Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers, 16112-16168 [2023-04765]

Download as PDF 16112 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [EERE–2020–BT–STD–0013] RIN 1904–AE50 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; announcement of public meeting. AGENCY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including battery chargers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or ‘‘Department’’) to periodically determine whether morestringent, standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’), DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for battery chargers, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results. DATES: Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Thursday, April 27, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants. Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR no later than May 15, 2023. Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the ADDRESSES section on or before April 14, 2023. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket number EERE–2020–BT–STD–0013. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE– 2020–BT–STD–0013, by any of the following methods: lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 Email: batterychargers2020STD0013@ ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number EERE–2020–BT–STD–0013 in the subject line of the message. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section VII of this document. Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure. The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2020-BT-STD-0013. The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov. EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input from market participants and other interested persons with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested persons may contact the Division at energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’ line of your email the title and Docket Number of this proposed rulemaking. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Technologies Office, EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. Ms. Melanie Lampton, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (240) 751– 5157. Email: Melanie.Lampton@ hq.doe.gov. For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers B. Impact on Manufacturers C. National Benefits and Costs D. Conclusion II. Introduction A. Authority B. Background 1. Current Standards 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Battery Chargers 3. Deviation From Appendix A III. General Discussion A. General Comments B. Scope of Coverage C. Test Procedure D. Technological Feasibility 1. General 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels E. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings 2. Significance of Savings F. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) c. Energy Savings d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition f. Need for National Energy Conservation g. Other Factors 2. Rebuttable Presumption IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments A. Market and Technology Assessment 1. Product Classes 2. Technology Options B. Screening Analysis 1. Screened-Out Technologies 2. Remaining Technologies C. Engineering Analysis 1. Efficiency Analysis a. Baseline Energy Use b. Higher Efficiency Levels 2. Cost Analysis 3. Cost-Efficiency Results E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16113 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules D. Markups Analysis E. Energy Use Analysis F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 1. Product Cost 2. Annual Energy Consumption 3. Energy Prices 4. Product Lifetime 5. Discount Rates 6. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case 7. Payback Period Analysis G. Shipments Analysis H. National Impact Analysis 1. Product Efficiency Trends 2. National Energy Savings 3. Net Present Value Analysis I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 1. Overview 2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs a. Manufacturer Production Costs b. Shipments Projections c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs d. Markup Scenarios 3. Manufacturer Interviews K. Emissions Analysis 1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE’s Analysis L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions a. Social Cost of Carbon b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide 2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts M. Utility Impact Analysis N. Employment Impact Analysis V. Analytical Results and Conclusions A. Trial Standard Levels B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings 1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results b. Direct Impacts on Employment c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 3. National Impact Analysis a. Significance of Energy Savings b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 7. Other Factors 8. Summary of Economic Impacts C. Conclusion 1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Battery Chargers Standards 2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered 2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated 4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements for Small Entities 5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations 6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Information Quality VII. Public Participation A. Participation in the Webinar B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution C. Conduct of the Webinar D. Submission of Comments E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 6309) These products include battery chargers, the subject of this rulemaking. Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE proposes new multimetric energy conservation standards for battery chargers. The proposed standards, which are expressed in max active charge energy and max standby and off modes power values, are shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all battery chargers listed in Table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the date 2 years after the publication of the final rule for this rulemaking. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS Product class Battery energy Ebatt (Wh) Maximum active mode energy Ea (Wh) Maximum standby mode power Psb* (W) 1a Fixed-Location Wireless ........... 1b Open-Placement Wireless ....... 2a Low-Energy .............................. 2b Medium-Energy ........................ 2c High-Energy .............................. ≤100 .................. N/A ................... ≤100 .................. 100–1,000 ........ >1,000 .............. 1.718 * Ebatt + 8.5 ........................ N/A ................................................ 1.222 * Ebatt + 4.980 .................... 1.367 * Ebatt + ¥9.560. 1.323 * Ebatt + 34.361. 1.5 ................................................. 0.8 (Pnb only) ................................ 0.00098 * Ebatt + 0.4 .................... Off mode power Poff (W) * Standby mode power is the sum of no-battery mode power and maintenance mode power, unless noted otherwise. 1 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 0 0 0 16114 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers Table I.2 presents DOE’s evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of battery chargers, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) savings and the simple payback period (‘‘PBP’’).2 The average LCC savings are positive or nearly zero for all product classes and the PBP is similar to or less than the average lifetime of battery chargers, which is estimated to range from 3.0 to 10.0 years (see section IV.F of this document). TABLE I.2—IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF BATTERY CHARGERS Average LCC savings (2021$) Battery charger product class Fixed-Location Wireless Chargers .......................................................................................................................... Open-Placement Wireless Chargers ....................................................................................................................... Low-Energy Wired Chargers ................................................................................................................................... Medium-Energy Wired Chargers ............................................................................................................................. High-Energy Wired Chargers .................................................................................................................................. 3.8 4.1 4.0 4.4 1.5 The industry net present value (‘‘INPV’’) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2023–2056). Using a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of battery charger applications in the case without amended standards is $78.9 billion in 2021$. Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from 4.6 percent to ¥0.3 percent, which is approximately ¥$3,659 million to ¥$214 million. To bring products into compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total conversion costs of $398.2 million. DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’) are presented in section V.B.2. DOE’s analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for battery chargers would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for battery chargers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the amended standards (2027–2056) amount to 1.2 quadrillion British thermal units (‘‘Btu’’), or quads.4 This represents a savings of 17.6 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without amended standards (referred to as the ‘‘no-new-standards case’’). The cumulative net present value (‘‘NPV’’) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for battery chargers ranges from $3.7 billion (at a 7percent discount rate) to $7.5 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for battery chargers purchased in 2027– 2056. In addition, the proposed standards for battery chargers are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 40 million metric tons (‘‘Mt’’) 5 of carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’), 272 thousand tons of methane (‘‘CH4’’), 0.42 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (‘‘N2O’’), 18 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (‘‘SO2’’), 62 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (‘‘NOX’’), and 0.11 tons of mercury (‘‘Hg’’).6 DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) using four different estimates of the social cost of CO2 (‘‘SCCO2’’), the social cost of methane (‘‘SCCH4’’), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (‘‘SC-N2O’’). Together these represent the social cost of GHG (SCGHG).7 DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).8 The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L. of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SCGHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $2.1 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the 2 The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards (see section IV.F.6 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product (see section IV.C of this document). 3 All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2023 dollars. 4 The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document. 5 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons. 6 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2022 (‘‘AEO2022’’). AEO2022 represents current federal and state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for further discussion of AEO2022 assumptions that effect air pollutant emissions. 7 On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv– 1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. 8 See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, Washington, DC, February 2021 (‘‘February 2021 SC-GHG TSD’’). www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_ SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this document. C. National Benefits and Costs 3 B. Impact on Manufacturers lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 ¥0.03 0.12 0.13 1.55 14.32 Simple payback period (years) VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO2 and NOX emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L. of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $1.8 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $3.8 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.9 DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. Table I.3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for battery 16115 chargers. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others. TABLE I.3—SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS [TSL 2] Billion $2021 3% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................................................................... Climate Benefits * ........................................................................................................................................................................... Health Benefits ** ........................................................................................................................................................................... Total Benefits † .............................................................................................................................................................................. Consumer Incremental Product Costs .......................................................................................................................................... Net Benefits ................................................................................................................................................................................... 9.0 2.1 3.8 15.0 1.4 13.5 7% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................................................................... Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ............................................................................................................................................ Health Benefits ** ........................................................................................................................................................................... Total Benefits † .............................................................................................................................................................................. Consumer Incremental Product Costs .......................................................................................................................................... Net Benefits ................................................................................................................................................................................... 4.6 2.1 1.8 8.6 0.9 7.7 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with product name shipped in 2027–2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027–2056. * Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of this NOPR). Together these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. ** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. † Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits of emission reductions, all annualized.10 The national operating savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of battery chargers shipped in 2027–2056. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of battery chargers shipped in 2027–2056. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section IV.L of this document. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NOX and SO2 emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from 9 DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866. 10 To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2023, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year’s shipments in the year in which the shipments occur (e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2023. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that yields the same present value. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16116 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in this rule is $89 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $457 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $120 million in climate benefits, and $178 million in health benefits. In this case. The net benefit would amount to $665 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $81 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $500 million in reduced operating costs, $120 million in climate benefits, and $215 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $754 million per year. Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NOX and SO2 emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in this rule is $89 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $457 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $120 million in climate benefits, and $178 million in health benefits. In this case. The net benefit would amount to $665 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $81 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $500 million in reduced operating costs, $120 million in climate benefits, and $215 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $754 million per year. TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS [TSL 2] Million 2021$/year Primary estimate Low-netbenefits estimate High-netbenefits estimate 3% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................. Climate Benefits * ......................................................................................................................... Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................................... Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................................ Consumer Incremental Product Costs ........................................................................................ Net Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 500 120 215 834 81 754 487 120 215 821 90 731 516 120 215 850 71 779 457 120 178 754 89 665 447 120 178 744 98 646 469 120 178 766 79 687 7% discount rate lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................. Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) .......................................................................................... Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................................... Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................................ Consumer Incremental Product Costs ........................................................................................ Net Benefits ................................................................................................................................. Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with battery chargers shipped in 2027–2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027–2056. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. * Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this NOPR). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. ** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. † Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE’s analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this document. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 D. Conclusion DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to technological feasibility products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 all product classes covered by this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE’s analysis shows that the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the proposed standards. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NOX and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for battery chargers is $89 million per year in increased battery charger costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $457 million in reduced battery charger operating costs, $120 million in climate benefits and $178 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $665 million per year. The significance of energy savings is evaluated by DOE on a case-by-case basis considering the specific circumstances surrounding a specific rulemaking. The standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 1.2 quad FFC. DOE has initially determined the energy savings that would result from the proposed standard levels are ‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying TSD. DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits. Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this document and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part. II. Introduction The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for battery chargers. A. Authority EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include battery chargers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32); 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20)) EPCA directed DOE to issue a final rule that prescribes energy conservation standards for battery chargers or classes of battery charges or to determine that no energy conservation standard is technically feasible or economically justified. 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(II) EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296). Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 16117 (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for battery chargers appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 430, subpart B, appendix Y and appendix Y1. DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including battery chargers. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain products, including battery chargers, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors: (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard; (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard; (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16118 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) EPCA also contains what is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’), Public Law 110–140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE’s current test procedures for battery chargers address standby mode and off mode energy use. In this rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended energy conservation standards that it may adopt. B. Background 1. Current Standards In a final rule published on June 13, 2016 (‘‘June 2016 Final Rule’’), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for battery chargers manufactured on and after June 13, 2018. 81 FR 38266. These standards are set forth in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(z) and are summarized in Table II.1. TABLE II.1—CURRENT FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS Maximum unit of energy consumption (UEC) * (kWh/year) Product class Battery charger classification 1 .............................. Low-energy inductive battery chargers to be used in wet environment with associated battery energy of less than or equal to 5 watt-hours (Wh). Low-energy, low-voltage battery chargers with associated battery energy of less than 100Wh, and battery voltage of less than 4 volts (V). Low-energy, medium-voltage battery chargers with associated battery energy of less than 100Wh, and battery voltage of 4V to 10V. 2 .............................. 3 .............................. 4 .............................. 5 .............................. 6 .............................. 7 .............................. Low-energy, high-voltage battery chargers with associated battery energy of less than 100Wh, and battery voltage of more than 10V. Medium-energy, low-voltage battery chargers with associated battery energy of 100Wh to 3,000Wh, and battery voltage of less than 20V. Medium-energy, high-voltage battery chargers with associated battery energy of 100Wh to 3,000Wh, and battery voltage of higher than or equal to 20V. High-energy battery chargers with associated battery energy of more than 3,000Wh. 3.04. 0.1440 * Ebatt + 2.95. For Ebatt < 10Wh, 1.42; For Ebatt ≥ 10Wh, 0.0255 * Ebatt + 1.16. 0.11 * Ebatt + 3.18. 0.0257 * Ebatt + 0.815. 0.0778 * Ebatt + 2.4. 0.0502 * Ebatt + 4.53. * Maximum UEC is expressed as a function of representative battery energy (Ebatt). lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Battery Chargers On September 16, 2020, DOE published notice that it was initiating an early assessment review to determine whether any new or amended standards would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a new or amended energy conservation standard for battery chargers and a request for information (‘‘RFI’’). 85 FR 57787 (‘‘September 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI’’). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 Specifically, through the published notice and request for information, DOE sought data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ‘‘no new standard’’ determination because a more stringent standard: (1) would not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing. Id. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Subsequently, DOE published a preliminary analysis on March 3, 2022 (‘‘March 2022 Preliminary Analysis’’) to respond to comments pertaining to the September 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI, and presented preliminary engineering analyses based on a multimetric approach that independently measures active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy use metrics. 87 FR 11990. DOE conducted in-depth technical analyses in the following E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules areas: (1) engineering; (2) markups to determine product price; (3) energy use; (4) LCC’’ and ‘‘PBP’’; and (5) national impacts. The preliminary TSD that presents the methodology and results of each of these analyses is available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013. 16119 DOE received comments in response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis from the interested parties listed in Table II.2. TABLE II.2—MARCH 2022 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS WRITTEN COMMENTS Commenter type UL ........................................... NEEA ...................................... Joint Trade Associations ........ 11 16 17 Efficiency Organization. Efficiency Organization. Trade Association. CA IOUs .................................. 18 Utility Association. Joint Efficiency Advocates ...... 19 Efficiency Organization. Delta-Q .................................... 20 Manufacturer. Abbreviation UL Solutions ............................................................................. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ....................................... Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers; Consumer Technology Association; Information Technology Industry Council; National Electrical Manufacturers Association; Outdoor Power Equipment Institute; Power Tool Institute. Pacific Gas and Electric Company; San Diego Gas & Electric Company; Southern California Edison. Appliance Standards Awareness Project; American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy; Consumer Federation of America; New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Delta-Q Technologies ............................................................... A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.11 To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided during the April 2022 public meeting, DOE cites the written comments throughout this document. Any oral comments provided during the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments are summarized and cited separately throughout this document. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Comment number in the docket Commenter(s) 3. Deviation From Appendix A In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (‘‘appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in appendix A regarding the NOPR stages for an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A specifies that the length of the public comment period for a NOPR will not be less than 75 calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE has opted to instead provide a 60-day comment period. DOE requested comment in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis on the technical and economic analyses and provided stakeholders with a 60-day comment period. 87 FR 11990. DOE has relied on many of the same analytical assumptions and approaches as used in the preliminary assessment and has 11 The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE’s rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for battery chargers. (Docket No. EERE– 2020–BT–STD–0013, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 determined that a 60-day comment period in conjunction with the prior comment periods provides sufficient time for interested parties to review the proposed rule and develop comments. III. General Discussion DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues raised by these commenters. A. General Comments This section summarizes general comments received from interested parties regarding rulemaking timing and process. In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, Joint Trade Associations commented that DOE’s process for this rulemaking undermines the value of early stakeholder engagement because: (1) DOE developed the preliminary analysis based on a proposed test procedure rather than a finalized one; and (2) DOE has provided a shortened comment period on the preliminary analysis that overlaps with the comment period for the external power supply (‘‘EPS’’) preliminary analysis as well as a preliminary analysis on amended standards for electric motors, both of which impact many of the same manufacturers as the ones for battery chargers. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 17 at pp. 2–3) The Joint Trade Associations further commented that the proposed test procedure has drawn serious concerns from several commenters, and it would be flawed without addressing opposing PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 comments. The Joint Trade Associations also suggested that amended standards would not be justified regardless of whether the standards were analyzed using either the current test procedure or the recently finalized new test procedure in appendix Y1 and that, as a result, DOE should issue a notice of proposed determination not to amend battery charger standards. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 17 at p. 4) DOE reiterates that the preliminary analysis was intended to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the various methodologies DOE intended to use in the NOPR. DOE again notes that the preliminary analysis results should not be relied upon to assess whether amended standards for battery chargers are justified. In addition, by conducting the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis with the proposed test procedure, DOE gave stakeholders an early preview of what the new multimetric standards may potentially look like, allowing stakeholders enough time to review and comment on potential issues with DOE’s approach and results. DOE notes that there were concerns and potential test burdens associated with the original proposed test procedure; however, these issues have been addressed in the test procedure final rule published in September 2022 (‘‘September 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule’’). 87 FR 55090. As such, unless otherwise noted, test results used in support of this NOPR were measured using the multi-metric test procedure as finalized in the September 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule. DOE further notes that because the finalized test procedure adopts the multi-metric approach, the current integrated UEC standards would E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16120 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 no longer be applicable to test results under the new test procedure. As such, even if DOE were to hold the multimetric standards at the same level as the current UEC standards, DOE would still need to amend the current standards to translate them to the multi-metric one. DOE understands that the Joint Trade Associations are concerned that amended standards might not be justified, based on results from the preliminary analysis. However, DOE has expanded its analysis further in the NOPR stage and has more robust results that indicate amended standards can result in significant conservation of energy. These results are further discussed in section V of this NOPR document. With regards to a shortened comment period, DOE believes the 60-day comment period was sufficient for reviewing the methodologies and results presented. However, DOE did not receive any comment period extension requests from any stakeholder during the preliminary analysis comment period. NEEA stated its general support for several aspects of the preliminary TSD, including the general framework and approach to battery charger efficiency metrics and standards levels, active candidate standard levels (CSLs) that are continuous across product class boundaries, the approach to translate current compliance certification data (CCD) to active mode by subtracting 5 hours of battery maintenance power from the total charge and maintenance energy measurement, and the technology neutral definition of wireless charging. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 5) DOE appreciates NEEA’s general support on these aspects of DOE’s battery charger rulemaking. B. Scope of Coverage This NOPR covers those consumer products that meet the definition of ‘‘battery chargers,’’ which are devices that charge batteries for consumer products, including battery chargers embedded in other consumer products. 10 CFR 430.2. (See also 42 U.S.C. 6291(32)) A battery charger may be wholly embedded in another consumer product, partially embedded in another consumer product, or wholly separate from another consumer product. Currently under the test procedure at appendix Y, only consumer wired chargers and wet environment wireless inductive chargers designed for battery energies of no more than 5 watt-hours are covered battery charger product classes. In the September 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE expanded the battery VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 charger test procedure coverage to cover all fixed-location wireless chargers in all modes of operation, and openplacement wireless chargers in nobattery mode only. 87 FR 55090, 55095– 55098. As such, in this NOPR, DOE is proposing to expand the scope of battery energy conservation standards to cover these fixed-location and openplacement wireless chargers in separate product classes. See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the product classes analyzed in this NOPR. C. Test Procedure EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE’s adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. As stated, currently, only consumer wired chargers and wet environment wireless inductive chargers designed for batteries with energies of no more than 5 watt-hours are covered under the test procedure scope at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Y. However, on September 8, 2022, DOE published a test procedure final rule that expanded the battery charger test procedure coverage to cover all fixed-location and open-placement wireless chargers, and adopted the multi-metric test procedure approach, where each mode of operation is independently regulated, thus making usage profiles no longer required. 87 FR 55090, 55092–55093. This new test procedure is in the separate appendix Y1, and manufacturers will be required to use results of testing under the new test procedure to determine compliance with amended energy conservation standards. D. Technological Feasibility 1. General In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C (‘‘Process Rule’’). After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)–(v) and 7(b)(2)–(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for battery chargers, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR technical support document (‘‘TSD’’). 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy efficiency for battery chargers, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. E. Energy Savings 1. Determination of Savings For each trial standard level (‘‘TSL’’), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to battery chargers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the proposed standards (2027–2056).12 The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of 12 Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9year period. E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules battery chargers purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy conservation standards. DOE used its national impact analysis (‘‘NIA’’) spreadsheet model to estimate national energy savings (‘‘NES’’) from potential amended or new standards for battery chargers. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.13 DOE’s approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.1 of this document. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 2. Significance of Savings To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.14 For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the 13 The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s statement of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). 14 The numeric threshold for determining the significance of energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14, 2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary energy and FFC effects for different covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors. DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels at TSL 2 are ‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). F. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking. a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 16121 domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers. For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a standard. b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis. The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value. The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect. For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16122 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this document. c. Energy Savings Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.E, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this rulemaking. e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General’s determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for information to send comments to DOJ. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 f. Need for National Energy Conservation DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation’s energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation’s electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the Nation’s needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document. DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and GHGs associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section IV.L of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this document. g. Other Factors In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described previously, DOE could consider such information under ‘‘other factors.’’ 2. Rebuttable Presumption As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year’s energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section V.B of this proposed rule. IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to battery chargers. Separate subsections address each component of DOE’s analyses. DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates national energy savings and net present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: www.regulations.gov/ document/EERE-Mar-BT-STD-0013. Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy Information Administration’s (‘‘EIA’s’’) Annual Energy Outlook (‘‘AEO’’), a widely known energy projection for the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses. A. Market and Technology Assessment DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of battery chargers. The key findings of DOE’s market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment. 1. Product Classes When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may establish separate standards for a group of covered products (i.e., establish a separate product class) if DOE determines that separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE determines that a 16123 product’s capacity or other performance-related feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (Id.) DOE currently defines separate energy conservation standards for the following battery charger product classes (10 CFR 430.32(z)(1)): TABLE IV.1—CURRENT BATTERY CHARGER PRODUCT CLASSES Maximum UEC * (kWh/year) Product class Battery charger classification 1 .............................. Low-energy inductive battery chargers to be used in wet environment with associated battery energy of less than or equal to 5 watt-hours (Wh). Low-energy, low-voltage battery chargers with associated battery energy of less than 100Wh, and battery voltage of less than 4 volts (V). Low-energy, medium-voltage battery chargers with associated battery energy of less than 100Wh, and battery voltage of 4V to 10V. Low-energy, high-voltage battery chargers with associated battery energy of less than 100Wh, and battery voltage of more than 10V. Medium-energy, low-voltage battery chargers with associated battery energy of 100Wh to 3,000Wh, and battery voltage of less than 20V. Medium-energy, high-voltage battery chargers with associated battery energy of 100Wh to 3,000Wh, and battery voltage of higher than or equal to 20V. High-energy battery chargers with associated battery energy of more than 3,000Wh. 2 .............................. 3 .............................. 4 .............................. 5 .............................. 6 .............................. 7 .............................. 3.04. 0.1440 * Ebatt + 2.95. For Ebatt < 10Wh, 1.42; For Ebatt ≥ 10Wh, 0.0255 * Ebatt + 1.16. 0.11 * Ebatt + 3.18. 0.0257 * Ebatt + 0.815. 0.0778 * Ebatt + 2.4. 0.0502 * Ebatt + 4.53. * Maximum UEC is expressed as a function of representative battery energy (Ebatt). Battery chargers are devices that charge batteries for consumer products, including battery chargers embedded in other consumer products. 10 CFR 430.2. (See also 42 U.S.C. 6291(32)) A battery charger may be wholly embedded in another consumer product, partially embedded in another consumer product, or wholly separate from another consumer product. Under appendix Y, only consumer wired chargers and wet environment wireless inductive chargers designed for battery energies of no more than 5 watt-hours are covered battery charger product classes. In the September 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE adopted the proposal to expand the battery charger test procedure scope to cover all both fixedlocation wireless chargers and openplacement wireless chargers. 87 FR 55090, 55095–55098. DOE also adopted the proposal to establish new multimetric test procedure for battery chargers. 87 FR 55090, 55100–55108. DOE notes that in transitioning to the multi-metric approach where each mode of operation is independently regulated, usage profiles are no longer required. Currently established product classes help identify the particular set of usage profiles that must be applied to the UEC equation for a given battery charger model’s UEC to be calculated. Without the need for usage profiles, however, the need to maintain currently established product classes is also greatly diminished. In light of this situation, along with the additional wireless battery charger test procedure coverage, DOE is proposing to remove the existing product classes and establish new ones as follows: TABLE IV.2—PROPOSED BATTERY CHARGER PRODUCT CLASS DESCRIPTION Product class No. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 1a 1b 2a 2b 2c ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ Fixed-Location Wireless Battery Chargers ............................................................ Open-Placement Wireless Battery Chargers ......................................................... Low-energy Wired Battery Charger ....................................................................... Medium-energy Wired Battery Charger ................................................................. High-energy Wired Battery Charger ...................................................................... As shown in Table IV.2, wired battery chargers are further divided into three sub-product classes representing chargers with associated battery energies that are either low-energy (0– 100Wh), medium-energy (100–1000Wh), VerDate Sep<11>2014 Rated battery energy (Ebatt) Product class description 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 or high-energy (>1000Wh) such that equations representing potential standards for each of these sub-classes can be independently adjusted to accommodate the unique characteristics of chargers at each of these ranges and PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 ≤100Wh. All Battery Energies. 0–100Wh. 100–1000Wh. >1000Wh. to achieve a desired pass rate. Similarly, wireless chargers are divided into fixedlocation wireless charger and openplacement wireless charger because of the expanded test procedure scope. E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16124 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules The Joint Efficiency Advocates stated support for DOE’s evaluation of both fixed-location and open-placement wireless chargers in the NOPR stage analysis because of the significant energy savings that could be achieved. The Joint Efficiency Advocates reiterated that wireless chargers are significantly less efficient than wired chargers, as stated from their response to the standards RFI published on September 16, 2020.15 (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at p. 2) The CA IOUs and NEEA both supported DOE’s development of standards for wireless chargers. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at pp.2–3; NEEA No. 16 at pp. 3–4) NEEA further commented that considering active mode and standby mode CSLs are appropriate for fixedlocation wireless chargers and no battery mode only standards for openplacement wireless chargers are also appropriate at this time. (Id.) Both the CA IOUs and NEEA also encouraged DOE to further analyze the standards for wireless chargers with the CA IOUs urging DOE to work with the industry to cover the active mode operation of open-placement wireless chargers as well. DOE notes that DOE’s battery charger standards are developed with the test procedure in mind. Although DOE adopted both active and standby modes test procedure for fixed-location wireless chargers, because of the intrinsic testing repeatability and representativeness issues, DOE did not prescribe an active mode test procedure for open-placement wireless chargers in the September 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule. As a result, DOE is also not considering active mode energy conservation standards for openplacement wireless chargers in this rulemaking. An engineer from UL commented that a cross-class standard for multi-port and/or multi-voltage battery chargers should be developed because one of the battery charger products that they are testing cannot be classified with the current battery charger product classes, and the compliance certification management system (CCMS) reporting template also does not address such issue. (UL, No. 11 at pp. 1–2) DOE notes that for multi-port and/or multi-voltage battery chargers, DOE’s battery selection criteria in Table 3.2.1 from appendix Y and appendix Y1 clearly notes that all ports and battery or configuration of batteries with the highest individual voltage should be used for testing, and if multiple batteries meet the criteria, then the battery or configuration of batteries with the highest total nameplate charge capacity at the highest individual voltage should be used for testing. As such, the battery charger product class for such multiport/multi-voltage battery would be based on the highest individual battery voltage, and the highest total battery charge capacity. The CA IOUs stated that DOE should reconsider its decision not to include DC fast chargers (DCFCs) used to charge light-duty EVs and PHEVs in DOE’s battery charger standards. The CA IOUs stated that the original decision to not regulate these products under battery charger rulemaking scope was because DOE stated that it lacks the authority to regulate automobiles as consumer products. However, the CA IOUs considered that DCFCs fall within the definition of covered products in that ‘‘a battery charger must charge batteries for consumer products,’’ and that such DCFCs are consumer products used to charge other consumer products. The CA IOUs further commented that when EPCA passed in 1975, it could not have foreseen how excluding automobiles from consumer products could bar DOE from regulating DCFCs. Therefore, the CA IOUs recommended DOE to reconsider if DCFCs should fall within the scope of DOE’s standards. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at pp. 3–5) DOE reiterates that DOE’s authority to regulate battery chargers is limited to battery chargers that charge batteries for consumer products. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32)) As defined by EPCA, ‘‘consumer products’’ explicitly excludes automobiles as that term is defined in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3). (42 U.S.C 6291(1)) DOE has limited information on whether DCFCs are used to charge any consumer products other than automobiles. As such, DOE is not proposing standards for DCFCs at this time. However, considering the current trend towards electrification in many industries, DOE is interested in whether DCFCs are used to charge other consumer products, including electric vehicles other than automobiles, such as electric motorcycles. 2. Technology Options For technology assessment, DOE identifies technology options that appear to be a feasible means of improving product efficiency. This assessment provides the technical background and structure on which DOE bases its screening and engineering analyses. The following discussion provides an overview of the salient aspects of the technology assessment, including issues on which DOE seeks public comment. Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD provides detailed descriptions of the basic construction and operation of battery chargers, followed by a discussion of technology options to improve their efficiency and power consumption in various modes. These technology options are also listed in the table as follows: TABLE IV.3—BATTERY CHARGER DESIGN OPTIONS lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Technology option Description Slow Charger: Improved Cores ................................................................................. Termination ........................................................................................ Elimination/Limitation of Maintenance Current ................................. Elimination of No-Battery Current ..................................................... Switched-Mode Power Supply .......................................................... Fast Charger: Low-Power Integrated Circuits .......................................................... Elimination/Limitation of Maintenance Current ................................. Schottky Diodes and Synchronous Rectification .............................. Elimination of No-Battery Current ..................................................... Phase Control to Limit Input Power .................................................. 15 The Joint Efficiency Advocates’ response to the September 2020 RFI can be found at https:// VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 Use transformer cores with low losses. Limit power provided to fully-charged batteries. Limit power provided to fully-charged batteries. Limit power provided drawn when no battery is present. Use switched-mode power supplies instead of linear power supplies. Use integrated circuit controllers with minimal power consumption. Limit power provided to fully-charged batteries. Use rectifiers with low losses. Limit power provided drawn when no battery is present. Limit input power in lower-power modes. www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD0013-0005. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules 16125 TABLE IV.3—BATTERY CHARGER DESIGN OPTIONS—Continued Technology option Description Wide-Band Gap Semiconductors ...................................................... B. Screening Analysis DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking: (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing prototypes will not be considered further. (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further. (3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered product Use semiconductors such as Gallium Nitride and Silicon Carbide to achieve higher charging efficiency. type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further. (4) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further. (5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the potential for monopolistic concerns. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b). In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in the following sections. The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE’s evaluation of each technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (‘‘screened out’’) based on the screening criteria. 1. Screened-Out Technologies Battery charger manufacturers often use various combinations of the DOE identified technology option, and because these options are relatively common with little barrier to implement, DOE did not screen out any technology option. DOE did not receive comments on its screening analysis. 2. Remaining Technologies DOE tentatively concludes that all of the identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 met all five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE’s NOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options: TABLE IV.4—REMAINING BATTERY CHARGER DESIGN OPTIONS Technology Option Description Slow Charger ..... Improved Cores ........................................................................ Termination .............................................................................. Elimination/Limitation of Maintenance Current ........................ Elimination of No-Battery Current ............................................ Switched-Mode Power Supply ................................................. Fast Charger ...... Low-Power Integrated Circuits ................................................. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Elimination/Limitation of Maintenance Current ........................ Schottky Diodes and Synchronous Rectification ..................... Elimination of No-Battery Current ............................................ Phase Control to Limit Input Power ......................................... Wide-Band Gap Semiconductors ............................................. DOE has initially determined that these technology options are technologically feasible because they are being used in commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 Use transformer cores with low losses. Limit power provided to fully-charged batteries. Limit power provided to fully-charged batteries. Limit power provided drawn when no battery is present. Use switched-mode power supplies instead of linear power supplies. Use integrated circuit controllers with minimal power consumption. Limit power provided to fully-charged batteries. Use rectifiers with low losses. Limit power provided drawn when no battery is present. Limit input power in lower-power modes. Use semiconductors such as Gallium Nitride and Silicon Carbide to achieve higher charging efficiency. proprietary technologies). While DOE does not anticipate any material impact on fit, function, and utility of the battery chargers, we request comment on potential impacts from the proposed standard. For additional details on the analysis, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD. C. Engineering Analysis The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 between the efficiency and cost of battery chargers. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis: the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost analysis’’). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency products, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16126 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA). 1. Efficiency Analysis DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach), or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e., the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using the design option approach to ‘‘gap fill’’ levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market). To analyze the battery charger efficiency levels under the new multimetric approach, DOE established efficiency levels for active charge energy and standby power separately. For off mode power consumption, DOE notes that for chargers that offer an off mode, the power draw is usually negligible; therefore, DOE estimated the off mode power to be zero across all efficiency levels and did not analyze the off mode performance for battery chargers in this NOPR. In developing CSLs, DOE used data available in the CCD as a representation of the wired battery charger market. The CCD currently provides values for metrics based on the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR, part 430, subpart B, appendix Y, which includes UEC, 24-hour charge and maintenance mode energy (‘‘E24’’), VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 maintenance mode power (‘‘Pm’’), standby mode power (‘‘Pnb’’), and off mode power (‘‘Poff’’). However, in order to develop CSLs for wired chargers in consideration of the metrics in the newly adopted appendix Y1, DOE needed to further disaggregate the current E24 rated value to estimate the active charge energy (‘‘Ea’’) component. DOE achieved this by subtracting maintenance mode energy, which equals the time in hours spent in maintenance mode multiplied by Pm, from E24. However, the time spent in maintenance mode for each battery charger basic model can vary significantly depending on intended application, and DOE does not have sufficient information to derive these times on a case-by-case basis. As such, for this NOPR, DOE continues to estimate that every charger spends five hours in maintenance mode out of the 24-hour charge and maintenance mode test period, as determined by section 3.3.2 of the current test procedure. As a result, DOE calculated Ea as E24 minus five hours times Pm. DOE used the resultant data to define CSLs. DOE also slightly adjusted the intercept of the resultant CSL equation for each analyzed battery energy group as necessary so that each CSL would be a continuous function across battery energy groups. For fixed-location wireless battery chargers, DOE also relied on the CCD data to estimate the relationship between the CCD derived Ea and CCD reported Ebatt for their active mode CSLs. However, for the standby mode power (the sum of maintenance mode power and no-battery mode power), or Psb, because the newly covered fixedlocation wireless chargers can have higher maintenance mode power consumption because of different inductive power transmitting standards, DOE developed the standby power CSLs based on its own testing data. The multi-metric CSL results for fixedlocation wireless chargers are further discussed in sections IV.C.1.a and IV.C.1.b below. For open-placement wireless battery chargers, similarly, because these are chargers covered under the expanded scope, DOE relied on its own testing data to develop the no-battery mode only CSLs for these chargers, with further discussion in sections IV.C.1.a and IV.C.1.b below. The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE could consider uncoupling active mode and standby mode efficiency levels rather than increasing both active mode and standby mode efficiency together at each CSL so that alternate combinations PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 could be analyzed to explore the potential for additional cost-effective savings. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at p. 2) DOE notes that the electronics related to these modes of operations are typically highly integrated and in performing teardowns, DOE was unable to accurately establish technology options and cost that would solely improve the energy performance in one mode of operation without affecting another. While not universal, DOE noticed from its teardowns that battery charger designs with improved efficiency in one more of operation will typically also be more efficient in other modes. Lacking accurate cost information associated with improving the performance in each mode of operation separately, DOE chose not to decouple active mode and standby mode efficiency levels for wired and fixed-location wireless battery chargers in this NOPR. In taking this approach, DOE however ensured that teardown units representing successive efficiency levels (‘‘ELs’’) achieved both the required active mode as well as standby performance for that EL. This ensures that the teardown cost of representative units accurately capture the cost of attaining both the active mode and standby performance required by each EL. The results of these TSLs are also further discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD. The CA IOUs also supported DOE in updating the standards for battery chargers and expand the engineering analysis to higher-capacity battery chargers because of advances in technology and the increasing availability of higher-powered lithiumion battery consumer devices on the market. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at pp. 1–2) The CA IOUs recommended DOE to reevaluate the bins for battery chargers as proposed in the preliminary analysis because the CSLs allow higher active mode energy for battery chargers with higher battery capacities within a product class. The CA IOUs recommended DOE to develop more granular battery capacity bins or redesign the standard algorithms to flatten the curve of allowable maximum active mode energy, making CSLs equally stringent across battery chargers of all battery capacities. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 5) DOE notes that DOE’s active mode charge energy measures the raw energy input into the battery charger; therefore, as battery energy increases within each product class, the corresponding raw active energy would increase as well. As such, ‘‘flattening’’ the active charge energy curve within each product class E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules would increase relative stringency for those battery chargers designed to charge higher-energy batteries from the same product class. The Joint Trade Associations stated that several joint commenters opposed DOE’s test procedure proposal to rely on separate metrics, and urged retention of the UEC metric in response to the test procedure NOPR published in November 2021. The commenters also opposed DOE’s proposed approach for determining active, standby, and battery maintenance mode energy, as well as DOE’s proposal to specify that, for chargers not shipped with adapters and where one is not recommended, the test can be done with any EPS that is minimally compliant with DOE’s energy conservation standards. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 17 at pp. 3–4) DOE notes that these comments pertain to the test procedure rulemaking, and DOE has already addressed these stakeholder concerns in the September 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule by adopting the alternate method for measuring the active mode energy consumption of a battery charger, ensuring that the test method for the new multiple metrics remain largely the same as that of DOE’s previous test procedure for the UEC metric. 87 FR 55090, 55100–55108. DOE also notes that it adopted the additional requirement to test battery chargers with an EPS because it ensures test procedure representativeness and test result comparability. 87 FR 55090, 55098– 55099. Delta-Q commented that DOE’s efficiency level analysis of product class 2c contains incorrect assumptions, because the test procedure measures the energy consumption of the battery charge system as a whole, which fails to take into account energy losses in the battery itself and these losses vary depending on battery type and battery chemistry. Attempting to reduce the amount of charge delivered, particularly for lead acid batteries, would result in precipitous reductions in battery life. (Delta-Q, No. 20 at p. 1) Delta-Q provided an example that for a golf cart with a flooded lead acid battery of 80% round-trip efficiency, a charger around 90% efficiency, and a total system efficiency that meets the current DOE standard of around 70% total efficiency; however, DOE’s proposed CSL for product class 2c would require battery charge system efficiency to be substantially increased. In the extreme case of CSL 3, lead-acid batteries would be effectively banned because they cannot meet the standard, even though lead-acid batteries dominate some parts of the market. Delta-Q further noted that VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 the cost to replace these batteries can be ten to fifteen times the charger cost, with the total system replacement cost increasing in hundreds of dollars. (Delta-Q, No. 20 at p. 2) As such, DeltaQ commented that DOE’s proposed CSL efficiencies appear to be flawed because product class 2c contains products with a variety of battery chemistries and system efficiencies, and while most lithium ion batteries would have system efficiencies passing at CSL 2, flooded lead-acid batteries would struggle to pass CSL 1; in effect, 100% of lead-acid battery charge systems would fail. (Id.) DOE notes that the battery charger test procedure was designed to measure the overall system efficiency. As a result, the energy losses in the batteries would also be accounted for as wasted energy or ‘‘non-useful energy’’. DOE understands that for some manufacturers, they do not have direct control over the type of battery consumers use with their chargers; however, for each battery charger product class and each comparable battery energy range, these chargers would still be regulated along with other similar types of chargers with comparable battery characteristics. DOE’s standards have been, and will be, developed based on the representative units from a variety of end use product types and battery energy ranges. As such, DOE’s battery charger standards do account for the battery energy losses and do not negatively impact battery charger manufacturers. DOE further notes that CSL 0 for active mode and standby mode were developed to be an approximate translation of the current DOE battery charger UEC standard, with higher CSLs developed based on CCD reported battery charger performance trends and/or DOE’s own testing results. Currently presented CSLs are only for standards development process; any standard DOE decides to adopt later in the final rule stage will be verified to be cost effective while having meaningful energy savings without undue burden. To account for Delta-Q’s concern, DOE has slightly relaxed high-energy chargers’ higher CSL levels in this NOPR, and from DOE’s internal testing and modeling, DOE was able to confirm that even CSL 3 was attainable by some lead-acid battery chargers. Delta-Q commented that the present single, unified metric of UEC would provide more flexibility in reducing overall energy consumption while still delivering on customer features and cost targets, and that separate standards for separate metrics will reduce design flexibility and raise the cost of compliance. (Delta-Q, No. 20 at p. 2) Delta-Q further commented that the PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 16127 proposed baseline standby mode power requirements are already restrictive, resulting in targets that are very challenging to meet, which can limit the maximum charge speed or the minimum battery size. This is particularly challenging for generic and standalone battery chargers such as those manufactured by Delta-Q and used by many OEMs. (Delta-Q, No. 20 at pp. 2– 3) Delta-Q commented that standby mode power provides a variety of customer-required functions, such as status display, signal communication, or maintain state of charge, and therefore does not necessarily represent wasted energy. Delta-Q further stated that if efficiency regulations precluded drawing from AC mains in maintenance mode power, battery chargers would require power draw from the DC battery, reducing battery readiness and runtime. (Id.) DOE recognizes that the current UEC metric may provide design flexibility for manufacturers; however, it risks being increasingly unrepresentative without frequent and continuous updates to the usage profiles. If DOE were to constantly update the usage profiles, manufacturers would also need to repeatedly recalculate the representative UEC and recertify their products, which would add undue burden for manufacturers. Although DOE’s adopted multi-metric testing approach does not provide the same level of freedom for battery charger design in all modes of operation when compared to the current integrated UEC approach, it would still provide design flexibility in standby mode operation by allowing manufacturers to prioritize either maintenance power or no-battery power, which accounts for the majority of battery charger operation time. DOE reiterates that the CSLs presented in the preliminary analysis were only for DOE to present the general approach for developing the standards, and for stakeholders to get an early chance at contributing to DOE’s standards rulemaking process. As such, the CSLs presented in the preliminary analysis are not final results. Any standard adopted by DOE in the final rule must be economically justifiable and technologically feasible, and will be required to demonstrate that they are verified to be cost effective while having meaningful energy savings without undue burden. In response to Delta-Q’s comment that the baseline standard levels presented in the preliminary analysis are already restrictive, DOE notes that these were either translated from the current UEC standard, or developed from DOE’s own testing data E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16128 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules representing some of the most energy consumptive products in the market; demonstrating that the technology required to achieve the currently prescribed standards at the baseline level are readily available and not restrictive. a. Baseline Energy Use For each product class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of a product typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market. Consistent with the baseline efficiency levels analyzed from the preliminary analysis, for this NOPR, DOE’s baseline multi-metric efficiency levels for wired battery chargers are approximated from the current UEC standards along with reference to the original California Energy Commission’s (‘‘CEC’’) battery charger multi-metric standard. Because the current UEC standard was adopted based on approximated CEC standards for most of the original product classes except product classes 5 and 6, which were more efficient than CEC’s, DOE’s current standard can be approximately ‘‘translated’’ back to the CEC’s standard, especially on the lower end of the battery energy spectrum (for battery chargers with battery energy less than 100Wh). DOE further assumed that most chargers on the CCD are only single port chargers and applied the CEC active charge energy standard to the current CCD battery energy levels to get the maximum charge and maintenance energy, and then subtracted five hours of maintenance mode power to approximate the active charge energy for every single wired battery charger entry. DOE did not receive any opposing comments to this approach. DOE further notes that the September 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule adopted the requirement that for all battery chargers that would need an external power supply for operation, they would need to be tested with a minimally compliant EPS. 87 FR 55090, 55098– 55099. DOE anticipated that a proposed standard would also be affected by this change. As such, DOE analyzed the CCD reported battery charger basic models and manually removed entries with negligible power draw in no-battery mode so that the remaining entries would likely be tested with an EPS or with input power measured directly at the wall. Although this may unintentionally remove some entries with very efficient no-battery mode design, it would ensure that all the remaining models are indeed tested with an appropriate power supply or have the conversion losses captured. DOE then applied a linear regression to the remaining CCD entries to establish a relationship between battery energy and the approximated CEC standard described in the previous paragraph. DOE repeated the same steps for standby mode power and battery energy to establish the standby mode baseline efficiency level for wired battery chargers. Each CSL would contain both the independent active mode efficiency level, and the independent standby mode efficiency level. For fixed-location wireless chargers in active mode, DOE also repeated similar steps to establish the active energy CSL based off of CCD data, but assumed that the slopes across CSL 0 to CSL 3 are the same, which equal to the slope of the active charge energy vs. battery energy from the wet-environment wireless charger CCD data. DOE then adjusted the intercept so that all currently reported wet-environment wireless chargers pass the baseline standard level. For the baseline efficiency level for standby mode power of fixed-location wireless chargers, DOE relied on the worst average 30% standby mode power of the fixed-location wireless chargers that passed DOE’s internal testing. Similarly for open-placement wireless chargers’ baseline no-battery mode power level, DOE also relied on the worst no-battery mode power of the wireless chargers that passed DOE’s internal testing. Table IV.5 below shows the baseline efficiency level for all wired and wireless battery chargers. TABLE IV.5—BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVEL OR CSL 0 FOR BATTERY CHARGERS CSL 0: Approximated current standards Product class 1a 1b 2a 2b 2c .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. Battery energy (Ebatt) Active mode energy (Ea) Standby mode power (Psb = Pm + Pnb) ≤100Wh ............. N/A ..................... ≤100Wh ............. 100–1000 ........... >1000 ................. 1.718 * Ebatt + 17.3 ..................... N/A ................................................ 1.656 * Ebatt + 10.5 ..................... 1.564 * Ebatt + 19.661. 1.549 * Ebatt + 34.361. 1.7 ................................................. 1.4 (Pnb only) ................................ 0.0021 * Ebatt + 1 ........................ lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 b. Higher Efficiency Levels As part of DOE’s analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE also defines a ‘‘max-tech’’ efficiency level to represent the maximum possible efficiency for a given product. Again, DOE applied linear regression models to different portions of the CCD to characterize three different performance levels of the reported wired battery charger basic models. For VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 active mode energy of high-energy battery chargers in product class 2c, DOE held the intercept constant but adjusted the slope to allow slightly relaxed higher CSLs when compared to the preliminary analysis and to retain the continuous CSL for each level. For active mode energy of fixedlocation wireless chargers, DOE held the slopes the same across efficiency levels but adjusted the intercepts to achieve similar pass rates when compared to the wired battery charger pass rates at each PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Off mode power (Poff) 0 0 0 corresponding CSLs. DOE further finetuned the intercepts by aligning them with DOE’s internal testing results. Similar to how DOE developed the baseline standard levels for standby mode power of fixed-location wireless chargers and no-battery mode power for open-placement wireless chargers, DOE relied on its own testing data to develop the higher efficiency levels as well. For Psb of fixed-location wireless chargers, CSL 2 represents the approximated average value of DOE’s tested samples, E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules whereas CSL 3 represents the most efficient 25–30% of the samples. CSL 1 Psb of fixed-location wireless chargers was set to approximately be the average of CSL 0 and CSL 2 levels. For openplacement wireless charger no-battery mode CSLs, DOE approximated CSL 2 to be the average no-battery mode power of all the units tested by DOE. DOE then set CSL 1 to be the average of the bottom third of tested units and CSL 3 to represent open-placement wireless chargers that do not consume any power in no-battery mode from their wireless charging components, but with all power draw coming from the power supply just meeting DOE’s multi-voltage 16129 EPS maximum no-load power of 0.3W, as prescribed in 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii). DOE analyzed these three higher battery charger efficiency levels, identified design options, and obtained incremental cost data at each of these levels. Table IV.6 below shows the efficiency levels analyzed for this NOPR analysis. TABLE IV.6—HIGHER EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS Product class Active mode energy Ea Battery energy (Ebatt) Standby mode power (Psb = Pm + Pnb) Off mode power Poff CSL 1: Intermediate (∼70% Pass Rate) 1a 1b 2a 2b 2c ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ≤100Wh ................ N/A ....................... ≤100Wh ................ 100–1000 ............. >1000 ................... 1.718 * Ebatt + 8.5 ................................. N/A .......................................................... 1.390 * Ebatt + 7.5 ................................. 1.418 * Ebatt + 4.692. 1.388 * Ebatt + 34.361. 1.5 ........................................................... 0.8 (Pnb only) .......................................... 0.00154 * Ebatt + 0.65 ........................... 0 0 0 CSL 2: Above Intermediate (∼40% Pass Rate) 1a 1b 2a 2b 2c ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ≤100Wh ................ N/A ....................... ≤100Wh ................ 100–1000 ............. >1000 ................... 1.718 * Ebatt + 5.54 ............................... N/A .......................................................... 1.222 * Ebatt + 4.980 ............................. 1.367 * Ebatt + ¥9.560. 1.323 * Ebatt + 34.361. 1.25 ......................................................... 0.5 (Pnb only) .......................................... 0.00098 * Ebatt + 0.4 ............................. 0 0 0 CSL 3: Max-Tech (∼10% Pass Rate) lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 1a 1b 2a 2b 2c ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ≤100Wh ................ N/A ....................... ≤100Wh ................ 100–1000 ............. >1000 ................... 1.718 * Ebatt + 2 .................................... N/A .......................................................... 1.053 * Ebatt + 4.980 ............................. 1.316 * Ebatt + ¥21.292. 1.260 * Ebatt + 34.361. For wired battery chargers, the three analyzed higher efficiency levels (i.e., ELs) correspond to the top 70%, 40%, and 10% of battery chargers in the market in terms of their active mode energy and standby mode power consumption. For ease of reference, DOE refers to the efficiency level that represents the top 70% of the market as ‘‘Intermediate’’, the top 40% of the market as ‘‘Above Intermediate’’ and those that represent the top 10% of the market as ‘‘Max-Tech,’’ which typically also represents the lowest active mode energy and standby mode power consumption commercially attainable using current technology. Fixed-location wireless chargers share similar market distribution as wired chargers for these higher CSLs from DOE’s estimates. However, for open-placement wireless chargers, DOE’s internal testing data shows higher pass rates for higher efficiency levels, especially at MaxTech. DOE notes that although DOE tried to test a wide variety of the wireless chargers covered under the expanded scope, there are still hundreds of wireless charger models in the market that have various no-battery mode VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 0.65 ......................................................... 0.3 (Pnb only) .......................................... 0.0005 * Ebatt + 0.25 ............................. efficiency. As such, the actual market efficiency distribution for openplacement wireless chargers in higher CSLs can be different than DOE’s current estimates; additionally, because the CSL differences of the no-battery mode power draw is relatively small, the overall energy use analysis based on these market distribution estimates should still yield meaningful and reliable results. DOE requests feedback on DOE’s approach of establishing these higher efficiency CSLs and welcomes stakeholders to submit any data on the actual market distribution of these higher efficiency CSLs. 2. Cost Analysis The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the battery charger on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 0 0 0 • Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill of materials for the product. • Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) to develop the bill of materials for the product. • Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and other commercial channels. In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis using all three methods (physical teardowns, catalog teardowns, and price surveys) of analysis to determine manufacturing cost as it E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 16130 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules relates to the efficiency of a battery charger. Units for teardown were selected from the CCD based on reported energy values. Several units were selected as representative units for each CSL. In addition to units from the CCD, DOE purchased various openplacement and fixed-location wireless chargers to study their design, cost, and performance. DOE received additional cost data from manufacturer interviews and stakeholder feedback, which was incorporated in the cost model generation. After testing, physical teardowns of CCD units were performed using internal tools. Price survey data was collected in manufacturer interviews and in some stakeholder feedback for units at each CSL. To generate the cost model, cost data from teardowns were combined with price survey data to generate cost/ efficiency relationships at each battery energy group of interest. Equations for cost as a function of relative active mode energy and standby mode power were then created using an exponential fit to the data at each battery energy level. The resulting manufacturer production costs (MPCs) were then generated for each efficiency level using the fit equations. The Joint Efficiency Advocates expressed concerned that only four units representing CSL 0 and CSL 3 at two battery energy levels were used in the preliminary engineering analysis to estimate costs for all other wired charger CSLs and battery energy combinations. The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that better accuracy would be obtained through additional testing and teardowns for all product classes, or through a design option approach for estimating costs for all wired chargers, or a combination of both. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at p. 2) The CA IOUs further suggested DOE conduct additional teardowns of larger battery chargers in product classes 2a, 2b, and 2c for common product types (e.g., notebooks, cordless vacuums, power tools, landscaping equipment, ride-on electric vehicles, electric scooters, and golf carts) because larger battery chargers for such devices may have different efficiency profiles than smaller ones due to higher quality components or the incorporation of high-efficiency technologies, such as wide-band-gap semiconductors. The CA IOUs stated their expectation that larger battery chargers may not show a linear trend between active energy and battery energy. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 2) Similarly, NEEA commented that DOE’s methodology of conducting VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 teardowns of four chargers in product class 2a representing only the lowest (baseline) and highest (CSL 3) of the four CSLs resulted in insufficient reliable data for class 2a CSL 1 and 2. NEEA’s own research suggested that design options to enable CSL 1 and CSL 2 efficiencies are likely quite different than those used to achieve the highest efficiency level (CSL 3), creating inaccuracies in DOE’s current estimates of the incremental cost for these middle levels. NEEA further commented that the reliance on four charger teardowns with battery energies less than 20 Wh (product class 2a) to 35 different battery charger applications with battery energies up to two orders of magnitude higher (2000 Wh) has yielded insufficient data to develop incremental cost information for product classes 2b and 2c because these higher power battery chargers likely use different semiconductor chipsets and/or can be impacted by production volume-related cost effects from other similar power electronics applications. (NEEA, No. 16 at pp. 1–2) NEEA commented that incremental battery charger costs presented for product class 2b ($2.59 to $8.73) are high relative to DOE EPS cost analysis, indicating that battery charger incremental costs are likely to be overestimated for these middle CSLs (CSLs 1 and 2). (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 2) NEEA stated that DOE should make three changes to more accurately measure the energy consumption of battery chargers: (1) add an alternative approach such as design option approach to teardown data already collected for class 2a CSL 1 and CSL 2; (2) conduct teardowns and/or utilize design option approaches to determine costs for product classes 2b and 2c; and (3) consider costs that maintain charge rate (slow or fast), given that slower chargers can be less costly due to a lower power output level. NEEA commented that if an expanded engineering analysis reveals that current CSL levels are not cost-effective in wired charges, NEEA recommends that DOE consider alternative combinations and standby and active mode that are more likely to be cost-effective, and adding an additional CSL level between CSL 0 and CSL 1. (NEEA, No. 16 at pp. 2–3) DOE acknowledges that better representativeness can be achieved through additional testing and teardowns. Therefore, for the NOPR analysis, DOE has expanded the representative unit size significantly to cover more battery energy ranges and different end product types. DOE has also conducted various manufacturer PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 interviews to get more direct design and cost information from stakeholders to calibrate DOE’s internal teardown results, which improves the accuracy and representativeness of DOE’s battery charger cost-efficiency relationship. Details of how DOE updated its cost analysis can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’) is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE, throughout this NOPR analysis, is using the average manufacturer markup presented in the June 2016 final rule. This markup was determined based on information collected during the manufacturer interviews preceding that rulemaking. More detail on the manufacturer markup is given in section IV.D of this document. 3. Cost-Efficiency Results The results of the engineering analysis are presented as cost-efficiency data for each product class by efficiency levels. The cost-efficiency curves are described by the efficiency levels DOE analyzed and the increase in MPC required to improve a baseline-efficiency product to each of the considered efficiency levels. DOE recognizes that costs of battery chargers vary according to the energy of the battery it is intended to charge. DOE analyzed costs at various battery energies from different battery energy groups for each CSL as shown below. These representative battery energies were selected based on areas of significant market density, as indicated by entries in the CCD. They also span a wide range of battery energy groups for which the CSL equations were defined. For battery energy groups for which DOE lacks direct teardown costs, DOE extrapolated these costs from representative units that DOE has physically torn down and calibrated DOE’s extrapolation with price information DOE acquired from manufacturer interviews. Tables and plots with MPC results, as well as extrapolation methods used both within and across each product class, are presented below as well as in greater detail in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. DOE requests stakeholder feedbacks on these analyzed incremental costs as well as any topic covered in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. DOE also welcomes stakeholders to submit their own costefficiency results, should there be any. E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules Product class 1a ......................... 1b ......................... 2a ......................... Fixed-Location Wireless Charger ...... Open-Placement Wireless Charger ... Low-Energy Wired Battery Charger (≤100Wh). 2b ......................... Medium-Energy Wired Battery Charger (100–1000Wh). High-Energy Wired Battery Charger (>1000Wh). 2c ......................... D. Markups Analysis The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis and in the manufacturer impact analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit margin. For battery chargers, the main parties in the distribution chain are battery charger manufacturers, end-use product original equipment manufacturers, consumer product retailers, and consumers. DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor in the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended standards.16 In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used the same baseline and incremental markups that were used in the June 2016 Final Rule.17 DOE did not receive any comments regarding lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Battery energy (Wh) Product class name 16 Because the projected price of standardscompliant products is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable increase in profitability in the long run. 17 See Chapter 6 of the 2016 Final Rule Technical Support Document for Battery Chargers. (Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BTSTD-0005-0257) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). See also Chapter 6 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document for Battery Chargers. (Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/ EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013-0009) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 12 N/A 5 12 25 75 200 420 2000 Incremental MPC ($) Base CSL 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 the markups or distribution channels in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, therefore DOE used the same markups in this NOPR. Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE’s development of markups for battery chargers. DOE requests comment on the estimated increased manufacturer markups and incremental MSPs that result from the analyzed energy conservation standards from the NOPR engineering analysis. E. Energy Use Analysis The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of battery chargers at different efficiencies in representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, and commercial buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased battery charger efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of battery chargers in the field (i.e., as they are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE performs, particularly assessments of the energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of amended or new standards. In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used usage profiles that were developed in the June 2016 Final Rule, along with efficiency data at different load conditions, to calculate the UECs for battery chargers for a variety of applications.18 Usage profiles are estimates of the average time a device spends in each mode of operation. In the February 2023 NOPR for external power supplies, DOE updated some of the usage profiles for certain applications based on 18 See appendix 7A of the 2016 Final Rule Technical Support Document for Battery Chargers. (Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/ EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0257) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). See also appendix 7A of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document for Battery Chargers. (Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BTSTD-0013-0009) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 16131 CSL 2 0.67 0.53 0.23 0.40 0.55 0.93 1.58 3.35 3.35 1.51 1.49 0.63 0.77 1.00 1.60 2.45 5.20 5.20 CSL 3 3.52 2.14 0.75 1.59 1.85 2.67 3.24 6.86 6.86 stakeholder comments. 88 FR 7284. For this analysis, DOE aligned the battery charger usage profiles for these applications with the EPS usage profiles for consistency. Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE’s energy use analysis for battery chargers. F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for battery chargers. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts: b The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product. b The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect. For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the estimated efficiency distribution of battery chargers in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given efficiency level is E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16132 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 measured relative to the baseline product. For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of housing units and commercial buildings. DOE developed household samples from the 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey 19 (RECS 2015) and the 2018 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey 20 (CBECS 2018). For each sample household, DOE determined the energy consumption for the battery chargers and the appropriate energy price. By developing a representative sample of households, the analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with the use of battery chargers. Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the product—which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and distributor markups, and sales taxes— and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability. The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and battery chargers’ user samples. For this rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is implemented in MS Excel. The model calculated the LCC for products at each efficiency level for 10,000 housing units and commercial buildings per simulation run. The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the 19 www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/ 2015/ (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). EIA is currently working on RECS 2020, and the entire RECS 2020 microdata are expected to be fully released in early 2023. Until that time, RECS 2015 remains the most recent full data release. For future analyses, DOE plans to consider using the complete RECS 2020 microdata when available. 20 www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/ (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 chosen product efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from increasing product efficiency. DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers of battery chargers as if each were to purchase a new product in the expected year of required compliance with new or amended standards. New and amended standards would apply to battery chargers manufactured 2 years after the date on which any new or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)) At this time, DOE estimates publication of a final rule in late 2024, therefore, for purposes of this analysis, DOE used 2027 as the first year of compliance with any amended standards for EPSs. Table IV.7 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD and its appendices. TABLE IV.7—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS *—Continued Inputs Source/method Discount Rates Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. 2027. Compliance Date. * References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. 1. Product Cost To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for baseline products and higher-efficiency products because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-efficiency products. In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE did not use any price trend.21 In response, the CA IOUs TABLE IV.7—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND commented that based on American METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy information and price ANALYSIS * comparisons, DOE has historically overestimated its forecasts of the Inputs Source/method incremental cost for products subject to Product Cost .. Derived by multiplying MPCs standards due to energy conservation by battery charger manupolicies that may accelerate the decline facturer and appliance of appliance costs due to increased manufacturer markups and production and innovation. (CA IOUs, sales tax, as appropriate. No. 18 at pp. 5–6) The CA IOUs further Used historical Product commented that battery chargers are Price Index (PPI) data for increasingly employing gallium nitride semiconductors to derive (GaN) semiconductors as a primary cost a price scaling index to component, and GaN semiconductor project product costs. costs are expected to decrease Installation No installation costs. substantially; in addition, GaN Costs. topologies require fewer components Annual Energy The total annual energy use Use. calculated using product and heat dissipation needs, causing efficiency and operating system-level costs to decrease. For these hours. reasons, DOE should include price Variability: Based on the learning in its analysis of battery 2015 RECS and 2018 chargers and develop criteria for CBECS. applying price learning in all cases Energy Prices Electricity: EIA data—2021. involving products with rapidly Variability: Census Division. expanding sales volumes or based on Energy Price Based on AEO2022 price components or materials that are likely Trends. projections. Repair and Maintenance Costs. Product Lifetime. PO 00000 Frm 00022 No repair or maintenance costs were considered. Average: 3 to 10 years. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 21 See Chapters 8 and 10 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document for Battery Chargers. (Available at: www.regulations.gov/ document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013-0009) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules to experience declining costs. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at pp. 6–7) The Joint Efficiency Advocates stated that with price learning not addressed in the preliminary analysis, costs to achieve higher efficiency levels over the analysis period could be overestimated; learning rates associated with semiconductors are especially important because improved semiconductors are a key technology option for reaching higher efficiency levels. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at p. 2) NEEA also commented that DOE should incorporate manufacturer price learning and leverage general semiconductor price data into its analysis of life-cycle cost and payback period for battery chargers. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 3) DOE agrees with the commenters that costs for electronic components are likely to change during the analysis period. In this NOPR, DOE has incorporated a price trend based on the PPI for semiconductors,22 with an estimated annual deflated price decline of approximately 6 percent per year from 1967 through 2021. DOE applied this price trend to the proportion of battery charger costs attributable to semiconductors, which is estimated at 90 percent of incremental costs. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 2. Annual Energy Consumption For each sampled household or commercial business, DOE determined the energy consumption for a battery charger at different efficiency levels using the approach described previously in section IV.E of this document. 3. Energy Prices Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the product purchased in the no-newstandards case, and marginal electricity prices for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other efficiency levels considered. For the NOPR, DOE derived average monthly residential and commercial marginal electricity prices for the various regions using 2021 data from EIA.23 22 Producer Price Index: Semiconductors and Related Manufacturing. Series ID: PCU334413334413. (Available at: beta.bls.gov/ dataViewer/view/timeseries/PCU334413334413) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). 23 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration, Form EIA–861M (formerly EIA– VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2021 energy prices by the projection of annual average price changes for each of the nine census divisions from the Reference case in AEO2022, which has an end year of 2050.24 To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE used the average annual rate of change in prices from 2023 through 2050. See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for details. 4. Product Lifetime In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE based the battery charger lifetime on the lifetime of the application for which it is associated.25 In the February 2023 NOPR for external power supplies, DOE increased the lifetime for several applications based on stakeholder comments. 88 FR 7284. For this analysis, DOE aligned the application lifetimes (and thus battery charger lifetimes) for these applications with the EPS lifetime estimates for consistency. 5. Discount Rates In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate to households and commercial buildings to estimate the present value of future operating cost savings. DOE estimated a distribution of discount rates for battery chargers based on the opportunity cost of consumer funds. For residential households, DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount rates.26 The LCC analysis estimates net present value over the lifetime of the product, so the appropriate discount rate will reflect the 826) Database Monthly Electric Utility Sales and Revenue Data (1990–2020). (Available at: www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861m/) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). 24 EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050. Washington, DC. (Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). 25 See Chapter 8 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document for Battery Chargers. (Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/ EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013-0009) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). 26 The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a consumer is able to borrow or lend. The implicit discount rate is not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a range of factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than the opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 16133 general opportunity cost of household funds, taking this time scale into account. Given the long time horizon modeled in the LCC analysis, the application of a marginal interest rate associated with an initial source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of purchase, consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt and asset holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the restrictions consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the relative size of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical distribution of debts and assets. To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to approximate a consumer’s opportunity cost of funds related to appliance energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the various types of debt and equity by household income group using data from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances 27 (‘‘SCF’’) for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, and 2013. Using the SCF and other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for each type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that may apply in the year in which amended standards would take effect. DOE assigned each sample household a specific discount rate drawn from one of the distributions. The average rate across all types of household debt and equity and income groups, weighted by the shares of each type, is 4.1% percent. For commercial buildings, DOE derived the discount rates for the LCC analysis by estimating the cost of capital for companies or public entities that purchase EPSs. For private firms, the weighted average cost of capital (‘‘WACC’’) is commonly used to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments, so their cost of capital is the weighted average of the cost to the firm of equity and debt financing, as estimated from financial data for publicly traded firms across all commercial sectors. The average commercial cost of capital is 6.7%. See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further details on the development of consumer discount rates. 27 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, and 2013. (Available at: www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16134 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules 6. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s LCC analysis considered the projected distribution (market shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-standards case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy conservation standards). In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used the CCD 28 to estimate the energy efficiency distribution of battery chargers for 2027.29 DOE updated these distributions based on the latest data in CCD. For wireless chargers, DOE estimated the efficiency distributions based on the models tested and used for the engineering analysis. The estimated market shares for the no-new-standards case for battery chargers are shown in Table IV.8. See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further information on the derivation of the efficiency distributions. TABLE IV.8—ESTIMATED MARKET SHARES OF BATTERY CHARGERS IN THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE Representative unit (battery energy) Baseline (%) 10Wh ................................................................................................................ 10–50Wh (RPU 12.7Wh) ................................................................................. 10–50Wh (RPU 25Wh) .................................................................................... 50–100Wh (RPU 75Wh) .................................................................................. 100–400Wh (RPU 200Wh) .............................................................................. 400–1000Wh (RPU 420Wh) ............................................................................ >1000Wh (RPU 2000Wh) ................................................................................ Fixed-Location wireless charger ...................................................................... Open-Placement wireless charger .................................................................. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 7. Payback Period Analysis The payback period is the amount of time (expressed in years) it takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient products, compared to baseline products, through energy cost savings. Payback periods that exceed the life of the product mean that the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating expenses. The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. DOE refers to this as a ‘‘simple PBP’’ because it does not consider changes over time in operating cost savings. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis when deriving first-year operating costs. As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the first year’s energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE determined the value of the first year’s energy savings 28 https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms. 29 See Chapter 8 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document for Battery Chargers. (Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/ EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013-0009) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 9.8 26.1 26.1 20.6 19.7 19.7 38.5 8.3 6.7 by calculating the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average energy price projection for the year in which compliance with the amended standards would be required. The Joint Trade Associations and Delta-Q commented that amended standards for battery chargers are not economically justified because the payback periods are far longer than the average useful life of the product; therefore, most consumers will experience a net cost through amended standards. The Joint Trade Associations further recommended that DOE focus on other rulemakings for potential significant energy savings. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 17 at p. 1; Delta-Q, No. 20 at p. 1) DOE notes that the preliminary analysis did not propose any specific standard level. For this NOPR, DOE’s evaluation of the economic justification of potential standard levels, including the consideration of payback periods, is provided in section V.C. G. Shipments Analysis DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.30 The shipments model takes an accounting 30 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general, one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales. 31 See Chapter 9 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document for Battery Chargers. PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Intermediate (%) 48.9 53.0 53.0 51.5 27.5 27.5 36.1 25.0 20.0 Above intermediate (%) 19.4 18.1 18.1 27.8 37.6 37.6 13.6 58.3 20.0 Max-Tech (%) 21.9 2.8 2.8 0.1 15.2 15.2 11.8 8.3 53.3 approach, tracking market shares of each product class and the vintage of units in the stock. Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age distribution of in-service product stocks for all years. The age distribution of in-service product stocks is a key input to calculations of both the national energy savings (‘‘NES’’) and NPV, because operating costs for any year depend on the age distribution of the stock. In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE developed shipments estimates based on actual shipments from 2019 and a population growth rate based on U.S. Census population projections through 2050.31 DOE did not receive any comments on the shipments analysis and therefore used this same approach in the NOPR. See Chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD for more detail on the shipments analysis. DOE requests comment on its methodology for estimating shipments. DOE also requests comment on its approach to estimate the market share for EPSs of all product classes. H. National Impact Analysis The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.32 (‘‘Consumer’’ in this context (Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/ EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013-0009) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). 32 The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S. territories. E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules refers to consumers of the product being regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard levels considered based on projections of annual product shipments, along with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the present analysis, DOE projected the energy savings, operating cost savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime of battery chargers sold from 2027 through 2056. DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing a case without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each product class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with projections characterizing the market for each product class if DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or standards cases) for that class. For the standards cases, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the 16135 market shares of products with efficiencies greater than the standard. DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested parties can review DOE’s analyses by changing various input quantities within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values (as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs. Table IV.9 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA analysis for the NOPR. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows the table. See chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD for further details. TABLE IV.9—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Inputs Method Shipments ....................................... Compliance Date of Standard ........ Efficiency Trends ............................ Annual Energy Consumption per Unit. Total Installed Cost per Unit ........... Annual Energy Cost per Unit .......... Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit. Energy Price Trends ....................... Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC Conversion. Discount Rate ................................. Present Year ................................... Annual shipments from shipments model. 2027. No-new-standards case: Varies by application. Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy use at each TSL. Annual weighted-average values are a function of cost at each TSL. Incorporates projection of future product prices based on historical data. Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual energy consumption per unit and energy prices. Annual values do not change with efficiency level. AEO2022 projections (to 2050) and extrapolation thereafter based on the growth rate from 2023–2050. A time-series conversion factor based on AEO2022. 3 percent and 7 percent. 2022. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 1. Product Efficiency Trends A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards cases. Section IV.F.6 of this document describes how DOE developed an energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the considered product classes for the first full year of anticipated compliance with an amended or new standard. To project the trend in efficiency absent amended standards for battery chargers over the entire shipments projection period, DOE assumed a constant efficiency trend. The approach is further described in chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD. For the standards cases, DOE used a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards are assumed to become effective (2027). In this scenario, the market shares of products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the standard under consideration would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new standard level, and the market share of VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 products above the standard would remain unchanged. To develop standards case efficiency trends after 2027, DOE used a constant efficiency trend, keeping the distribution equal to the compliance year. 2. National Energy Savings The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of national energy consumption of the considered products between each potential standards case (‘‘TSL’’) and the case with no new or amended energy conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated annual NES based on the difference in national energy consumption for the no-new standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case. DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy (i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to generate PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 site electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from AEO2022. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year over the timeframe of the analysis. Use of higher-efficiency products is occasionally associated with a direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of the product due to the increase in efficiency. DOE did not consider a rebound effect in this analysis, because the price differences by EL and energy use are so small that any rebound effect would be close to zero. In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on ‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a statement E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16136 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination that EIA’s National Energy Modeling System (‘‘NEMS’’) is the most appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector 33 that EIA uses to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors incorporate losses in production and delivery in the case of natural gas (including fugitive emissions) and additional energy used to produce and deliver the various fuels used by power plants. The approach used for deriving FFC measures of energy use and emissions is described in appendix 10B of the NOPR TSD. 3. Net Present Value Analysis The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case in terms of total savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each product shipped during the projection period. As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this document, DOE developed battery charger price trends based on historical PPI data for the semiconductor industry. DOE applied the same trends to project prices for each product class at each considered efficiency level. By 2056, which is the end date of the projection period, the average battery charger price is projected to drop 90 percent relative to 2021. DOE’s projection of product prices is described in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. The operating cost savings are energy cost savings, which are calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy prices by the projection of annual national-average residential and commercial energy price changes in the Reference case from AEO2022, which has an end year of 2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE used the 33 For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA–0581(2009), October 2009. Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm (last accessed December 2, 2022). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 average annual rate of change in prices from 2020 through 2050. In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this NOPR, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis.34 The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are designed to reflect a consumer’s perspective. The 7percent real value is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the ‘‘social rate of time preference,’’ which is the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows to their present value. I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately affected by a new or amended national standard. The purpose of a subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any such disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular consumers from alternative standard levels. For this NOPR, DOE analyzed the impacts of the considered standard levels on one subgroup: low-income households. The analysis used subsets of the RECS 2015 and CBECS 2018 sample composed of households that meet the criteria for the two subgroups. DOE used the LCC and PBP spreadsheet model to estimate the impacts of the considered efficiency levels on these subgroups. Chapter 11 in the NOPR TSD describes the consumer subgroup analysis. J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 1. Overview DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of battery chargers and to 34 United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/ memoranda/m03-21.html (last accessed December 2, 2022). PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 estimate the potential impacts of such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative aspects and includes analyses of projected industry cash flows, the INPV, investments in research and development (‘‘R&D’’) and manufacturing capital, and domestic manufacturing employment. Additionally, the MIA seeks to determine how amended energy conservation standards might affect manufacturing employment, capacity, and competition, as well as how standards contribute to overall regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA serves to identify any disproportionate impacts on manufacturer subgroups, including small business manufacturers. The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), an industry cash flow model with inputs specific to this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs include data on the industry cost structure, unit production costs, product shipments, manufacturer markups, and investments in R&D and manufacturing capital required to produce compliant products. The key GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is the sum of industry annual cash flows over the analysis period, discounted using the industry-weighted average cost of capital, and the impact to domestic manufacturing employment. The model uses standard accounting principles to estimate the impacts of more-stringent energy conservation standards on a given industry by comparing changes in INPV and domestic manufacturing employment between a no-new-standards case and the various standards cases (‘‘TSLs’’). To capture the uncertainty relating to manufacturer pricing strategies following amended standards, the GRIM estimates a range of possible impacts under different markup scenarios. The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer characteristics and market trends. Specifically, the MIA considers such factors as a potential standard’s impact on manufacturing capacity, competition within the industry, the cumulative impact of other DOE and non-DOE regulations, as well as impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The complete MIA is outlined in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the battery charger manufacturing industry based on the market and technology assessment, manufacturer interviews, and publicly-available information. This included a top-down E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules analysis of battery charger manufacturers that DOE used to derive preliminary financial inputs for the GRIM (e.g., revenues; materials, labor, overhead, and depreciation expenses; selling, general, and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’); and R&D expenses). DOE also used public sources of information to further calibrate its initial characterization of the battery charger manufacturing industry, including company filings of form 10– K from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’),35 corporate annual reports, the U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic Census,36 and reports from D&B Hoovers.37 In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared a framework industry cash-flow analysis to quantify the potential impacts of amended energy conservation standards. The GRIM uses several factors to determine a series of annual cash flows starting with the announcement of the standard and extending over a 30-year period following the compliance date of the standard. These factors include annual expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital expenditures. In general, energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash flow in three distinct ways: (1) creating a need for increased investment, (2) raising production costs per unit, and (3) altering revenue due to higher per-unit prices and changes in sales volumes. In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE also evaluated subgroups of manufacturers that may be disproportionately impacted by amended standards or that may not be accurately represented by the average cost assumptions used to develop the industry cash flow analysis. Such manufacturer subgroups may include small business manufacturers, low-volume manufacturers (‘‘LVMs’’), niche players, and/or manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that largely differs from the industry average. DOE identified subgroups for separate impact analysis: the small appliance application industry segment, the consumer electronics application industry segment, the power tools application industry segment, and the high energy application industry segment, as well as small business manufacturers. The small business subgroup is discussed in section VI.B of this document, ‘‘Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act’’, and in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. 35 See www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml. www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/ data.html. 37 See app.dnbhoovers.com. 36 See VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 16137 2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs complete discussion of the MPCs can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to amended standards that result in a higher or lower industry value. The GRIM uses a standard, annual discounted cash-flow analysis that incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry financial information as inputs. The GRIM models change in costs, distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins that could result from an amended energy conservation standard. The GRIM uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash flows, beginning in 2023 (the reference year) and continuing to 2056. DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of annual discounted cash flows during this period. For manufacturers of battery charger applications, DOE used a real discount rate of 9.1 percent, which was the same value used in the August 2016 Final Rule. The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles and compares changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each standards case. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards case and a standards case represents the financial impact of the amended energy conservation standard on manufacturers. As discussed previously, DOE developed critical GRIM inputs using a number of sources, including publicly available data, results of the engineering analysis, and information gathered from industry stakeholders. The GRIM results are presented in section V.B.2 of this document. Additional details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and other financial parameters can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. b. Shipments Projections The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by efficiency level. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time can significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the GRIM uses the NIA’s annual shipment projections derived from the shipments analysis from 2023 (the reference year) to 2056 (the end year of the analysis period). A complete discussion of shipments can be found in chapter 9 of the NOPR. a. Manufacturer Production Costs Manufacturing more efficient products is typically more expensive than manufacturing baseline products due to the use of more complex components, which are typically more costly than baseline components. The changes in the MPCs of covered products can affect the revenues, gross margins, and cash flow of the industry. Throughout its analysis of manufacturers, DOE adjusted the MPC value of battery chargers but did not adjust the value of battery charger applications—focusing on the changes to the overall product package caused by possible amended standards on battery chargers. An overview of the methodology used to generate MPCs of battery chargers is in the engineering analysis (see section IV.C.2), and a PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs Amended energy conservation standards could cause manufacturers to incur conversion costs to bring their production facilities and product designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level of conversion-related expenditures that would be needed to comply with each considered efficiency level in each product class. For the MIA, DOE classified these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) product conversion costs; and (2) capital conversion costs. Product conversion costs are investments in research, development, testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to make product designs comply with amended energy conservation standards. Capital conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities such that new compliant product designs can be fabricated and assembled. DOE anticipates that, while amended standards would not fundamentally alter the manufacturing process for battery chargers, battery charger application manufacturers would incur capital conversion costs as a result of amended standards. These costs would take the form of updated tooling, new or altered plastic molds, and additional or new testing equipment. DOE developed estimates of the conversion costs using estimated revenues related to battery charger applications, the capital expenditure factor of revenue used in the August 2016 Final Rule for each industry segment, and research related to the engineering analysis. These capital conversion cost estimates can be found in section V.B.2.a of this document. DOE assumes that all capital conversion costs would occur between the date of the final rule publication and the compliance date. DOE does also expect that manufacturers would incur product E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16138 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 redesign costs due to amended standards. Manufacturers may need to redesign models outside of their normal product redesign cycles and would need to design around a higher minimum efficiency constraint. To evaluate the level of product conversion costs manufacturers would likely incur to comply with amended energy conservation standards, DOE developed estimates of product conversion costs for each product class at each efficiency level using estimated revenues related to battery charger applications, the R&D factor of revenue used in the August 2016 Final Rule for each industry segment, and research related to the engineering analysis. The product conversion cost estimates used in the GRIM can be found in section V.B.2.a of this document. DOE assumes that all product conversion costs would occur between the date of the final rule publication and the compliance date. For additional information on the estimated conversion costs and the related methodology, see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. d. Markup Scenarios MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor, materials, and overhead estimated in DOE’s MPCs) and all non-production costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit. To calculate the MSPs in the GRIM, DOE applied non-production cost markups to the MPCs estimated in the engineering analysis for each product class and efficiency level. Modifying these markups in the standards case yields different sets of impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE modeled two standards-case markup scenarios to represent uncertainty regarding the potential impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers following the implementation of amended energy conservation standards: (1) a preservation of gross margin scenario; and (2) a constant price scenario. These scenarios lead to different margins that, when applied to the MPCs, result in varying revenue and cash flow impacts. Under the preservation of gross margin scenario, DOE applied a single uniform gross margin across all efficiency levels, which assumes that manufacturers would be able to maintain the same amount of profit as a percentage of revenues at all efficiency levels within a product class. This scenario represents the upper bound of INPV impacts modeled by DOE in this analysis. Under the constant price markup scenario, DOE modeled a situation in which manufacturers do not adjust their VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 prices in response to increased MPCs of battery chargers. This scenario represents the lower bound of INPV impacts modeled by DOE in this analysis. A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two markup scenarios is presented in section V.B.2.a of this document. 3. Manufacturer Interviews DOE interviewed battery charger manufacturers, battery charger application manufacturers, and industry stakeholders in order to develop its analysis. In interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to describe their major concerns regarding this rulemaking. The following section highlights manufacturer concerns, related to the MIA, that helped inform the projected potential impacts of an amended standard on the industry. Manufacturer interviews are conducted under nondisclosure agreements (‘‘NDAs’’), so DOE does not document these discussions in the same way that it does public comments in the comment summaries and DOE’s responses throughout the rest of this document. Manufacturers communicated concerns generally over the potential costs imposed by amended energy conservation standards. Product redesign related costs were noted as the most substantial likely costs, but also that capital conversion costs would be imposed on both application and battery charger manufacturers and could be quite substantial depending on the extent of possible changes. Manufacturers additionally noted concerns around engineering manpower related to potential product redesigns as a major concern. Several manufacturers described limited qualified staff and difficulty retaining and hiring staff in recent times. As such, it may be difficult to hire and possibly train additional staff on relatively short notice. Further, while manufacturers may have the capacity to engage in substantial product redesigns in order to comply with amended efficiency standards, standards would also impose an opportunity cost since those engineers would have to be redirected from projects intended to reduce production costs or improve non-efficiency-related product features. Manufacturers also expressed concerns over tariffs, which cause manufacturers to avoid vendors from China or relocate manufacturing operations elsewhere abroad—such as Mexico—in order to avoid additional cost. This issue restricts the competitive set of potential vendors and diminishes PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 manufacturer’s ability to negotiate optimal prices. K. Emissions Analysis The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. The second component estimates the impacts of potential standards on emissions of two additional greenhouse gases, CH4 and N2O, as well as the reductions to emissions of other gases due to ‘‘upstream’’ activities in the fuel production chain. These upstream activities comprise extraction, processing, and transporting fuels to the site of combustion. The analysis of electric power sector emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg uses emissions factors intended to represent the marginal impacts of the change in electricity consumption associated with amended or new standards. The methodology is based on results published for the AEO, including a set of side cases that implement a variety of efficiency-related policies. The methodology is described in appendix 13A in the NOPR TSD. The analysis presented in this NOPR uses projections from AEO2022. Power sector emissions of CH4 and N2O from fuel combustion are estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).38 FFC upstream emissions, which include emissions from fuel combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels, and ‘‘fugitive’’ emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of CH4 and CO2, are estimated based on the methodology described in chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD. The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical units per MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. For power sector emissions, specific emissions intensity factors are calculated by sector and end use. Total emissions reductions are estimated using the energy savings calculated in the national impact analysis. 1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE’s Analysis DOE’s no-new-standards case for the electric power sector reflects the AEO, which incorporates the projected impacts of existing air quality 38 Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_ apr2021.pdf (last accessed July 12, 2021). E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 regulations on emissions. AEO2022 generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations, including recent government actions, that were in place at the time of preparation of AEO2022, including the emissions control programs discussed in the following paragraphs.39 SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units (‘‘EGUs’’) are subject to nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia (DC). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) SO2 emissions from numerous States in the eastern half of the United States are also limited under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (‘‘CSAPR’’). 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these States to reduce certain emissions, including annual SO2 emissions, and went into effect as of January 1, 2015.40 AEO2022 incorporates implementation of CSAPR, including the update to the CSAPR ozone season program emission budgets and target dates issued in 2016. 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). Compliance with CSAPR is flexible among EGUs and is enforced through the use of tradable emissions allowances. Under existing EPA regulations, any excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the adoption of an efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by another regulated EGU. However, beginning in 2016, SO2 emissions began to fall as a result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (‘‘MATS’’) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). The final rule establishes power plant emission standards for mercury, acid gases, and non-mercury metallic toxic pollutants. In order to continue operating, coal power plants must have either flue gas 39 For further information, see the Assumptions to AEO2022 report that sets forth the major assumptions used to generate the projections in the Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/ outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed Oct. 12, 2022). 40 CSAPR requires states to address annual emissions of SO2 and NOX, precursors to the formation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution, in order to address the interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (‘‘NAAQS’’). CSAPR also requires certain states to address the ozone season (May–September) emissions of NOX, a precursor to the formation of ozone pollution, in order to address the interstate transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). EPA subsequently issued a supplemental rule that included an additional five states in the CSAPR ozone season program. 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) (Supplemental Rule). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 desulfurization or dry sorbent injection systems installed. Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions. Because of the emissions reductions under the MATS, it is unlikely that excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand would be needed or used to permit offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by another regulated EGU. Therefore, energy conservation standards that decrease electricity generation would generally reduce SO2 emissions. DOE estimated SO2 emissions reduction using emissions factors based on AEO2022. CSAPR also established limits on NOX emissions for numerous States in the eastern half of the United States. Energy conservation standards would have little effect on NOX emissions in those States covered by CSAPR emissions limits if excess NOX emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand could be used to permit offsetting increases in NOX emissions from other EGUs. In such case, NOX emissions would remain near the limit even if electricity generation goes down. A different case could possibly result, depending on the configuration of the power sector in the different regions and the need for allowances, such that NOX emissions might not remain at the limit in the case of lower electricity demand. In this case, energy conservation standards might reduce NOx emissions in covered States. Despite this possibility, DOE has chosen to be conservative in its analysis and has maintained the assumption that standards will not reduce NOX emissions in States covered by CSAPR. Energy conservation standards would be expected to reduce NOX emissions in the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE used AEO2022 data to derive NOX emissions factors for the group of States not covered by CSAPR. The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not include emissions caps and, as such, DOE’s energy conservation standards would be expected to slightly reduce Hg emissions. DOE estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on AEO2022, which incorporates the MATS. L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts As part of the development of this proposed rule, for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, DOE considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, NOX, and SO2 that are expected to result from each of the TSLs considered. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 16139 In order to make this calculation analogous to the calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced emissions expected to result over the lifetime of products shipped in the projection period for each TSL. This section summarizes the basis for the values used for monetizing the emissions benefits and presents the values considered in this NOPR. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074– JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. DOE requests comment on how to address the climate benefits and other nonmonetized effects of the proposal. 1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O by using a measure of the social cost of each pollutant (e.g., SC– CO2). These estimates represent the monetary value of the net harm to society associated with a marginal increase in emissions of these pollutants in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. These estimates are intended to include (but are not limited to) climate-change-related changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, disruption of energy systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. DOE exercises its own judgment in presenting monetized climate benefits as recommended by applicable Executive orders, and DOE would reach the same conclusion presented in this proposed rulemaking in the absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases, E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 16140 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules including the February 2021 Interim Estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. DOE estimated the global social benefits of CO2, CH4, and N2O reductions (i.e., SC-GHGs) using the estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990, published in February 2021 by the IWG (‘‘February 2021 SCGHG TSD’’). The SC-GHGs is the monetary value of the net harm to society associated with a marginal increase in emissions in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. In principle, SC-GHGs includes the value of all climate change impacts, including (but not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health effects, property damage from increased flood risk and natural disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. The SCGHGs therefore, reflects the societal value of reducing emissions of the gas in question by one metric ton. The SCGHGs is the theoretically appropriate value to use in conducting benefit-cost analyses of policies that affect CO2, N2O and CH4 emissions. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees that the interim SC-GHG estimates represent the most appropriate estimate of the SCGHG until revised estimates have been developed reflecting the latest, peerreviewed science. The SC-GHGs estimates presented here were developed over many years, using transparent process, peerreviewed methodologies, the best science available at the time of that process, and with input from the public. Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, which included the DOE and other executive branch agencies and offices, was established to ensure that agencies were using the best available science and to promote consistency in the social cost of carbon (‘‘SC-CO2’’) values used across agencies. The IWG published SC-CO2 estimates in 2010 that were developed from an ensemble of three widely cited integrated assessment models (‘‘IAMs’’) that estimate global climate damages using highly aggregated representations of climate processes and the global economy combined into a single modeling framework. The three IAMs were run using a common set of input assumptions in each model for future population, economic, and CO2 emissions growth, as well as equilibrium climate sensitivity—a VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 measure of the globally averaged temperature response to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These estimates were updated in 2013 based on new versions of each IAM. In August 2016 the IWG published estimates of the social cost of methane (‘‘SC-CH4’’) and nitrous oxide (‘‘SC-N2O’’) using methodologies that are consistent with the methodology underlying the SC-CO2 estimates. The modeling approach that extends the IWG SC-CO2 methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has undergone multiple stages of peer review. The SCCH4 and SC-N2O estimates were developed by Marten et al.41 and underwent a standard double-blind peer review process prior to journal publication. In 2015, as part of the response to public comments received to a 2013 solicitation for comments on the SC-CO2 estimates, the IWG announced a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine review of the SC-CO2 estimates to offer advice on how to approach future updates to ensure that the estimates continue to reflect the best available science and methodologies. In January 2017, the National Academies released their final report, Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and recommended specific criteria for future updates to the SC-CO2 estimates, a modeling framework to satisfy the specified criteria, and both near-term updates and longer-term research needs pertaining to various components of the estimation process (National Academies, 2017).42 Shortly thereafter, in March 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13783, which disbanded the IWG, withdrew the previous TSDs, and directed agencies to ensure SC-CO2 estimates used in regulatory analyses are consistent with the guidance contained in OMB’s Circular A–4, ‘‘including with respect to the consideration of domestic versus international impacts and the consideration of appropriate discount rates’’ (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)). Benefit-cost analyses following E.O. 13783 used SC-GHG estimates that attempted to focus on the U.S.-specific share of climate change damages as estimated by the models and were 41 Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. Newbold, and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government’s SC-CO2 estimates. Climate Policy. 2015. 15(2): pp. 272-298. 42 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide. 2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC. PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 calculated using two discount rates recommended by Circular A–4, 3 percent and 7 percent. All other methodological decisions and model versions used in SC-GHG calculations remained the same as those used by the IWG in 2010 and 2013, respectively. On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, which reestablished the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S. Government’s estimates of the social cost of carbon and other greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the recommendations of the National Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked with first reviewing the SC-GHG estimates currently used in Federal analyses and publishing interim estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including by taking global damages into account. The interim SCGHG estimates published in February 2021 are used here to estimate the climate benefits for this proposed rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller update of the SCGHG estimates by January 2022 that takes into consideration the advice of the National Academies (2017) and other recent scientific literature. The February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a complete discussion of the IWG’s initial review conducted under E.O. 13990. In particular, the IWG found that the SCGHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to reflect the full impact of GHG emissions in multiple ways. First, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to fully capture many climate impacts that affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and residents, and those impacts are better reflected by global measures of the SCGHG. Examples of omitted effects from the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct effects on U.S. citizens, assets, and investments located abroad, supply chains, U.S. military assets and interests abroad, tourism, and spillover pathways such as economic and political destabilization and global migration that can lead to adverse impacts on U.S. national security, public health, and humanitarian concerns. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation activities requires consideration of how those actions may affect mitigation activities by other countries, as those international mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and residents. A wide range of scientific and economic experts have emphasized the issue of reciprocity as support for considering global damages of GHG emissions. If the E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 United States does not consider impacts on other countries, it is difficult to convince other countries to consider the impacts of their emissions on the United States. The only way to achieve an efficient allocation of resources for emissions reduction on a global basis— and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens— is for all countries to base their policies on global estimates of damages. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 2021 SCGHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and, therefore, in this proposed rule DOE centers attention on a global measure of SC-GHG. This approach is the same as that taken in DOE regulatory analyses from 2012 through 2016. A robust estimate of climate damages that accrue only to U.S. citizens and residents does not currently exist in the literature. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, existing estimates are both incomplete and an underestimate of total damages that accrue to the citizens and residents of the U.S. because they do not fully capture the regional interactions and spillovers discussed above, nor do they include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature. As noted in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG will continue to review developments in the literature, including more robust methodologies for estimating a U.S.-specific SC-GHG value, and explore ways to better inform the public of the full range of carbon impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE will continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. Second, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on capital (7 percent under current OMB Circular A– 4 guidance) to discount the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately underestimates the impacts of climate change for the purposes of estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the National Academies (2017) and the economic literature, the IWG continued to conclude that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically appropriate discount rate in an intergenerational context,43 and recommended that 43 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866. 2010. United States Government. (Last accessed April 15, 2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/ documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf; Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2013. (Last VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 discount rate uncertainty and relevant aspects of intergenerational ethical considerations be accounted for in selecting future discount rates. Furthermore, the damage estimates developed for use in the SC-GHG are estimated in consumption-equivalent terms, and so an application of OMB Circular A–4’s guidance for regulatory analysis would then use the consumption discount rate to calculate the SC-GHG. DOE agrees with this assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes that while OMB Circular A–4, as published in 2003, recommends using 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates as ‘‘default’’ values, Circular A–4 also reminds agencies that ‘‘different regulations may call for different emphases in the analysis, depending on the nature and complexity of the regulatory issues and the sensitivity of the benefit and cost estimates to the key assumptions.’’ On discounting, Circular A–4 recognizes that ‘‘special ethical considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across generations,’’ and Circular A–4 acknowledges that analyses may appropriately ‘‘discount future costs and consumption benefits . . . at a lower rate than for intragenerational analysis.’’ In the 2015 Response to Comments on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG members recognized that ‘‘Circular A–4 is a living document’’ and ‘‘the use of 7 percent is not considered appropriate for intergenerational discounting. There is wide support for this view in the academic literature, and it is recognized in Circular A–4 itself.’’ Thus, DOE concludes that a 7 percent discount rate is not appropriate to apply to value the social cost of greenhouse gases in the analysis presented in this analysis. accessed April 15, 2022.) www.federalregister.gov/ documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technicalsupport-document-technical-update-of-the-socialcost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact; Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. Technical Support Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under Executive Order 12866. August 2016. (Last accessed January 18, 2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf; Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. August 2016. (Last accessed January 18, 2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/ documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_ 2016.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 16141 To calculate the present and annualized values of climate benefits, DOE uses the same discount rate as the rate used to discount the value of damages from future GHG emissions, for internal consistency. That approach to discounting follows the same approach that the February 2021 TSD recommends ‘‘to ensure internal consistency—i.e., future damages from climate change using the SC-GHG at 2.5 percent should be discounted to the base year of the analysis using the same 2.5 percent rate.’’ DOE has also consulted the National Academies’ 2017 recommendations on how SC-GHG estimates can ‘‘be combined in RIAs with other cost and benefits estimates that may use different discount rates.’’ The National Academies reviewed several options, including ‘‘presenting all discount rate combinations of other costs and benefits with SC-GHG estimates.’’ As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the above assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. While the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the latest, peer reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates, it set the interim estimates to be the most recent estimates developed by the IWG prior to the group being disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely on the same models and harmonized inputs and are calculated using a range of discount rates. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG has recommended that agencies revert to the same set of four values drawn from the SC-GHG distributions based on three discount rates as were used in regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016 and were subject to public comment. For each discount rate, the IWG combined the distributions across models and socioeconomic emissions scenarios (applying equal weight to each) and then selected a set of four values recommended for use in benefitcost analyses: an average value resulting from the model runs for each of three discount rates (2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, selected as the 95th percentile of estimates based on a 3 percent discount rate. The fourth value was included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected economic impacts from climate change. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, and DOE agrees, this update reflects the E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16142 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules immediate need to have an operational SC-GHG for use in regulatory benefitcost analyses and other applications that was developed using a transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, and the science available at the time of that process. Those estimates were subject to public comment in the context of dozens of proposed rulemakings as well as in a dedicated public comment period in 2013. There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with the SCGHG estimates. First, the current scientific and economic understanding of discounting approaches suggests discount rates appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate change are likely to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent or lower.44 Second, the IAMs used to produce these interim estimates do not include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature and the science underlying their ‘‘damage functions’’—i.e., the core parts of the IAMs that map global mean temperature changes and other physical impacts of climate change into economic (both market and nonmarket) damages—lags behind the most recent research. For example, limitations include the incomplete treatment of catastrophic and non-catastrophic impacts in the integrated assessment models, their incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, the incomplete way in which inter-regional and intersectoral linkages are modeled, uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high temperatures, and inadequate representation of the relationship between the discount rate and uncertainty in economic growth over long time horizons. Likewise, the socioeconomic and emissions scenarios used as inputs to the models do not reflect new information from the last decade of scenario generation or the full range of projections. The modeling limitations do not all work in the same direction in terms of their influence on the SC-CO2 estimates. However, as discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the IWG has recommended that, taken together, the limitations suggest that the interim SC-GHG estimates used in this proposed rule likely underestimate the damages from GHG emissions. DOE concurs with this assessment. DOE’s derivations of the SC-CO2, SCN2O, and SC-CH4 values used for this NOPR are discussed in the following sections, and the results of DOE’s analyses estimating the benefits of the reductions in emissions of these GHGs are presented in section V.B.6 of this document. a. Social Cost of Carbon The SC-CO2 values used for this NOPR were based on the values presented for the IWG’s February 2021 TSD. Table IV.10 shows the updated sets of SC-CO2 estimates from the IWG’s TSD in 5-year increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values that DOE used is presented in appendix 14A of the NOPR TSD. For purposes of capturing the uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE has determined it is appropriate to include all four sets of SC-CO2 values, as recommended by the IWG.45 TABLE IV.10—ANNUAL SC–CO2 VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 [2020$ per metric ton CO2] Discount rate and statistic Year lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 5% 3% 2.5% 3% Average Average Average 95th percentile ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................. 14 17 19 22 25 28 32 To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the SCCO2 values in each case. For 2051 to 2070, DOE used SC-CO2 estimates published by EPA, adjusted to 2021$.46 These estimates are based on methods, assumptions, and parameters identical to the 2020–2050 estimates published by the IWG. DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CO2 value for that year in each of the four cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2021$ using the implicit price deflator for gross domestic product (‘‘GDP’’) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O values used for this NOPR were based on the values developed for the February 2021 TSD. Table IV.11 shows the updated sets of 44 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990. February. United States Government. Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/ blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidence- based-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climatepollution/. 45 For example, the February 2021 TSD discusses how the understanding of discounting approaches suggests that discount rates appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate change may be lower than 3 percent. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 51 56 62 67 73 79 85 76 83 89 96 103 110 116 152 169 187 206 225 242 260 SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates from the latest interagency update in 5-year increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values used is presented in appendix 14A of the NOPR TSD. To capture the uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE has determined it is appropriate to include all four sets of SC-CH4 and SC-N2O values, as recommended by the IWG. DOE derived values after 2050 using the approach described above for the SCCO2. 46 See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis, Washington, DC, December 2021. Available at: www.epa.gov/system/ files/documents/2021-12/420r21028.pdf (last accessed January 13, 2022). E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16143 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE IV.11—ANNUAL SC-CH4 AND SC-N2O VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 [2020$ per metric ton] SC-N2O SC-CH4 Discount rate and statistic Discount rate and statistic Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 5% 3% 2.5% 3% Average Average Average 95th percentile Average Average Average 95th percentile .................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. .................................. 670 800 940 1100 1300 1500 1700 1500 1700 2000 2200 2500 2800 3100 DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O emissions reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates for that year in each of the cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2021$ using the implicit price deflator for gross domestic product (‘‘GDP’’) from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the cases using the specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates in each case. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts For the NOPR, DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX and SO2 emissions reductions from electricity generation using the latest benefit per ton estimates for that sector from the EPA’s Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program.47 DOE used EPA’s values for PM2.5-related benefits associated with NOX and SO2 and for ozone-related benefits associated with NOX for 2025 2030, and 2040, calculated with discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. DOE used linear interpolation to define values for the years not given in the 2025 to 2040 period; for years beyond 2040 the values are held constant. DOE derived values specific to the sector for battery chargers using a method described in appendix 14B of the NOPR TSD. M. Utility Impact Analysis The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the electric power generation industry that would result from the adoption of new or amended energy conservation standards. The utility impact analysis estimates the changes in installed electrical capacity and generation that would result for each TSL. The analysis is based on 47 Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors from 21 Sectors. www.epa.gov/ benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25precursors-21-sectors. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 2000 2200 2500 2800 3100 3500 3800 3900 4500 5200 6000 6700 7500 8200 5800 6800 7800 9000 10000 12000 13000 published output from the NEMS associated with AEO2022. NEMS produces the AEO Reference case, as well as a number of side cases that estimate the economy-wide impacts of changes to energy supply and demand. For the current analysis, impacts are quantified by comparing the levels of electricity sector generation, installed capacity, fuel consumption and emissions in the AEO2022 Reference case and various side cases. Details of the methodology are provided in the appendices to chapters 13 and 15 of the NOPR TSD. The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or amended energy conservation standards. N. Employment Impact Analysis DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one factor in selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts from new or amended energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees of manufacturers of the products subject to standards, their suppliers, and related service firms. The MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by the purchase and operation of more-efficient appliances. Indirect employment impacts from standards consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector being regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by consumers on energy, (2) PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 18000 21000 23000 25000 28000 30000 33000 27000 30000 33000 36000 39000 42000 45000 48000 54000 60000 67000 74000 81000 88000 reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry, (3) increased consumer spending on the products to which the new standards apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the economy. One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector employment statistics developed by the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (‘‘BLS’’). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs (both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of the economy.48 There are many reasons for these differences, including wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more capital-intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, the BLS data suggest that net national employment may increase due to shifts in economic activity resulting from energy conservation standards. DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard levels considered in this NOPR using an input/output model of the U.S. economy 48 See U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) User’s Guide. (Available at: www.bea.gov/resources/methodologies/RIMSIIuser-guide) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16144 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 4 (‘‘ImSET’’).49 ImSET is a special-purpose version of the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National Input— Output’’ (‘‘I–O’’) model, which was designed to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy-saving technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer-based I–O model having structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among 187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential building energy use. DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting model, and that the uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job impacts over the long run for this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to generate results for near-term timeframes (2027–2032), where these uncertainties are reduced. For more details on the employment impact analysis, see chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD. V. Analytical Results and Conclusions The following section addresses the results from DOE’s analyses with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for battery chargers. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, the projected impacts of each of these levels if adopted as energy conservation standards for battery chargers, and the standards levels that DOE is proposing to adopt in this NOPR. Additional details regarding DOE’s analyses are contained in the NOPR TSD supporting this document. A. Trial Standard Levels In general, DOE typically evaluates potential amended standards for products and equipment by grouping individual efficiency levels for each class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to identify and consider manufacturer cost interactions between the product classes, to the extent that there are such interactions, and market cross elasticity from consumer purchasing decisions that may change when different standard levels are set. In the analysis conducted for this NOPR, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of four TSLs for battery chargers. DOE developed TSLs that combine efficiency levels for each analyzed product class. DOE presents the results for the TSLs in this document, while the results for all efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are in the NOPR TSD. Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding efficiency levels that DOE has identified for potential amended energy conservation standards for battery chargers. TSL 4 represents the maximum technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) energy efficiency for all product classes. TABLE V.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS Product class TSL 1 2 3 4 1a fixedlocation wireless ........................................................................................... ........................................................................................... ........................................................................................... ........................................................................................... DOE constructed the TSLs for this NOPR to include ELs representative of ELs with similar characteristics (i.e., using similar technologies and/or efficiencies, and having roughly comparable product availability). The use of representative ELs provided for greater distinction between the TSLs. While representative ELs were included in the TSLs, DOE considered all efficiency levels as part of its analysis.50 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings 1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers DOE analyzed the economic impacts on battery chargers’ consumers by looking at the effects that potential amended standards at each TSL would have on the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of potential 49 Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and R.W. Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies Model Description and User Guide. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 1b openplacement wireless 1 1 2 3 2a lowenergy wired 1 1 2 3 standards on selected consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed in the following sections. a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses. Table V.2 through Table V.6 show the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs 2015. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: Richland, WA. PNNL–24563. 50 Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this NOPR are discussed in section IV.C.4 of this PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 1 2 2 3 2b mediumenergy wired 1 2 2 3 2c highenergy wired 1 2 2 3 considered for each product class. In the first of each pair of tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline product. In the second table, impacts are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case in the compliance year (see section IV.F of this document). Because some consumers purchase products with higher efficiency in the no-new-standards case, the average savings are less than the difference between the average LCC of the baseline product and the average LCC at each TSL. The savings refer only to consumers who are affected by a standard at a given TSL. Those who already purchase a product with efficiency at or above a given TSL are not affected. Consumers for whom the LCC increases at a given TSL experience a net cost. document. Results by efficiency level are presented in TSD chapters 8, 10, and 12. E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16145 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE V.2—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR FIXED-LOCATION WIRELESS CHARGERS Average costs and savings (2021$) EL First year’s operating savings Installed cost EL 1 ............................................................... EL 2 ............................................................... EL 3 ............................................................... $0.90 1.57 3.43 Average LCC savings * (2021$) Lifetime operating savings ¥$0.24 ¥0.26 ¥0.44 ¥$0.87 ¥0.93 ¥1.51 Percent of consumers with net cost (%) ¥$0.03 ¥0.64 ¥1.92 Simple payback (years) 13.9 35.5 90.0 Average lifetime (years) 3.8 6.0 7.8 3.9 3.9 3.9 * The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Numbers may not add up due to rounding. TABLE V.3—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR OPEN-PLACEMENT WIRELESS CHARGERS Average costs and savings (2021$) EL First year’s operating savings Installed cost EL 1 ............................................................... EL 2 ............................................................... EL 3 ............................................................... $0.71 1.69 2.06 Average LCC savings * (2021$) Lifetime operating savings ¥$0.17 ¥0.18 ¥0.19 ¥$0.83 ¥0.89 ¥0.90 Percent of consumers with net cost (%) $0.12 ¥0.81 ¥1.16 Simple payback (years) 6.8 38.4 55.1 Average lifetime (years) 4.1 9.2 11.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 * The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Numbers may not add up due to rounding. TABLE V.4—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR LOW-ENERGY WIRED CHARGERS Average costs and savings (2021$) EL First year’s operating savings Installed cost EL 1 ............................................................... EL 2 ............................................................... EL 3 ............................................................... $0.57 0.77 1.48 Average LCC savings * (2021$) Lifetime operating savings ¥$0.22 ¥0.23 ¥0.26 ¥$0.86 ¥0.90 ¥1.05 Percent of consumers with net cost (%) $0.28 0.13 ¥0.43 Simple payback (years) 11.2 39.0 65.5 Average lifetime (years) 3.1 4.0 6.4 4.7 4.7 4.7 * The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Numbers may not add up due to rounding. TABLE V.5—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR MEDIUM-ENERGY WIRED CHARGERS Average costs and savings (2021$) EL First year’s operating savings Installed cost EL 1 ............................................................... EL 2 ............................................................... EL 3 ............................................................... $3.17 3.42 3.66 Average LCC savings * (2021$) Lifetime operating savings ¥$0.90 ¥0.96 ¥1.02 ¥$4.61 ¥4.96 ¥5.27 Percent of consumers with net cost (%) $1.44 1.55 1.61 Simple payback (years) 16.5 30.5 49.8 Average lifetime (years) 4.5 4.4 4.4 5.5 5.5 5.5 * The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Numbers may not add up due to rounding. TABLE V.6—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR HIGH-ENERGY WIRED CHARGERS Average costs and savings (2021$) EL First year’s operating savings Installed cost EL 1 ............................................................... EL 2 ............................................................... EL 3 ............................................................... $4.95 5.92 7.69 ¥$3.46 ¥4.04 ¥5.24 Average LCC savings * (2021$) Lifetime operating savings ¥$16.41 ¥20.24 ¥26.63 Percent of consumers with net cost (%) $11.46 14.32 18.94 2.4 1.6 1.3 Simple payback (years) Average lifetime (years) 1.4 1.5 1.5 * The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Numbers may not add up due to rounding. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the considered TSLs on low-income households. Table V.7 to Table V.11 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 compare the average LCC savings and PBP at each efficiency level for the consumer subgroups with similar metrics for the entire consumer sample for battery chargers. In all cases, the average LCC savings and PBP for low- PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 income households at the considered efficiency levels are not substantially different from the average for all households. Chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD presents the complete LCC and PBP results for the subgroups. E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 9.2 9.2 9.2 16146 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE V.7—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; FIXEDLOCATION WIRELESS CHARGERS Low-income households All households Average LCC Savings (2021$) EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... ¥0.01 ¥0.63 ¥1.91 ¥0.03 ¥0.64 ¥1.92 3.7 5.9 7.7 3.8 6.0 7.8 14.4 35.0 90.9 13.9 35.5 90.0 Payback Period (years) EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... Consumers with Net Cost (%) EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... TABLE V.8—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; OPENPLACEMENT WIRELESS CHARGERS Low-income households All households Average LCC Savings (2021$) EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.14 ¥0.80 ¥1.16 0.12 ¥0.81 ¥1.16 4.0 9.1 10.8 4.1 9.2 11.0 7.5 40.1 56.0 6.8 38.4 55.1 Payback Period (years) EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... Consumers with Net Cost (%) EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... TABLE V.9—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; LOWENERGY WIRED CHARGERS Low-income households All households Average LCC Savings (2021$) EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.21 0.06 ¥0.52 0.28 0.13 ¥0.43 3.8 4.7 7.5 3.1 4.0 6.4 12.9 43.0 68.0 11.2 39.0 65.5 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Payback Period (years) EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... Consumers with Net Cost (%) EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules 16147 TABLE V.10—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; MEDIUMENERGY WIRED CHARGERS Low-income households All households Average LCC Savings (2021$) EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.32 1.40 1.47 1.44 1.55 1.61 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 15.5 30.1 49.5 16.5 30.5 49.8 Payback Period (years) EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... Consumers with Net Cost (%) EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... TABLE V.11—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; HIGHENERGY WIRED CHARGERS Low-income households All households Average LCC Savings (2021$) EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11.12 16.39 22.81 11.46 14.32 18.94 2.5 2.1 2.1 1.4 1.5 1.5 4.9 3.2 3.0 2.4 1.6 1.3 Payback Period (years) EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... Consumers with Net Cost (%) EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback As discussed in section III.F.2, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a rebuttable presumption payback period for each of the considered TSLs, DOE used discrete values, and as required by EPCA, based the energy use calculation on the DOE test procedure for battery chargers. In contrast, the PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a were calculated using distributions that reflect the range of energy use in the field. Table V.12 presents the rebuttablepresumption payback periods for the considered TSLs for battery chargers. While DOE examined the rebuttablepresumption criterion, it considered whether the standard levels considered for the NOPR are economically justified through a more detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full range of impacts to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment. The results of that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level, thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE V.12—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS EL PC 1a 1 ........................................................................................... 2 ........................................................................................... 3 ........................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 PC 1b 3.8 6.0 7.8 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 PC 2a 4.1 9.2 11.0 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM PC 2b 3.1 4.0 6.4 15MRP2 PC 2c 4.5 4.4 4.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 16148 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules 2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of battery chargers. The following section describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at each considered TSL. Section IV.J of this document discusses the MIA methodology, and chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD explains the analysis in further detail. a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results In this section, DOE provides GRIM results from the analysis, which examines changes in the industry that would result from a standard. The following tables summarize the estimated financial impacts (represented by changes in INPV) of potential amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of battery chargers as well as the conversion costs that DOE estimates manufacturers of battery chargers would incur at each TSL. These results are presented both at an all-industry level and for each industry segment. TABLE V.13—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS—PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN SCENARIO TSL 1 All All All All All TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $78,912 millions) ................................. Change in INPV ($ millions) ....................................................................... % Change in INPV ..................................................................................... Capital Conversion Costs ($ millions) ........................................................ Product Conversion Costs ($ millions) ....................................................... 78,872 (40) (0.1) 24.0 57.2 78,685 (214) (0.3) 103.4 294.8 78,637 (260) (0.3) 127.1 358.8 78,265 (598) (0.8) 268.3 868.4 Total Conversion Costs ($ millions) ......................................................... 81.3 398.1 485.9 1,136.7 TABLE V.14—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS—CONSTANT PRICE SCENARIO TSL 1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 All All All All All TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $78,912 millions) ................................. Change in INPV ($ millions) ....................................................................... % Change in INPV (%) ............................................................................... Capital Conversion Costs ($ millions) ........................................................ Product Conversion Costs ($ millions) ....................................................... 77,427 (1,523) (1.9) 24.0 57.2 75,328 (3,659) (4.6) 103.4 294.8 74,596 (4,402) (5.6) 127.1 358.8 70,039 (9,032) (11.4) 268.3 868.4 Total Conversion Costs ($ millions) ......................................................... 81.3 398.1 485.9 1,136.7 At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from approximately ¥$1,523 million to ¥$40.3 million, which represents a change of approximately ¥1.9 to ¥0.1 percent. At TSL 1, industry free cash-flow decreases to $6,265 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 0.5 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $6,299 million in 2026, the year before the anticipated first full year of compliance, 2027. TSL 1 would set the energy conservation standard at EL 1 for all product classes. DOE estimates that approximately 73 percent of low energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 54 percent of medium energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 75 percent of high energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 92 percent of fixed location wireless battery charger shipments, and approximately 93 percent of open location wireless battery charger shipments would meet or exceed the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 1 in 2027. DOE expects battery charger manufacturers to incur approximately $57.2 million in product conversion costs to redesign all non- VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 compliant models and $24.0 million in related capital conversion costs. At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted average MPC for battery chargers and battery charger applications slightly increases by less than 0.1 percent, relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC in 2027. In the preservation of gross margin scenario, manufacturers can fully pass on this slight cost increase. The slight increase in shipment weighted average MPC is outweighed by the $81.6 million in conversion costs, causing a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under the preservation of gross margin scenario. Under the constant price scenario, manufacturers do not adjust their product’s price from the price in the nonew-standards case and do not pass on the cost increase to consumers. In this scenario, the 0.1 percent shipment weighted average MPC increase results in a reduction in the margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the margin and the $81.6 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under the constant price scenario. At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from ¥$3,658.8 million PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 to ¥$214.1 million, which represents a change of ¥4.6 percent to ¥0.3 percent, respectively. At TSL 2, industry free cash-flow decreases to $6,131 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 2.7 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $6,299 million in 2026, the year before the estimated first full year of compliance. TSL 2 would set the energy conservation standard at EL 1 for wireless product classes and at EL 2 for wired product classes. DOE estimates that approximately 27 percent of low energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 46 percent of medium energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 26 percent of high energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 92 percent of fixed location wireless battery charger shipments, and approximately 93 percent of open location wireless battery charger shipments would meet or exceed the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 2 in 2027. DOE expects battery charger manufacturers to incur approximately $294.8 million in product conversion costs to redesign all non-compliant models and $103.4 in related capital conversion costs. E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted average MPC for battery chargers slightly increases by 0.2 percent relative to the no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC in 2027. In the preservation of gross margin scenario, manufacturers can fully pass on this slight cost increase. The slight increase in shipment weighted average MPC is outweighed by the $398.2 million in conversion costs, causing a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under the preservation of gross margin scenario. Under the constant price scenario, manufacturers do not adjust their product’s price from the price in the nonew-standards case and do not pass on the cost increase to consumers. This 0.2 percent reduction in the margin and the $398.2 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under the constant price scenario. At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from ¥$4,402 million to ¥$358.8 million, which represents a change of ¥5.6 percent to ¥0.3 percent, respectively. At TSL 3, industry free cash-flow decreases to $6,100 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 3.1 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $6,299 million in 2026, the year before the estimated first full year of compliance. TSL 3 would set the energy conservation standard at EL 2 for all product classes. DOE estimates that approximately 27 percent of low energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 46 percent of medium energy wired BC shipments, approximately 26 percent of high energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 66 percent of fixed location wireless battery charger shipments, and approximately 73 percent of open location wireless battery charger shipments would meet or exceed the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 3 in 2027. DOE expects battery charger manufacturers to incur approximately $358.8 million in product conversion costs to redesign all non-compliant models and $127.1 in related capital conversion costs. At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted average MPC for battery chargers slightly increases by 0.2 percent relative to the no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC in 2027. In the preservation of gross margin scenario, manufacturers can fully pass on this slight cost increase. The slight increase in shipment weighted average MPC is outweighed by the $485.9 million in VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 conversion costs, causing a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under the preservation of gross margin scenario. Under the constant price scenario, manufacturers do not adjust their product’s price from the price in the nonew-standards case and do not pass on the cost increase to consumers. This 0.2 percent reduction in the margin and the $485.9 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under the constant price scenario. At TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from ¥$9,032 million to ¥$597.7 million, which represents a change of ¥11.4 percent to ¥0.8 percent, respectively. At TSL 4, industry free cash-flow decreases to $5,822 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 7.6 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $6,299 million in 2026, the year before the estimated first full year of compliance. TSL 4 would set the energy conservation standard at EL 3 for all product classes. DOE estimates that approximately 8 percent of low energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 19 percent of medium energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 12 percent of high energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 8 percent of fixed location wireless battery charger shipments, and approximately 53 percent of open location wireless battery charger shipments would meet the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 4 in 2027. DOE expects battery charger manufacturers to incur approximately $868.4 million in product conversion costs to redesign all non-compliant models and $262.3 in related capital conversion costs. At TSL 4, the shipment-weighted average MPC for battery chargers slightly increases by 0.6 percent relative to the no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC in 2027. In the preservation of gross margin scenario, manufacturers can fully pass on this slight cost increase. The slight increase in shipment weighted average MPC is outweighed by the $1,136.7 million in conversion costs, causing a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under the preservation of gross margin scenario. Under the constant price scenario, manufacturers do not adjust their product’s price from the price in the nonew-standards case and do not pass on the cost increase to consumers. In this scenario, the 0.6 percent shipment PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 16149 weighted average MPC increase results in a reduction in the margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the margin and the $1,136.7 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a substantially negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under the constant price scenario. b. Direct Impacts on Employment DOE identified very limited domestic battery charger manufacturing, based on the industry profile developments for this NOPR analysis and manufacturer interviews that were conducted for this product as well as other products that use battery chargers. These domestic facilities are concentrated within the high energy industry subsector and support relatively low volumes for specialized applications. Since, energy conservation standards are not expected to alter production methodology, DOE does not expect that there would be any direct impacts on domestic production employment as a result of amended energy conservation standards. DOE requests comment on how the proposed energy conservation standards might affect domestic battery charger manufacturing. c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity As noted in prior sections, DOE does not expect that energy conservation standards would result in substantial changes to battery charger manufacturing equipment. Further, DOE does not expect that there would be capacity issues providing components to battery charger manufacturers for more efficient battery charger. DOE requests comment on possible impacts on manufacturing capacity stemming from amended energy conservation standards. d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers DOE identified five subgroups of manufactures that may experience disproportionate or different impacts as a result of amended standards—small appliances industry subgroup, consumer electronics industry subgroup, power tools industry subgroup, high energy industry subgroup, and small business manufacturers. Estimated quantitative impacts on the four industry subgroups are presented in tables V.15 through V.22. Analysis of the possible impact on small business manufacturers is discussed in section VI.B of this document. E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16150 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE V.15—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS—PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN SCENARIO—SMALL APPLIANCE INDUSTRY SUBGROUP TSL 1 All All All All All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $2,757 M) ............................................ Change in INPV ($ M) ................................................................................ % Change in INPV (%) ............................................................................... Capital Conversion Costs ($ M) ................................................................. Product Conversion Costs ($ M) ................................................................ TSL 2 2,747 (10.2) (0.4) 5.6 9.8 TSL 3 2,715 (42.0) (1.5) 20.1 43.9 2,688 (68.5) (2.5) 32.2 71.5 TSL 4 2,562 (195.3) (7.1) 84.9 216.1 TABLE V.16—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS—CONSTANT PRICE SCENARIO—SMALL APPLIANCE INDUSTRY SUBGROUP TSL 1 All All All All All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $2,757 M) ............................................ Change in INPV ($ M) ................................................................................ % Change in INPV (%) ............................................................................... Capital Conversion Costs ($ M) ................................................................. Product Conversion Costs ($ M) ................................................................ 2,525 (231.9) (8.4) 5.6 9.8 TSL 2 TSL 3 2,229 (527.5) (9.1) 20.1 43.9 1,901 (855.5) (31.0) 32.2 71.5 TSL 4 902.0 (1,854.8) (67.3) 84.9 216.1 TABLE V.17—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS—PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN SCENARIO—CONSUMER ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY SUBGROUP TSL 1 All All All All All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $71,577 M) .......................................... Change in INPV ($ M) ................................................................................ % Change in INPV (%) ............................................................................... Capital Conversion Costs ($ M) ................................................................. Product Conversion Costs ($ M) ................................................................ 71,544 (28.9) (0.0) 16.6 60.2 TSL 2 TSL 3 71,400 (160.0) (0.2) 75.4 305.1 71,378 (179.8) (0.3) 87.0 353.1 TSL 4 71,150 (372.7) (0.5) 166.8 767.9 TABLE V.18—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS—CONSTANT PRICE SCENARIO—CONSUMER ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY SUBGROUP TSL 1 All All All All All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $71,577 M) .......................................... Change in INPV ($ M) ................................................................................ % Change in INPV (%) ............................................................................... Capital Conversion Costs ($ M) ................................................................. Product Conversion Costs ($ M) ................................................................ 70,433 (1,178) (1.6) 16.6 60.2 TSL 2 TSL 3 68,816 (2,831) (4.0) 75.4 305.1 68,412 (3,247) (4.5) 87.0 353.1 TSL 4 65,045 (6,686) (9.3) 166.8 767.9 TABLE V.19—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS—PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN SCENARIO—POWER TOOLS INDUSTRY SUBGROUP TSL 1 All All All All All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $822.5 M) ............................................ Change in INPV ($ M) ................................................................................ % Change in INPV (%) ............................................................................... Capital Conversion Costs ($ M) ................................................................. Product Conversion Costs ($ M) ................................................................ TSL 2 822.0 (0.5) (0.1) 0.4 0.8 TSL 3 819.3 (3.2) (0.4) 2.0 7.0 819.3 (3.2) (0.4) 2.0 5.0 TSL 4 817.0 (5.4) (0.7) 3.5 9.8 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 TABLE V.20—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS—CONSTANT PRICE SCENARIO—POWER TOOLS INDUSTRY SUBGROUP TSL 1 All All All All All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $822.5 M) ............................................ Change in INPV ($ M) ................................................................................ % Change in INPV (%) ............................................................................... Capital Conversion Costs ($ M) ................................................................. Product Conversion Costs ($ M) ................................................................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 TSL 2 798.6 (23.9) (2.9) 0.4 0.8 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM TSL 3 759.3 (63.1) (7.7) 2.0 7.0 15MRP2 759.3 (63.1) (7.7) 2.0 5.0 TSL 4 712.6 (109.8) (13.4) 3.5 9.8 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules 16151 TABLE V.21—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS—PRESERVATION OF GROSS MARGIN SCENARIO—HIGH ENERGY INDUSTRY SUBGROUP TSL 1 All All All All All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $3,760 M) ............................................ Change in INPV ($ M) ................................................................................ % Change in INPV (%) ............................................................................... Capital Conversion Costs ($ M) ................................................................. Product Conversion Costs ($ M) ................................................................ TSL 2 3,759 (0.7) (0.0) 1.4 3.1 TSL 3 3,751 (9.0) (0.3) 5.8 16.3 3,751 (8.9) (0.4) 5.8 16.3 TSL 4 3,736 (24.3) (0.8) 13.0 41.3 TABLE V.22—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS—CONSTANT PRICE SCENARIO—HIGH ENERGY INDUSTRY SUBGROUP TSL 1 All All All All All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $3,760 M) ............................................ Change in INPV ($ M) ................................................................................ % Change in INPV ..................................................................................... Capital Conversion Costs ($ M) ................................................................. Product Conversion Costs ($ M) ................................................................ e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, TSL 2 3,671 (89.3) ¥2.4% 1.4 3.1 TSL 3 3,523 (237.0) ¥6.3% 5.8 16.3 the combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 3,523 (237.0) ¥6.3% 5.8 16.3 TSL 4 3,379 (381.4) ¥10.1% 13.0 41.3 manufacturers’ financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency. TABLE V.15—COMPLIANCE DATES AND EXPECTED CONVERSION EXPENSES OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS AFFECTING BATTERY CHARGER MANUFACTURERS Number of manufacturers * lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Energy conservation standard Industry conversion costs/product revenue *** (90) Number of manufacturers affected from this rule ** Approx. standards year Industry conversion costs (millions) $22.8 (2020$) $46.1 (2021$) $149.7 (2020$) $411.6 (2021$) 0.5 $1,324 (2021$) $17.1 (2021$) 10.5 Room Air Conditioners † 87 FR 20608 (Apr. 7, 2022) ........ 8 3 2026 Microwave Ovens † 87 FR 52282 (Aug. 24, 2022) ............. 19 6 2026 Clothes Dryers † 87 FR 51734 (Aug. 23, 2022) .................. 15 2 2027 Residential Clothes Washers †‡ .......................................... 19 6 2027 Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers 88 FR 12452 † (Feb. 27, 2023) ................................................... 49 7 2027 External Power Supplies 88 FR 7284 (Feb. 2, 2023) ......... 611 154 2027 0.7 1.8 8.1 0.6 * This column presents the total number of manufacturers identified in the energy conservation standard rule contributing to cumulative regulatory burden. ** This column presents the number of manufacturers producing EPSs that are also listed as manufacturers in the listed energy conservation standard contributing to cumulative regulatory burden. *** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of product revenue during the conversion period. Industry conversion costs are the upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the revenue from just the covered product/equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs are made and lasts from the publication year of the final rule to the compliance year of the energy conservation standard. The conversion period typically ranges from 3 to 5 years, depending on the rulemaking. † Indicates NOPR or SNOPR publications. Values may change on publication of a Final Rule. ‡ At the time of issuance of this battery charger proposed rule, this rulemaking has been issued and is pending publication in the Federal Register. Once published, the residential clothes washers proposed rule will be available at: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE–2017–BT–STD– 0014. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16152 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules In addition to the rulemakings listed in Table V.15, DOE has ongoing rulemakings for other products or equipment that battery charger manufacturers produce, including air cleaners; 51 automatic commercial ice makers; 52 commercial clothes washers; 53 dehumidifiers,54 and miscellaneous refrigeration products.55 If DOE proposes or finalizes any energy conservation standards for these products or equipment prior to finalizing energy conservation standards for battery chargers, DOE will include the energy conservation standards for these other products or equipment as part of the cumulative regulatory burden for the battery charger final rule. DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers of battery chargers associated with multiple DOE standards or product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. 3. National Impact Analysis This section presents DOE’s estimates of the national energy savings and the NPV of consumer benefits that would result from each of the TSLs considered as potential amended standards. a. Significance of Energy Savings To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended standards for battery chargers, DOE compared their energy consumption under the no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under each TSL. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of anticipated compliance with amended standards (2027–2056). Table V.16 presents DOE’s projections of the national energy savings for each TSL considered for battery chargers. The savings were calculated using the approach described in section IV.H of this document. TABLE V.16—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS [2027–2056] Trial standard level 1 2 3 4 (quads) Primary energy ................................................................................................................................................ FFC energy ...................................................................................................................................................... OMB Circular A–4 56 requires agencies to present analytical results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather than 30 years, of product shipments. The choice of a 9year period is a proxy for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised standards.57 The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally not synchronized with the product lifetime, product manufacturing cycles, or other factors specific to battery chargers. Thus, such results are 0.4 0.4 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 2.0 2.0 presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of any change in DOE’s analytical methodology. The NES sensitivity analysis results based on a 9-year analytical period are presented in Table V.17. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of battery chargers purchased in 2027–2036. TABLE V.17—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS [2027–2036] Trial standard level 1 2 3 4 (quads) lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Primary energy ................................................................................................................................................ FFC energy ...................................................................................................................................................... 51 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BTSTD-0035 52 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0022 53 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BTSTD-0044 54 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BTSTD-0043 55 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BTSTD-0039 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 56 U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/ circulars_a004_a-4 (last accessed December 2, 2022). 57 EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 previous standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may undertake reviews at any time within the 6 year period and that the 3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate given the variability that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and the fact that for some products, the compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years. E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16153 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for battery chargers. In accordance with OMB’s guidelines on regulatory analysis,58 DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3- percent real discount rate. Table V.18 shows the consumer NPV results with impacts counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2027–2036. TABLE V.18—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS [2027–2036] Trial standard level Discount rate 1 2 3 4 (billion 2021$) 3 percent. ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 percent. ......................................................................................................................................................... The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical period are presented in Table V.19. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2027–2036. As mentioned previously, such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of any 2.4 1.2 7.5 3.7 7.7 3.8 9.6 4.3 change in DOE’s analytical methodology or decision criteria. TABLE V.19—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS [2027–2036] Trial standard level Discount rate 1 2 3 4 (billion 2021$) lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 3 percent .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 percent .......................................................................................................................................................... c. Indirect Impacts on Employment It is estimated that that amended energy conservation standards for battery chargers would reduce energy expenditures for consumers of those products, with the resulting net savings being redirected to other forms of economic activity. These expected shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the demand for labor. As described in section V.B.2 of this document, DOE used an input/output model of the U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that DOE considered. There are uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes (2027– 2056), where these uncertainties are reduced. The results suggest that the proposed standards would be likely to have a negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. The net change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in national labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated effects on employment. Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents detailed results regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts. 58 U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/ VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products As discussed in section III.F.1.d of this document, DOE has tentatively concluded that the standards proposed in this NOPR would not lessen the utility or performance of battery chargers under consideration in this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products currently offer units that meet or exceed the proposed standards without a loss of utility or performance. 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to result from new or amended standards. As discussed in section III.F.1.e, the Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 0.8 0.5 2.6 1.7 2.6 1.7 2.6 1.6 proposed standard, and transmits such determination in writing to the Secretary, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. To assist the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE has provided DOJ with copies of this NOPR and the accompanying TSD for review. DOE will consider DOJ’s comments on the proposed rule in determining whether to proceed to a final rule. DOE will publish and respond to DOJ’s comments in that document. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for information to send comments to DOJ. 6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves the Nation’s energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the circulars_a004_a-4 (last accessed December 2, 2022). E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16154 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules environmental impacts (costs) of energy production. Reduced electricity demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, particularly during peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD presents the estimated impacts on electricity generating capacity, relative to the no-newstandards case, for the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking. Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation standards for battery chargers is expected to yield environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of certain air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table V.20 provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative emissions reductions expected to result from the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. The emissions were calculated using the multipliers discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE reports annual emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD. TABLE V.20—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR BATTERY CHARGERS SHIPPED IN 2027–2056 Trial standard level 1 2 3 4 14 1.1 0.15 7 7 0.04 38 2.9 0.41 19 18 0.11 40 3.1 0.43 20 19 0.12 65 5.0 0.71 33 31 0.19 1.0 98 0.01 16 0.08 0.0002 2.9 269 0.01 43 0.21 0.0004 3.0 284 0.02 46 0.22 0.0005 4.9 462 0.03 74 0.36 0.0008 15 99 0.15 23 7 0.04 40 272 0.42 62 18 0.11 43 287 0.45 66 19 0.12 69 467 0.73 107 31 0.19 Power Sector Emissions CO2 (million metric tons) ................................................................................................................................. CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................................................ N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................................................ NOX (thousand tons) ....................................................................................................................................... SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................................................ Hg (tons) .......................................................................................................................................................... Upstream Emissions CO2 (million metric tons) ................................................................................................................................. CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................................................ N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................................................ NOX (thousand tons) ....................................................................................................................................... SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................................................ Hg (tons) .......................................................................................................................................................... Total FFC Emissions CO2 (million metric tons) ................................................................................................................................. CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................................................ N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................................................ NOX (thousand tons) ....................................................................................................................................... SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................................................................ Hg (tons) .......................................................................................................................................................... As part of the analysis for this rulemaking, DOE estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for battery chargers. Section IV.L of this document discusses the SC–CO2 values that DOE used. Table V.21 presents the value of CO2 emissions reduction at each TSL for each of the SC–CO2 cases. The time-series of annual values is presented for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD. TABLE V.21—PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR BATTERY CHARGERS SHIPPED IN 2027–2056 SC–CO2 Case Discount rate and statistics TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3% Average Average Average 95th percentile (million 2021$) lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 1 2 3 4 ....................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... As discussed in section IV.L.2, DOE estimated the climate benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of methane and N2O that DOE estimated VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 158 432 457 743 for each of the considered TSLs for battery chargers. Table V.22 presents the value of the CH4 emissions reduction at each TSL, and Table V.23 presents the PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 647 1,773 1,873 3,048 999 2,738 2,892 4,705 1,968 5,397 5,701 9,276. value of the N2O emissions reduction at each TSL. The time-series of annual values is presented for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16155 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE V.22—PRESENT VALUE OF METHANE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR BATTERY CHARGERS SHIPPED IN 2027–2056 SC–CH4 case Discount rate and statistics TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3% Average Average Average 95th percentile (million 2021$) 1 2 3 4 ....................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... 48 131 139 225 135 370 390 635 186 510 538 874 358 981 1,035 1,683 TABLE V.23—PRESENT VALUE OF NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR BATTERY CHARGERS SHIPPED IN 2027– 2056 SC–N2O case Discount rate and statistics TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3% Average Average Average 95th percentile (million 2021$) lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 1 2 3 4 ....................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the global and U.S. economy continues to evolve rapidly. DOE, together with other Federal agencies, will continue to review methodologies for estimating the monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This ongoing review will consider the comments on this subject that are part of the public record for this and other rulemakings, as well as other methodological assumptions and issues. DOE notes that the proposed standards would be economically justified even without inclusion of monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions. DOE also estimated the monetary value of the health benefits associated with NOX and SO2 emissions reductions anticipated to result from the considered TSLs for battery chargers. The dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are discussed in section IV.L of this document. Table V.24 presents the present value for NOX emissions reduction for each TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates, and Table V.25 presents similar results for SO2 emissions reductions. The results in these tables reflect application VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 1 2 2 3 2 7 7 11 4 10 11 17 6 17 18 30 of EPA’s low dollar-per-ton values, which DOE used to be conservative. The time-series of annual values is presented for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD. Not all the public health and environmental benefits from the reduction of greenhouse gases, NOx, and SO2 are captured in the values above, and additional unquantified benefits from the reductions of those pollutants as well as from the reduction of direct TABLE V.24—PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR PM, and other co-pollutants may be BATTERY CHARGERS SHIPPED IN significant. DOE has not included monetary benefits of the reduction of Hg 2027–2056 emissions because the amount of reduction is very small. 3% Discount 7% Discount TSL rate rate (million 2021$) 1 2 3 4 ................ ................ ................ ................ 464 1,275 1,347 2,195 1,004 2,755 2,909 4,732 7. Other Factors The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No other factors were considered in this analysis. TABLE V.25—PRESENT VALUE OF SO2 8. Summary of Economic Impacts EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR BATTable V.26 presents the NPV values TERY CHARGERS SHIPPED IN 2027– that result from adding the estimates of the potential economic benefits 2056 TSL 3% Discount rate (million 2021$) 1 2 3 4 ................ ................ ................ ................ PO 00000 Frm 00045 190 524 554 904 Fmt 4701 resulting from reduced GHG and NOX and SO2 emissions to the NPV of consumer benefits calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking. The consumer benefits are domestic U.S. monetary savings that occur as a result 399 1,094 of purchasing the covered battery 1,158 chargers, and are measured for the 1,886 lifetime of products shipped in 2027– 2056. The climate benefits associated 7% Discount rate Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16156 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules with reduced GHG emissions resulting from the adopted standards are global benefits, and are also calculated based on the lifetime of battery chargers shipped in 2027–2056. TABLE V.26—CONSUMER NPV COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF CLIMATE BENEFITS AND HEALTH BENEFITS Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021$) 5% Average SC–GHG case ............................................................................ 3% Average SC–GHG case ............................................................................ 2.5% Average SC–GHG case ......................................................................... 3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case .................................................................. 4.0 4.6 5.0 6.2 11.9 13.5 14.6 17.8 12.4 14.1 15.2 18.5 17.2 19.9 21.8 27.2 6.3 8.0 9.1 12.5 8.4 11.1 13.0 18.4 7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021$) lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 5% Average SC–GHG case ............................................................................ 3% Average SC–GHG case ............................................................................ 2.5% Average SC–GHG case ......................................................................... 3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case .................................................................. C. Conclusion When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended standard must also result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) For this NOPR, DOE considered the impacts of amended standards for battery chargers at each TSL, beginning with the maximum technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified and saves a significant amount of energy. DOE refers to this process as the ‘‘walk-down’’ analysis. To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of DOE’s quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include the impacts on identifiable subgroups of VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 2.0 2.6 3.0 4.1 consumers who may be disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on employment. DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of information, (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits, (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant delaying or altering purchases, (4) excessive focus on the short term, in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings relative to available returns on other investments, (5) computational or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs, and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy cost savings. Specifically, consumers of battery charger applications make purchasing decisions based on the application’s overall feature set, performance, and design, but rarely on the basis of the accompanying charger’s energy efficiency. While there are secondary advantages to a more efficient charging product—e.g., less heat output from a more efficient charger means the product form factor can be smaller and more portable—they affect choices when purchasing replacement products, not the original PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 6.1 7.7 8.8 11.9 application. In either scenario, DOE does not expect that consumers are making these decisions with energy efficiency in mind, which undervalues the potential of energy savings. In DOE’s current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to lost revenue is included in the MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD. However, DOE’s current analysis does not explicitly control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, preferences across subcategories of products or specific features, or consumer price sensitivity variation according to household income.59 While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare impacts of appliance 59 P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853–883. doi: 10.1111/ 0034–6527.00354. E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy conservation standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.60 DOE welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the potential impact of energy conservation standards on consumer choice and how to quantify this impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings. 1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Battery Chargers Standards Table V.27 and Table V.28 summarize the quantitative impacts estimated for each TSL for battery chargers. The national impacts are measured over the 16157 lifetime of battery chargers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with amended standards (2027–2056). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of this document. TABLE V.27—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings Quads .............................................................................................................. 0.4 1.2 1.3 2.0 40 272 0.42 18 62 0.11 43 287 0.45 19 66 0.12 69 467 0.73 31 107 0.19 9.5 2.3 4.1 15.8 1.8 7.7 14.1 15.5 3.7 6.6 25.8 5.9 9.6 19.9 4.9 2.3 1.9 9.1 1.1 3.8 8.0 8.0 3.7 3.1 14.8 3.6 4.3 11.1 Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction CO2 (million metric tons) ................................................................................. CH4 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ N2O (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ SO2 (thousand tons) ........................................................................................ NOX (thousand tons) ....................................................................................... Hg (tons) .......................................................................................................... 15 99 0.15 7 23 0.04 Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2021$) Consumer Operating Cost Savings ................................................................. Climate Benefits * ............................................................................................. Health Benefits ** ............................................................................................. Total Benefits † ................................................................................................ Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ .......................................................... Consumer Net Benefits ................................................................................... Total Net Benefits ............................................................................................ 3.3 0.8 1.4 5.5 0.8 2.4 4.6 9.0 2.1 3.8 15.0 1.4 7.5 13.5 Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2021$) lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Consumer Operating Cost Savings ................................................................. Climate Benefits * ............................................................................................. Health Benefits ** ............................................................................................. Total Benefits † ................................................................................................ Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ .......................................................... Consumer Net Benefits ................................................................................... Total Net Benefits ............................................................................................ 1.7 0.8 0.7 3.1 0.5 1.2 2.6 4.6 2.1 1.8 8.6 0.9 3.7 7.7 Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with battery chargers shipped in 2027–2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027–2056. * Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC–CO2, SC–CH4 and SC–N2O. Together, these represent the global SC–GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. ** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. † Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. ‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs. 60 Sanstad, A.H. Notes on the Economics of Household Energy Consumption and Technology VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf (last accessed December 2, 2022). E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16158 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE V.28—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS TSLS: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS Category TSL 1 * TSL 2 * TSL 3 * TSL 4 * 75,328–76,685 (4.6)–(0.3) 74,596–78,637 (5.6)–(0.3) 70,039–78,265 (11.4)–(0.8) -$0.03 $0.12 $0.13 $1.55 $14.32 -$0.64 -$0.81 $0.13 $1.55 $14.32 -$1.92 -$1.16 -$0.43 $1.61 $18.94 3.8 4.1 4.0 4.4 1.5 6.0 9.2 4.0 4.4 1.5 7.8 11.0 6.4 4.4 1.5 13.9% 6.8% 39.0% 30.5% 1.6% 35.5% 38.4% 39.0% 30.5% 1.6% 90.0% 55.1% 65.5% 49.8% 1.3% Manufacturer Impacts Industry NPV (million 2021$) (No-new-standards case INPV = 78,929.8) ..... Industry NPV (% change) ................................................................................ 77,427–78,872 (1.9)–(0.1) Consumer Average LCC Savings (2021$) Fixed-Location Wireless Chargers ................................................................... Open-Placement Wireless Chargers ............................................................... Low-Energy Wired Chargers ........................................................................... Medium-Energy Wired Chargers ..................................................................... High-Energy Wired Chargers ........................................................................... -$0.03 $0.12 $0.28 $1.44 $11.46 Consumer Simple PBP (years) Fixed-Location Wireless Chargers ................................................................... Open-Placement Wireless Chargers ............................................................... Low-Energy Wired Chargers ........................................................................... Medium-Energy Wired Chargers ..................................................................... High-Energy Wired Chargers ........................................................................... 3.8 4.1 3.1 4..5 1.4 Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Fixed-Location Wireless Chargers ................................................................... Open-Placement Wireless Chargers ............................................................... Low-Energy Wired Chargers ........................................................................... Medium-Energy Wired Chargers ..................................................................... High-Energy Wired Chargers ........................................................................... DOE first considered TSL 4, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels. These levels correspond to the most efficient units tested by DOE or among the top 10% of models identified in the market (as discussed in IV.C.1.b). TSL 4 would save an estimated 2.0 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $4.34 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $9.59 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 69 Mt of CO2, 467 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.73 thousand tons of N2O, 31 thousand tons of SO2, 107 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.19 tons of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions (associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 4 is $3.7 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL 4 is $3.1 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $6.6 billion using a 3percent discount rate. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $11.1 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 13.9% 6.8% 11.2% 16.5% 2.4% benefits and costs, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $19.9 billion. The estimated total NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a proposed standard level is economically justified. At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a savings of $18.94 for high-energy chargers, an average LCC savings $1.61 for medium-energy charger, an average LCC loss of $0.43 for low-energy chargers, an average LCC loss of $1.16 for open-placement wireless chargers, and an average LCC loss of $1.92 for fixed-location wireless chargers. The simple payback period is 1.5 years for high-energy chargers, 4.4 years for medium-energy chargers, 6.4 years for low-energy chargers, 11 years for openplacement wireless chargers, and 7.8 years for fixed-location wireless chargers. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 1.3 percent for high-energy chargers, 49.8 percent for medium-energy chargers, 65.5 percent for low-energy chargers, 55.1 percent for open-placement wireless chargers, and 90 percent for fixed-location wireless chargers. DOE further notes that for high-energy battery chargers, the overall battery charger performance can be heavily influenced by the performance of the battery or the combination of batteries it PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 is tested with. These products are designed to work with a multitude of third party batteries (typically various types of lead acid batteries) and manufacturers have little control over the type of battery a consumer is likely to use with these high-energy battery chargers. DOE recognizes that the current market is still dominated by flooded lead acid batteries, which are used interchangeably with other lead acid battery subtypes for different applications (i.e., golf carts, marine application, and RVs), due to their low cost to acquire, abundant availability, and relatively lower safety risks; however, flooded lead acid batteries usually yield the least efficiency. When they are used to test corresponding high-energy battery chargers, DOE confirmed through internal testing that these flooded lead acid battery and charger combinations would not be able to meet TSL 4 standards. If TSL 4 was proposed, charger manufacturers would likely be unable to produce any chargers that are intended for flooded lead acid batteries, resulting in potentially millions of batteries left in the market without a proper charging solution. At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $9,032 million to a decrease of $598 million, which represents a change of approximately¥11.4 and ¥0.8 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules approximately 8 percent of low energy wired battery charger, approximately 19 percent of medium energy wired BC shipments, approximately 12 percent of high energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 8 percent of fixed location wireless battery charger shipments, and approximately 53 percent of open location wireless battery charger shipments would meet the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 4 in 2027. At TSL 4, many manufacturers would be required to redesign every battery charger model covered by this rulemaking. It is unclear if most manufacturers would have the engineering capacity to complete the necessary redesigns within the 2-year compliance period. If manufacturers require more than 2 years to redesign all their models, they will likely prioritize redesigns based on sales volume. The 12 percent of high energy wired battery charger shipments that presently would meet a TSL 4 standard are not designed to be used with flooded lead acid batteries. As noted previously, battery charger manufacturers would likely be unable to produce any charger that are intended for flooded lead acid batteries and there is risk that some other battery charger models will become either temporarily or permanently unavailable after the compliance date. The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 4 for battery chargers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on many consumers, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the large conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV. A majority of consumers for most battery charger product classes (up to 90 percent for fixed-location wireless chargers) would experience a net cost and the average LCC savings would be negative, due to increased purchase prices. In particular, a majority of consumers of the product class with the most shipments (lowenergy wired chargers) would experience a net cost. The potential reduction in INPV could be as high as 11.4 percent. In addition, the Secretary is concerned about the possibility of stranding certain categories of batteries that would not be able to find chargers that could comply with TSL 4 efficiencies. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 4 is not economically justified. DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 represents efficiency level 2 for all battery charger product classes. TSL 3 represents above average models on the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 current market. TSL 3 would save an estimated 1.3 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $3.8 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $7.7 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 43 Mt of CO2, 287 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.45 thousand tons of N2O, 19 thousand tons of SO2, 66 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.12 tons of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions (associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 3 is $2.3 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL 3 is $1.9 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $4.1 billion using a 3percent discount rate. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $8.0 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $14.1 billion. The estimated total NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a proposed standard level is economically justified. At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $14.32 for high-energy chargers, an average LCC savings $1.55 for medium-energy charger, an average LCC savings of $0.13 for low-energy chargers, an average LCC loss of $0.81 for open-placement wireless chargers, and an average LCC loss of $0.64 for fixed-location wireless chargers. The simple payback period is 1.5 years for high-energy chargers, 4.4 years for medium-energy chargers, 4.0 years for low-energy chargers, 9.2 years for openplacement wireless chargers, and 6.0 years for fixed-location wireless chargers. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 1.6 percent for high-energy chargers, 30.5 percent for medium-energy chargers, 39.0 percent for low-energy chargers, 38.4 percent for open-placement wireless chargers, and 35.5 percent for fixed-location wireless chargers. For wired battery chargers, TSL 3 provides meaningful energy savings amount with positive average LCC savings and acceptable conversion costs. DOE further notes that from internal testing and modeling, high-energy flooded lead acid battery chargers can PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 16159 also be compliant with TSL 3 with marginal added cost. However, TSL 3 for wireless chargers remains a challenging efficiency level to meet. DOE estimates that a large portion of wireless charger consumers will face net costs if standards were set at TSL 3. DOE also notes that the estimated PBP is longer than average product lifetime for these wireless battery chargers at TSL 3, indicating that consumers will likely not be able to recoup the additional cost in the long run. Furthermore, although the market for wireless chargers is quite developed already, new wireless charging products and options are still being introduced to the market on a regular basis. As such, prescribing standards at TSL 3 can limit the rate of growth for wireless charging market. At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $4,402 million to a decrease of $260 million, which correspond to changes of ¥5.6 percent and ¥0.3 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that approximately 27 percent of low energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 46 percent of medium energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 26 percent of high energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 66 percent of fixed location wireless battery charger shipments, and approximately 73 percent of open location wireless battery charger shipments would meet the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 3 in 2027. The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for battery chargers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on many consumers, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the large conversion costs, profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV. Many battery charger consumers would experience a net cost and the average LCC savings would be negative for consumers of wireless battery chargers, due to increased purchase prices. These average LCC costs for wireless chargers are significant enough that, even with continued reductions in incremental purchase price, the LCC would not become positive for at least 10 years beyond the first year of compliance. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not economically justified. DOE then considered TSL 2, which represents efficiency level 2 for wired battery chargers and efficiency level 1 for wireless chargers. TSL 2 would save an estimated 1.2 quads of energy, an E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16160 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $3.7 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $7.5 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 40 Mt of CO2, 272 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.42 thousand tons of N2O, 18 thousand tons of SO2, 62 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.11 tons of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions (associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 2 is $2.1 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL 2 is $1.8 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $3.8 billion using a 3percent discount rate. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $7.7 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $13.5 billion. The estimated total NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a proposed standard level is economically justified. At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings of $14.32 for high-energy chargers, an average LCC savings $1.55 for medium-energy charger, an average LCC savings of $0.13 for low-energy chargers, an average LCC savings of $0.12 for open-placement wireless chargers, and an average LCC loss of $0.03 for fixed-location wireless chargers. For fixed-location wireless chargers, the average LCC quickly turns positive when considering the impact of reduction in prices experienced in the out years after the compliance date of the proposed standard, which is supported by the positive net present value over the 30-years of shipment. The simple payback period is 1.5 years for high-energy chargers, 4.4 years for medium-energy chargers, 4.0 years for low-energy chargers, 4.1 years for openplacement wireless chargers, and 3.8 years for fixed-location wireless chargers. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 1.6 percent for high-energy chargers, 30.5 percent for medium-energy chargers, 39.0 percent for low-energy chargers, 6.8 percent for open-placement wireless chargers, and 13.9 percent for fixedlocation wireless chargers. At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $3,659 million to a decrease of $214 million, which correspond to changes of ¥4.6 percent and ¥0.3 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $398 million to comply with standards set at TSL 2. DOE estimates that approximately 27 percent of low energy wired battery chargers, approximately 46 percent of medium energy wired battery chargers shipments, approximately 26 percent of high energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 92 percent of fixed location wireless battery charger shipments, and approximately 93 percent of open location wireless battery charger shipments would meet the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 2 in 2027. After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that at a standard set at TSL 2 for battery chargers would be economically justified. At this TSL, a majority of consumers either experience a net benefit or are not impacted by the proposed rule, and the average LCC savings for consumers are positive or a minimally negative $0.03. The average incremental product costs for all battery chargers are very small relative to the costs of the applications using the battery charger, which are likely greater by several factors of 10 for some applications (e.g., the cost of a smartphone is several hundreds of dollars, whereas the incremental cost of a more efficient battery charger for smartphones is a few dollars at most). Furthermore, due to price trends reducing incremental costs, the average LCC savings will grow in years beyond 2027 and fewer consumers would actually experience a net cost. In particular, the average LCC for fixedlocation wireless chargers becomes positive after only 1 year beyond the first year of compliance. Low-income households are likely to experience very similar results and are not disproportionately disadvantaged at this TSL. The FFC national energy savings are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive using both a 3percent and 7-percent discount rate. The standard levels at TSL 2 are economically justified even without weighing the estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions are included— representing $2.1 billion in climate benefits (associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and $3.8 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $1.8 billion (using a 7percent discount rate) in health benefits—the rationale becomes stronger still. As stated, DOE conducts the walkdown analysis to determine the TSL that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified as required under EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of the maximization of energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically justified, which would be contrary to the statute. 86 FR 70892, 70908. Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis to select the proposed energy conservation standards, DOE notes that at TSLs higher than the one proposed, a significant fraction of consumers for some product classes experience increased purchase costs greater than operating savings. Although DOE considered proposed amended standard levels for battery chargers by grouping the efficiency levels for each product class into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels in its analysis. Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to adopt the energy conservation standards for battery chargers at TSL 2. The proposed amended energy conservation standards for battery chargers, which are expressed as active mode energy, or standby or off modes power, are shown in Table V.29. TABLE V.29—PROPOSED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS Product class Battery energy Ebatt (Wh) Maximum active mode energy Ea (Wh) Maximum standby mode power Psb* (W) 1a Fixed-Location Wireless ........... 1b Open-Placement Wireless ....... 2a Low-Energy .............................. ≤100 .................. N/A ................... ≤100 .................. 1.718*Ebatt + 8.5 .......................... N/A ................................................ 1.222*Ebatt + 4.980 ...................... 1.5 ................................................. 0.8 (Pnb only) ................................ 0.00098*Ebatt + 0.4 ...................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:54 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Off mode power Poff (W) 0 0 0 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules 16161 TABLE V.29—PROPOSED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS—Continued Product class Battery energy Ebatt (Wh) Maximum active mode energy Ea (Wh) 2b ................................................... Medium-Energy ............................. 2c ................................................... High-Energy ................................... 100–1000 ......... 1.367*Ebatt + ¥9.560. >1000 ............... 1.323*Ebatt + 34.361. Maximum standby mode power Psb* (W) Off mode power Poff (W) * Standby mode power is the sum of no-battery mode power and maintenance mode power, unless noted otherwise. 2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is (1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2021$) of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission reductions. Table V.30 shows the annualized values for battery chargers under TSL 2, expressed in 2021$. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NOx and SO2 emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in this rule is $89 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $457 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $120 million in climate benefits, and $178 million in health benefits. In this case. The net benefit would amount to $665 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $81 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $500 million in reduced operating costs, $120 million in climate benefits, and $215 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $754 million per year. TABLE V.30—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS [TSL 2] Million 2021$/year Primary estimate Low-netbenefits estimate High-netbenefits estimate 3% discount rate Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................. Climate Benefits * ......................................................................................................................... Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................................... Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................................. Consumer Incremental Product Costs ........................................................................................ Net Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 500 120 215 834 81 754 487 120 215 821 90 731 516 120 215 850 71 779 457 120 178 754 89 665 447 120 178 744 98 646 469 120 178 766 79 687 7% discount rate lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Consumer Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................. Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) .......................................................................................... Health Benefits ** ......................................................................................................................... Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................................ Consumer Incremental Product Costs ........................................................................................ Net Benefits ................................................................................................................................. Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with battery chargers shipped in 2027–2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027–2056. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. * Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of this NOPR). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16162 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules ** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. † Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan Manufacturers, including importers, must use product-specific certification templates to certify compliance to DOE. For battery chargers, the certification template reflects the general certification requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.12 and the product-specific requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.39. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, DOE is not proposing to amend the product-specific certification requirements for these products. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’)12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 (‘‘OIRA’’) in OMB has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action is consistent with these principles. Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this proposed regulatory action constitutes a ‘‘significant regulatory action within the scope of section 3(f)(1)’’ of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the underlying analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the proposed regulatory action, together with, to the extent feasible, a quantification of those costs; and an assessment, including the underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, and an explanation why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the identified potential alternatives. These assessments are summarized in this preamble and further detail can be found in the technical support document for this rulemaking. 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 (‘‘IRFA’’) 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 E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 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 the General Counsel’s website (www.energy.gov/gc/ office-general-counsel). DOE has prepared the following IRFA for the products that are the subject of this rulemaking. PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 For manufacturers of battery chargers, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’) code and industry description and are available at www.sba.gov/document/support-tablesize-standards. Manufacturing of battery chargers is classified under NAICS 335999, ‘‘All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees or fewer for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category. 1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered EPCA requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)). 2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including BCs. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated DOE conducted a more focused inquiry of the companies that could be small businesses that manufacture or sell battery chargers covered by this rulemaking. DOE referenced DOE’s publicly available CCD to generate a list of businesses producing or selling covered products and referenced D&B Hoovers reports, as well as the online E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16163 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules presence of identified businesses in order to determine whether they might the criteria of a small business. DOE screened out companies that do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a ‘‘small business,’’ or are foreign owned and operated. Additionally, DOE filters out businesses that do not directly produce BCs, but that rather sell sourced BCs with other products or relabel sourced BCs to sell separately. From these sources, DOE identified 296 unique businesses associated with at least one covered BC model and that fall under SBA’s employee threshold for this rulemaking. While each of these small businesses certify models with DOE’s CCD, DOE has only been able to identify a small number of domestic battery charger manufacturing facilities and therefore does not expect that many of the small businesses manufacture battery chargers, even if they may be OEM manufacturers of battery charger applications. From this list, DOE was able to identify three domestic small business manufacturers of battery chargers covered by this rulemaking— all operating in the high energy industry subsector. DOE requests comment on the number of small businesses identified that manufacture battery chargers covered by this rulemaking. 4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements for Small Entities DOE has estimated that conversion costs would be proportional to the annual revenue attributable to battery chargers that do not meet the standards. In way of a maximum-costs estimate— if, as a result of standards, one of the small businesses were to need to redesign all of their battery charger models, DOE expects that these small businesses would incur product conversion costs equivalent to one additional annual R&D expenditure across the two-year compliance window. DOE estimated the high energy subsector average annual R&D expenditure to be approximately 3.6 percent of annual revenue. DOE also expects that small businesses, under the same circumstances, would incur capital conversion costs equivalent to 75 percent of an additional annual capital expenditure—in the form of new tooling, plastic molding, and additional quality control equipment—across the compliance period. DOE estimated the high energy industry average annual capital expenditure to be 3.0 percent annual of non-compliant battery charger revenue. Therefore, DOE conservatively estimates that small manufacturers may incur conversion costs of up to 5.85 percent of revenue attributable to battery charger sales across the two-year compliance period. TABLE VI.1—SMALL BUSINESS IMPACTS Estimated annual revenue Small business Small Business 1 ............................................................................................. Small Business 2 ............................................................................................. Small Business 3 ............................................................................................. Additional information about product conversion costs and small business impacts is in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. DOE requests comment on the estimated product conversion costs of small businesses that manufacture or sell battery chargers covered by this rulemaking. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations DOE is not aware of any other rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered today. 6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small businesses that would result from DOE’s proposed rule, represented by TSL 2. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed rule, DOE examined energy conservation standards set at lower efficiency levels. While selecting TSL 1, would reduce the possible impacts on small businesses, it would come at the expense of a significant reduction in energy savings. TSL 2 achieves VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 $13,130,000 10,890,000 40,470,000 approximately 300 percent of the energy savings compared to the energy savings at TSL 1. DOE additionally estimates that TSL 1 would result in a lower net present value of consumer benefits than TSL 2 to the order of approximately $2,568 million. Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 2 balances the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 2 with the potential burdens placed on BCs manufacturers and small businesses. Accordingly, DOE does not propose one of the other TSLs considered in the analysis, or the other policy alternatives examined as part of the regulatory impact analysis and included in chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD. Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final rule establishing the PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Estimated product conversion costs $472,700 392,000 1,456,900 Estimated capital conversion costs Total conversion cost as a percentage of annual revenue (%) $295,425 245,025 910,575 5.85 5.85 5.85 standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally, manufacturers subject to DOE’s energy efficiency standards may apply to DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details. C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (‘‘PRA’’), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. OMB Control Number 1910–1400, Compliance Statement Energy/Water Conservation Standards for Appliances, is currently valid and assigned to the certification reporting requirements applicable to covered equipment, including battery chargers. DOE’s certification and compliance activities ensure accurate and comprehensive information about the E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16164 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 energy and water use characteristics of covered products and covered equipment sold in the United States. Manufacturers of all covered products and covered equipment must submit a certification report before a basic model is distributed in commerce, annually thereafter, and if the basic model is redesigned in such a manner to increase the consumption or decrease the efficiency of the basic model such that the certified rating is no longer supported by the test data. Additionally, manufacturers must report when production of a basic model has ceased and is no longer offered for sale as part of the next annual certification report following such cessation. DOE requires the manufacturer of any covered product or covered equipment to establish, maintain, and retain the records of certification reports, of the underlying test data for all certification testing, and of any other testing conducted to satisfy the requirements of part 429, part 430, and/or part 431. Certification reports provide DOE and consumers with comprehensive, up-to date efficiency information and support effective enforcement. Revised certification data would be required for battery chargers were this NOPR to be finalized as proposed; however, DOE is not proposing amended certification or reporting requirements for battery chargers in this NOPR. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to establish certification requirements and reporting for battery chargers under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification. DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number 1910–1400 at that time, as necessary. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE’s regulations include a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that establish energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 because it is a rulemaking that VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances exist that require further environmental analysis, and it otherwise meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final rule. E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal 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 this proposed rule and has tentatively determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132. F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 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, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988. G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104–4, section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy statement is also available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. Although this proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. Such expenditures may include: (1) investment in research and development and in capital expenditures by battery charger manufacturers in the years between the final rule and the compliance date for the new standards and (2) incremental additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency battery chargers, starting at the compliance date for the applicable standard. Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that accompanies the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this NOPR and the TSD for this proposed rule respond to those requirements. Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to select from those alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), this proposed rule would establish amended energy conservation standards for battery chargers that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be both technologically feasible and economically justified, as required by 42 U.S.C 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6295(o)(3)(B). A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE is presented in chapter 17 of the TSD for this proposed rule. H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment. I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M–19–15, Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/ 12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated %20IQA%20Guidelines %20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed this NOPR 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 E.O. 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 OIRA at OMB, 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 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 16165 action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which proposes amended energy conservation standards for battery chargers, is not a significant energy action because the proposed standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on this proposed rule. L. Information Quality On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government’s scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ‘‘influential scientific information,’’ which the Bulletin defines 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 2664, 2667. In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer review.61 Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/ scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. Because available data, models, and technological understanding have changed since 2007, DOE has engaged with the National Academy of Sciences to review DOE’s analytical methodologies to ascertain whether modifications are needed to improve the 61 The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/ downloads/energy-conservation-standardsrulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed December 2, 2022). E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 16166 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules Department’s analyses. DOE is in the process of evaluating the resulting report.62 VII. Public Participation A. Participation in the Webinar The time and date of the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE’s website: https:// www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/publicmeetings-and-comment-deadlines. Participants are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar software. B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this NOPR, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone number where they can be reached. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 C. Conduct of the Webinar DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6306) A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the webinar. There shall not be discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar and until the end of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the 62 The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking. The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will a general overview of the topics addressed in this rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements. At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar/public meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the webinar. A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of this document. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter. D. Submission of Comments DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document. Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment. However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments. Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section. DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment. Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments. Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/ courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be accepted. Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author. Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters’ names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time. Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. It is DOE’s policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure). lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues: (1) DOE requests feedback on DOE’s approach of establishing these higher efficiency CSLs and welcomes stakeholders to submit any data on the actual market distribution of these higher efficiency CSLs. (2) DOE requests stakeholder feedbacks on these analyzed incremental costs as well as any topic covered in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. DOE also welcomes stakeholders to submit their own cost-efficiency results, should there be any. (3) DOE requests comment on how the proposed energy conservation standards might affect domestic battery charger manufacturing. (4) DOE requests comment on possible impacts on manufacturing capacity stemming from amended energy conservation standards. (5) DOE requests comment on potential impacts on fit, function, and utility of the battery chargerss from the proposed standard. (6) DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers of battery chargers associated with multiple DOE standards or productspecific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. (7) DOE requests comment on the number of small businesses identified that manufacture battery chargers covered by this rulemaking. (8) DOE requests comment on the estimated product conversion costs of small businesses that manufacture or sell battery chargers covered by this rulemaking. Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in this document. VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses. Signing Authority This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 3, 2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register. Signed in Washington, DC, on March 3, 2023. Treena V. Garrett, Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. 2. Amend § 430.32 by revising paragraph (z)(1) to read as follows: ■ § 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their compliance dates. * * * * * (z) Battery chargers. (1)(i) Battery chargers manufactured on or after June 13, 2018, and before [date two years after publication of the final rule], must have a unit energy consumption (UEC) less than or equal to the prescribed ‘‘Maximum UEC’’ standard when using the equations for the appropriate product class and corresponding rated battery energy as shown in the following table: Product class Product class description Rated battery energy (Ebatt**) Special characteristic or battery voltage 1 .............................. Low-Energy ............................................. ≤5 Wh ............... 2 .............................. 3 .............................. Low-Energy, Low-Voltage ....................... Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage ................. <100 Wh ........... <100 Wh ........... Inductive Connection*. <4 V .................. 4–10 V .............. 4 .............................. 5 .............................. Low-Energy, High-Voltage ...................... Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage ................. <100 Wh ........... 100–3000 Wh ... >10 V ................ <20 V ................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 16167 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM Maximum UEC (kWh/year) (as a function of Ebatt**) 3.04. 0.1440*Ebatt + 2.95. For Ebatt<10 Wh, 1.42; For Ebatt≥10 Wh, 0.0255*Ebatt + 1.16. 0.11*Ebatt + 3.18. 0.0257*Ebatt + 0.815. 15MRP2 16168 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules Product class Product class description Rated battery energy (Ebatt**) Special characteristic or battery voltage 6 .............................. 7 .............................. Medium-Energy, High-Voltage ................ High-Energy ............................................ 100–3000 Wh ... >3000 Wh ......... ≥20 V ................ ........................... Maximum UEC (kWh/year) (as a function of Ebatt**) 0.0778*Ebatt + 2.4. 0.0502*Ebatt + 4.53. * Inductive connection and designed for use in a wet environment (e.g., electric toothbrushes). ** Ebatt = Rated battery energy as determined in 10 CFR part 429.39(a). (ii) Battery chargers manufactured on or after [date two years after publication of the final rule], must meet the following active mode energy, standby mode power, and off mode power standards: Product class Battery energy Ebatt (Wh) Maximum active mode energy Ea (Wh) Maximum standby mode power Psb* (W) 1a Fixed-Location Wireless ........... 1b Open-Placement Wireless ....... 2a Low-Energy .............................. 2b Medium-Energy ........................ 2c High-Energy .............................. ≤100 .................. N/A ................... ≤100 .................. 100–1000 ......... >1000 ............... 1.718*Ebatt + 8.5 .......................... N/A ................................................ 1.222*Ebatt + 4.980 ...................... 1.367*Ebatt + ¥9.560. 1.323*Ebatt + 34.361. 1.5 ................................................. 0.8 (Pnb only) ................................ 0.00098*Ebatt + 0.4 ...................... * Standby mode power is the sum of no-battery mode power and maintenance mode power, unless noted otherwise. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2023–04765 Filed 3–14–23; 8:45 am] lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 BILLING CODE 6450–01–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Mar 14, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 Off mode power Poff (W) 0 0 0

