
a positive determination. In the standards rulemaking, DOE will
consider the comments from PTI and AHAM as it develops a more robust
engineering analysis.
AHAM commented on DOE's ERMC analysis and raised issues related to
the scope of coverage of EPSs for BCs and the criteria used to define
charge control. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) First, AHAM noted that the ERMC
analysis of cost is not applicable to most AHAM product wall adapters
for BCs because the analysis does not include components used in
charged control, making the CSLs not applicable to AHAM products.
Second, AHAM does not believe the cost-efficiency curve for vacuum
cleaners would be the same if applied to the 95 percent of wall
adapters with charge control. Third, AHAM asked that DOE demonstrate
how costs can be scaled using a base volume of 1,000,000 per year.
Fourth, AHAM questioned whether the high-volume EPS ERMCs are
applicable to custom designed, small quantity BCs.
DOE agrees with AHAM's first two comments that DOE's cost-
efficiency curves do not apply to wall adapters that include charge
control. Regarding AHAM's third comment, because DOE's analysis focused
on EPSs that are interchangeable and do not have charge control, DOE
evaluated their cost at high volumes that are typical of EPSs. Finally,
as to AHAM's fourth comment, low volume EPS costs are inconsistent with
the scope of EPSs for BCs as currently defined in this determination
and, consequently, were not evaluated.
F. Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization
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 estimates unit
energy consumption (UEC), which represents the typical annual energy
consumption of an EPS in the field. The 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 (i.e., wall outlet) to
power a given load. Outputs from this analysis feed into the LCC
analysis and NIA.
DOE published the details of its energy use and end-use load
characterization in the NOPD and accompanying TSD. In the one comment
DOE received on this analysis, PTI agreed with the usage profiles DOE
adopted for EPSs for power tool BCs. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 2) These usage
profiles can be found in section 4.3.5 of the TSD.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
DOE performed a life-cycle cost and payback period analysis on each
of the representative units to analyze the economic impacts of possible
energy efficiency standards on individual consumers, as detailed in the
NOPD. The effects of standards on individual consumers 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) 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 expenses.
Sometimes more energy-efficient equipment can have a lower purchase
price than the less energy-efficient equipment that it replaces. In
this case, the consumer realizes an immediate financial benefit and,
thus, there is no payback period.
DOE categorized inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis as follows: (1)
Inputs for establishing the consumer purchase price of an EPS and (2)
inputs for calculating the operating cost. In this analysis, all dollar
amounts are in 2008 dollars.
The primary inputs for establishing the consumer purchase price
are:
ERMC in 2008 dollars, which is based on the bill of
materials cost of the efficiency-related components of the EPS; and
Markups as scaling factors applied to the manufacturer
production cost to create the final efficiency-related consumer
purchase price. The primary inputs for calculating the operating cost
are:
Unit energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/
year), which is the annual site energy use of the EPS;
Electricity prices in 2008 dollars, which are the prices
paid by consumers for electricity;
An electricity price trend, which is applied to the 2008
electricity price to forecast electricity prices into the future;
[[Page 27176]]
Start year, which is the year in which the EPS and its
associated product are purchased (for the LCC and PBP analysis, DOE
uses 2013 as the start year for all products);
Lifetime, which is the age at which the EPS and its
associated product are retired from service (lifetimes vary by
product); and
Discount rate, which is the rate at which DOE discounted
future expenditures to establish their values in the start year.
Many of the LCC analysis's inputs are developed in previous
analyses: market assessment, engineering analysis, markups, and energy
use and end-use load characterization. Note that future expenditures
are discounted for the LCC calculation and not the PBP calculation, as
DOE uses a simple PBP.
DOE published the details of its life-cycle cost and payback period
analysis in the NOPD and accompanying TSD. DOE did not receive comment
on the life-cycle cost and payback period analysis.
H. 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.
To estimate national energy savings potential, DOE first calculated
unit energy savings (UES), which is the difference between the UEC in
the standards 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 was
then multiplied by the national inventory of units to calculate
national energy savings.
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 base-case 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 3 percent and 7 percent and summed them to
obtain the national net present value.
Additional detail on the national impact analysis can be found in
the NOPD and accompanying TSD. DOE did not receive comment on the
methodology employed in the national impact analysis.
III. Analysis Results
A. Engineering Analysis
Based on the methodology previously discussed, DOE developed cost-
efficiency curves for each representative unit by estimating the cost
to reach each CSL. The results of the engineering analysis for each
representative unit are presented in Table III.1, Table III.2, Table
III.3, Table III.4, Table III.5, and Table III.6. Additional detail is
contained in the NOPD and accompanying TSD.
Table III.1--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 40-Watt Multiple-Voltage EPS for a Multifunction Device
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency-
Reference point for Minimum active- Maximum no- related
Level level mode load power materials cost Basis
efficiency % consumption W 2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................... Less Than EISA 2007.. 81 0.5 2.66 Manufacturer interview data.
1...................... Current Market....... 86 0.45 2.98 Manufacturer interview data.
2...................... High Level........... 90 0.31 3.54 Manufacturer interview data.