Agencies

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16112-16168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04765]



[[Page 16111]]

Vol. 88

Wednesday,

No. 50

March 15, 2023

Part III





Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





10 CFR Part 430





Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Battery 
Chargers; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 16112]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013]
RIN 1904-AE50


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Battery Chargers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; announcement of public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DATES: 
    Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Thursday, 
April 27, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII, ``Public 
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant 
instructions, and information about the capabilities available to 
webinar participants.
    Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding 
this NOPR no later than May 15, 2023.
    Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed 
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in 
the ADDRESSES section on or before April 14, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket 
number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, 
identified by docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013, by any of the 
following methods:
    Email: [email protected]. Include the docket 
number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013 in the subject line of the message.
    Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant 
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. 
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not 
necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section VII of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments 
through www.regulations.gov.
    EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written 
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen 
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites 
input from market participants and other interested persons with views 
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested 
persons may contact the Division at [email protected] on or 
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the 
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this 
proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Email: [email protected].
    Ms. Melanie Lampton, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 751-5157. Email: 
[email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
    A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
    B. Impact on Manufacturers
    C. National Benefits and Costs
    D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Battery Chargers
    3. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
    A. General Comments
    B. Scope of Coverage
    C. Test Procedure
    D. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    E. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    F. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC 
and PBP)
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    g. Other Factors
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Product Classes
    2. Technology Options
    B. Screening Analysis
    1. Screened-Out Technologies
    2. Remaining Technologies
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Efficiency Analysis
    a. Baseline Energy Use
    b. Higher Efficiency Levels
    2. Cost Analysis
    3. Cost-Efficiency Results

[[Page 16113]]

    D. Markups Analysis
    E. Energy Use Analysis
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    1. Product Cost
    2. Annual Energy Consumption
    3. Energy Prices
    4. Product Lifetime
    5. Discount Rates
    6. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    7. Payback Period Analysis
    G. Shipments Analysis
    H. National Impact Analysis
    1. Product Efficiency Trends
    2. National Energy Savings
    3. Net Present Value Analysis
    I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Overview
    2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
    a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    b. Shipments Projections
    c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    d. Markup Scenarios
    3. Manufacturer Interviews
    K. Emissions Analysis
    1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
    L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
    1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    a. Social Cost of Carbon
    b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
    M. Utility Impact Analysis
    N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. National Impact Analysis
    a. Significance of Energy Savings
    b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    8. Summary of Economic Impacts
    C. Conclusion
    1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Battery Chargers 
Standards
    2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
    D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements for Small 
Entities
    5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and 
Regulations
    6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
    A. Participation in the Webinar
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of the Webinar
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as 
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency 
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include battery chargers, the subject 
of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new 
or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later 
than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending 
a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that 
standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of 
proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation 
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m))
    In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed 
in this document, DOE proposes new multi-metric energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers. The proposed standards, which are 
expressed in max active charge energy and max standby and off modes 
power values, are shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if 
adopted, would apply to all battery chargers listed in Table I.1 
manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the 
date 2 years after the publication of the final rule for this 
rulemaking.

                     Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Maximum active      Maximum standby
         Product class             Battery energy Ebatt     mode energy Ea      mode power Psb*   Off mode power
                                           (Wh)                  (Wh)                 (W)            Poff (W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a Fixed-Location Wireless.....  <=100..................  1.718 * Ebatt +     1.5...............               0
                                                           8.5.
1b Open-Placement Wireless.....  N/A....................  N/A...............  0.8 (Pnb only)....               0
2a Low-Energy..................  <=100..................  1.222 * Ebatt +     0.00098 * Ebatt +                0
                                                           4.980.              0.4.
2b Medium-Energy...............  100-1,000..............  1.367 * Ebatt + -
                                                           9.560.
2c High-Energy.................  >1,000.................  1.323 * Ebatt +
                                                           34.361.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Standby mode power is the sum of no-battery mode power and maintenance mode power, unless noted otherwise.


[[Page 16114]]

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

    Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the 
proposed standards on consumers of battery chargers, as measured by the 
average life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback period 
(``PBP'').\2\ The average LCC savings are positive or nearly zero for 
all product classes and the PBP is similar to or less than the average 
lifetime of battery chargers, which is estimated to range from 3.0 to 
10.0 years (see section IV.F of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected 
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency 
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market 
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards 
(see section IV.F.6 of this document). The simple PBP, which is 
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative 
to the baseline product (see section IV.C of this document).

     Table I.2--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on
                      Consumers of Battery Chargers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Average LCC   Simple payback
      Battery charger product class           savings         period
                                              (2021$)         (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed-Location Wireless Chargers........           -0.03             3.8
Open-Placement Wireless Chargers........            0.12             4.1
Low-Energy Wired Chargers...............            0.13             4.0
Medium-Energy Wired Chargers............            1.55             4.4
High-Energy Wired Chargers..............           14.32             1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Impact on Manufacturers

    The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the 
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the 
end of the analysis period (2023-2056). Using a real discount rate of 
9.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of battery 
charger applications in the case without amended standards is $78.9 
billion in 2021$. Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is 
estimated to range from 4.6 percent to -0.3 percent, which is 
approximately -$3,659 million to -$214 million. To bring products into 
compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that the industry 
would incur total conversion costs of $398.2 million.
    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on 
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The 
analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') are 
presented in section V.B.2.

C. National Benefits and Costs \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2023 
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers would save a significant amount of 
energy. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime 
energy savings for battery chargers purchased in the 30-year period 
that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the amended 
standards (2027-2056) amount to 1.2 quadrillion British thermal units 
(``Btu''), or quads.\4\ This represents a savings of 17.6 percent 
relative to the energy use of these products in the case without 
amended standards (referred to as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy 
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in 
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, 
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete 
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more 
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer 
benefits of the proposed standards for battery chargers ranges from 
$3.7 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $7.5 billion (at a 3-
percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of 
future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product 
costs for battery chargers purchased in 2027-2056.
    In addition, the proposed standards for battery chargers are 
projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates 
that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission 
reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 40 million 
metric tons (``Mt'') \5\ of carbon dioxide (``CO2''), 272 
thousand tons of methane (``CH4''), 0.42 thousand tons of 
nitrous oxide (``N2O''), 18 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide 
(``SO2''), 62 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides 
(``NOX''), and 0.11 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons.
    \6\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy 
Outlook 2022 (``AEO2022''). AEO2022 represents current federal and 
state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the 
time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for 
further discussion of AEO2022 assumptions that effect air pollutant 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in 
greenhouse gases (GHG) using four different estimates of the social 
cost of CO2 (``SC-CO2''), the social cost of 
methane (``SC-CH4''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide 
(``SC-N2O''). Together these represent the social cost of 
GHG (SC-GHG).\7\ DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an 
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases 
(IWG).\8\ The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L. 
of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits 
associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are 
estimated to be $2.1 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG 
point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and value of 
considering the

[[Page 16115]]

benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay 
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction 
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a 
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is 
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's 
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other 
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that 
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying 
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse 
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize 
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in 
this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the 
injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and 
permissible under law.
    \8\ See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, 
and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, 
Washington, DC, February 2021 (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). 
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO2 and 
NOX emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates 
from the scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L. of this 
document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would 
be $1.8 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $3.8 billion using 
a 3-percent discount rate.\9\ DOE is currently only monetizing (for 
SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health 
benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but 
will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 
health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions 
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of 
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table I.3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to 
result from the proposed standards for battery chargers. There are 
other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified 
climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the 
reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified 
energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.

  Table I.3--Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy
               Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers
                                 [TSL 2]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Billion $2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................                9.0
Climate Benefits *...................................                2.1
Health Benefits **...................................                3.8
Total Benefits [dagger]..............................               15.0
Consumer Incremental Product Costs...................                1.4
Net Benefits.........................................               13.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................                4.6
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)................                2.1
Health Benefits **...................................                1.8
Total Benefits [dagger]..............................                8.6
Consumer Incremental Product Costs...................                0.9
Net Benefits.........................................                7.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with product
  name shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers
  which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
  social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
  (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent
  discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see
  section IV.L of this NOPR). Together these represent the global SC-
  GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits
  associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
  shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
  On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087)
  granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending
  appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in
  Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of
  the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in
  effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that
  injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the
  preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from
  ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the
  interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were
  issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
  Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of
  reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this proposed rule,
  DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents
  monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
  and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
  precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
  benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
  effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
  emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and
  health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation
  purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent
  cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount
  rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
  DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits
  calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.

    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the 
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating 
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and 
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits 
of emission reductions, all annualized.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2023, the year 
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. 
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with 
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 
(e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year 
to 2023. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed 
annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance 
year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The national operating savings are domestic private U.S. consumer 
monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered 
products and are measured for the lifetime of battery chargers shipped 
in 2027-2056. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved 
as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the 
lifetime of battery chargers shipped in 2027-2056. Total benefits for 
both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average 
GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG 
values are presented for all four discount rates in section IV.L of 
this document.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
health benefits from reduced NOX and SO2 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from

[[Page 16116]]

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in 
this rule is $89 million per year in increased equipment costs, while 
the estimated annual benefits are $457 million in reduced equipment 
operating costs, $120 million in climate benefits, and $178 million in 
health benefits. In this case. The net benefit would amount to $665 
million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $81 million per year in 
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $500 
million in reduced operating costs, $120 million in climate benefits, 
and $215 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit 
would amount to $754 million per year.
    Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs 
associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized 
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
health benefits from reduced NOX and SO2 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards 
proposed in this rule is $89 million per year in increased equipment 
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $457 million in reduced 
equipment operating costs, $120 million in climate benefits, and $178 
million in health benefits. In this case. The net benefit would amount 
to $665 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $81 million per year in 
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $500 
million in reduced operating costs, $120 million in climate benefits, 
and $215 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit 
would amount to $754 million per year.

     Table I.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers
                                                     [TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Million 2021$/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Low-net-        High-net-
                                                                      Primary        benefits        benefits
                                                                     estimate        estimate        estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................             500             487             516
Climate Benefits *..............................................             120             120             120
Health Benefits **..............................................             215             215             215
Total Benefits [dagger].........................................             834             821             850
Consumer Incremental Product Costs..............................              81              90              71
Net Benefits....................................................             754             731             779
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................             457             447             469
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)...........................             120             120             120
Health Benefits **..............................................             178             178             178
Total Benefits [dagger].........................................             754             744             766
Consumer Incremental Product Costs..............................              89              98              79
Net Benefits....................................................             665             646             687
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with battery chargers shipped in 2027-2056. These
  results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056. The
  Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the
  AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition,
  incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the
  Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. Note that the Benefits
  and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
  NOPR). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a
  3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate,
  and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-
  GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal
  government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
  in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
  preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that
  injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
  that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
  social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
  Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As
  reflected in this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents
  monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.

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

D. Conclusion

    DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the 
significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to 
technological feasibility products achieving these standard levels are 
already commercially available for

[[Page 16117]]

all product classes covered by this proposal. As for economic 
justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the proposed 
standard exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the proposed 
standards.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
NOX and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent 
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the 
proposed standards for battery chargers is $89 million per year in 
increased battery charger costs, while the estimated annual benefits 
are $457 million in reduced battery charger operating costs, $120 
million in climate benefits and $178 million in health benefits. The 
net benefit amounts to $665 million per year.
    The significance of energy savings is evaluated by DOE on a case-
by-case basis considering the specific circumstances surrounding a 
specific rulemaking. The standards are projected to result in estimated 
national energy savings of 1.2 quad FFC. DOE has initially determined 
the energy savings that would result from the proposed standard levels 
are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A 
more detailed discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions 
is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying 
TSD.
    DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as 
potential standards, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. 
However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of 
the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the 
projected benefits.
    Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in 
response to this document and related information collected and 
analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt 
energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either 
higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of 
level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include battery 
chargers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32); 42 U.S.C. 
6292(a)(20)) EPCA directed DOE to issue a final rule that prescribes 
energy conservation standards for battery chargers or classes of 
battery charges or to determine that no energy conservation standard is 
technically feasible or economically justified. 42 U.S.C. 
6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(II) EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years 
after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a 
standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that 
standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR 
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a 
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal 
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include 
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), 
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from 
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal 
preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with 
the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42 
U.S.C. 6297(d))
    Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to 
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, 
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products 
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying 
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making 
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of 
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, 
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products 
comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The 
DOE test procedures for battery chargers appear at title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendix Y and 
appendix Y1.
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products, including battery chargers. Any 
new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to 
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary 
of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 
Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in 
the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
    Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain 
products, including battery chargers, if no test procedure has been 
established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the 
standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is 
economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the 
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 
this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, 
and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following 
seven statutory factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the 
covered products that are likely to result from the imposition of the 
standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) 
savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
imposition of the standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') considers 
relevant.
    (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

[[Page 16118]]

    Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard 
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional 
cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy 
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of 
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive 
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test 
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
    EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding'' 
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended 
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or 
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended 
or new standard if interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in 
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or 
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4))
    Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an 
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more 
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type 
or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE 
determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different 
kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such 
type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related 
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have 
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature 
justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must 
consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and 
other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a 
standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher 
or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
    Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-
140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards 
promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and 
off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE 
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if 
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into 
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate 
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for battery chargers 
address standby mode and off mode energy use. In this rulemaking, DOE 
intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended energy 
conservation standards that it may adopt.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    In a final rule published on June 13, 2016 (``June 2016 Final 
Rule''), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for 
battery chargers manufactured on and after June 13, 2018. 81 FR 38266. 
These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(z) 
and are summarized in Table II.1.

  Table II.1--Current Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Battery
                                Chargers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Maximum unit of
                                                             energy
         Product class              Battery charger        consumption
                                    classification       (UEC) *  (kWh/
                                                              year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  Low-energy inductive    3.04.
                                 battery chargers to
                                 be used in wet
                                 environment with
                                 associated battery
                                 energy of less than
                                 or equal to 5 watt-
                                 hours (Wh).
2.............................  Low-energy, low-        0.1440 * Ebatt +
                                 voltage battery         2.95.
                                 chargers with
                                 associated battery
                                 energy of less than
                                 100Wh, and battery
                                 voltage of less than
                                 4 volts (V).
3.............................  Low-energy, medium-     For Ebatt <
                                 voltage battery         10Wh, 1.42;
                                 chargers with          For Ebatt >=
                                 associated battery      10Wh,
                                 energy of less than    0.0255 * Ebatt +
                                 100Wh, and battery      1.16.
                                 voltage of 4V to 10V.
4.............................  Low-energy, high-       0.11 * Ebatt +
                                 voltage battery         3.18.
                                 chargers with
                                 associated battery
                                 energy of less than
                                 100Wh, and battery
                                 voltage of more than
                                 10V.
5.............................  Medium-energy, low-     0.0257 * Ebatt +
                                 voltage battery         0.815.
                                 chargers with
                                 associated battery
                                 energy of 100Wh to
                                 3,000Wh, and battery
                                 voltage of less than
                                 20V.
6.............................  Medium-energy, high-    0.0778 * Ebatt +
                                 voltage battery         2.4.
                                 chargers with
                                 associated battery
                                 energy of 100Wh to
                                 3,000Wh, and battery
                                 voltage of higher
                                 than or equal to 20V.
7.............................  High-energy battery     0.0502 * Ebatt +
                                 chargers with           4.53.
                                 associated battery
                                 energy of more than
                                 3,000Wh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Maximum UEC is expressed as a function of representative battery
  energy (Ebatt).

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Battery Chargers
    On September 16, 2020, DOE published notice that it was initiating 
an early assessment review to determine whether any new or amended 
standards would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a new or 
amended energy conservation standard for battery chargers and a request 
for information (``RFI''). 85 FR 57787 (``September 2020 Early 
Assessment Review RFI''). Specifically, through the published notice 
and request for information, DOE sought data and information that could 
enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no new 
standard'' determination because a more stringent standard: (1) would 
not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not 
technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any 
combination of foregoing. Id.
    Subsequently, DOE published a preliminary analysis on March 3, 2022 
(``March 2022 Preliminary Analysis'') to respond to comments pertaining 
to the September 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI, and presented 
preliminary engineering analyses based on a multi-metric approach that 
independently measures active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy 
use metrics. 87 FR 11990. DOE conducted in-depth technical analyses in 
the following

[[Page 16119]]

areas: (1) engineering; (2) markups to determine product price; (3) 
energy use; (4) LCC'' and ``PBP''; and (5) national impacts. The 
preliminary TSD that presents the methodology and results of each of 
these analyses is available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013.
    DOE received comments in response to the March 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis from the interested parties listed in Table II.2.

                          Table II.2--March 2022 Preliminary Analysis Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Comment number
              Commenter(s)                       Abbreviation          in the docket        Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL Solutions............................  UL........................              11  Efficiency Organization.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance....  NEEA......................              16  Efficiency Organization.
Association of Home Appliance             Joint Trade Associations..              17  Trade Association.
 Manufacturers; Consumer Technology
 Association; Information Technology
 Industry Council; National Electrical
 Manufacturers Association; Outdoor
 Power Equipment Institute; Power Tool
 Institute.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company; San     CA IOUs...................              18  Utility Association.
 Diego Gas & Electric Company; Southern
 California Edison.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project;    Joint Efficiency Advocates              19  Efficiency Organization.
 American Council for an Energy-
 Efficiency Economy; Consumer Federation
 of America; New York State Energy
 Research and Development Authority.
Delta-Q Technologies....................  Delta-Q...................              20  Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\11\ 
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments 
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided 
during the April 2022 public meeting, DOE cites the written comments 
throughout this document. Any oral comments provided during the webinar 
that are not substantively addressed by written comments are summarized 
and cited separately throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
energy conservation standards for battery chargers. (Docket No. 
EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). 
The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment 
docket ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Deviation From Appendix A
    In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the 
provision in appendix A regarding the NOPR stages for an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A 
specifies that the length of the public comment period for a NOPR will 
not be less than 75 calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE has opted to 
instead provide a 60-day comment period. DOE requested comment in the 
March 2022 Preliminary Analysis on the technical and economic analyses 
and provided stakeholders with a 60-day comment period. 87 FR 11990. 
DOE has relied on many of the same analytical assumptions and 
approaches as used in the preliminary assessment and has determined 
that a 60-day comment period in conjunction with the prior comment 
periods provides sufficient time for interested parties to review the 
proposed rule and develop comments.

III. General Discussion

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

A. General Comments

    This section summarizes general comments received from interested 
parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.
    In response to the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, Joint Trade 
Associations commented that DOE's process for this rulemaking 
undermines the value of early stakeholder engagement because: (1) DOE 
developed the preliminary analysis based on a proposed test procedure 
rather than a finalized one; and (2) DOE has provided a shortened 
comment period on the preliminary analysis that overlaps with the 
comment period for the external power supply (``EPS'') preliminary 
analysis as well as a preliminary analysis on amended standards for 
electric motors, both of which impact many of the same manufacturers as 
the ones for battery chargers. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 17 at pp. 
2-3) The Joint Trade Associations further commented that the proposed 
test procedure has drawn serious concerns from several commenters, and 
it would be flawed without addressing opposing comments. The Joint 
Trade Associations also suggested that amended standards would not be 
justified regardless of whether the standards were analyzed using 
either the current test procedure or the recently finalized new test 
procedure in appendix Y1 and that, as a result, DOE should issue a 
notice of proposed determination not to amend battery charger 
standards. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 17 at p. 4)
    DOE reiterates that the preliminary analysis was intended to 
provide stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the various 
methodologies DOE intended to use in the NOPR. DOE again notes that the 
preliminary analysis results should not be relied upon to assess 
whether amended standards for battery chargers are justified. In 
addition, by conducting the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis with the 
proposed test procedure, DOE gave stakeholders an early preview of what 
the new multi-metric standards may potentially look like, allowing 
stakeholders enough time to review and comment on potential issues with 
DOE's approach and results. DOE notes that there were concerns and 
potential test burdens associated with the original proposed test 
procedure; however, these issues have been addressed in the test 
procedure final rule published in September 2022 (``September 2022 Test 
Procedure Final Rule''). 87 FR 55090. As such, unless otherwise noted, 
test results used in support of this NOPR were measured using the 
multi-metric test procedure as finalized in the September 2022 Test 
Procedure Final Rule. DOE further notes that because the finalized test 
procedure adopts the multi-metric approach, the current integrated UEC 
standards would

[[Page 16120]]

no longer be applicable to test results under the new test procedure. 
As such, even if DOE were to hold the multi-metric standards at the 
same level as the current UEC standards, DOE would still need to amend 
the current standards to translate them to the multi-metric one. DOE 
understands that the Joint Trade Associations are concerned that 
amended standards might not be justified, based on results from the 
preliminary analysis. However, DOE has expanded its analysis further in 
the NOPR stage and has more robust results that indicate amended 
standards can result in significant conservation of energy. These 
results are further discussed in section V of this NOPR document.
    With regards to a shortened comment period, DOE believes the 60-day 
comment period was sufficient for reviewing the methodologies and 
results presented. However, DOE did not receive any comment period 
extension requests from any stakeholder during the preliminary analysis 
comment period.
    NEEA stated its general support for several aspects of the 
preliminary TSD, including the general framework and approach to 
battery charger efficiency metrics and standards levels, active 
candidate standard levels (CSLs) that are continuous across product 
class boundaries, the approach to translate current compliance 
certification data (CCD) to active mode by subtracting 5 hours of 
battery maintenance power from the total charge and maintenance energy 
measurement, and the technology neutral definition of wireless 
charging. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 5) DOE appreciates NEEA's general support 
on these aspects of DOE's battery charger rulemaking.

B. Scope of Coverage

    This NOPR covers those consumer products that meet the definition 
of ``battery chargers,'' which are devices that charge batteries for 
consumer products, including battery chargers embedded in other 
consumer products. 10 CFR 430.2. (See also 42 U.S.C. 6291(32)) A 
battery charger may be wholly embedded in another consumer product, 
partially embedded in another consumer product, or wholly separate from 
another consumer product. Currently under the test procedure at 
appendix Y, only consumer wired chargers and wet environment wireless 
inductive chargers designed for battery energies of no more than 5 
watt-hours are covered battery charger product classes.
    In the September 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE expanded the 
battery charger test procedure coverage to cover all fixed-location 
wireless chargers in all modes of operation, and open-placement 
wireless chargers in no-battery mode only. 87 FR 55090, 55095-55098. As 
such, in this NOPR, DOE is proposing to expand the scope of battery 
energy conservation standards to cover these fixed-location and open-
placement wireless chargers in separate product classes.
    See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the product 
classes analyzed in this NOPR.

C. Test Procedure

    EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for 
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to 
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation 
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. As stated, 
currently, only consumer wired chargers and wet environment wireless 
inductive chargers designed for batteries with energies of no more than 
5 watt-hours are covered under the test procedure scope at 10 CFR part 
430, subpart B, appendix Y. However, on September 8, 2022, DOE 
published a test procedure final rule that expanded the battery charger 
test procedure coverage to cover all fixed-location and open-placement 
wireless chargers, and adopted the multi-metric test procedure 
approach, where each mode of operation is independently regulated, thus 
making usage profiles no longer required. 87 FR 55090, 55092-55093. 
This new test procedure is in the separate appendix Y1, and 
manufacturers will be required to use results of testing under the new 
test procedure to determine compliance with amended energy conservation 
standards.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a 
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current 
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the 
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the 
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list 
of technology options for consideration in consultation with 
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then 
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are 
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in 
commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be 
technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A 
to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C (``Process Rule'').
    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are 
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option 
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) 
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse 
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on 
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 
Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section 
IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis 
for battery chargers, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it 
screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered 
in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for 
this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR technical support document 
(``TSD'').
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class 
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically 
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 
engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically 
feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy efficiency for battery 
chargers, using the design parameters for the most efficient products 
available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels 
that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C 
of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy 
savings from application of the TSL to battery chargers purchased in 
the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the 
proposed standards (2027-2056).\12\ The savings are measured over the 
entire lifetime of

[[Page 16121]]

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

    \12\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each 
product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in 
section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis 
that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet model 
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended or 
new standards for battery chargers. The NIA spreadsheet model 
(described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings 
in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by 
products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE 
reports national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, 
which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and 
transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy 
savings are considered to be equal to the site energy savings. DOE also 
calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC metric includes 
the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary 
fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a 
more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation 
standards.\13\ DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC 
multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or 
equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section 
IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy 
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as 
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
    To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE 
must determine that such action would result in significant energy 
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended 
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of 
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\14\ For 
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy 
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of 
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than 
products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the 
significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary 
energy and FFC effects for different covered products and equipment 
when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy 
and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production 
(depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in 
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, 
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture 
of the impacts of energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a 
case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative 
FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, 
and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other 
factors. DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the 
proposed standard levels at TSL 2 are ``significant'' within the 
meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in 
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The 
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven 
factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on 
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of 
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine 
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term 
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the 
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must 
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year 
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which 
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2) 
cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other 
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports 
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on 
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on 
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as 
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of 
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts 
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on 
manufacturers.
    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These 
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers 
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of 
the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular 
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on 
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected 
disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and 
PBP)
    EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs 
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the 
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the 
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product 
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP 
analysis.
    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including 
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, 
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of 
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as 
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance 
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for 
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific 
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a 
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
    The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes 
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost 
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
    For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will 
purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new 
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the

[[Page 16122]]

considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that 
reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended 
standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in 
section IV.F of this document.
c. Energy Savings
    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires 
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to 
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result 
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As 
discussed in section III.E, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to 
project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options 
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential 
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the 
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data 
available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not 
reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration 
in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of 
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is 
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine 
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result 
from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the 
Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, 
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed 
rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of 
Justice (``DOJ'') provide its determination on this issue. DOE will 
publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the 
final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the 
competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. 
In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ 
regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for 
information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    DOE also considers the need for national energy and water 
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy 
savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements 
to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. 
Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced 
costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity 
system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how 
standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as 
discussed in section IV.M of this document.
    DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits 
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take 
into account when considering the need for national energy 
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in 
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air 
pollutants and GHGs associated with energy production and use. DOE 
conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may 
affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K; the estimated 
emissions impacts are reported in section IV.L of this document. DOE 
also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting 
from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this 
document.
g. Other Factors
    In determining whether an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To 
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic 
justification that does not fit into the other categories described 
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other 
factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a 
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of 
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP 
analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed 
energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for 
consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year 
payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In 
addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers 
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and 
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The 
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the 
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby 
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of 
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation 
is discussed in section V.B of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

    This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this 
rulemaking with regard to battery chargers. Separate subsections 
address each component of DOE's analyses.
    DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the 
standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet 
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new 
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a 
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and 
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total 
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy 
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the 
Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer 
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are 
available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-Mar-BT-STD-0013. Additionally, DOE used output from the 
latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (``EIA's'') 
Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO''), a widely known energy projection for 
the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

    DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment 
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products 
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry 
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used 
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and 
qualitative assessments, based primarily

[[Page 16123]]

on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market 
and technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a 
determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) 
manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, 
(4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends; and (6) 
technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency 
of battery chargers. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are 
summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for 
further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Product Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
may establish separate standards for a group of covered products (i.e., 
establish a separate product class) if DOE determines that separate 
standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE 
determines that a product's capacity or other performance-related 
feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a 
determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a 
different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of 
the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are 
appropriate. (Id.)
    DOE currently defines separate energy conservation standards for 
the following battery charger product classes (10 CFR 430.32(z)(1)):

           Table IV.1--Current Battery Charger Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Battery charger       Maximum UEC *
         Product class              classification         (kWh/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  Low-energy inductive    3.04.
                                 battery chargers to
                                 be used in wet
                                 environment with
                                 associated battery
                                 energy of less than
                                 or equal to 5 watt-
                                 hours (Wh).
2.............................  Low-energy, low-        0.1440 * Ebatt +
                                 voltage battery         2.95.
                                 chargers with
                                 associated battery
                                 energy of less than
                                 100Wh, and battery
                                 voltage of less than
                                 4 volts (V).
3.............................  Low-energy, medium-     For Ebatt <
                                 voltage battery         10Wh, 1.42; For
                                 chargers with           Ebatt >= 10Wh,
                                 associated battery      0.0255 * Ebatt
                                 energy of less than     + 1.16.
                                 100Wh, and battery
                                 voltage of 4V to 10V.
4.............................  Low-energy, high-       0.11 * Ebatt +
                                 voltage battery         3.18.
                                 chargers with
                                 associated battery
                                 energy of less than
                                 100Wh, and battery
                                 voltage of more than
                                 10V.
5.............................  Medium-energy, low-     0.0257 * Ebatt +
                                 voltage battery         0.815.
                                 chargers with
                                 associated battery
                                 energy of 100Wh to
                                 3,000Wh, and battery
                                 voltage of less than
                                 20V.
6.............................  Medium-energy, high-    0.0778 * Ebatt +
                                 voltage battery         2.4.
                                 chargers with
                                 associated battery
                                 energy of 100Wh to
                                 3,000Wh, and battery
                                 voltage of higher
                                 than or equal to 20V.
7.............................  High-energy battery     0.0502 * Ebatt +
                                 chargers with           4.53.
                                 associated battery
                                 energy of more than
                                 3,000Wh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Maximum UEC is expressed as a function of representative battery
  energy (Ebatt).

    Battery chargers are devices that charge batteries for consumer 
products, including battery chargers embedded in other consumer 
products. 10 CFR 430.2. (See also 42 U.S.C. 6291(32)) A battery charger 
may be wholly embedded in another consumer product, partially embedded 
in another consumer product, or wholly separate from another consumer 
product. Under appendix Y, only consumer wired chargers and wet 
environment wireless inductive chargers designed for battery energies 
of no more than 5 watt-hours are covered battery charger product 
classes.
    In the September 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE adopted the 
proposal to expand the battery charger test procedure scope to cover 
all both fixed-location wireless chargers and open-placement wireless 
chargers. 87 FR 55090, 55095-55098. DOE also adopted the proposal to 
establish new multi-metric test procedure for battery chargers. 87 FR 
55090, 55100-55108.
    DOE notes that in transitioning to the multi-metric approach where 
each mode of operation is independently regulated, usage profiles are 
no longer required. Currently established product classes help identify 
the particular set of usage profiles that must be applied to the UEC 
equation for a given battery charger model's UEC to be calculated. 
Without the need for usage profiles, however, the need to maintain 
currently established product classes is also greatly diminished. In 
light of this situation, along with the additional wireless battery 
charger test procedure coverage, DOE is proposing to remove the 
existing product classes and establish new ones as follows:

     Table IV.2--Proposed Battery Charger Product Class Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Product class        Rated battery
       Product class No.              description        energy  (Ebatt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a............................  Fixed-Location          <=100Wh.
                                 Wireless Battery
                                 Chargers.
1b............................  Open-Placement          All Battery
                                 Wireless Battery        Energies.
                                 Chargers.
2a............................  Low-energy Wired        0-100Wh.
                                 Battery Charger.
2b............................  Medium-energy Wired     100-1000Wh.
                                 Battery Charger.
2c............................  High-energy Wired       >1000Wh.
                                 Battery Charger.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table IV.2, wired battery chargers are further divided 
into three sub-product classes representing chargers with associated 
battery energies that are either low-energy (0-100Wh), medium-energy 
(100-1000Wh), or high-energy (>1000Wh) such that equations representing 
potential standards for each of these sub-classes can be independently 
adjusted to accommodate the unique characteristics of chargers at each 
of these ranges and to achieve a desired pass rate. Similarly, wireless 
chargers are divided into fixed-location wireless charger and open-
placement wireless charger because of the expanded test procedure 
scope.

[[Page 16124]]

    The Joint Efficiency Advocates stated support for DOE's evaluation 
of both fixed-location and open-placement wireless chargers in the NOPR 
stage analysis because of the significant energy savings that could be 
achieved. The Joint Efficiency Advocates reiterated that wireless 
chargers are significantly less efficient than wired chargers, as 
stated from their response to the standards RFI published on September 
16, 2020.\15\ (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Joint Efficiency Advocates' response to the September 
2020 RFI can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CA IOUs and NEEA both supported DOE's development of standards 
for wireless chargers. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at pp.2-3; NEEA No. 16 at pp. 
3-4) NEEA further commented that considering active mode and standby 
mode CSLs are appropriate for fixed-location wireless chargers and no 
battery mode only standards for open-placement wireless chargers are 
also appropriate at this time. (Id.) Both the CA IOUs and NEEA also 
encouraged DOE to further analyze the standards for wireless chargers 
with the CA IOUs urging DOE to work with the industry to cover the 
active mode operation of open-placement wireless chargers as well.
    DOE notes that DOE's battery charger standards are developed with 
the test procedure in mind. Although DOE adopted both active and 
standby modes test procedure for fixed-location wireless chargers, 
because of the intrinsic testing repeatability and representativeness 
issues, DOE did not prescribe an active mode test procedure for open-
placement wireless chargers in the September 2022 Test Procedure Final 
Rule. As a result, DOE is also not considering active mode energy 
conservation standards for open-placement wireless chargers in this 
rulemaking.
    An engineer from UL commented that a cross-class standard for 
multi-port and/or multi-voltage battery chargers should be developed 
because one of the battery charger products that they are testing 
cannot be classified with the current battery charger product classes, 
and the compliance certification management system (CCMS) reporting 
template also does not address such issue. (UL, No. 11 at pp. 1-2)
    DOE notes that for multi-port and/or multi-voltage battery 
chargers, DOE's battery selection criteria in Table 3.2.1 from appendix 
Y and appendix Y1 clearly notes that all ports and battery or 
configuration of batteries with the highest individual voltage should 
be used for testing, and if multiple batteries meet the criteria, then 
the battery or configuration of batteries with the highest total 
nameplate charge capacity at the highest individual voltage should be 
used for testing. As such, the battery charger product class for such 
multi-port/multi-voltage battery would be based on the highest 
individual battery voltage, and the highest total battery charge 
capacity.
    The CA IOUs stated that DOE should reconsider its decision not to 
include DC fast chargers (DCFCs) used to charge light-duty EVs and 
PHEVs in DOE's battery charger standards. The CA IOUs stated that the 
original decision to not regulate these products under battery charger 
rulemaking scope was because DOE stated that it lacks the authority to 
regulate automobiles as consumer products. However, the CA IOUs 
considered that DCFCs fall within the definition of covered products in 
that ``a battery charger must charge batteries for consumer products,'' 
and that such DCFCs are consumer products used to charge other consumer 
products. The CA IOUs further commented that when EPCA passed in 1975, 
it could not have foreseen how excluding automobiles from consumer 
products could bar DOE from regulating DCFCs. Therefore, the CA IOUs 
recommended DOE to reconsider if DCFCs should fall within the scope of 
DOE's standards. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at pp. 3-5)
    DOE reiterates that DOE's authority to regulate battery chargers is 
limited to battery chargers that charge batteries for consumer 
products. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32)) As defined by EPCA, ``consumer 
products'' explicitly excludes automobiles as that term is defined in 
49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3). (42 U.S.C 6291(1)) DOE has limited information 
on whether DCFCs are used to charge any consumer products other than 
automobiles. As such, DOE is not proposing standards for DCFCs at this 
time. However, considering the current trend towards electrification in 
many industries, DOE is interested in whether DCFCs are used to charge 
other consumer products, including electric vehicles other than 
automobiles, such as electric motorcycles.
2. Technology Options
    For technology assessment, DOE identifies technology options that 
appear to be a feasible means of improving product efficiency. This 
assessment provides the technical background and structure on which DOE 
bases its screening and engineering analyses. The following discussion 
provides an overview of the salient aspects of the technology 
assessment, including issues on which DOE seeks public comment. Chapter 
3 of the NOPR TSD provides detailed descriptions of the basic 
construction and operation of battery chargers, followed by a 
discussion of technology options to improve their efficiency and power 
consumption in various modes. These technology options are also listed 
in the table as follows:

               Table IV.3--Battery Charger Design Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Technology option                       Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slow Charger:
    Improved Cores.....................  Use transformer cores with low
                                          losses.
    Termination........................  Limit power provided to fully-
                                          charged batteries.
    Elimination/Limitation of            Limit power provided to fully-
     Maintenance Current.                 charged batteries.
    Elimination of No-Battery Current..  Limit power provided drawn when
                                          no battery is present.
    Switched-Mode Power Supply.........  Use switched-mode power
                                          supplies instead of linear
                                          power supplies.
Fast Charger:
    Low-Power Integrated Circuits......  Use integrated circuit
                                          controllers with minimal power
                                          consumption.
    Elimination/Limitation of            Limit power provided to fully-
     Maintenance Current.                 charged batteries.
    Schottky Diodes and Synchronous      Use rectifiers with low losses.
     Rectification.
    Elimination of No-Battery Current..  Limit power provided drawn when
                                          no battery is present.
    Phase Control to Limit Input Power.  Limit input power in lower-
                                          power modes.

[[Page 16125]]

 
    Wide-Band Gap Semiconductors.......  Use semiconductors such as
                                          Gallium Nitride and Silicon
                                          Carbide to achieve higher
                                          charging efficiency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Screening Analysis

    DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which 
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking:
    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing 
prototypes will not be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products 
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be 
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the 
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that 
technology will not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to 
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to 
subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered 
product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as products generally available in the United States at the time, 
it will not be considered further.
    (4) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology 
would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not 
be considered further.
    (5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has 
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a 
given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the 
potential for monopolistic concerns.
    10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
    In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination 
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, 
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering 
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in 
the following sections.
    The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties 
pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each 
technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether 
DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (``screened 
out'') based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
    Battery charger manufacturers often use various combinations of the 
DOE identified technology option, and because these options are 
relatively common with little barrier to implement, DOE did not screen 
out any technology option. DOE did not receive comments on its 
screening analysis.
2. Remaining Technologies
    DOE tentatively concludes that all of the identified technologies 
listed in section IV.A.2 met all five screening criteria to be examined 
further as design options in DOE's NOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did 
not screen out the following technology options:

          Table IV.4--Remaining Battery Charger Design Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Technology Option                       Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slow Charger...........  Improved Cores.........  Use transformer cores
                                                   with low losses.
                         Termination............  Limit power provided
                                                   to fully-charged
                                                   batteries.
                         Elimination/Limitation   Limit power provided
                          of Maintenance Current.  to fully-charged
                                                   batteries.
                         Elimination of No-       Limit power provided
                          Battery Current.         drawn when no battery
                                                   is present.
                         Switched-Mode Power      Use switched-mode
                          Supply.                  power supplies
                                                   instead of linear
                                                   power supplies.
Fast Charger...........  Low-Power Integrated     Use integrated circuit
                          Circuits.                controllers with
                                                   minimal power
                                                   consumption.
                         Elimination/Limitation   Limit power provided
                          of Maintenance Current.  to fully-charged
                                                   batteries.
                         Schottky Diodes and      Use rectifiers with
                          Synchronous              low losses.
                          Rectification.
                         Elimination of No-       Limit power provided
                          Battery Current.         drawn when no battery
                                                   is present.
                         Phase Control to Limit   Limit input power in
                          Input Power.             lower-power modes.
                         Wide-Band Gap            Use semiconductors
                          Semiconductors.          such as Gallium
                                                   Nitride and Silicon
                                                   Carbide to achieve
                                                   higher charging
                                                   efficiency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has initially determined that these technology options are 
technologically feasible because they are being used in commercially-
available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds that all of 
the remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria 
(i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not 
result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, 
health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary technologies). While DOE 
does not anticipate any material impact on fit, function, and utility 
of the battery chargers, we request comment on potential impacts from 
the proposed standard. For additional details on the analysis, see 
chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

    The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the 
relationship between the efficiency and cost of battery chargers. There 
are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis: the selection 
of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and 
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the 
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency 
products, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not 
eliminated by the screening analysis.

[[Page 16126]]

For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the 
incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above the 
baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the 
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
    DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy 
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed 
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach), 
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated 
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e., 
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on 
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on 
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that 
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through 
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the 
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that 
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on 
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended 
using the design option approach to ``gap fill'' levels (to bridge 
large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to 
extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-
tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on 
the market).
    To analyze the battery charger efficiency levels under the new 
multi-metric approach, DOE established efficiency levels for active 
charge energy and standby power separately. For off mode power 
consumption, DOE notes that for chargers that offer an off mode, the 
power draw is usually negligible; therefore, DOE estimated the off mode 
power to be zero across all efficiency levels and did not analyze the 
off mode performance for battery chargers in this NOPR.
    In developing CSLs, DOE used data available in the CCD as a 
representation of the wired battery charger market. The CCD currently 
provides values for metrics based on the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR, 
part 430, subpart B, appendix Y, which includes UEC, 24-hour charge and 
maintenance mode energy (``E24''), maintenance mode power 
(``Pm''), standby mode power (``Pnb''), and off 
mode power (``Poff''). However, in order to develop CSLs for 
wired chargers in consideration of the metrics in the newly adopted 
appendix Y1, DOE needed to further disaggregate the current 
E24 rated value to estimate the active charge energy 
(``Ea'') component. DOE achieved this by subtracting 
maintenance mode energy, which equals the time in hours spent in 
maintenance mode multiplied by Pm, from E24. 
However, the time spent in maintenance mode for each battery charger 
basic model can vary significantly depending on intended application, 
and DOE does not have sufficient information to derive these times on a 
case-by-case basis. As such, for this NOPR, DOE continues to estimate 
that every charger spends five hours in maintenance mode out of the 24-
hour charge and maintenance mode test period, as determined by section 
3.3.2 of the current test procedure. As a result, DOE calculated 
Ea as E24 minus five hours times Pm. 
DOE used the resultant data to define CSLs. DOE also slightly adjusted 
the intercept of the resultant CSL equation for each analyzed battery 
energy group as necessary so that each CSL would be a continuous 
function across battery energy groups.
    For fixed-location wireless battery chargers, DOE also relied on 
the CCD data to estimate the relationship between the CCD derived 
Ea and CCD reported Ebatt for their active mode 
CSLs. However, for the standby mode power (the sum of maintenance mode 
power and no-battery mode power), or Psb, because the newly 
covered fixed-location wireless chargers can have higher maintenance 
mode power consumption because of different inductive power 
transmitting standards, DOE developed the standby power CSLs based on 
its own testing data. The multi-metric CSL results for fixed-location 
wireless chargers are further discussed in sections IV.C.1.a and 
IV.C.1.b below.
    For open-placement wireless battery chargers, similarly, because 
these are chargers covered under the expanded scope, DOE relied on its 
own testing data to develop the no-battery mode only CSLs for these 
chargers, with further discussion in sections IV.C.1.a and IV.C.1.b 
below.
    The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented that DOE could consider 
uncoupling active mode and standby mode efficiency levels rather than 
increasing both active mode and standby mode efficiency together at 
each CSL so that alternate combinations could be analyzed to explore 
the potential for additional cost-effective savings. (Joint Efficiency 
Advocates, No. 19 at p. 2)
    DOE notes that the electronics related to these modes of operations 
are typically highly integrated and in performing teardowns, DOE was 
unable to accurately establish technology options and cost that would 
solely improve the energy performance in one mode of operation without 
affecting another. While not universal, DOE noticed from its teardowns 
that battery charger designs with improved efficiency in one more of 
operation will typically also be more efficient in other modes. Lacking 
accurate cost information associated with improving the performance in 
each mode of operation separately, DOE chose not to decouple active 
mode and standby mode efficiency levels for wired and fixed-location 
wireless battery chargers in this NOPR. In taking this approach, DOE 
however ensured that teardown units representing successive efficiency 
levels (``ELs'') achieved both the required active mode as well as 
standby performance for that EL. This ensures that the teardown cost of 
representative units accurately capture the cost of attaining both the 
active mode and standby performance required by each EL. The results of 
these TSLs are also further discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD.
    The CA IOUs also supported DOE in updating the standards for 
battery chargers and expand the engineering analysis to higher-capacity 
battery chargers because of advances in technology and the increasing 
availability of higher-powered lithium-ion battery consumer devices on 
the market. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at pp. 1-2) The CA IOUs recommended DOE to 
reevaluate the bins for battery chargers as proposed in the preliminary 
analysis because the CSLs allow higher active mode energy for battery 
chargers with higher battery capacities within a product class. The CA 
IOUs recommended DOE to develop more granular battery capacity bins or 
redesign the standard algorithms to flatten the curve of allowable 
maximum active mode energy, making CSLs equally stringent across 
battery chargers of all battery capacities. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 5)
    DOE notes that DOE's active mode charge energy measures the raw 
energy input into the battery charger; therefore, as battery energy 
increases within each product class, the corresponding raw active 
energy would increase as well. As such, ``flattening'' the active 
charge energy curve within each product class

[[Page 16127]]

would increase relative stringency for those battery chargers designed 
to charge higher-energy batteries from the same product class.
    The Joint Trade Associations stated that several joint commenters 
opposed DOE's test procedure proposal to rely on separate metrics, and 
urged retention of the UEC metric in response to the test procedure 
NOPR published in November 2021. The commenters also opposed DOE's 
proposed approach for determining active, standby, and battery 
maintenance mode energy, as well as DOE's proposal to specify that, for 
chargers not shipped with adapters and where one is not recommended, 
the test can be done with any EPS that is minimally compliant with 
DOE's energy conservation standards. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 17 
at pp. 3-4)
    DOE notes that these comments pertain to the test procedure 
rulemaking, and DOE has already addressed these stakeholder concerns in 
the September 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule by adopting the alternate 
method for measuring the active mode energy consumption of a battery 
charger, ensuring that the test method for the new multiple metrics 
remain largely the same as that of DOE's previous test procedure for 
the UEC metric. 87 FR 55090, 55100-55108. DOE also notes that it 
adopted the additional requirement to test battery chargers with an EPS 
because it ensures test procedure representativeness and test result 
comparability. 87 FR 55090, 55098-55099.
    Delta-Q commented that DOE's efficiency level analysis of product 
class 2c contains incorrect assumptions, because the test procedure 
measures the energy consumption of the battery charge system as a 
whole, which fails to take into account energy losses in the battery 
itself and these losses vary depending on battery type and battery 
chemistry. Attempting to reduce the amount of charge delivered, 
particularly for lead acid batteries, would result in precipitous 
reductions in battery life. (Delta-Q, No. 20 at p. 1) Delta-Q provided 
an example that for a golf cart with a flooded lead acid battery of 80% 
round-trip efficiency, a charger around 90% efficiency, and a total 
system efficiency that meets the current DOE standard of around 70% 
total efficiency; however, DOE's proposed CSL for product class 2c 
would require battery charge system efficiency to be substantially 
increased. In the extreme case of CSL 3, lead-acid batteries would be 
effectively banned because they cannot meet the standard, even though 
lead-acid batteries dominate some parts of the market. Delta-Q further 
noted that the cost to replace these batteries can be ten to fifteen 
times the charger cost, with the total system replacement cost 
increasing in hundreds of dollars. (Delta-Q, No. 20 at p. 2) As such, 
Delta-Q commented that DOE's proposed CSL efficiencies appear to be 
flawed because product class 2c contains products with a variety of 
battery chemistries and system efficiencies, and while most lithium ion 
batteries would have system efficiencies passing at CSL 2, flooded 
lead-acid batteries would struggle to pass CSL 1; in effect, 100% of 
lead-acid battery charge systems would fail. (Id.)
    DOE notes that the battery charger test procedure was designed to 
measure the overall system efficiency. As a result, the energy losses 
in the batteries would also be accounted for as wasted energy or ``non-
useful energy''. DOE understands that for some manufacturers, they do 
not have direct control over the type of battery consumers use with 
their chargers; however, for each battery charger product class and 
each comparable battery energy range, these chargers would still be 
regulated along with other similar types of chargers with comparable 
battery characteristics. DOE's standards have been, and will be, 
developed based on the representative units from a variety of end use 
product types and battery energy ranges. As such, DOE's battery charger 
standards do account for the battery energy losses and do not 
negatively impact battery charger manufacturers. DOE further notes that 
CSL 0 for active mode and standby mode were developed to be an 
approximate translation of the current DOE battery charger UEC 
standard, with higher CSLs developed based on CCD reported battery 
charger performance trends and/or DOE's own testing results. Currently 
presented CSLs are only for standards development process; any standard 
DOE decides to adopt later in the final rule stage will be verified to 
be cost effective while having meaningful energy savings without undue 
burden. To account for Delta-Q's concern, DOE has slightly relaxed 
high-energy chargers' higher CSL levels in this NOPR, and from DOE's 
internal testing and modeling, DOE was able to confirm that even CSL 3 
was attainable by some lead-acid battery chargers.
    Delta-Q commented that the present single, unified metric of UEC 
would provide more flexibility in reducing overall energy consumption 
while still delivering on customer features and cost targets, and that 
separate standards for separate metrics will reduce design flexibility 
and raise the cost of compliance. (Delta-Q, No. 20 at p. 2) Delta-Q 
further commented that the proposed baseline standby mode power 
requirements are already restrictive, resulting in targets that are 
very challenging to meet, which can limit the maximum charge speed or 
the minimum battery size. This is particularly challenging for generic 
and standalone battery chargers such as those manufactured by Delta-Q 
and used by many OEMs. (Delta-Q, No. 20 at pp. 2-3) Delta-Q commented 
that standby mode power provides a variety of customer-required 
functions, such as status display, signal communication, or maintain 
state of charge, and therefore does not necessarily represent wasted 
energy. Delta-Q further stated that if efficiency regulations precluded 
drawing from AC mains in maintenance mode power, battery chargers would 
require power draw from the DC battery, reducing battery readiness and 
runtime. (Id.)
    DOE recognizes that the current UEC metric may provide design 
flexibility for manufacturers; however, it risks being increasingly 
unrepresentative without frequent and continuous updates to the usage 
profiles. If DOE were to constantly update the usage profiles, 
manufacturers would also need to repeatedly recalculate the 
representative UEC and recertify their products, which would add undue 
burden for manufacturers. Although DOE's adopted multi-metric testing 
approach does not provide the same level of freedom for battery charger 
design in all modes of operation when compared to the current 
integrated UEC approach, it would still provide design flexibility in 
standby mode operation by allowing manufacturers to prioritize either 
maintenance power or no-battery power, which accounts for the majority 
of battery charger operation time. DOE reiterates that the CSLs 
presented in the preliminary analysis were only for DOE to present the 
general approach for developing the standards, and for stakeholders to 
get an early chance at contributing to DOE's standards rulemaking 
process. As such, the CSLs presented in the preliminary analysis are 
not final results. Any standard adopted by DOE in the final rule must 
be economically justifiable and technologically feasible, and will be 
required to demonstrate that they are verified to be cost effective 
while having meaningful energy savings without undue burden. In 
response to Delta-Q's comment that the baseline standard levels 
presented in the preliminary analysis are already restrictive, DOE 
notes that these were either translated from the current UEC standard, 
or developed from DOE's own testing data

[[Page 16128]]

representing some of the most energy consumptive products in the 
market; demonstrating that the technology required to achieve the 
currently prescribed standards at the baseline level are readily 
available and not restrictive.
a. Baseline Energy Use
    For each product class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a 
reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from 
potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The 
baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of 
a product typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size). 
Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy 
conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline 
is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
    Consistent with the baseline efficiency levels analyzed from the 
preliminary analysis, for this NOPR, DOE's baseline multi-metric 
efficiency levels for wired battery chargers are approximated from the 
current UEC standards along with reference to the original California 
Energy Commission's (``CEC'') battery charger multi-metric standard. 
Because the current UEC standard was adopted based on approximated CEC 
standards for most of the original product classes except product 
classes 5 and 6, which were more efficient than CEC's, DOE's current 
standard can be approximately ``translated'' back to the CEC's 
standard, especially on the lower end of the battery energy spectrum 
(for battery chargers with battery energy less than 100Wh). DOE further 
assumed that most chargers on the CCD are only single port chargers and 
applied the CEC active charge energy standard to the current CCD 
battery energy levels to get the maximum charge and maintenance energy, 
and then subtracted five hours of maintenance mode power to approximate 
the active charge energy for every single wired battery charger entry. 
DOE did not receive any opposing comments to this approach.
    DOE further notes that the September 2022 Test Procedure Final Rule 
adopted the requirement that for all battery chargers that would need 
an external power supply for operation, they would need to be tested 
with a minimally compliant EPS. 87 FR 55090, 55098-55099. DOE 
anticipated that a proposed standard would also be affected by this 
change. As such, DOE analyzed the CCD reported battery charger basic 
models and manually removed entries with negligible power draw in no-
battery mode so that the remaining entries would likely be tested with 
an EPS or with input power measured directly at the wall. Although this 
may unintentionally remove some entries with very efficient no-battery 
mode design, it would ensure that all the remaining models are indeed 
tested with an appropriate power supply or have the conversion losses 
captured. DOE then applied a linear regression to the remaining CCD 
entries to establish a relationship between battery energy and the 
approximated CEC standard described in the previous paragraph. DOE 
repeated the same steps for standby mode power and battery energy to 
establish the standby mode baseline efficiency level for wired battery 
chargers. Each CSL would contain both the independent active mode 
efficiency level, and the independent standby mode efficiency level.
    For fixed-location wireless chargers in active mode, DOE also 
repeated similar steps to establish the active energy CSL based off of 
CCD data, but assumed that the slopes across CSL 0 to CSL 3 are the 
same, which equal to the slope of the active charge energy vs. battery 
energy from the wet-environment wireless charger CCD data. DOE then 
adjusted the intercept so that all currently reported wet-environment 
wireless chargers pass the baseline standard level.
    For the baseline efficiency level for standby mode power of fixed-
location wireless chargers, DOE relied on the worst average 30% standby 
mode power of the fixed-location wireless chargers that passed DOE's 
internal testing. Similarly for open-placement wireless chargers' 
baseline no-battery mode power level, DOE also relied on the worst no-
battery mode power of the wireless chargers that passed DOE's internal 
testing.
    Table IV.5 below shows the baseline efficiency level for all wired 
and wireless battery chargers.