3...................... Higher Level......... 91 0.2 3.67 Manufacturer interview data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.2--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 203-Watt Multiple-Voltage EPS for a Video Game Console
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency-
Reference point for Minimum active- Maximum no- related
Level level mode load power materials cost Basis
efficiency % consumption W 2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................... Generic Replacement.. 82 12.33 6.06 Test and teardown data.
1...................... Manufacturer Provided 86 0.4 8.93 Test and teardown data.
2...................... EU Qualified Level... 86 0.3 9.05 Manufacturer interview data.
3...................... Higher Level......... 89 0.3 12.16 Manufacturer interview data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.3--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 345-Watt High-Power EPS for a Ham Radio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency-
Reference point for Minimum active- Maximum no- related
Level level mode load power materials cost Basis
efficiency % consumption W 2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................... Line Frequency....... 62 15.43 115.32 Test and teardown data.
1...................... Switched-Mode--Low 81 6.01 33.64 Test and teardown data.
Level.
2...................... Switched-Mode--Mid 84 1.50 36.64 Manufacturer interview data.
Level.
3...................... Switched-Mode--High 85 0.50 42.32 Manufacturer interview data.
Level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 27177]]
Table III.4--Cost-Efficiency Points for an 18-Watt Medical Device EPS for a Nebulizer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency-
Reference point for Minimum active- Maximum no- related
Level level mode load power materials cost Basis
efficiency % consumption W 2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................... Less Than the IV Mark 66.0 0.557 2.95 Scaled ERMC of EPS 130.
*.
1...................... Meets the IV Mark.... 76.0 0.5 3.62 Average ERMC of switched-mode EPSs.
2...................... Meets the V Mark..... 80.3 0.3 3.62 Average ERMC of switched-mode EPSs.
3...................... Higher Level......... 85.0 0.15 5.70 Manufacturer interview data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As explained in section II.C.4 of the NOPD, the marks correspond to the International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies. (Energy
Star. ``International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies.'' 2008. https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/International_Efficiency_Marking_Protocol.pdf).
Table III.5--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 1.8-Watt EPS for BC for a Vacuum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency-
Reference point for Minimum active- Maximum no- related
Level level mode load power materials cost Basis
efficiency % consumption W 2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................... Less than the II Mark 24 1.85 $0.83 Scaled ERMC of EPS 17.
1...................... Meets the II Mark.... 45 0.75 0.95 Average of switched-mode test data.
2...................... Meets the IV Mark.... 55 0.50 0.95 Average of switched-mode test data.
3...................... Meets the V Mark..... 66 0.30 0.95 Average of switched-mode test data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.6--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 4.8-Watt EPS for BC for a DIY Power Tool
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency-
Reference point for Minimum active- Maximum no- related
Level level mode load power materials cost Basis
efficiency % consumption W 2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................... Less than the II Mark 38 1.85 1.04 Scaled EPS 17 ERMC.
1...................... Meets the II Mark.... 56 0.75 1.19 Average of switched-mode test data.
2...................... Meets the IV Mark.... 64 0.50 1.19 Average of switched-mode test data.
3...................... Meets the V Mark..... 72 0.30 1.19 Average of switched-mode test data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
Based on the methodology previously discussed, DOE conducted LCC
and PBP analyses for all six of the EPS representative units in the
residential sector. The results of these analyses for each
representative unit are presented in Table III.7, Table III.8, Table
III.9, Table III.10, Table III.11, and Table III.12.
Table III.7.--LCC and Payback Period Results for Multiple-Voltage 40-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation before standards Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Conversion Percent of Consumer Operating average life- Weighted-
Standard at CSL CSL efficiency No-load market purchase cost 2008$/ LCC 2008$ cycle cost average
% power W already at price 2008$ year savings payback
CSL % 2008$ period year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 81 0.5 25 8.45 1.86 16.44 ............ ............
1....................................... 86 0.5 50 9.49 1.32 15.15 1.29 1.9
2....................................... 90 0.3 25 11.26 0.91 15.15 0.43 3.8
3....................................... 91 0.2 0 11.67 0.78 15.01 0.47 3.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.8--LCC and Payback Period Results for Multiple-Voltage 203-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation before standards Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Conversion Percent of Consumer Operating average life- Weighted-
Standard at CSL CSL efficiency No-load market purchase cost 2008$/ LCC 2008$ cycle cost average
% power W already at price 2008$ year savings payback
CSL % 2008$ period year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 82 12.3 5 19.08 14.87 82.78 ............ ............
1....................................... 86 0.4 95 28.12 3.82 44.49 38.28 0.8
2....................................... 86 0.3 0 28.49 3.76 44.62 1.79 6.1
[[Page 27178]]
3....................................... 89 0.3 0 38.29 3.14 51.73 -5.32 14.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.9--LCC and Payback Period Results for High Power 345-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation before standards Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Conversion Percent of Consumer Operating average life- Weighted-
Standard at CSL CSL efficiency No-load market purchase cost 2008$/ LCC 2008$ cycle cost average
% power W already at price 2008$ year savings payback
CSL % 2008$ period year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 62 15.4 60 208.10 16.20 331.75 ............ ............
1....................................... 81 6.0 40 60.71 6.17 107.81 223.95 N/A
2....................................... 84 1.5 0 66.12 5.09 104.93 137.24 N/A
3....................................... 85 0.5 0 76.37 4.50 110.68 131.49 N/A
---------------------------------------------