                       Table IV.5--Baseline Efficiency Level or CSL 0 for Battery Chargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      CSL 0: Approximated current standards
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Standby mode
         Product class            Battery energy (Ebatt)   Active mode energy  power (Psb = Pm +  Off mode power
                                                                  (Ea)                Pnb)            (Poff)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a.............................  <=100Wh.................  1.718 * Ebatt +     1.7..............               0
                                                            17.3.
1b.............................  N/A.....................  N/A...............  1.4 (Pnb only)...               0
2a.............................  <=100Wh.................  1.656 * Ebatt +     0.0021 * Ebatt +                0
                                                            10.5.               1.
2b.............................  100-1000................  1.564 * Ebatt +
                                                            19.661.
2c.............................  >1000...................  1.549 * Ebatt +
                                                            34.361.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Higher Efficiency Levels
    As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level 
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE 
also defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the maximum 
possible efficiency for a given product.
    Again, DOE applied linear regression models to different portions 
of the CCD to characterize three different performance levels of the 
reported wired battery charger basic models. For active mode energy of 
high-energy battery chargers in product class 2c, DOE held the 
intercept constant but adjusted the slope to allow slightly relaxed 
higher CSLs when compared to the preliminary analysis and to retain the 
continuous CSL for each level.
    For active mode energy of fixed-location wireless chargers, DOE 
held the slopes the same across efficiency levels but adjusted the 
intercepts to achieve similar pass rates when compared to the wired 
battery charger pass rates at each corresponding CSLs. DOE further 
finetuned the intercepts by aligning them with DOE's internal testing 
results.
    Similar to how DOE developed the baseline standard levels for 
standby mode power of fixed-location wireless chargers and no-battery 
mode power for open-placement wireless chargers, DOE relied on its own 
testing data to develop the higher efficiency levels as well. For 
Psb of fixed-location wireless chargers, CSL 2 represents 
the approximated average value of DOE's tested samples,

[[Page 16129]]

whereas CSL 3 represents the most efficient 25-30% of the samples. CSL 
1 Psb of fixed-location wireless chargers was set to 
approximately be the average of CSL 0 and CSL 2 levels. For open-
placement wireless charger no-battery mode CSLs, DOE approximated CSL 2 
to be the average no-battery mode power of all the units tested by DOE. 
DOE then set CSL 1 to be the average of the bottom third of tested 
units and CSL 3 to represent open-placement wireless chargers that do 
not consume any power in no-battery mode from their wireless charging 
components, but with all power draw coming from the power supply just 
meeting DOE's multi-voltage EPS maximum no-load power of 0.3W, as 
prescribed in 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii).
    DOE analyzed these three higher battery charger efficiency levels, 
identified design options, and obtained incremental cost data at each 
of these levels. Table IV.6 below shows the efficiency levels analyzed 
for this NOPR analysis.

                            Table IV.6--Higher Efficiency Levels for Battery Chargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Standby mode
         Product class             Battery energy (Ebatt)      Active mode      power  (Psb = Pm  Off mode power
                                                                energy Ea            + Pnb)            Poff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      CSL 1: Intermediate (~70% Pass Rate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a.............................  <=100Wh..................  1.718 * Ebatt +    1.5..............               0
                                                             8.5.
1b.............................  N/A......................  N/A..............  0.8 (Pnb only)...               0
2a.............................  <=100Wh..................  1.390 * Ebatt +    0.00154 * Ebatt +               0
                                                             7.5.               0.65.
2b.............................  100-1000.................  1.418 * Ebatt +
                                                             4.692.
2c.............................  >1000....................  1.388 * Ebatt +
                                                             34.361.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   CSL 2: Above Intermediate (~40% Pass Rate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a.............................  <=100Wh..................  1.718 * Ebatt +    1.25.............               0
                                                             5.54.
1b.............................  N/A......................  N/A..............  0.5 (Pnb only)...               0
2a.............................  <=100Wh..................  1.222 * Ebatt +    0.00098 * Ebatt +               0
                                                             4.980.             0.4.
2b.............................  100-1000.................  1.367 * Ebatt + -
                                                             9.560.
2c.............................  >1000....................  1.323 * Ebatt +
                                                             34.361.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        CSL 3: Max-Tech (~10% Pass Rate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a.............................  <=100Wh..................  1.718 * Ebatt + 2  0.65.............               0
1b.............................  N/A......................  N/A..............  0.3 (Pnb only)...               0
2a.............................  <=100Wh..................  1.053 * Ebatt +    0.0005 * Ebatt +                0
                                                             4.980.             0.25.
2b.............................  100-1000.................  1.316 * Ebatt + -
                                                             21.292.
2c.............................  >1000....................  1.260 * Ebatt +
                                                             34.361.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For wired battery chargers, the three analyzed higher efficiency 
levels (i.e., ELs) correspond to the top 70%, 40%, and 10% of battery 
chargers in the market in terms of their active mode energy and standby 
mode power consumption. For ease of reference, DOE refers to the 
efficiency level that represents the top 70% of the market as 
``Intermediate'', the top 40% of the market as ``Above Intermediate'' 
and those that represent the top 10% of the market as ``Max-Tech,'' 
which typically also represents the lowest active mode energy and 
standby mode power consumption commercially attainable using current 
technology. Fixed-location wireless chargers share similar market 
distribution as wired chargers for these higher CSLs from DOE's 
estimates. However, for open-placement wireless chargers, DOE's 
internal testing data shows higher pass rates for higher efficiency 
levels, especially at Max-Tech. DOE notes that although DOE tried to 
test a wide variety of the wireless chargers covered under the expanded 
scope, there are still hundreds of wireless charger models in the 
market that have various no-battery mode efficiency. As such, the 
actual market efficiency distribution for open-placement wireless 
chargers in higher CSLs can be different than DOE's current estimates; 
additionally, because the CSL differences of the no-battery mode power 
draw is relatively small, the overall energy use analysis based on 
these market distribution estimates should still yield meaningful and 
reliable results.
    DOE requests feedback on DOE's approach of establishing these 
higher efficiency CSLs and welcomes stakeholders to submit any data on 
the actual market distribution of these higher efficiency CSLs.
2. Cost Analysis
    The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted 
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost 
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and 
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated 
product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the battery 
charger on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
     Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically 
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to 
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
     Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a 
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available 
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) 
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
     Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown 
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as 
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which 
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise 
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price 
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online 
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and 
other commercial channels.
    In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis using all three 
methods (physical teardowns, catalog teardowns, and price surveys) of 
analysis to determine manufacturing cost as it

[[Page 16130]]

relates to the efficiency of a battery charger. Units for teardown were 
selected from the CCD based on reported energy values. Several units 
were selected as representative units for each CSL. In addition to 
units from the CCD, DOE purchased various open-placement and fixed-
location wireless chargers to study their design, cost, and 
performance. DOE received additional cost data from manufacturer 
interviews and stakeholder feedback, which was incorporated in the cost 
model generation.
    After testing, physical teardowns of CCD units were performed using 
internal tools. Price survey data was collected in manufacturer 
interviews and in some stakeholder feedback for units at each CSL.
    To generate the cost model, cost data from teardowns were combined 
with price survey data to generate cost/efficiency relationships at 
each battery energy group of interest. Equations for cost as a function 
of relative active mode energy and standby mode power were then created 
using an exponential fit to the data at each battery energy level. The 
resulting manufacturer production costs (MPCs) were then generated for 
each efficiency level using the fit equations.
    The Joint Efficiency Advocates expressed concerned that only four 
units representing CSL 0 and CSL 3 at two battery energy levels were 
used in the preliminary engineering analysis to estimate costs for all 
other wired charger CSLs and battery energy combinations. The Joint 
Efficiency Advocates commented that better accuracy would be obtained 
through additional testing and teardowns for all product classes, or 
through a design option approach for estimating costs for all wired 
chargers, or a combination of both. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 
at p. 2)
    The CA IOUs further suggested DOE conduct additional teardowns of 
larger battery chargers in product classes 2a, 2b, and 2c for common 
product types (e.g., notebooks, cordless vacuums, power tools, 
landscaping equipment, ride-on electric vehicles, electric scooters, 
and golf carts) because larger battery chargers for such devices may 
have different efficiency profiles than smaller ones due to higher 
quality components or the incorporation of high-efficiency 
technologies, such as wide-band-gap semiconductors. The CA IOUs stated 
their expectation that larger battery chargers may not show a linear 
trend between active energy and battery energy. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at p. 
2)
    Similarly, NEEA commented that DOE's methodology of conducting 
teardowns of four chargers in product class 2a representing only the 
lowest (baseline) and highest (CSL 3) of the four CSLs resulted in 
insufficient reliable data for class 2a CSL 1 and 2. NEEA's own 
research suggested that design options to enable CSL 1 and CSL 2 
efficiencies are likely quite different than those used to achieve the 
highest efficiency level (CSL 3), creating inaccuracies in DOE's 
current estimates of the incremental cost for these middle levels. NEEA 
further commented that the reliance on four charger teardowns with 
battery energies less than 20 Wh (product class 2a) to 35 different 
battery charger applications with battery energies up to two orders of 
magnitude higher (2000 Wh) has yielded insufficient data to develop 
incremental cost information for product classes 2b and 2c because 
these higher power battery chargers likely use different semiconductor 
chipsets and/or can be impacted by production volume-related cost 
effects from other similar power electronics applications. (NEEA, No. 
16 at pp. 1-2) NEEA commented that incremental battery charger costs 
presented for product class 2b ($2.59 to $8.73) are high relative to 
DOE EPS cost analysis, indicating that battery charger incremental 
costs are likely to be overestimated for these middle CSLs (CSLs 1 and 
2). (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 2) NEEA stated that DOE should make three 
changes to more accurately measure the energy consumption of battery 
chargers: (1) add an alternative approach such as design option 
approach to teardown data already collected for class 2a CSL 1 and CSL 
2; (2) conduct teardowns and/or utilize design option approaches to 
determine costs for product classes 2b and 2c; and (3) consider costs 
that maintain charge rate (slow or fast), given that slower chargers 
can be less costly due to a lower power output level. NEEA commented 
that if an expanded engineering analysis reveals that current CSL 
levels are not cost-effective in wired charges, NEEA recommends that 
DOE consider alternative combinations and standby and active mode that 
are more likely to be cost-effective, and adding an additional CSL 
level between CSL 0 and CSL 1. (NEEA, No. 16 at pp. 2-3)
    DOE acknowledges that better representativeness can be achieved 
through additional testing and teardowns. Therefore, for the NOPR 
analysis, DOE has expanded the representative unit size significantly 
to cover more battery energy ranges and different end product types. 
DOE has also conducted various manufacturer interviews to get more 
direct design and cost information from stakeholders to calibrate DOE's 
internal teardown results, which improves the accuracy and 
representativeness of DOE's battery charger cost-efficiency 
relationship. Details of how DOE updated its cost analysis can be found 
in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
    To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit 
margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. 
The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') is the price at 
which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE, 
throughout this NOPR analysis, is using the average manufacturer markup 
presented in the June 2016 final rule. This markup was determined based 
on information collected during the manufacturer interviews preceding 
that rulemaking. More detail on the manufacturer markup is given in 
section IV.D of this document.
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
    The results of the engineering analysis are presented as cost-
efficiency data for each product class by efficiency levels. The cost-
efficiency curves are described by the efficiency levels DOE analyzed 
and the increase in MPC required to improve a baseline-efficiency 
product to each of the considered efficiency levels. DOE recognizes 
that costs of battery chargers vary according to the energy of the 
battery it is intended to charge. DOE analyzed costs at various battery 
energies from different battery energy groups for each CSL as shown 
below. These representative battery energies were selected based on 
areas of significant market density, as indicated by entries in the 
CCD. They also span a wide range of battery energy groups for which the 
CSL equations were defined. For battery energy groups for which DOE 
lacks direct teardown costs, DOE extrapolated these costs from 
representative units that DOE has physically torn down and calibrated 
DOE's extrapolation with price information DOE acquired from 
manufacturer interviews.
    Tables and plots with MPC results, as well as extrapolation methods 
used both within and across each product class, are presented below as 
well as in greater detail in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
    DOE requests stakeholder feedbacks on these analyzed incremental 
costs as well as any topic covered in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD. DOE 
also welcomes stakeholders to submit their own cost-efficiency results, 
should there be any.

[[Page 16131]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Incremental MPC ($)
             Product class                      Product class name        Battery energy ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               (Wh)            Base            CSL 1           CSL 2           CSL 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a.....................................  Fixed-Location Wireless Charger              12            0.00            0.67            1.51            3.52
1b.....................................  Open-Placement Wireless Charger             N/A            0.00            0.53            1.49            2.14
2a.....................................  Low-Energy Wired Battery                      5            0.00            0.23            0.63            0.75
                                          Charger (<=100Wh).                          12            0.00            0.40            0.77            1.59
                                                                                      25            0.00            0.55            1.00            1.85
                                                                                      75            0.00            0.93            1.60            2.67
2b.....................................  Medium-Energy Wired Battery                 200            0.00            1.58            2.45            3.24
                                          Charger (100-1000Wh).                      420            0.00            3.35            5.20            6.86
2c.....................................  High-Energy Wired Battery                  2000            0.00            3.35            5.20            6.86
                                          Charger (>1000Wh).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Markups Analysis

    The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer 
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution 
chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the 
engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC 
and PBP analysis and in the manufacturer impact analysis. At each step 
in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product 
to cover business costs and profit margin.
    For battery chargers, the main parties in the distribution chain 
are battery charger manufacturers, end-use product original equipment 
manufacturers, consumer product retailers, and consumers. DOE developed 
baseline and incremental markups for each actor in the distribution 
chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of products with 
baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the 
difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the 
incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less 
than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit 
operating profit before and after new or amended standards.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products 
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the 
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would 
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is 
possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably 
competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a 
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used the same baseline 
and incremental markups that were used in the June 2016 Final Rule.\17\ 
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the markups or distribution 
channels in the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, therefore DOE used the 
same markups in this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Chapter 6 of the 2016 Final Rule Technical Support 
Document for Battery Chargers. (Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0257) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). 
See also Chapter 6 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technical 
Support Document for Battery Chargers. (Available at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013-0009) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's development of 
markups for battery chargers.
    DOE requests comment on the estimated increased manufacturer 
markups and incremental MSPs that result from the analyzed energy 
conservation standards from the NOPR engineering analysis.

E. Energy Use Analysis

    The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual 
energy consumption of battery chargers at different efficiencies in 
representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, and 
commercial buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential of 
increased battery charger efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates 
the range of energy use of battery chargers in the field (i.e., as they 
are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis provides the 
basis for other analyses DOE performs, particularly assessments of the 
energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could 
result from adoption of amended or new standards.
    In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used usage profiles 
that were developed in the June 2016 Final Rule, along with efficiency 
data at different load conditions, to calculate the UECs for battery 
chargers for a variety of applications.\18\ Usage profiles are 
estimates of the average time a device spends in each mode of 
operation. In the February 2023 NOPR for external power supplies, DOE 
updated some of the usage profiles for certain applications based on 
stakeholder comments. 88 FR 7284. For this analysis, DOE aligned the 
battery charger usage profiles for these applications with the EPS 
usage profiles for consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See appendix 7A of the 2016 Final Rule Technical Support 
Document for Battery Chargers. (Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0257) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022). 
See also appendix 7A of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technical 
Support Document for Battery Chargers. (Available at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013-0009) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's energy use 
analysis for battery chargers.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts 
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for 
battery chargers. The effect of new or amended energy conservation 
standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in 
operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following 
two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
    [ballot] The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or 
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed 
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales 
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy 
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE 
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them 
over the lifetime of the product.
    [ballot] The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it 
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for 
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
    For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC 
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the 
estimated efficiency distribution of battery chargers in the absence of 
new or amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for 
a given efficiency level is

[[Page 16132]]

measured relative to the baseline product.
    For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE 
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of 
housing units and commercial buildings. DOE developed household samples 
from the 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey \19\ (RECS 2015) 
and the 2018 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey \20\ (CBECS 
2018). For each sample household, DOE determined the energy consumption 
for the battery chargers and the appropriate energy price. By 
developing a representative sample of households, the analysis captured 
the variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with 
the use of battery chargers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/ (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022). EIA is currently working on RECS 2020, and 
the entire RECS 2020 microdata are expected to be fully released in 
early 2023. Until that time, RECS 2015 remains the most recent full 
data release. For future analyses, DOE plans to consider using the 
complete RECS 2020 microdata when available.
    \20\ www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/ (last accessed Sept. 
12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost 
of the product--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and 
distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to 
the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy 
consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and 
maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created 
distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales 
taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their 
uncertainty and variability.
    The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC relies on a Monte 
Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the 
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from 
the probability distributions and battery chargers' user samples. For 
this rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is implemented in MS Excel. 
The model calculated the LCC for products at each efficiency level for 
10,000 housing units and commercial buildings per simulation run. The 
analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing 
the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the 
no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an 
iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product 
efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen product 
efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard 
level under consideration, the LCC calculation reveals that a consumer 
is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who 
already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the 
potential benefits from increasing product efficiency.
    DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers of battery 
chargers as if each were to purchase a new product in the expected year 
of required compliance with new or amended standards. New and amended 
standards would apply to battery chargers manufactured 2 years after 
the date on which any new or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(u)) At this time, DOE estimates publication of a final rule in 
late 2024, therefore, for purposes of this analysis, DOE used 2027 as 
the first year of compliance with any amended standards for EPSs.
    Table IV.7 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive 
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow 
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of 
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 
of the NOPR TSD and its appendices.

Table IV.7--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Inputs                           Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost...........................  Derived by multiplying MPCs by
                                          battery charger manufacturer
                                          and appliance manufacturer
                                          markups and sales tax, as
                                          appropriate. Used historical
                                          Product Price Index (PPI) data
                                          for semiconductors to derive a
                                          price scaling index to project
                                          product costs.
Installation Costs.....................  No installation costs.
Annual Energy Use......................  The total annual energy use
                                          calculated using product
                                          efficiency and operating
                                          hours.
                                         Variability: Based on the 2015
                                          RECS and 2018 CBECS.
Energy Prices..........................  Electricity: EIA data--2021.
                                         Variability: Census Division.
Energy Price Trends....................  Based on AEO2022 price
                                          projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs...........  No repair or maintenance costs
                                          were considered.
Product Lifetime.......................  Average: 3 to 10 years.
Discount Rates.........................  Approach involves identifying
                                          all possible debt or asset
                                          classes that might be used to
                                          purchase the considered
                                          appliances, or might be
                                          affected indirectly. Primary
                                          data source was the Federal
                                          Reserve Board's Survey of
                                          Consumer Finances.
Compliance Date........................  2027.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
  in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

1. Product Cost
    To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs 
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described 
previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for 
baseline products and higher-efficiency products because DOE applies an 
incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-
efficiency products.
    In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE did not use any price 
trend.\21\ In response, the CA IOUs commented that based on American 
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy information and price 
comparisons, DOE has historically overestimated its forecasts of the 
incremental cost for products subject to standards due to energy 
conservation policies that may accelerate the decline of appliance 
costs due to increased production and innovation. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at 
pp. 5-6) The CA IOUs further commented that battery chargers are 
increasingly employing gallium nitride (GaN) semiconductors as a 
primary cost component, and GaN semiconductor costs are expected to 
decrease substantially; in addition, GaN topologies require fewer 
components and heat dissipation needs, causing system-level costs to 
decrease. For these reasons, DOE should include price learning in its 
analysis of battery chargers and develop criteria for applying price 
learning in all cases involving products with rapidly expanding sales 
volumes or based on components or materials that are likely

[[Page 16133]]

to experience declining costs. (CA IOUs, No. 18 at pp. 6-7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Chapters 8 and 10 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis 
Technical Support Document for Battery Chargers. (Available at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013-0009) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Joint Efficiency Advocates stated that with price learning not 
addressed in the preliminary analysis, costs to achieve higher 
efficiency levels over the analysis period could be overestimated; 
learning rates associated with semiconductors are especially important 
because improved semiconductors are a key technology option for 
reaching higher efficiency levels. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 19 
at p. 2)
    NEEA also commented that DOE should incorporate manufacturer price 
learning and leverage general semiconductor price data into its 
analysis of life-cycle cost and payback period for battery chargers. 
(NEEA, No. 16 at p. 3)
    DOE agrees with the commenters that costs for electronic components 
are likely to change during the analysis period. In this NOPR, DOE has 
incorporated a price trend based on the PPI for semiconductors,\22\ 
with an estimated annual deflated price decline of approximately 6 
percent per year from 1967 through 2021. DOE applied this price trend 
to the proportion of battery charger costs attributable to 
semiconductors, which is estimated at 90 percent of incremental costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Producer Price Index: Semiconductors and Related 
Manufacturing. Series ID: PCU334413334413. (Available at: 
beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/PCU334413334413) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Annual Energy Consumption
    For each sampled household or commercial business, DOE determined 
the energy consumption for a battery charger at different efficiency 
levels using the approach described previously in section IV.E of this 
document.
3. Energy Prices
    Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the 
incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher 
efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change 
in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE 
applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the product 
purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices 
for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other 
efficiency levels considered.
    For the NOPR, DOE derived average monthly residential and 
commercial marginal electricity prices for the various regions using 
2021 data from EIA.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 
Administration, Form EIA-861M (formerly EIA-826) Database Monthly 
Electric Utility Sales and Revenue Data (1990-2020). (Available at: 
www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861m/) (last accessed Sept. 12, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2021 
energy prices by the projection of annual average price changes for 
each of the nine census divisions from the Reference case in AEO2022, 
which has an end year of 2050.\24\ To estimate price trends after 2050, 
DOE used the average annual rate of change in prices from 2023 through 
2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050. 
Washington, DC. (Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for details.
4. Product Lifetime
    In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE based the battery 
charger lifetime on the lifetime of the application for which it is 
associated.\25\ In the February 2023 NOPR for external power supplies, 
DOE increased the lifetime for several applications based on 
stakeholder comments. 88 FR 7284. For this analysis, DOE aligned the 
application lifetimes (and thus battery charger lifetimes) for these 
applications with the EPS lifetime estimates for consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Chapter 8 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technical 
Support Document for Battery Chargers. (Available at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013-0009) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Discount Rates
    In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate 
to households and commercial buildings to estimate the present value of 
future operating cost savings. DOE estimated a distribution of discount 
rates for battery chargers based on the opportunity cost of consumer 
funds.
    For residential households, DOE applies weighted average discount 
rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, rather than 
marginal or implicit discount rates.\26\ The LCC analysis estimates net 
present value over the lifetime of the product, so the appropriate 
discount rate will reflect the general opportunity cost of household 
funds, taking this time scale into account. Given the long time horizon 
modeled in the LCC analysis, the application of a marginal interest 
rate associated with an initial source of funds is inaccurate. 
Regardless of the method of purchase, consumers are expected to 
continue to rebalance their debt and asset holdings over the LCC 
analysis period, based on the restrictions consumers face in their debt 
payment requirements and the relative size of the interest rates 
available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the aggregate impact of 
this rebalancing using the historical distribution of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer 
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with 
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate 
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net 
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the 
influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and 
response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a 
consumer is able to borrow or lend. The implicit discount rate is 
not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a range of 
factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than the 
opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE 
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to 
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance 
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the 
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data 
from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances \27\ 
(``SCF'') for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, and 2013. Using the 
SCF and other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for each 
type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that may 
apply in the year in which amended standards would take effect. DOE 
assigned each sample household a specific discount rate drawn from one 
of the distributions. The average rate across all types of household 
debt and equity and income groups, weighted by the shares of each type, 
is 4.1% percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Survey of 
Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, and 2013. 
(Available at: www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For commercial buildings, DOE derived the discount rates for the 
LCC analysis by estimating the cost of capital for companies or public 
entities that purchase EPSs. For private firms, the weighted average 
cost of capital (``WACC'') is commonly used to estimate the present 
value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company project or 
investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund 
investments, so their cost of capital is the weighted average of the 
cost to the firm of equity and debt financing, as estimated from 
financial data for publicly traded firms across all commercial sectors. 
The average commercial cost of capital is 6.7%.
    See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further details on the 
development of consumer discount rates.

[[Page 16134]]

6. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be 
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular 
efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected 
distribution (market shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-
standards case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy 
conservation standards).
    In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used the CCD \28\ to 
estimate the energy efficiency distribution of battery chargers for 
2027.\29\ DOE updated these distributions based on the latest data in 
CCD. For wireless chargers, DOE estimated the efficiency distributions 
based on the models tested and used for the engineering analysis. The 
estimated market shares for the no-new-standards case for battery 
chargers are shown in Table IV.8. See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for 
further information on the derivation of the efficiency distributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
    \29\ See Chapter 8 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technical 
Support Document for Battery Chargers. (Available at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013-0009) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).

              Table IV.8--Estimated Market Shares of Battery Chargers in the No-New-Standards Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Above
      Representative unit (battery energy)         Baseline (%)    Intermediate    intermediate    Max-Tech (%)
                                                                        (%)             (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10Wh............................................             9.8            48.9            19.4            21.9
10-50Wh (RPU 12.7Wh)............................            26.1            53.0            18.1             2.8
10-50Wh (RPU 25Wh)..............................            26.1            53.0            18.1             2.8
50-100Wh (RPU 75Wh).............................            20.6            51.5            27.8             0.1
100-400Wh (RPU 200Wh)...........................            19.7            27.5            37.6            15.2
400-1000Wh (RPU 420Wh)..........................            19.7            27.5            37.6            15.2
>1000Wh (RPU 2000Wh)............................            38.5            36.1            13.6            11.8
Fixed-Location wireless charger.................             8.3            25.0            58.3             8.3
Open-Placement wireless charger.................             6.7            20.0            20.0            53.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Payback Period Analysis
    The payback period is the amount of time (expressed in years) it 
takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more-
efficient products, compared to baseline products, through energy cost 
savings. Payback periods that exceed the life of the product mean that 
the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced 
operating expenses.
    The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the 
change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the 
first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. DOE 
refers to this as a ``simple PBP'' because it does not consider changes 
over time in operating cost savings. The PBP calculation uses the same 
inputs as the LCC analysis when deriving first-year operating costs.
    As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that 
a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the 
additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with 
an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the 
value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, 
as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE 
determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating 
the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test 
procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average energy price 
projection for the year in which compliance with the amended standards 
would be required.
    The Joint Trade Associations and Delta-Q commented that amended 
standards for battery chargers are not economically justified because 
the payback periods are far longer than the average useful life of the 
product; therefore, most consumers will experience a net cost through 
amended standards. The Joint Trade Associations further recommended 
that DOE focus on other rulemakings for potential significant energy 
savings. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 17 at p. 1; Delta-Q, No. 20 at 
p. 1)
    DOE notes that the preliminary analysis did not propose any 
specific standard level. For this NOPR, DOE's evaluation of the 
economic justification of potential standard levels, including the 
consideration of payback periods, is provided in section V.C.

G. Shipments Analysis

    DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the 
national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation 
standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\30\ 
The shipments model takes an accounting approach, tracking market 
shares of each product class and the vintage of units in the stock. 
Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age 
distribution of in-service product stocks for all years. The age 
distribution of in-service product stocks is a key input to 
calculations of both the national energy savings (``NES'') and NPV, 
because operating costs for any year depend on the age distribution of 
the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for 
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general, 
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the March 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE developed shipments 
estimates based on actual shipments from 2019 and a population growth 
rate based on U.S. Census population projections through 2050.\31\ DOE 
did not receive any comments on the shipments analysis and therefore 
used this same approach in the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Chapter 9 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technical 
Support Document for Battery Chargers. (Available at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013-0009) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See Chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD for more detail on the shipments 
analysis.
    DOE requests comment on its methodology for estimating shipments. 
DOE also requests comment on its approach to estimate the market share 
for EPSs of all product classes.

H. National Impact Analysis

    The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of 
total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from 
new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.\32\ 
(``Consumer'' in this context

[[Page 16135]]

refers to consumers of the product being regulated.) DOE calculates the 
NES and NPV for the potential standard levels considered based on 
projections of annual product shipments, along with the annual energy 
consumption and total installed cost data from the energy use and LCC 
analyses. For the present analysis, DOE projected the energy savings, 
operating cost savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits 
over the lifetime of battery chargers sold from 2027 through 2056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S. 
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing 
a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each 
product class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation 
standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in 
efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of 
efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with 
projections characterizing the market for each product class if DOE 
adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels 
(i.e., the TSLs or standards cases) for that class. For the standards 
cases, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the 
market shares of products with efficiencies greater than the standard.
    DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and 
the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested 
parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities 
within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values 
(as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
    Table IV.9 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA 
analysis for the NOPR. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows 
the table. See chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD for further details.

    Table IV.9--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Inputs                               Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments.........................  Annual shipments from shipments
                                     model.
Compliance Date of Standard.......  2027.
Efficiency Trends.................  No-new-standards case: Varies by
                                     application.
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit  Annual weighted-average values are a
                                     function of energy use at each TSL.
Total Installed Cost per Unit.....  Annual weighted-average values are a
                                     function of cost at each TSL.
                                    Incorporates projection of future
                                     product prices based on historical
                                     data.
Annual Energy Cost per Unit.......  Annual weighted-average values as a
                                     function of the annual energy
                                     consumption per unit and energy
                                     prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost per     Annual values do not change with
 Unit.                               efficiency level.
Energy Price Trends...............  AEO2022 projections (to 2050) and
                                     extrapolation thereafter based on
                                     the growth rate from 2023-2050.
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC      A time-series conversion factor
 Conversion.                         based on AEO2022.
Discount Rate.....................  3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year......................  2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Product Efficiency Trends
    A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency 
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards 
cases. Section IV.F.6 of this document describes how DOE developed an 
energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which 
yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the 
considered product classes for the first full year of anticipated 
compliance with an amended or new standard. To project the trend in 
efficiency absent amended standards for battery chargers over the 
entire shipments projection period, DOE assumed a constant efficiency 
trend. The approach is further described in chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD.
    For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario to 
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards 
are assumed to become effective (2027). In this scenario, the market 
shares of products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the 
standard under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the new standard 
level, and the market share of products above the standard would remain 
unchanged.
    To develop standards case efficiency trends after 2027, DOE used a 
constant efficiency trend, keeping the distribution equal to the 
compliance year.
2. National Energy Savings
    The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of 
national energy consumption of the considered products between each 
potential standards case (``TSL'') and the case with no new or amended 
energy conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy 
consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product 
(by vintage or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). 
DOE calculated annual NES based on the difference in national energy 
consumption for the no-new standards case and for each higher 
efficiency standard case. DOE estimated energy consumption and savings 
based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption and 
savings to primary energy (i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to 
generate site electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from 
AEO2022. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year 
over the timeframe of the analysis.
    Use of higher-efficiency products is occasionally associated with a 
direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of 
the product due to the increase in efficiency. DOE did not consider a 
rebound effect in this analysis, because the price differences by EL 
and energy use are so small that any rebound effect would be close to 
zero.
    In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on 
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy 
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, 
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and 
greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and 
emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards 
rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the 
approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a 
statement

[[Page 16136]]

of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination that EIA's 
National Energy Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most appropriate tool 
for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 
FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, 
partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \33\ that EIA uses 
to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors incorporate 
losses in production and delivery in the case of natural gas (including 
fugitive emissions) and additional energy used to produce and deliver 
the various fuels used by power plants. The approach used for deriving 
FFC measures of energy use and emissions is described in appendix 10B 
of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy 
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009. 
Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm (last accessed 
December 2, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Net Present Value Analysis
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total 
annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), 
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and 
savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between 
the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total 
savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. 
DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each product 
shipped during the projection period.
    As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this document, DOE developed 
battery charger price trends based on historical PPI data for the 
semiconductor industry. DOE applied the same trends to project prices 
for each product class at each considered efficiency level. By 2056, 
which is the end date of the projection period, the average battery 
charger price is projected to drop 90 percent relative to 2021. DOE's 
projection of product prices is described in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.
    The operating cost savings are energy cost savings, which are 
calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the 
projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy 
prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy 
prices by the projection of annual national-average residential and 
commercial energy price changes in the Reference case from AEO2022, 
which has an end year of 2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE 
used the average annual rate of change in prices from 2020 through 
2050.
    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future 
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this 
NOPR, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent 
and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in 
accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and 
Budget (``OMB'') to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory 
analysis.\34\ The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in 
contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are 
designed to reflect a consumer's perspective. The 7-percent real value 
is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private 
capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the 
``social rate of time preference,'' which is the rate at which society 
discounts future consumption flows to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 
georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html (last 
accessed December 2, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

    In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy 
conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on 
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately 
affected by a new or amended national standard. The purpose of a 
subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any such 
disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups 
of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular 
consumers from alternative standard levels. For this NOPR, DOE analyzed 
the impacts of the considered standard levels on one subgroup: low-
income households. The analysis used subsets of the RECS 2015 and CBECS 
2018 sample composed of households that meet the criteria for the two 
subgroups. DOE used the LCC and PBP spreadsheet model to estimate the 
impacts of the considered efficiency levels on these subgroups. Chapter 
11 in the NOPR TSD describes the consumer subgroup analysis.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of amended 
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of battery chargers and 
to estimate the potential impacts of such standards on employment and 
manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative 
aspects and includes analyses of projected industry cash flows, the 
INPV, investments in research and development (``R&D'') and 
manufacturing capital, and domestic manufacturing employment. 
Additionally, the MIA seeks to determine how amended energy 
conservation standards might affect manufacturing employment, capacity, 
and competition, as well as how standards contribute to overall 
regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA serves to identify any 
disproportionate impacts on manufacturer subgroups, including small 
business manufacturers.
    The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government 
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash flow model with 
inputs specific to this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs include data on 
the industry cost structure, unit production costs, product shipments, 
manufacturer markups, and investments in R&D and manufacturing capital 
required to produce compliant products. The key GRIM outputs are the 
INPV, which is the sum of industry annual cash flows over the analysis 
period, discounted using the industry-weighted average cost of capital, 
and the impact to domestic manufacturing employment. The model uses 
standard accounting principles to estimate the impacts of more-
stringent energy conservation standards on a given industry by 
comparing changes in INPV and domestic manufacturing employment between 
a no-new-standards case and the various standards cases (``TSLs''). To 
capture the uncertainty relating to manufacturer pricing strategies 
following amended standards, the GRIM estimates a range of possible 
impacts under different markup scenarios.
    The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer 
characteristics and market trends. Specifically, the MIA considers such 
factors as a potential standard's impact on manufacturing capacity, 
competition within the industry, the cumulative impact of other DOE and 
non-DOE regulations, as well as impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The 
complete MIA is outlined in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
    DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 
1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the battery charger 
manufacturing industry based on the market and technology assessment, 
manufacturer interviews, and publicly-available information. This 
included a top-down

[[Page 16137]]

analysis of battery charger manufacturers that DOE used to derive 
preliminary financial inputs for the GRIM (e.g., revenues; materials, 
labor, overhead, and depreciation expenses; selling, general, and 
administrative expenses (``SG&A''); and R&D expenses). DOE also used 
public sources of information to further calibrate its initial 
characterization of the battery charger manufacturing industry, 
including company filings of form 10-K from the U.S. Securities and 
Exchange Commission (``SEC''),\35\ corporate annual reports, the U.S. 
Census Bureau's Economic Census,\36\ and reports from D&B Hoovers.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml.
    \36\ See www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/data.html.
    \37\ See app.dnbhoovers.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared a framework industry cash-flow 
analysis to quantify the potential impacts of amended energy 
conservation standards. The GRIM uses several factors to determine a 
series of annual cash flows starting with the announcement of the 
standard and extending over a 30-year period following the compliance 
date of the standard. These factors include annual expected revenues, 
costs of sales, SG&A and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital expenditures. 
In general, energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash 
flow in three distinct ways: (1) creating a need for increased 
investment, (2) raising production costs per unit, and (3) altering 
revenue due to higher per-unit prices and changes in sales volumes.
    In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE also evaluated subgroups of 
manufacturers that may be disproportionately impacted by amended 
standards or that may not be accurately represented by the average cost 
assumptions used to develop the industry cash flow analysis. Such 
manufacturer subgroups may include small business manufacturers, low-
volume manufacturers (``LVMs''), niche players, and/or manufacturers 
exhibiting a cost structure that largely differs from the industry 
average. DOE identified subgroups for separate impact analysis: the 
small appliance application industry segment, the consumer electronics 
application industry segment, the power tools application industry 
segment, and the high energy application industry segment, as well as 
small business manufacturers. The small business subgroup is discussed 
in section VI.B of this document, ``Review under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act'', and in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
    DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to 
amended standards that result in a higher or lower industry value. The 
GRIM uses a standard, annual discounted cash-flow analysis that 
incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry 
financial information as inputs. The GRIM models change in costs, 
distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins that 
could result from an amended energy conservation standard. The GRIM 
uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash flows, beginning 
in 2023 (the reference year) and continuing to 2056. DOE calculated 
INPVs by summing the stream of annual discounted cash flows during this 
period. For manufacturers of battery charger applications, DOE used a 
real discount rate of 9.1 percent, which was the same value used in the 
August 2016 Final Rule.
    The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles 
and compares changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each 
standards case. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards 
case and a standards case represents the financial impact of the 
amended energy conservation standard on manufacturers. As discussed 
previously, DOE developed critical GRIM inputs using a number of 
sources, including publicly available data, results of the engineering 
analysis, and information gathered from industry stakeholders. The GRIM 
results are presented in section V.B.2 of this document. Additional 
details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and other financial 
parameters can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    Manufacturing more efficient products is typically more expensive 
than manufacturing baseline products due to the use of more complex 
components, which are typically more costly than baseline components. 
The changes in the MPCs of covered products can affect the revenues, 
gross margins, and cash flow of the industry. Throughout its analysis 
of manufacturers, DOE adjusted the MPC value of battery chargers but 
did not adjust the value of battery charger applications--focusing on 
the changes to the overall product package caused by possible amended 
standards on battery chargers. An overview of the methodology used to 
generate MPCs of battery chargers is in the engineering analysis (see 
section IV.C.2), and a complete discussion of the MPCs can be found in 
chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
b. Shipments Projections
    The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit 
shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by 
efficiency level. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time 
can significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the 
GRIM uses the NIA's annual shipment projections derived from the 
shipments analysis from 2023 (the reference year) to 2056 (the end year 
of the analysis period). A complete discussion of shipments can be 
found in chapter 9 of the NOPR.
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    Amended energy conservation standards could cause manufacturers to 
incur conversion costs to bring their production facilities and product 
designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level of conversion-related 
expenditures that would be needed to comply with each considered 
efficiency level in each product class. For the MIA, DOE classified 
these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) product conversion 
costs; and (2) capital conversion costs. Product conversion costs are 
investments in research, development, testing, marketing, and other 
non-capitalized costs necessary to make product designs comply with 
amended energy conservation standards. Capital conversion costs are 
investments in property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or 
change existing production facilities such that new compliant product 
designs can be fabricated and assembled.
    DOE anticipates that, while amended standards would not 
fundamentally alter the manufacturing process for battery chargers, 
battery charger application manufacturers would incur capital 
conversion costs as a result of amended standards. These costs would 
take the form of updated tooling, new or altered plastic molds, and 
additional or new testing equipment. DOE developed estimates of the 
conversion costs using estimated revenues related to battery charger 
applications, the capital expenditure factor of revenue used in the 
August 2016 Final Rule for each industry segment, and research related 
to the engineering analysis. These capital conversion cost estimates 
can be found in section V.B.2.a of this document. DOE assumes that all 
capital conversion costs would occur between the date of the final rule 
publication and the compliance date.
    DOE does also expect that manufacturers would incur product

[[Page 16138]]

redesign costs due to amended standards. Manufacturers may need to 
redesign models outside of their normal product redesign cycles and 
would need to design around a higher minimum efficiency constraint. To 
evaluate the level of product conversion costs manufacturers would 
likely incur to comply with amended energy conservation standards, DOE 
developed estimates of product conversion costs for each product class 
at each efficiency level using estimated revenues related to battery 
charger applications, the R&D factor of revenue used in the August 2016 
Final Rule for each industry segment, and research related to the 
engineering analysis. The product conversion cost estimates used in the 
GRIM can be found in section V.B.2.a of this document. DOE assumes that 
all product conversion costs would occur between the date of the final 
rule publication and the compliance date.
    For additional information on the estimated conversion costs and 
the related methodology, see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
d. Markup Scenarios
    MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor, 
materials, and overhead estimated in DOE's MPCs) and all non-production 
costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit. To calculate 
the MSPs in the GRIM, DOE applied non-production cost markups to the 
MPCs estimated in the engineering analysis for each product class and 
efficiency level. Modifying these markups in the standards case yields 
different sets of impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE modeled 
two standards-case markup scenarios to represent uncertainty regarding 
the potential impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers 
following the implementation of amended energy conservation standards: 
(1) a preservation of gross margin scenario; and (2) a constant price 
scenario. These scenarios lead to different margins that, when applied 
to the MPCs, result in varying revenue and cash flow impacts.
    Under the preservation of gross margin scenario, DOE applied a 
single uniform gross margin across all efficiency levels, which assumes 
that manufacturers would be able to maintain the same amount of profit 
as a percentage of revenues at all efficiency levels within a product 
class. This scenario represents the upper bound of INPV impacts modeled 
by DOE in this analysis.
    Under the constant price markup scenario, DOE modeled a situation 
in which manufacturers do not adjust their prices in response to 
increased MPCs of battery chargers. This scenario represents the lower 
bound of INPV impacts modeled by DOE in this analysis.
    A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two markup 
scenarios is presented in section V.B.2.a of this document.
3. Manufacturer Interviews
    DOE interviewed battery charger manufacturers, battery charger 
application manufacturers, and industry stakeholders in order to 
develop its analysis.
    In interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to describe their major 
concerns regarding this rulemaking. The following section highlights 
manufacturer concerns, related to the MIA, that helped inform the 
projected potential impacts of an amended standard on the industry. 
Manufacturer interviews are conducted under non-disclosure agreements 
(``NDAs''), so DOE does not document these discussions in the same way 
that it does public comments in the comment summaries and DOE's 
responses throughout the rest of this document.
    Manufacturers communicated concerns generally over the potential 
costs imposed by amended energy conservation standards. Product 
redesign related costs were noted as the most substantial likely costs, 
but also that capital conversion costs would be imposed on both 
application and battery charger manufacturers and could be quite 
substantial depending on the extent of possible changes.
    Manufacturers additionally noted concerns around engineering 
manpower related to potential product redesigns as a major concern. 
Several manufacturers described limited qualified staff and difficulty 
retaining and hiring staff in recent times. As such, it may be 
difficult to hire and possibly train additional staff on relatively 
short notice. Further, while manufacturers may have the capacity to 
engage in substantial product redesigns in order to comply with amended 
efficiency standards, standards would also impose an opportunity cost 
since those engineers would have to be redirected from projects 
intended to reduce production costs or improve non-efficiency-related 
product features.
    Manufacturers also expressed concerns over tariffs, which cause 
manufacturers to avoid vendors from China or relocate manufacturing 
operations elsewhere abroad--such as Mexico--in order to avoid 
additional cost. This issue restricts the competitive set of potential 
vendors and diminishes manufacturer's ability to negotiate optimal 
prices.

K. Emissions Analysis

    The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first 
component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation 
standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion 
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 
The second component estimates the impacts of potential standards on 
emissions of two additional greenhouse gases, CH4 and 
N2O, as well as the reductions to emissions of other gases 
due to ``upstream'' activities in the fuel production chain. These 
upstream activities comprise extraction, processing, and transporting 
fuels to the site of combustion.
    The analysis of electric power sector emissions of CO2, 
NOX, SO2, and Hg uses emissions factors intended 
to represent the marginal impacts of the change in electricity 
consumption associated with amended or new standards. The methodology 
is based on results published for the AEO, including a set of side 
cases that implement a variety of efficiency-related policies. The 
methodology is described in appendix 13A in the NOPR TSD. The analysis 
presented in this NOPR uses projections from AEO2022. Power sector 
emissions of CH4 and N2O from fuel combustion are 
estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories 
published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_apr2021.pdf (last accessed July 12, 
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FFC upstream emissions, which include emissions from fuel 
combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels, 
and ``fugitive'' emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of 
CH4 and CO2, are estimated based on the 
methodology described in chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD.
    The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical 
units per MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. For power sector 
emissions, specific emissions intensity factors are calculated by 
sector and end use. Total emissions reductions are estimated using the 
energy savings calculated in the national impact analysis.
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
    DOE's no-new-standards case for the electric power sector reflects 
the AEO, which incorporates the projected impacts of existing air 
quality

[[Page 16139]]

regulations on emissions. AEO2022 generally represents current 
legislation and environmental regulations, including recent government 
actions, that were in place at the time of preparation of AEO2022, 
including the emissions control programs discussed in the following 
paragraphs.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ For further information, see the Assumptions to AEO2022 
report that sets forth the major assumptions used to generate the 
projections in the Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed Oct. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units 
(``EGUs'') are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-
trade programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 
cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and 
the District of Columbia (DC). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) SO2 
emissions from numerous States in the eastern half of the United States 
are also limited under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (``CSAPR''). 
76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these States to reduce 
certain emissions, including annual SO2 emissions, and went 
into effect as of January 1, 2015.\40\ AEO2022 incorporates 
implementation of CSAPR, including the update to the CSAPR ozone season 
program emission budgets and target dates issued in 2016. 81 FR 74504 
(Oct. 26, 2016). Compliance with CSAPR is flexible among EGUs and is 
enforced through the use of tradable emissions allowances. Under 
existing EPA regulations, any excess SO2 emissions 
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the 
adoption of an efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting 
increases in SO2 emissions by another regulated EGU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ CSAPR requires states to address annual emissions of 
SO2 and NOX, precursors to the formation of 
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution, in order to 
address the interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (``NAAQS''). CSAPR also requires certain states to address 
the ozone season (May-September) emissions of NOX, a 
precursor to the formation of ozone pollution, in order to address 
the interstate transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 1997 
ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). EPA subsequently issued a 
supplemental rule that included an additional five states in the 
CSAPR ozone season program. 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) 
(Supplemental Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, beginning in 2016, SO2 emissions began to fall 
as a result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (``MATS'') for 
power plants. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). The final rule establishes 
power plant emission standards for mercury, acid gases, and non-mercury 
metallic toxic pollutants. In order to continue operating, coal power 
plants must have either flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent 
injection systems installed. Both technologies, which are used to 
reduce acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions. 
Because of the emissions reductions under the MATS, it is unlikely that 
excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting from the lower 
electricity demand would be needed or used to permit offsetting 
increases in SO2 emissions by another regulated EGU. 
Therefore, energy conservation standards that decrease electricity 
generation would generally reduce SO2 emissions. DOE 
estimated SO2 emissions reduction using emissions factors 
based on AEO2022.
    CSAPR also established limits on NOX emissions for 
numerous States in the eastern half of the United States. Energy 
conservation standards would have little effect on NOX 
emissions in those States covered by CSAPR emissions limits if excess 
NOX emissions allowances resulting from the lower 
electricity demand could be used to permit offsetting increases in 
NOX emissions from other EGUs. In such case, NOX 
emissions would remain near the limit even if electricity generation 
goes down. A different case could possibly result, depending on the 
configuration of the power sector in the different regions and the need 
for allowances, such that NOX emissions might not remain at 
the limit in the case of lower electricity demand. In this case, energy 
conservation standards might reduce NOx emissions in covered States. 
Despite this possibility, DOE has chosen to be conservative in its 
analysis and has maintained the assumption that standards will not 
reduce NOX emissions in States covered by CSAPR. Energy 
conservation standards would be expected to reduce NOX 
emissions in the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE used AEO2022 data to 
derive NOX emissions factors for the group of States not 
covered by CSAPR.
    The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not 
include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation 
standards would be expected to slightly reduce Hg emissions. DOE 
estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on 
AEO2022, which incorporates the MATS.

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts

    As part of the development of this proposed rule, for the purpose 
of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, DOE 
considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions 
of CO2, CH4, N2O, NOX, and 
SO2 that are expected to result from each of the TSLs 
considered. In order to make this calculation analogous to the 
calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced 
emissions expected to result over the lifetime of products shipped in 
the projection period for each TSL. This section summarizes the basis 
for the values used for monetizing the emissions benefits and presents 
the values considered in this NOPR.
    On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-
30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay 
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued 
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of 
the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in 
effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that 
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the 
preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from 
``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the 
interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were 
issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of 
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this proposed rule, 
DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents 
monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law. DOE 
requests comment on how to address the climate benefits and other non-
monetized effects of the proposal.
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in emissions 
of CO2, CH4, and N2O by using a 
measure of the social cost of each pollutant (e.g., SC-CO2). 
These estimates represent the monetary value of the net harm to society 
associated with a marginal increase in emissions of these pollutants in 
a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. These estimates 
are intended to include (but are not limited to) climate-change-related 
changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property 
damages from increased flood risk, disruption of energy systems, risk 
of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem 
services.
    DOE exercises its own judgment in presenting monetized climate 
benefits as recommended by applicable Executive orders, and DOE would 
reach the same conclusion presented in this proposed rulemaking in the 
absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases,

[[Page 16140]]

including the February 2021 Interim Estimates presented by the 
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases.
    DOE estimated the global social benefits of CO2, 
CH4, and N2O reductions (i.e., SC-GHGs) using the 
estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of 
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 
Order 13990, published in February 2021 by the IWG (``February 2021 SC-
GHG TSD''). The SC-GHGs is the monetary value of the net harm to 
society associated with a marginal increase in emissions in a given 
year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. In principle, SC-GHGs 
includes the value of all climate change impacts, including (but not 
limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health 
effects, property damage from increased flood risk and natural 
disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of conflict, 
environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. The SC-
GHGs therefore, reflects the societal value of reducing emissions of 
the gas in question by one metric ton. The SC-GHGs is the theoretically 
appropriate value to use in conducting benefit-cost analyses of 
policies that affect CO2, N2O and CH4 
emissions.
    As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 
2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees that the interim SC-GHG estimates represent 
the most appropriate estimate of the SC-GHG until revised estimates 
have been developed reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed science.
    The SC-GHGs estimates presented here were developed over many 
years, using transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best 
science available at the time of that process, and with input from the 
public. Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, which included the DOE and 
other executive branch agencies and offices, was established to ensure 
that agencies were using the best available science and to promote 
consistency in the social cost of carbon (``SC-CO2'') values 
used across agencies. The IWG published SC-CO2 estimates in 
2010 that were developed from an ensemble of three widely cited 
integrated assessment models (``IAMs'') that estimate global climate 
damages using highly aggregated representations of climate processes 
and the global economy combined into a single modeling framework. The 
three IAMs were run using a common set of input assumptions in each 
model for future population, economic, and CO2 emissions 
growth, as well as equilibrium climate sensitivity--a measure of the 
globally averaged temperature response to increased atmospheric 
CO2 concentrations. These estimates were updated in 2013 
based on new versions of each IAM. In August 2016 the IWG published 
estimates of the social cost of methane (``SC-CH4'') and 
nitrous oxide (``SC-N2O'') using methodologies that are 
consistent with the methodology underlying the SC-CO2 
estimates. The modeling approach that extends the IWG SC-CO2 
methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has undergone multiple stages of 
peer review. The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates were 
developed by Marten et al.\41\ and underwent a standard double-blind 
peer review process prior to journal publication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. Newbold, 
and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and N2O 
mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government's SC-CO2 
estimates. Climate Policy. 2015. 15(2): pp. 272-298.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2015, as part of the response to public comments received to a 
2013 solicitation for comments on the SC-CO2 estimates, the 
IWG announced a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 
Medicine review of the SC-CO2 estimates to offer advice on 
how to approach future updates to ensure that the estimates continue to 
reflect the best available science and methodologies. In January 2017, 
the National Academies released their final report, Valuing Climate 
Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and 
recommended specific criteria for future updates to the SC-
CO2 estimates, a modeling framework to satisfy the specified 
criteria, and both near-term updates and longer-term research needs 
pertaining to various components of the estimation process (National 
Academies, 2017).\42\ Shortly thereafter, in March 2017, President 
Trump issued Executive Order 13783, which disbanded the IWG, withdrew 
the previous TSDs, and directed agencies to ensure SC-CO2 
estimates used in regulatory analyses are consistent with the guidance 
contained in OMB's Circular A-4, ``including with respect to the 
consideration of domestic versus international impacts and the 
consideration of appropriate discount rates'' (E.O. 13783, Section 
5(c)). Benefit-cost analyses following E.O. 13783 used SC-GHG estimates 
that attempted to focus on the U.S.-specific share of climate change 
damages as estimated by the models and were calculated using two 
discount rates recommended by Circular A-4, 3 percent and 7 percent. 
All other methodological decisions and model versions used in SC-GHG 
calculations remained the same as those used by the IWG in 2010 and 
2013, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 
Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of 
Carbon Dioxide. 2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, 
which re-established the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S. 
Government's estimates of the social cost of carbon and other 
greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the 
recommendations of the National Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked 
with first reviewing the SC-GHG estimates currently used in Federal 
analyses and publishing interim estimates within 30 days of the E.O. 
that reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including by taking 
global damages into account. The interim SC-GHG estimates published in 
February 2021 are used here to estimate the climate benefits for this 
proposed rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller 
update of the SC-GHG estimates by January 2022 that takes into 
consideration the advice of the National Academies (2017) and other 
recent scientific literature. The February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a 
complete discussion of the IWG's initial review conducted under E.O. 
13990. In particular, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used 
under E.O. 13783 fail to reflect the full impact of GHG emissions in 
multiple ways.
    First, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 
13783 fail to fully capture many climate impacts that affect the 
welfare of U.S. citizens and residents, and those impacts are better 
reflected by global measures of the SC-GHG. Examples of omitted effects 
from the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct effects on U.S. citizens, 
assets, and investments located abroad, supply chains, U.S. military 
assets and interests abroad, tourism, and spillover pathways such as 
economic and political destabilization and global migration that can 
lead to adverse impacts on U.S. national security, public health, and 
humanitarian concerns. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG 
mitigation activities requires consideration of how those actions may 
affect mitigation activities by other countries, as those international 
mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 
residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and 
residents. A wide range of scientific and economic experts have 
emphasized the issue of reciprocity as support for considering global 
damages of GHG emissions. If the

[[Page 16141]]

United States does not consider impacts on other countries, it is 
difficult to convince other countries to consider the impacts of their 
emissions on the United States. The only way to achieve an efficient 
allocation of resources for emissions reduction on a global basis--and 
so benefit the U.S. and its citizens--is for all countries to base 
their policies on global estimates of damages. As a member of the IWG 
involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees 
with this assessment and, therefore, in this proposed rule DOE centers 
attention on a global measure of SC-GHG. This approach is the same as 
that taken in DOE regulatory analyses from 2012 through 2016. A robust 
estimate of climate damages that accrue only to U.S. citizens and 
residents does not currently exist in the literature. As explained in 
the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, existing estimates are both incomplete 
and an underestimate of total damages that accrue to the citizens and 
residents of the U.S. because they do not fully capture the regional 
interactions and spillovers discussed above, nor do they include all of 
the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate 
change recognized in the climate change literature. As noted in the 
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG will continue to review developments 
in the literature, including more robust methodologies for estimating a 
U.S.-specific SC-GHG value, and explore ways to better inform the 
public of the full range of carbon impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE 
will continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to 
this issue.
    Second, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on 
capital (7 percent under current OMB Circular A-4 guidance) to discount 
the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately 
underestimates the impacts of climate change for the purposes of 
estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the National 
Academies (2017) and the economic literature, the IWG continued to 
conclude that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically 
appropriate discount rate in an intergenerational context,\43\ and 
recommended that discount rate uncertainty and relevant aspects of 
intergenerational ethical considerations be accounted for in selecting 
future discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Social 
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 
12866. 2010. United States Government. (Last accessed April 15, 
2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf; Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 
Carbon. Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 
Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2013. (Last accessed 
April 15, 2022.) www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technical-support-document-technical-update-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact; Interagency Working Group on 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. Technical 
Support Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of Carbon for 
Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under Executive Order 12866. August 2016. 
(Last accessed January 18, 2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf; Interagency Working 
Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. 
Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for 
Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application 
of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the 
Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. August 2016. (Last accessed January 
18, 2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the damage estimates developed for use in the SC-GHG 
are estimated in consumption-equivalent terms, and so an application of 
OMB Circular A-4's guidance for regulatory analysis would then use the 
consumption discount rate to calculate the SC-GHG. DOE agrees with this 
assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature 
pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes that while OMB Circular A-4, 
as published in 2003, recommends using 3 percent and 7 percent discount 
rates as ``default'' values, Circular A-4 also reminds agencies that 
``different regulations may call for different emphases in the 
analysis, depending on the nature and complexity of the regulatory 
issues and the sensitivity of the benefit and cost estimates to the key 
assumptions.'' On discounting, Circular A-4 recognizes that ``special 
ethical considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across 
generations,'' and Circular A-4 acknowledges that analyses may 
appropriately ``discount future costs and consumption benefits . . . at 
a lower rate than for intragenerational analysis.'' In the 2015 
Response to Comments on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 
Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG members recognized that 
``Circular A-4 is a living document'' and ``the use of 7 percent is not 
considered appropriate for intergenerational discounting. There is wide 
support for this view in the academic literature, and it is recognized 
in Circular A-4 itself.'' Thus, DOE concludes that a 7 percent discount 
rate is not appropriate to apply to value the social cost of greenhouse 
gases in the analysis presented in this analysis.
    To calculate the present and annualized values of climate benefits, 
DOE uses the same discount rate as the rate used to discount the value 
of damages from future GHG emissions, for internal consistency. That 
approach to discounting follows the same approach that the February 
2021 TSD recommends ``to ensure internal consistency--i.e., future 
damages from climate change using the SC-GHG at 2.5 percent should be 
discounted to the base year of the analysis using the same 2.5 percent 
rate.'' DOE has also consulted the National Academies' 2017 
recommendations on how SC-GHG estimates can ``be combined in RIAs with 
other cost and benefits estimates that may use different discount 
rates.'' The National Academies reviewed several options, including 
``presenting all discount rate combinations of other costs and benefits 
with SC-GHG estimates.''
    As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 
2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the above assessment and will continue 
to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. 
While the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the latest, peer 
reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates, it set 
the interim estimates to be the most recent estimates developed by the 
IWG prior to the group being disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely on 
the same models and harmonized inputs and are calculated using a range 
of discount rates. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the 
IWG has recommended that agencies revert to the same set of four values 
drawn from the SC-GHG distributions based on three discount rates as 
were used in regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016 and were subject 
to public comment. For each discount rate, the IWG combined the 
distributions across models and socioeconomic emissions scenarios 
(applying equal weight to each) and then selected a set of four values 
recommended for use in benefit-cost analyses: an average value 
resulting from the model runs for each of three discount rates (2.5 
percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, selected as 
the 95th percentile of estimates based on a 3 percent discount rate. 
The fourth value was included to provide information on potentially 
higher-than-expected economic impacts from climate change. As explained 
in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, and DOE agrees, this update reflects 
the

[[Page 16142]]

immediate need to have an operational SC-GHG for use in regulatory 
benefit-cost analyses and other applications that was developed using a 
transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, and the science 
available at the time of that process. Those estimates were subject to 
public comment in the context of dozens of proposed rulemakings as well 
as in a dedicated public comment period in 2013.
    There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with 
the SC-GHG estimates. First, the current scientific and economic 
understanding of discounting approaches suggests discount rates 
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 
change are likely to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent or 
lower.\44\ Second, the IAMs used to produce these interim estimates do 
not include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic 
impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature 
and the science underlying their ``damage functions''--i.e., the core 
parts of the IAMs that map global mean temperature changes and other 
physical impacts of climate change into economic (both market and 
nonmarket) damages--lags behind the most recent research. For example, 
limitations include the incomplete treatment of catastrophic and non-
catastrophic impacts in the integrated assessment models, their 
incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, the 
incomplete way in which inter-regional and intersectoral linkages are 
modeled, uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high 
temperatures, and inadequate representation of the relationship between 
the discount rate and uncertainty in economic growth over long time 
horizons. Likewise, the socioeconomic and emissions scenarios used as 
inputs to the models do not reflect new information from the last 
decade of scenario generation or the full range of projections. The 
modeling limitations do not all work in the same direction in terms of 
their influence on the SC-CO2 estimates. However, as 
discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the IWG has recommended that, taken 
together, the limitations suggest that the interim SC-GHG estimates 
used in this proposed rule likely underestimate the damages from GHG 
emissions. DOE concurs with this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of 
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 
Order 13990. February. United States Government. Available at: 
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climate-pollution/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's derivations of the SC-CO2, SC-N2O, and 
SC-CH4 values used for this NOPR are discussed in the 
following sections, and the results of DOE's analyses estimating the 
benefits of the reductions in emissions of these GHGs are presented in 
section V.B.6 of this document.
a. Social Cost of Carbon
    The SC-CO2 values used for this NOPR were based on the 
values presented for the IWG's February 2021 TSD. Table IV.10 shows the 
updated sets of SC-CO2 estimates from the IWG's TSD in 5-
year increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values that 
DOE used is presented in appendix 14A of the NOPR TSD. For purposes of 
capturing the uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE 
has determined it is appropriate to include all four sets of SC-
CO2 values, as recommended by the IWG.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ For example, the February 2021 TSD discusses how the 
understanding of discounting approaches suggests that discount rates 
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 
change may be lower than 3 percent.

                    Table IV.10--Annual SC-CO2 Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050
                                           [2020$ per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Discount rate and statistic
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        5%              3%             2.5%             3%
                      Year                       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................................              14              51              76             152
2025............................................              17              56              83             169
2030............................................              19              62              89             187
2035............................................              22              67              96             206
2040............................................              25              73             103             225
2045............................................              28              79             110             242
2050............................................              32              85             116             260
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For 2051 to 2070, DOE used SC-CO2 estimates published by 
EPA, adjusted to 2021$.\46\ These estimates are based on methods, 
assumptions, and parameters identical to the 2020-2050 estimates 
published by the IWG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty 
Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis, 
Washington, DC, December 2021. Available at: www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-12/420r21028.pdf (last accessed January 13, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for 
each year by the SC-CO2 value for that year in each of the 
four cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2021$ using the implicit price 
deflator for gross domestic product (``GDP'') from the Bureau of 
Economic Analysis. To calculate a present value of the stream of 
monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases 
using the specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-
CO2 values in each case.
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O values used for this 
NOPR were based on the values developed for the February 2021 TSD. 
Table IV.11 shows the updated sets of SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates from the latest interagency update in 5-year 
increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values used is 
presented in appendix 14A of the NOPR TSD. To capture the uncertainties 
involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE has determined it is 
appropriate to include all four sets of SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O values, as recommended by the IWG. DOE derived values 
after 2050 using the approach described above for the SC-
CO2.

[[Page 16143]]



                                                      Table IV.11--Annual SC-CH4 and SC-N2O Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050
                                                                                     [2020$ per metric ton]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              SC-CH4                                                          SC-N2O
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Discount rate and statistic                                     Discount rate and statistic
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Year                                      5%              3%             2.5%             3%              5%              3%             2.5%             3%
                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                       95th                                                            95th
                                                                      Average         Average         Average       percentile        Average         Average         Average       percentile
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................................................             670            1500            2000            3900            5800           18000           27000           48000
2025............................................................             800            1700            2200            4500            6800           21000           30000           54000
2030............................................................             940            2000            2500            5200            7800           23000           33000           60000
2035............................................................            1100            2200            2800            6000            9000           25000           36000           67000
2040............................................................            1300            2500            3100            6700           10000           28000           39000           74000
2045............................................................            1500            2800            3500            7500           12000           30000           42000           81000
2050............................................................            1700            3100            3800            8200           13000           33000           45000           88000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O emissions 
reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates for that year in each of the cases. DOE 
adjusted the values to 2021$ using the implicit price deflator for 
gross domestic product (``GDP'') from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 
To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE 
discounted the values in each of the cases using the specific discount 
rate that had been used to obtain the SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates in each case.
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
    For the NOPR, DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX 
and SO2 emissions reductions from electricity generation 
using the latest benefit per ton estimates for that sector from the 
EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program.\47\ DOE used EPA's values 
for PM2.5-related benefits associated with NOX 
and SO2 and for ozone-related benefits associated with 
NOX for 2025 2030, and 2040, calculated with discount rates 
of 3 percent and 7 percent. DOE used linear interpolation to define 
values for the years not given in the 2025 to 2040 period; for years 
beyond 2040 the values are held constant. DOE derived values specific 
to the sector for battery chargers using a method described in appendix 
14B of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors 
from 21 Sectors. www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. Utility Impact Analysis

    The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the 
electric power generation industry that would result from the adoption 
of new or amended energy conservation standards. The utility impact 
analysis estimates the changes in installed electrical capacity and 
generation that would result for each TSL. The analysis is based on 
published output from the NEMS associated with AEO2022. NEMS produces 
the AEO Reference case, as well as a number of side cases that estimate 
the economy-wide impacts of changes to energy supply and demand. For 
the current analysis, impacts are quantified by comparing the levels of 
electricity sector generation, installed capacity, fuel consumption and 
emissions in the AEO2022 Reference case and various side cases. Details 
of the methodology are provided in the appendices to chapters 13 and 15 
of the NOPR TSD.
    The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients 
that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel 
consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a 
unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are 
multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA 
to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or 
amended energy conservation standards.

N. Employment Impact Analysis

    DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one 
factor in selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts from new or 
amended energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect 
impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of 
employees of manufacturers of the products subject to standards, their 
suppliers, and related service firms. The MIA addresses those impacts. 
Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that 
occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by 
the purchase and operation of more-efficient appliances. Indirect 
employment impacts from standards consist of the net jobs created or 
eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing 
sector being regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by consumers on 
energy, (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility 
industry, (3) increased consumer spending on the products to which the 
new standards apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects 
of those three factors throughout the economy.
    One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for 
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector 
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (``BLS''). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of 
the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in 
different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere 
in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate 
that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs 
(both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of 
the economy.\48\ There are many reasons for these differences, 
including wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more 
capital-intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy 
conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility 
bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to 
increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general 
effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a 
less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-
intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, the BLS 
data suggest that net national employment may increase due to shifts in 
economic activity resulting from energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See U.S. Department of Commerce-Bureau of Economic 
Analysis. Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) User's 
Guide. (Available at: www.bea.gov/resources/methodologies/RIMSII-user-guide) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard 
levels considered in this NOPR using an input/output model of the U.S. 
economy

[[Page 16144]]

called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 4 (``ImSET'').\49\ 
ImSET is a special-purpose version of the ``U.S. Benchmark National 
Input--Output'' (``I-O'') model, which was designed to estimate the 
national employment and income effects of energy-saving technologies. 
The ImSET software includes a computer-based I-O model having 
structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among 187 
sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential 
building energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and R.W. 
Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies Model 
Description and User Guide. 2015. Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory: Richland, WA. PNNL-24563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting 
model, and that the uncertainties involved in projecting employment 
impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because 
ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects 
predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job impacts over the long 
run for this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to generate results 
for near-term timeframes (2027-2032), where these uncertainties are 
reduced. For more details on the employment impact analysis, see 
chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD.

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

    The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses 
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for 
battery chargers. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, the projected 
impacts of each of these levels if adopted as energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers, and the standards levels that DOE is 
proposing to adopt in this NOPR. Additional details regarding DOE's 
analyses are contained in the NOPR TSD supporting this document.

A. Trial Standard Levels

    In general, DOE typically evaluates potential amended standards for 
products and equipment by grouping individual efficiency levels for 
each class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to identify and consider 
manufacturer cost interactions between the product classes, to the 
extent that there are such interactions, and market cross elasticity 
from consumer purchasing decisions that may change when different 
standard levels are set.
    In the analysis conducted for this NOPR, DOE analyzed the benefits 
and burdens of four TSLs for battery chargers. DOE developed TSLs that 
combine efficiency levels for each analyzed product class. DOE presents 
the results for the TSLs in this document, while the results for all 
efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are in the NOPR TSD.
    Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding efficiency levels 
that DOE has identified for potential amended energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers. TSL 4 represents the maximum 
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') energy efficiency for all 
product classes.

                              Table V.1--Trial Standard Levels for Battery Chargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Product class
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               TSL                   1a fixed-       1b open-
                                     location        placement    2a low- energy    2b medium-       2c high-
                                     wireless        wireless          wired       energy wired    energy wired
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................               1               1               1               1               1
2...............................               1               1               2               2               2
3...............................               2               2               2               2               2
4...............................               3               3               3               3               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE constructed the TSLs for this NOPR to include ELs 
representative of ELs with similar characteristics (i.e., using similar 
technologies and/or efficiencies, and having roughly comparable product 
availability). The use of representative ELs provided for greater 
distinction between the TSLs. While representative ELs were included in 
the TSLs, DOE considered all efficiency levels as part of its 
analysis.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this NOPR are 
discussed in section IV.C.4 of this document. Results by efficiency 
level are presented in TSD chapters 8, 10, and 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    DOE analyzed the economic impacts on battery chargers' consumers by 
looking at the effects that potential amended standards at each TSL 
would have on the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of 
potential standards on selected consumer subgroups. These analyses are 
discussed in the following sections.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two 
ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs 
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total 
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and 
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price 
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also 
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD 
provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
    Table V.2 through Table V.6 show the LCC and PBP results for the 
TSLs considered for each product class. In the first of each pair of 
tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline 
product. In the second table, impacts are measured relative to the 
efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in the compliance 
year (see section IV.F of this document). Because some consumers 
purchase products with higher efficiency in the no-new-standards case, 
the average savings are less than the difference between the average 
LCC of the baseline product and the average LCC at each TSL. The 
savings refer only to consumers who are affected by a standard at a 
given TSL. Those who already purchase a product with efficiency at or 
above a given TSL are not affected. Consumers for whom the LCC 
increases at a given TSL experience a net cost.

[[Page 16145]]



                                       Table V.2--Average LCC and PBP Results for Fixed-Location Wireless Chargers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Average costs and savings (2021$)
                                         ------------------------------------------------   Average LCC     Percent of        Simple          Average
                   EL                                      First year's      Lifetime        savings *    consumers with      payback        lifetime
                                          Installed cost     operating       operating        (2021$)      net cost (%)       (years)         (years)
                                                              savings         savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................           $0.90          -$0.24          -$0.87          -$0.03            13.9             3.8             3.9
EL 2....................................            1.57           -0.26           -0.93           -0.64            35.5             6.0             3.9
EL 3....................................            3.43           -0.44           -1.51           -1.92            90.0             7.8             3.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.


                                       Table V.3--Average LCC and PBP Results for Open-Placement Wireless Chargers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Average costs and savings (2021$)
                                         ------------------------------------------------   Average LCC     Percent of        Simple          Average
                   EL                                      First year's      Lifetime        savings *    consumers with      payback        lifetime
                                          Installed cost     operating       operating        (2021$)      net cost (%)       (years)         (years)
                                                              savings         savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................           $0.71          -$0.17          -$0.83           $0.12             6.8             4.1             5.5
EL 2....................................            1.69           -0.18           -0.89           -0.81            38.4             9.2             5.5
EL 3....................................            2.06           -0.19           -0.90           -1.16            55.1            11.0             5.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.


                                          Table V.4--Average LCC and PBP Results for Low-Energy Wired Chargers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Average costs and savings (2021$)
                                         ------------------------------------------------   Average LCC     Percent of        Simple          Average
                   EL                                      First year's      Lifetime        savings *    consumers with      payback        lifetime
                                          Installed cost     operating       operating        (2021$)      net cost (%)       (years)         (years)
                                                              savings         savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................           $0.57          -$0.22          -$0.86           $0.28            11.2             3.1             4.7
EL 2....................................            0.77           -0.23           -0.90            0.13            39.0             4.0             4.7
EL 3....................................            1.48           -0.26           -1.05           -0.43            65.5             6.4             4.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.


                                         Table V.5--Average LCC and PBP Results for Medium-Energy Wired Chargers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Average costs and savings (2021$)
                                         ------------------------------------------------   Average LCC     Percent of        Simple          Average
                   EL                                      First year's      Lifetime        savings *    consumers with      payback        lifetime
                                          Installed cost     operating       operating        (2021$)      net cost (%)       (years)         (years)
                                                              savings         savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................           $3.17          -$0.90          -$4.61           $1.44            16.5             4.5             5.5
EL 2....................................            3.42           -0.96           -4.96            1.55            30.5             4.4             5.5
EL 3....................................            3.66           -1.02           -5.27            1.61            49.8             4.4             5.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.


                                          Table V.6--Average LCC and PBP Results for High-Energy Wired Chargers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Average costs and savings (2021$)
                                         ------------------------------------------------   Average LCC     Percent of        Simple          Average
                   EL                                      First year's      Lifetime        savings *    consumers with      payback        lifetime
                                          Installed cost     operating       operating        (2021$)      net cost (%)       (years)         (years)
                                                              savings         savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................           $4.95          -$3.46         -$16.41          $11.46             2.4             1.4             9.2
EL 2....................................            5.92           -4.04          -20.24           14.32             1.6             1.5             9.2
EL 3....................................            7.69           -5.24          -26.63           18.94             1.3             1.5             9.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the 
considered TSLs on low-income households. Table V.7 to Table V.11 
compare the average LCC savings and PBP at each efficiency level for 
the consumer subgroups with similar metrics for the entire consumer 
sample for battery chargers. In all cases, the average LCC savings and 
PBP for low-income households at the considered efficiency levels are 
not substantially different from the average for all households. 
Chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD presents the complete LCC and PBP results 
for the subgroups.

[[Page 16146]]



 Table V.7--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and
            All Households; Fixed-Location Wireless Chargers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Low-income
                                            households    All households
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Average LCC Savings (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................           -0.01           -0.03
EL 2....................................           -0.63           -0.64
EL 3....................................           -1.91           -1.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Payback Period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................             3.7             3.8
EL 2....................................             5.9             6.0
EL 3....................................             7.7             7.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Consumers with Net Cost (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................            14.4            13.9
EL 2....................................            35.0            35.5
EL 3....................................            90.9            90.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table V.8--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and
            All Households; Open-Placement Wireless Chargers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Low-income
                                            households    All households
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Average LCC Savings (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................            0.14            0.12
EL 2....................................           -0.80           -0.81
EL 3....................................           -1.16           -1.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Payback Period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................             4.0             4.1
EL 2....................................             9.1             9.2
EL 3....................................            10.8            11.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Consumers with Net Cost (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................             7.5             6.8
EL 2....................................            40.1            38.4
EL 3....................................            56.0            55.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table V.9--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and
                All Households; Low-Energy Wired Chargers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Low-income
                                            households    All households
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Average LCC Savings (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................            0.21            0.28
EL 2....................................            0.06            0.13
EL 3....................................           -0.52           -0.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Payback Period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................             3.8             3.1
EL 2....................................             4.7             4.0
EL 3....................................             7.5             6.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Consumers with Net Cost (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................            12.9            11.2
EL 2....................................            43.0            39.0
EL 3....................................            68.0            65.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 16147]]


Table V.10--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and
              All Households; Medium-Energy Wired Chargers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Low-income
                                            households    All households
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Average LCC Savings (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................            1.32            1.44
EL 2....................................            1.40            1.55
EL 3....................................            1.47            1.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Payback Period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................             4.6             4.5
EL 2....................................             4.5             4.4
EL 3....................................             4.5             4.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Consumers with Net Cost (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................            15.5            16.5
EL 2....................................            30.1            30.5
EL 3....................................            49.5            49.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table V.11--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and
               All Households; High-Energy Wired Chargers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Low-income
                                            households    All households
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Average LCC Savings (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................           11.12           11.46
EL 2....................................           16.39           14.32
EL 3....................................           22.81           18.94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Payback Period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................             2.5             1.4
EL 2....................................             2.1             1.5
EL 3....................................             2.1             1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Consumers with Net Cost (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................             4.9             2.4
EL 2....................................             3.2             1.6
EL 3....................................             3.0             1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    As discussed in section III.F.2, EPCA establishes a rebuttable 
presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically 
justified if the increased purchase cost for a product that meets the 
standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy 
savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a rebuttable 
presumption payback period for each of the considered TSLs, DOE used 
discrete values, and as required by EPCA, based the energy use 
calculation on the DOE test procedure for battery chargers. In 
contrast, the PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a were calculated using 
distributions that reflect the range of energy use in the field.
    Table V.12 presents the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for 
the considered TSLs for battery chargers. While DOE examined the 
rebuttable-presumption criterion, it considered whether the standard 
levels considered for the NOPR are economically justified through a 
more detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels, 
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full range 
of impacts to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment. The 
results of that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively 
evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level, 
thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary 
determination of economic justification.

                               Table V.12--Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               EL                      PC 1a           PC 1b           PC 2a           PC 2b           PC 2c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................             3.8             4.1             3.1             4.5             1.4
2...............................             6.0             9.2             4.0             4.4             1.5
3...............................             7.8            11.0             6.4             4.4             1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 16148]]

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of amended energy 
conservation standards on manufacturers of battery chargers. The 
following section describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at 
each considered TSL. Section IV.J of this document discusses the MIA 
methodology, and chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD explains the analysis in 
further detail.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    In this section, DOE provides GRIM results from the analysis, which 
examines changes in the industry that would result from a standard. The 
following tables summarize the estimated financial impacts (represented 
by changes in INPV) of potential amended energy conservation standards 
on manufacturers of battery chargers as well as the conversion costs 
that DOE estimates manufacturers of battery chargers would incur at 
each TSL. These results are presented both at an all-industry level and 
for each industry segment.

      Table V.13--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Battery Chargers--Preservation of Gross Margin Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $78,912                 78,872          78,685          78,637          78,265
 millions)......................................
All Change in INPV ($ millions).................            (40)           (214)           (260)           (598)
All % Change in INPV............................           (0.1)           (0.3)           (0.3)           (0.8)
All Capital Conversion Costs ($ millions).......            24.0           103.4           127.1           268.3
All Product Conversion Costs ($ millions).......            57.2           294.8           358.8           868.4
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Conversion Costs ($ millions).........            81.3           398.1           485.9         1,136.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


             Table V.14--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Battery Chargers--Constant Price Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $78,912                 77,427          75,328          74,596          70,039
 millions)......................................
All Change in INPV ($ millions).................         (1,523)         (3,659)         (4,402)         (9,032)
All % Change in INPV (%)........................           (1.9)           (4.6)           (5.6)          (11.4)
All Capital Conversion Costs ($ millions).......            24.0           103.4           127.1           268.3
All Product Conversion Costs ($ millions).......            57.2           294.8           358.8           868.4
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Conversion Costs ($ millions).........            81.3           398.1           485.9         1,136.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from 
approximately -$1,523 million to -$40.3 million, which represents a 
change of approximately -1.9 to -0.1 percent. At TSL 1, industry free 
cash-flow decreases to $6,265 million, which represents a decrease of 
approximately 0.5 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value 
of $6,299 million in 2026, the year before the anticipated first full 
year of compliance, 2027.
    TSL 1 would set the energy conservation standard at EL 1 for all 
product classes. DOE estimates that approximately 73 percent of low 
energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 54 percent of 
medium energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 75 percent 
of high energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 92 
percent of fixed location wireless battery charger shipments, and 
approximately 93 percent of open location wireless battery charger 
shipments would meet or exceed the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 1 
in 2027. DOE expects battery charger manufacturers to incur 
approximately $57.2 million in product conversion costs to redesign all 
non-compliant models and $24.0 million in related capital conversion 
costs.
    At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted average MPC for battery chargers 
and battery charger applications slightly increases by less than 0.1 
percent, relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted 
average MPC in 2027. In the preservation of gross margin scenario, 
manufacturers can fully pass on this slight cost increase. The slight 
increase in shipment weighted average MPC is outweighed by the $81.6 
million in conversion costs, causing a slightly negative change in INPV 
at TSL 1 under the preservation of gross margin scenario.
    Under the constant price scenario, manufacturers do not adjust 
their product's price from the price in the no-new-standards case and 
do not pass on the cost increase to consumers. In this scenario, the 
0.1 percent shipment weighted average MPC increase results in a 
reduction in the margin after the analyzed compliance year. This 
reduction in the margin and the $81.6 million in conversion costs 
incurred by manufacturers cause a slightly negative change in INPV at 
TSL 1 under the constant price scenario.
    At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from -$3,658.8 
million to -$214.1 million, which represents a change of -4.6 percent 
to -0.3 percent, respectively. At TSL 2, industry free cash-flow 
decreases to $6,131 million, which represents a decrease of 
approximately 2.7 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value 
of $6,299 million in 2026, the year before the estimated first full 
year of compliance.
    TSL 2 would set the energy conservation standard at EL 1 for 
wireless product classes and at EL 2 for wired product classes. DOE 
estimates that approximately 27 percent of low energy wired battery 
charger shipments, approximately 46 percent of medium energy wired 
battery charger shipments, approximately 26 percent of high energy 
wired battery charger shipments, approximately 92 percent of fixed 
location wireless battery charger shipments, and approximately 93 
percent of open location wireless battery charger shipments would meet 
or exceed the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 2 in 2027. DOE expects 
battery charger manufacturers to incur approximately $294.8 million in 
product conversion costs to redesign all non-compliant models and 
$103.4 in related capital conversion costs.

[[Page 16149]]

    At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted average MPC for battery chargers 
slightly increases by 0.2 percent relative to the no-new-standards case 
shipment-weighted average MPC in 2027. In the preservation of gross 
margin scenario, manufacturers can fully pass on this slight cost 
increase. The slight increase in shipment weighted average MPC is 
outweighed by the $398.2 million in conversion costs, causing a 
slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under the preservation of 
gross margin scenario.
    Under the constant price scenario, manufacturers do not adjust 
their product's price from the price in the no-new-standards case and 
do not pass on the cost increase to consumers. This 0.2 percent 
reduction in the margin and the $398.2 million in conversion costs 
incurred by manufacturers cause a moderately negative change in INPV at 
TSL 2 under the constant price scenario.
    At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from -$4,402 
million to -$358.8 million, which represents a change of -5.6 percent 
to -0.3 percent, respectively. At TSL 3, industry free cash-flow 
decreases to $6,100 million, which represents a decrease of 
approximately 3.1 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value 
of $6,299 million in 2026, the year before the estimated first full 
year of compliance.
    TSL 3 would set the energy conservation standard at EL 2 for all 
product classes. DOE estimates that approximately 27 percent of low 
energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 46 percent of 
medium energy wired BC shipments, approximately 26 percent of high 
energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 66 percent of 
fixed location wireless battery charger shipments, and approximately 73 
percent of open location wireless battery charger shipments would meet 
or exceed the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 3 in 2027. DOE expects 
battery charger manufacturers to incur approximately $358.8 million in 
product conversion costs to redesign all non-compliant models and 
$127.1 in related capital conversion costs.
    At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted average MPC for battery chargers 
slightly increases by 0.2 percent relative to the no-new-standards case 
shipment-weighted average MPC in 2027. In the preservation of gross 
margin scenario, manufacturers can fully pass on this slight cost 
increase. The slight increase in shipment weighted average MPC is 
outweighed by the $485.9 million in conversion costs, causing a 
slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under the preservation of 
gross margin scenario.
    Under the constant price scenario, manufacturers do not adjust 
their product's price from the price in the no-new-standards case and 
do not pass on the cost increase to consumers. This 0.2 percent 
reduction in the margin and the $485.9 million in conversion costs 
incurred by manufacturers cause a moderately negative change in INPV at 
TSL 3 under the constant price scenario.
    At TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from -$9,032 
million to -$597.7 million, which represents a change of -11.4 percent 
to -0.8 percent, respectively. At TSL 4, industry free cash-flow 
decreases to $5,822 million, which represents a decrease of 
approximately 7.6 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value 
of $6,299 million in 2026, the year before the estimated first full 
year of compliance.
    TSL 4 would set the energy conservation standard at EL 3 for all 
product classes. DOE estimates that approximately 8 percent of low 
energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 19 percent of 
medium energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 12 percent 
of high energy wired battery charger shipments, approximately 8 percent 
of fixed location wireless battery charger shipments, and approximately 
53 percent of open location wireless battery charger shipments would 
meet the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 4 in 2027. DOE expects 
battery charger manufacturers to incur approximately $868.4 million in 
product conversion costs to redesign all non-compliant models and 
$262.3 in related capital conversion costs.
    At TSL 4, the shipment-weighted average MPC for battery chargers 
slightly increases by 0.6 percent relative to the no-new-standards case 
shipment-weighted average MPC in 2027. In the preservation of gross 
margin scenario, manufacturers can fully pass on this slight cost 
increase. The slight increase in shipment weighted average MPC is 
outweighed by the $1,136.7 million in conversion costs, causing a 
slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under the preservation of 
gross margin scenario.
    Under the constant price scenario, manufacturers do not adjust 
their product's price from the price in the no-new-standards case and 
do not pass on the cost increase to consumers. In this scenario, the 
0.6 percent shipment weighted average MPC increase results in a 
reduction in the margin after the analyzed compliance year. This 
reduction in the margin and the $1,136.7 million in conversion costs 
incurred by manufacturers cause a substantially negative change in INPV 
at TSL 4 under the constant price scenario.
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    DOE identified very limited domestic battery charger manufacturing, 
based on the industry profile developments for this NOPR analysis and 
manufacturer interviews that were conducted for this product as well as 
other products that use battery chargers. These domestic facilities are 
concentrated within the high energy industry subsector and support 
relatively low volumes for specialized applications. Since, energy 
conservation standards are not expected to alter production 
methodology, DOE does not expect that there would be any direct impacts 
on domestic production employment as a result of amended energy 
conservation standards.
    DOE requests comment on how the proposed energy conservation 
standards might affect domestic battery charger manufacturing.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    As noted in prior sections, DOE does not expect that energy 
conservation standards would result in substantial changes to battery 
charger manufacturing equipment. Further, DOE does not expect that 
there would be capacity issues providing components to battery charger 
manufacturers for more efficient battery charger.
    DOE requests comment on possible impacts on manufacturing capacity 
stemming from amended energy conservation standards.
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    DOE identified five subgroups of manufactures that may experience 
disproportionate or different impacts as a result of amended 
standards--small appliances industry subgroup, consumer electronics 
industry subgroup, power tools industry subgroup, high energy industry 
subgroup, and small business manufacturers. Estimated quantitative 
impacts on the four industry subgroups are presented in tables V.15 
through V.22. Analysis of the possible impact on small business 
manufacturers is discussed in section VI.B of this document.

[[Page 16150]]



   Table V.15--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Battery Chargers--Preservation of Gross Margin Scenario--Small
                                           Appliance Industry Subgroup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $2,757 M).....           2,747           2,715           2,688           2,562
All Change in INPV ($ M)........................          (10.2)          (42.0)          (68.5)         (195.3)
All % Change in INPV (%)........................           (0.4)           (1.5)           (2.5)           (7.1)
All Capital Conversion Costs ($ M)..............             5.6            20.1            32.2            84.9
All Product Conversion Costs ($ M)..............             9.8            43.9            71.5           216.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table V.16--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Battery Chargers--Constant Price Scenario--Small Appliance Industry
                                                    Subgroup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $2,757 M).....           2,525           2,229           1,901           902.0
All Change in INPV ($ M)........................         (231.9)         (527.5)         (855.5)       (1,854.8)
All % Change in INPV (%)........................           (8.4)           (9.1)          (31.0)          (67.3)
All Capital Conversion Costs ($ M)..............             5.6            20.1            32.2            84.9
All Product Conversion Costs ($ M)..............             9.8            43.9            71.5           216.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table V.17--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Battery Chargers--Preservation of Gross Margin Scenario--Consumer
                                          Electronics Industry Subgroup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $71,577 M)....          71,544          71,400          71,378          71,150
All Change in INPV ($ M)........................          (28.9)         (160.0)         (179.8)         (372.7)
All % Change in INPV (%)........................           (0.0)           (0.2)           (0.3)           (0.5)
All Capital Conversion Costs ($ M)..............            16.6            75.4            87.0           166.8
All Product Conversion Costs ($ M)..............            60.2           305.1           353.1           767.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table V.18--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Battery Chargers--Constant Price Scenario--Consumer Electronics
                                                Industry Subgroup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $71,577 M)....          70,433          68,816          68,412          65,045
All Change in INPV ($ M)........................         (1,178)         (2,831)         (3,247)         (6,686)
All % Change in INPV (%)........................           (1.6)           (4.0)           (4.5)           (9.3)
All Capital Conversion Costs ($ M)..............            16.6            75.4            87.0           166.8
All Product Conversion Costs ($ M)..............            60.2           305.1           353.1           767.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table V.19--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Battery Chargers--Preservation of Gross Margin Scenario--Power
                                             Tools Industry Subgroup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $822.5 M).....           822.0           819.3           819.3           817.0
All Change in INPV ($ M)........................           (0.5)           (3.2)           (3.2)           (5.4)
All % Change in INPV (%)........................           (0.1)           (0.4)           (0.4)           (0.7)
All Capital Conversion Costs ($ M)..............             0.4             2.0             2.0             3.5
All Product Conversion Costs ($ M)..............             0.8             7.0             5.0             9.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table V.20--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Battery Chargers--Constant Price Scenario--Power Tools Industry
                                                    Subgroup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $822.5 M).....           798.6           759.3           759.3           712.6
All Change in INPV ($ M)........................          (23.9)          (63.1)          (63.1)         (109.8)
All % Change in INPV (%)........................           (2.9)           (7.7)           (7.7)          (13.4)
All Capital Conversion Costs ($ M)..............             0.4             2.0             2.0             3.5
All Product Conversion Costs ($ M)..............             0.8             7.0             5.0             9.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 16151]]


   Table V.21--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Battery Chargers--Preservation of Gross Margin Scenario--High
                                            Energy Industry Subgroup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $3,760 M).....           3,759           3,751           3,751           3,736
All Change in INPV ($ M)........................           (0.7)           (9.0)           (8.9)          (24.3)
All % Change in INPV (%)........................           (0.0)           (0.3)           (0.4)           (0.8)
All Capital Conversion Costs ($ M)..............             1.4             5.8             5.8            13.0
All Product Conversion Costs ($ M)..............             3.1            16.3            16.3            41.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table V.22--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Battery Chargers--Constant Price Scenario--High Energy Industry
                                                    Subgroup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All INPV (No-New-Standards Case = $3,760 M).....           3,671           3,523           3,523           3,379
All Change in INPV ($ M)........................          (89.3)         (237.0)         (237.0)         (381.4)
All % Change in INPV............................           -2.4%           -6.3%           -6.3%          -10.1%
All Capital Conversion Costs ($ M)..............             1.4             5.8             5.8            13.0
All Product Conversion Costs ($ M)..............             3.1            16.3            16.3            41.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the 
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one 
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the 
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have 
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may 
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy 
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the 
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon 
product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than 
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of 
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 
appliance efficiency.

Table V.15--Compliance Dates and Expected Conversion Expenses of Federal Energy Conservation Standards Affecting
                                          Battery Charger Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Industry
                                     Number of       Number of                       Industry       conversion
   Federal Energy conservation     manufacturers   manufacturers      Approx.       conversion     costs/product
            standard                     *         affected from  standards year       costs        revenue ***
                                                   this rule **                     (millions)         (90)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Room Air Conditioners [dagger]                 8               3            2026           $22.8             0.5
 87 FR 20608 (Apr. 7, 2022).....                                                         (2020$)
Microwave Ovens [dagger] 87 FR                19               6            2026           $46.1             0.7
 52282 (Aug. 24, 2022)..........                                                         (2021$)
Clothes Dryers [dagger] 87 FR                 15               2            2027  $149.7 (2020$)             1.8
 51734 (Aug. 23, 2022)..........
Residential Clothes Washers                   19               6            2027  $411.6 (2021$)             8.1
 [dagger][Dagger]...............
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-                  49               7            2027          $1,324            10.5
 Freezers, and Freezers 88 FR                                                            (2021$)
 12452 [dagger] (Feb. 27, 2023).
External Power Supplies 88 FR                611             154            2027           $17.1             0.6
 7284 (Feb. 2, 2023)............                                                         (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This column presents the total number of manufacturers identified in the energy conservation standard rule
  contributing to cumulative regulatory burden.
** This column presents the number of manufacturers producing EPSs that are also listed as manufacturers in the
  listed energy conservation standard contributing to cumulative regulatory burden.
*** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of product revenue during the conversion
  period. Industry conversion costs are the upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant
  products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the revenue from just the covered product/
  equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs are
  made and lasts from the publication year of the final rule to the compliance year of the energy conservation
  standard. The conversion period typically ranges from 3 to 5 years, depending on the rulemaking.
[dagger] Indicates NOPR or SNOPR publications. Values may change on publication of a Final Rule.
[Dagger] At the time of issuance of this battery charger proposed rule, this rulemaking has been issued and is
  pending publication in the Federal Register. Once published, the residential clothes washers proposed rule
  will be available at: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014.


[[Page 16152]]

    In addition to the rulemakings listed in Table V.15, DOE has 
ongoing rulemakings for other products or equipment that battery 
charger manufacturers produce, including air cleaners; \51\ automatic 
commercial ice makers; \52\ commercial clothes washers; \53\ 
dehumidifiers,\54\ and miscellaneous refrigeration products.\55\ If DOE 
proposes or finalizes any energy conservation standards for these 
products or equipment prior to finalizing energy conservation standards 
for battery chargers, DOE will include the energy conservation 
standards for these other products or equipment as part of the 
cumulative regulatory burden for the battery charger final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035
    \52\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022
    \53\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0044
    \54\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0043
    \55\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative 
regulatory burden on manufacturers of battery chargers associated with 
multiple DOE standards or product-specific regulatory actions of other 
Federal agencies.
3. National Impact Analysis
    This section presents DOE's estimates of the national energy 
savings and the NPV of consumer benefits that would result from each of 
the TSLs considered as potential amended standards.
a. Significance of Energy Savings
    To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended 
standards for battery chargers, DOE compared their energy consumption 
under the no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption 
under each TSL. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of 
products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of 
anticipated compliance with amended standards (2027-2056). Table V.16 
presents DOE's projections of the national energy savings for each TSL 
considered for battery chargers. The savings were calculated using the 
approach described in section IV.H of this document.

 Table V.16--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Battery Chargers; 30
                           Years of Shipments
                               [2027-2056]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Trial standard level
                                     -----------------------------------
                                         1        2        3        4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    (quads)
                                     -----------------------------------
Primary energy......................      0.4      1.1      1.2      2.0
FFC energy..........................      0.4      1.2      1.3      2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Circular A-4 \56\ requires agencies to present analytical 
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and 
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4 
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements 
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, 
DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather than 30 
years, of product shipments. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy 
for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation 
standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised 
standards.\57\ The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally 
not synchronized with the product lifetime, product manufacturing 
cycles, or other factors specific to battery chargers. Thus, such 
results are presented for informational purposes only and are not 
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES 
sensitivity analysis results based on a 9-year analytical period are 
presented in Table V.17. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of 
battery chargers purchased in 2027-2036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. 
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4 (last accessed 
December 2, 2022).
    \57\ EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at least once 
every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a 3-year period 
after any new standard is promulgated before compliance is required, 
except that in no case may any new standards be required within 6 
years of the compliance date of the previous standards. While adding 
a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years, 
DOE notes that it may undertake reviews at any time within the 6 
year period and that the 3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-
year backstop. A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate given 
the variability that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and 
the fact that for some products, the compliance period is 5 years 
rather than 3 years.

 Table V.17--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Battery Chargers; 9
                           Years of Shipments
                               [2027-2036]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Trial standard level
                                     -----------------------------------
                                         1        2        3        4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    (quads)
                                     -----------------------------------
Primary energy......................      0.1      0.3      0.3      0.6
FFC energy..........................      0.1      0.3      0.4      0.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 16153]]

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for 
consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for battery 
chargers. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory 
analysis,\58\ DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent 
real discount rate. Table V.18 shows the consumer NPV results with 
impacts counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2027-2036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. 
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4 (last accessed 
December 2, 2022).

    Table V.18--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for
                 Battery Chargers; 30 Years of Shipments
                               [2027-2036]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Trial standard level
            Discount rate            -----------------------------------
                                         1        2        3        4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                (billion 2021$)
                                     -----------------------------------
3 percent...........................      2.4      7.5      7.7      9.6
7 percent...........................      1.2      3.7      3.8      4.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical 
period are presented in Table V.19. The impacts are counted over the 
lifetime of products purchased in 2027-2036. As mentioned previously, 
such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not 
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision 
criteria.

    Table V.19--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for
                 Battery Chargers; 9 Years of Shipments
                               [2027-2036]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Trial standard level
            Discount rate            -----------------------------------
                                         1        2        3        4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                (billion 2021$)
                                     -----------------------------------
3 percent...........................      0.8      2.6      2.6      2.6
7 percent...........................      0.5      1.7      1.7      1.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    It is estimated that that amended energy conservation standards for 
battery chargers would reduce energy expenditures for consumers of 
those products, with the resulting net savings being redirected to 
other forms of economic activity. These expected shifts in spending and 
economic activity could affect the demand for labor. As described in 
section V.B.2 of this document, DOE used an input/output model of the 
U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that 
DOE considered. There are uncertainties involved in projecting 
employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the 
analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes 
(2027-2056), where these uncertainties are reduced.
    The results suggest that the proposed standards would be likely to 
have a negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. 
The net change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in 
national labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated 
effects on employment. Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents detailed 
results regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    As discussed in section III.F.1.d of this document, DOE has 
tentatively concluded that the standards proposed in this NOPR would 
not lessen the utility or performance of battery chargers under 
consideration in this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products 
currently offer units that meet or exceed the proposed standards 
without a loss of utility or performance.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to 
result from new or amended standards. As discussed in section 
III.F.1.e, the Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of any 
lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard, and 
transmits such determination in writing to the Secretary, together with 
an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. To assist the 
Attorney General in making this determination, DOE has provided DOJ 
with copies of this NOPR and the accompanying TSD for review. DOE will 
consider DOJ's comments on the proposed rule in determining whether to 
proceed to a final rule. DOE will publish and respond to DOJ's comments 
in that document. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the 
competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. 
In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ 
regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for 
information to send comments to DOJ.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves 
the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the

[[Page 16154]]

environmental impacts (costs) of energy production. Reduced electricity 
demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce 
the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, 
particularly during peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD 
presents the estimated impacts on electricity generating capacity, 
relative to the no-new-standards case, for the TSLs that DOE considered 
in this rulemaking.
    Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers is expected to yield environmental 
benefits in the form of reduced emissions of certain air pollutants and 
greenhouse gases. Table V.20 provides DOE's estimate of cumulative 
emissions reductions expected to result from the TSLs considered in 
this rulemaking. The emissions were calculated using the multipliers 
discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE reports annual 
emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.

 Table V.20--Cumulative Emissions Reduction for Battery Chargers Shipped
                              in 2027-2056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Trial standard level
                                     -----------------------------------
                                         1        2        3        4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Power Sector Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...........       14       38       40       65
CH4 (thousand tons).................      1.1      2.9      3.1      5.0
N2O (thousand tons).................     0.15     0.41     0.43     0.71
NOX (thousand tons).................        7       19       20       33
SO2 (thousand tons).................        7       18       19       31
Hg (tons)...........................     0.04     0.11     0.12     0.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Upstream Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...........      1.0      2.9      3.0      4.9
CH4 (thousand tons).................       98      269      284      462
N2O (thousand tons).................     0.01     0.01     0.02     0.03
NOX (thousand tons).................       16       43       46       74
SO2 (thousand tons).................     0.08     0.21     0.22     0.36
Hg (tons)...........................   0.0002   0.0004   0.0005   0.0008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Total FFC Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...........       15       40       43       69
CH4 (thousand tons).................       99      272      287      467
N2O (thousand tons).................     0.15     0.42     0.45     0.73
NOX (thousand tons).................       23       62       66      107
SO2 (thousand tons).................        7       18       19       31
Hg (tons)...........................     0.04     0.11     0.12     0.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the analysis for this rulemaking, DOE estimated monetary 
benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 
that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for battery 
chargers. Section IV.L of this document discusses the SC-CO2 
values that DOE used. Table V.21 presents the value of CO2 
emissions reduction at each TSL for each of the SC-CO2 
cases. The time-series of annual values is presented for the proposed 
TSL in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.

         Table V.21--Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for Battery Chargers Shipped in 2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            SC-CO2 Case
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount rate and statistics
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                       TSL                              5%              3%             2.5%             3%
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          (million 2021$)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................             158             647             999           1,968
2...............................................             432           1,773           2,738           5,397
3...............................................             457           1,873           2,892           5,701
4...............................................             743           3,048           4,705          9,276.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section IV.L.2, DOE estimated the climate benefits 
likely to result from the reduced emissions of methane and 
N2O that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for 
battery chargers. Table V.22 presents the value of the CH4 
emissions reduction at each TSL, and Table V.23 presents the value of 
the N2O emissions reduction at each TSL. The time-series of 
annual values is presented for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the 
NOPR TSD

[[Page 16155]]



       Table V.22--Present Value of Methane Emissions Reduction for Battery Chargers Shipped in 2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            SC-CH4 case
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount rate and statistics
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                       TSL                              5%              3%             2.5%             3%
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          (million 2021$)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................              48             135             186             358
2...............................................             131             370             510             981
3...............................................             139             390             538           1,035
4...............................................             225             635             874           1,683
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table V.23--Present Value of Nitrous Oxide Emissions Reduction for Battery Chargers Shipped in 2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            SC-N2O case
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount rate and statistics
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                       TSL                              5%              3%             2.5%             3%
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       95th
                                                      Average         Average         Average       percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          (million 2021$)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................               1               2               4               6
2...............................................               2               7              10              17
3...............................................               2               7              11              18
4...............................................               3              11              17              30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the 
contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in 
the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the 
global and U.S. economy continues to evolve rapidly. DOE, together with 
other Federal agencies, will continue to review methodologies for 
estimating the monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other 
GHG emissions. This ongoing review will consider the comments on this 
subject that are part of the public record for this and other 
rulemakings, as well as other methodological assumptions and issues. 
DOE notes that the proposed standards would be economically justified 
even without inclusion of monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions.
    DOE also estimated the monetary value of the health benefits 
associated with NOX and SO2 emissions reductions 
anticipated to result from the considered TSLs for battery chargers. 
The dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are discussed in section IV.L 
of this document. Table V.24 presents the present value for 
NOX emissions reduction for each TSL calculated using 7-
percent and 3-percent discount rates, and Table V.25 presents similar 
results for SO2 emissions reductions. The results in these 
tables reflect application of EPA's low dollar-per-ton values, which 
DOE used to be conservative. The time-series of annual values is 
presented for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.

    Table V.24--Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction for Battery
                      Chargers Shipped in 2027-2056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            3% Discount     7% Discount
                   TSL                         rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  (million 2021$)
                                         -------------------------------
1.......................................             464           1,004
2.......................................           1,275           2,755
3.......................................           1,347           2,909
4.......................................           2,195           4,732
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table V.25--Present Value of SO2 Emissions Reduction for Battery
                      Chargers Shipped in 2027-2056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            3% Discount     7% Discount
                   TSL                         rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  (million 2021$)
                                         -------------------------------
1.......................................             190             399
2.......................................             524           1,094
3.......................................             554           1,158
4.......................................             904           1,886
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Not all the public health and environmental benefits from the 
reduction of greenhouse gases, NOx, and SO2 are 
captured in the values above, and additional unquantified benefits from 
the reductions of those pollutants as well as from the reduction of 
direct PM, and other co-pollutants may be significant. DOE has not 
included monetary benefits of the reduction of Hg emissions because the 
amount of reduction is very small.
7. Other Factors
    The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is 
economically justified, may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No 
other factors were considered in this analysis.
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
    Table V.26 presents the NPV values that result from adding the 
estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced GHG 
and NOX and SO2 emissions to the NPV of consumer 
benefits calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking. The 
consumer benefits are domestic U.S. monetary savings that occur as a 
result of purchasing the covered battery chargers, and are measured for 
the lifetime of products shipped in 2027-2056. The climate benefits 
associated

[[Page 16156]]

with reduced GHG emissions resulting from the adopted standards are 
global benefits, and are also calculated based on the lifetime of 
battery chargers shipped in 2027-2056.

          Table V.26--Consumer NPV Combined With Present Value of Climate Benefits and Health Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                           TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case..........................             4.0            11.9            12.4            17.2
3% Average SC-GHG case..........................             4.6            13.5            14.1            19.9
2.5% Average SC-GHG case........................             5.0            14.6            15.2            21.8
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case..................             6.2            17.8            18.5            27.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case..........................             2.0             6.1             6.3             8.4
3% Average SC-GHG case..........................             2.6             7.7             8.0            11.1
2.5% Average SC-GHG case........................             3.0             8.8             9.1            13.0
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case..................             4.1            11.9            12.5            18.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Conclusion

    When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the 
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining 
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must 
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, 
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory 
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    For this NOPR, DOE considered the impacts of amended standards for 
battery chargers at each TSL, beginning with the maximum 
technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level was 
economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE 
then considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same 
evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both 
technologically feasible and economically justified and saves a 
significant amount of energy. DOE refers to this process as the ``walk-
down'' analysis.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of 
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on 
employment.
    DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy 
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this 
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue 
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers 
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of 
information, (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or 
aggregate benefits, (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant 
delaying or altering purchases, (4) excessive focus on the short term, 
in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings 
relative to available returns on other investments, (5) computational 
or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant 
tradeoffs, and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between 
renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than 
perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, 
consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than 
expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy 
cost savings. Specifically, consumers of battery charger applications 
make purchasing decisions based on the application's overall feature 
set, performance, and design, but rarely on the basis of the 
accompanying charger's energy efficiency. While there are secondary 
advantages to a more efficient charging product--e.g., less heat output 
from a more efficient charger means the product form factor can be 
smaller and more portable--they affect choices when purchasing 
replacement products, not the original application. In either scenario, 
DOE does not expect that consumers are making these decisions with 
energy efficiency in mind, which undervalues the potential of energy 
savings.
    In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the 
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase 
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for 
product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to 
lost revenue is included in the MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy 
savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the 
standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products 
purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings 
from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of 
shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9 
of the NOPR TSD. However, DOE's current analysis does not explicitly 
control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, preferences across 
subcategories of products or specific features, or consumer price 
sensitivity variation according to household income.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, 
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883. 
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller 
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes 
in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, 
DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical 
quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare 
impacts of appliance

[[Page 16157]]

standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses the issue of consumer 
welfare impacts of appliance energy conservation standards, and 
potential enhancements to the methodology by which these impacts are 
defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\60\ DOE welcomes 
comments on how to more fully assess the potential impact of energy 
conservation standards on consumer choice and how to quantify this 
impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Sanstad, A.H. Notes on the Economics of Household Energy 
Consumption and Technology Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory. www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf (last accessed December 2, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Battery Chargers 
Standards
    Table V.27 and Table V.28 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for battery chargers. The national impacts are 
measured over the lifetime of battery chargers purchased in the 30-year 
period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with amended 
standards (2027-2056). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and 
value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. The 
efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of 
this document.

              Table V.27--Summary of Analytical Results for Battery Chargers TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                           TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads...........................................             0.4             1.2             1.3             2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......................              15              40              43              69
CH4 (thousand tons).............................              99             272             287             467
N2O (thousand tons).............................            0.15            0.42            0.45            0.73
SO2 (thousand tons).............................               7              18              19              31
NOX (thousand tons).............................              23              62              66             107
Hg (tons).......................................            0.04            0.11            0.12            0.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................             3.3             9.0             9.5            15.5
Climate Benefits *..............................             0.8             2.1             2.3             3.7
Health Benefits **..............................             1.4             3.8             4.1             6.6
Total Benefits [dagger].........................             5.5            15.0            15.8            25.8
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....             0.8             1.4             1.8             5.9
Consumer Net Benefits...........................             2.4             7.5             7.7             9.6
Total Net Benefits..............................             4.6            13.5            14.1            19.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................             1.7             4.6             4.9             8.0
Climate Benefits *..............................             0.8             2.1             2.3             3.7
Health Benefits **..............................             0.7             1.8             1.9             3.1
Total Benefits [dagger].........................             3.1             8.6             9.1            14.8
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].....             0.5             0.9             1.1             3.6
Consumer Net Benefits...........................             1.2             3.7             3.8             4.3
Total Net Benefits..............................             2.6             7.7             8.0            11.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with battery chargers shipped in 2027-2056. These
  results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4 and SC-N2O. Together,
  these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated
  with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single
  central SC-GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted
  the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary
  injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's
  order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's
  appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined
  the defendants in that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim
  estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
  Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
  emissions. As reflected in this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and
  presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
  of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
  and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes
  the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs.


[[Page 16158]]


     Table V.28--Summary of Analytical Results for Battery Chargers TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                          TSL 1 *         TSL 2 *         TSL 3 *         TSL 4 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufacturer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2021$) (No-new-standards     77,427-78,872   75,328-76,685   74,596-78,637   70,039-78,265
 case INPV = 78,929.8)..........................
Industry NPV (% change).........................     (1.9)-(0.1)     (4.6)-(0.3)     (5.6)-(0.3)    (11.4)-(0.8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Consumer Average LCC Savings (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed-Location Wireless Chargers................          -$0.03          -$0.03          -$0.64          -$1.92
Open-Placement Wireless Chargers................           $0.12           $0.12          -$0.81          -$1.16
Low-Energy Wired Chargers.......................           $0.28           $0.13           $0.13          -$0.43
Medium-Energy Wired Chargers....................           $1.44           $1.55           $1.55           $1.61
High-Energy Wired Chargers......................          $11.46          $14.32          $14.32          $18.94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Consumer Simple PBP (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed-Location Wireless Chargers................             3.8             3.8             6.0             7.8
Open-Placement Wireless Chargers................             4.1             4.1             9.2            11.0
Low-Energy Wired Chargers.......................             3.1             4.0             4.0             6.4
Medium-Energy Wired Chargers....................            4..5             4.4             4.4             4.4
High-Energy Wired Chargers......................             1.4             1.5             1.5             1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed-Location Wireless Chargers................           13.9%           13.9%           35.5%           90.0%
Open-Placement Wireless Chargers................            6.8%            6.8%           38.4%           55.1%
Low-Energy Wired Chargers.......................           11.2%           39.0%           39.0%           65.5%
Medium-Energy Wired Chargers....................           16.5%           30.5%           30.5%           49.8%
High-Energy Wired Chargers......................            2.4%            1.6%            1.6%            1.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE first considered TSL 4, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels. These levels correspond to the most efficient units 
tested by DOE or among the top 10% of models identified in the market 
(as discussed in IV.C.1.b). TSL 4 would save an estimated 2.0 quads of 
energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of 
consumer benefit would be $4.34 billion using a discount rate of 7 
percent, and $9.59 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 69 Mt of 
CO2, 467 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.73 thousand 
tons of N2O, 31 thousand tons of SO2, 107 
thousand tons of NOX, and 0.19 tons of Hg. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 4 is $3.7 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 4 is $3.1 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $6.6 billion 
using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $11.1 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $19.9 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a savings of $18.94 for high-
energy chargers, an average LCC savings $1.61 for medium-energy 
charger, an average LCC loss of $0.43 for low-energy chargers, an 
average LCC loss of $1.16 for open-placement wireless chargers, and an 
average LCC loss of $1.92 for fixed-location wireless chargers. The 
simple payback period is 1.5 years for high-energy chargers, 4.4 years 
for medium-energy chargers, 6.4 years for low-energy chargers, 11 years 
for open-placement wireless chargers, and 7.8 years for fixed-location 
wireless chargers. The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC 
cost is 1.3 percent for high-energy chargers, 49.8 percent for medium-
energy chargers, 65.5 percent for low-energy chargers, 55.1 percent for 
open-placement wireless chargers, and 90 percent for fixed-location 
wireless chargers.
    DOE further notes that for high-energy battery chargers, the 
overall battery charger performance can be heavily influenced by the 
performance of the battery or the combination of batteries it is tested 
with. These products are designed to work with a multitude of third 
party batteries (typically various types of lead acid batteries) and 
manufacturers have little control over the type of battery a consumer 
is likely to use with these high-energy battery chargers. DOE 
recognizes that the current market is still dominated by flooded lead 
acid batteries, which are used interchangeably with other lead acid 
battery subtypes for different applications (i.e., golf carts, marine 
application, and RVs), due to their low cost to acquire, abundant 
availability, and relatively lower safety risks; however, flooded lead 
acid batteries usually yield the least efficiency. When they are used 
to test corresponding high-energy battery chargers, DOE confirmed 
through internal testing that these flooded lead acid battery and 
charger combinations would not be able to meet TSL 4 standards. If TSL 
4 was proposed, charger manufacturers would likely be unable to produce 
any chargers that are intended for flooded lead acid batteries, 
resulting in potentially millions of batteries left in the market 
without a proper charging solution.
    At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$9,032 million to a decrease of $598 million, which represents a change 
of approximately-11.4 and -0.8 percent, respectively. DOE estimates 
that

[[Page 16159]]

approximately 8 percent of low energy wired battery charger, 
approximately 19 percent of medium energy wired BC shipments, 
approximately 12 percent of high energy wired battery charger 
shipments, approximately 8 percent of fixed location wireless battery 
charger shipments, and approximately 53 percent of open location 
wireless battery charger shipments would meet the efficiency levels 
analyzed at TSL 4 in 2027. At TSL 4, many manufacturers would be 
required to redesign every battery charger model covered by this 
rulemaking. It is unclear if most manufacturers would have the 
engineering capacity to complete the necessary redesigns within the 2-
year compliance period. If manufacturers require more than 2 years to 
redesign all their models, they will likely prioritize redesigns based 
on sales volume. The 12 percent of high energy wired battery charger 
shipments that presently would meet a TSL 4 standard are not designed 
to be used with flooded lead acid batteries. As noted previously, 
battery charger manufacturers would likely be unable to produce any 
charger that are intended for flooded lead acid batteries and there is 
risk that some other battery charger models will become either 
temporarily or permanently unavailable after the compliance date.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 4 for battery 
chargers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer 
benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on many 
consumers, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the large 
conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large 
reduction in INPV. A majority of consumers for most battery charger 
product classes (up to 90 percent for fixed-location wireless chargers) 
would experience a net cost and the average LCC savings would be 
negative, due to increased purchase prices. In particular, a majority 
of consumers of the product class with the most shipments (low-energy 
wired chargers) would experience a net cost. The potential reduction in 
INPV could be as high as 11.4 percent. In addition, the Secretary is 
concerned about the possibility of stranding certain categories of 
batteries that would not be able to find chargers that could comply 
with TSL 4 efficiencies. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively 
concluded that TSL 4 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 represents efficiency level 2 for 
all battery charger product classes. TSL 3 represents above average 
models on the current market. TSL 3 would save an estimated 1.3 quads 
of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of 
consumer benefit would be $3.8 billion using a discount rate of 7 
percent, and $7.7 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 43 Mt of 
CO2, 287 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.45 thousand 
tons of N2O, 19 thousand tons of SO2, 66 thousand 
tons of NOX, and 0.12 tons of Hg. The estimated monetary 
value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions (associated 
with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 3 is $2.3 
billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from 
reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL 3 is $1.9 
billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $4.1 billion using a 3-
percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $8.0 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $14.1 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $14.32 for high-
energy chargers, an average LCC savings $1.55 for medium-energy 
charger, an average LCC savings of $0.13 for low-energy chargers, an 
average LCC loss of $0.81 for open-placement wireless chargers, and an 
average LCC loss of $0.64 for fixed-location wireless chargers. The 
simple payback period is 1.5 years for high-energy chargers, 4.4 years 
for medium-energy chargers, 4.0 years for low-energy chargers, 9.2 
years for open-placement wireless chargers, and 6.0 years for fixed-
location wireless chargers. The fraction of consumers experiencing a 
net LCC cost is 1.6 percent for high-energy chargers, 30.5 percent for 
medium-energy chargers, 39.0 percent for low-energy chargers, 38.4 
percent for open-placement wireless chargers, and 35.5 percent for 
fixed-location wireless chargers.
    For wired battery chargers, TSL 3 provides meaningful energy 
savings amount with positive average LCC savings and acceptable 
conversion costs. DOE further notes that from internal testing and 
modeling, high-energy flooded lead acid battery chargers can also be 
compliant with TSL 3 with marginal added cost. However, TSL 3 for 
wireless chargers remains a challenging efficiency level to meet. DOE 
estimates that a large portion of wireless charger consumers will face 
net costs if standards were set at TSL 3. DOE also notes that the 
estimated PBP is longer than average product lifetime for these 
wireless battery chargers at TSL 3, indicating that consumers will 
likely not be able to recoup the additional cost in the long run. 
Furthermore, although the market for wireless chargers is quite 
developed already, new wireless charging products and options are still 
being introduced to the market on a regular basis. As such, prescribing 
standards at TSL 3 can limit the rate of growth for wireless charging 
market.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$4,402 million to a decrease of $260 million, which correspond to 
changes of -5.6 percent and -0.3 percent, respectively. DOE estimates 
that approximately 27 percent of low energy wired battery charger 
shipments, approximately 46 percent of medium energy wired battery 
charger shipments, approximately 26 percent of high energy wired 
battery charger shipments, approximately 66 percent of fixed location 
wireless battery charger shipments, and approximately 73 percent of 
open location wireless battery charger shipments would meet the 
efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 3 in 2027.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for battery 
chargers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer 
benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on many 
consumers, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the large 
conversion costs, profit margin impacts that could result in a large 
reduction in INPV. Many battery charger consumers would experience a 
net cost and the average LCC savings would be negative for consumers of 
wireless battery chargers, due to increased purchase prices. These 
average LCC costs for wireless chargers are significant enough that, 
even with continued reductions in incremental purchase price, the LCC 
would not become positive for at least 10 years beyond the first year 
of compliance. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded 
that TSL 3 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2, which represents efficiency level 2 for 
wired battery chargers and efficiency level 1 for wireless chargers. 
TSL 2 would save an estimated 1.2 quads of energy, an

[[Page 16160]]

amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer 
benefit would be $3.7 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and 
$7.5 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 40 Mt of 
CO2, 272 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.42 thousand 
tons of N2O, 18 thousand tons of SO2, 62 thousand 
tons of NOX, and 0.11 tons of Hg. The estimated monetary 
value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions (associated 
with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 2 is $2.1 
billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from 
reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL 2 is $1.8 
billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $3.8 billion using a 3-
percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $7.7 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 2 is $13.5 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings of $14.32 for high-
energy chargers, an average LCC savings $1.55 for medium-energy 
charger, an average LCC savings of $0.13 for low-energy chargers, an 
average LCC savings of $0.12 for open-placement wireless chargers, and 
an average LCC loss of $0.03 for fixed-location wireless chargers. For 
fixed-location wireless chargers, the average LCC quickly turns 
positive when considering the impact of reduction in prices experienced 
in the out years after the compliance date of the proposed standard, 
which is supported by the positive net present value over the 30-years 
of shipment. The simple payback period is 1.5 years for high-energy 
chargers, 4.4 years for medium-energy chargers, 4.0 years for low-
energy chargers, 4.1 years for open-placement wireless chargers, and 
3.8 years for fixed-location wireless chargers. The fraction of 
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 1.6 percent for high-energy 
chargers, 30.5 percent for medium-energy chargers, 39.0 percent for 
low-energy chargers, 6.8 percent for open-placement wireless chargers, 
and 13.9 percent for fixed-location wireless chargers.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$3,659 million to a decrease of $214 million, which correspond to 
changes of -4.6 percent and -0.3 percent, respectively. DOE estimates 
that industry must invest $398 million to comply with standards set at 
TSL 2. DOE estimates that approximately 27 percent of low energy wired 
battery chargers, approximately 46 percent of medium energy wired 
battery chargers shipments, approximately 26 percent of high energy 
wired battery charger shipments, approximately 92 percent of fixed 
location wireless battery charger shipments, and approximately 93 
percent of open location wireless battery charger shipments would meet 
the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 2 in 2027.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that at a standard set 
at TSL 2 for battery chargers would be economically justified. At this 
TSL, a majority of consumers either experience a net benefit or are not 
impacted by the proposed rule, and the average LCC savings for 
consumers are positive or a minimally negative $0.03. The average 
incremental product costs for all battery chargers are very small 
relative to the costs of the applications using the battery charger, 
which are likely greater by several factors of 10 for some applications 
(e.g., the cost of a smartphone is several hundreds of dollars, whereas 
the incremental cost of a more efficient battery charger for 
smartphones is a few dollars at most). Furthermore, due to price trends 
reducing incremental costs, the average LCC savings will grow in years 
beyond 2027 and fewer consumers would actually experience a net cost. 
In particular, the average LCC for fixed-location wireless chargers 
becomes positive after only 1 year beyond the first year of compliance. 
Low-income households are likely to experience very similar results and 
are not disproportionately disadvantaged at this TSL. The FFC national 
energy savings are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is 
positive using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. The 
standard levels at TSL 2 are economically justified even without 
weighing the estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When 
those emissions reductions are included--representing $2.1 billion in 
climate benefits (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent 
discount rate), and $3.8 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or 
$1.8 billion (using a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits--the 
rationale becomes stronger still.
    As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL 
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under 
EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative 
analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of 
the maximization of energy savings that are technologically feasible 
and economically justified, which would be contrary to the statute. 86 
FR 70892, 70908. Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis 
to select the proposed energy conservation standards, DOE notes that at 
TSLs higher than the one proposed, a significant fraction of consumers 
for some product classes experience increased purchase costs greater 
than operating savings.
    Although DOE considered proposed amended standard levels for 
battery chargers by grouping the efficiency levels for each product 
class into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels in its 
analysis.
    Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to 
adopt the energy conservation standards for battery chargers at TSL 2. 
The proposed amended energy conservation standards for battery 
chargers, which are expressed as active mode energy, or standby or off 
modes power, are shown in Table V.29.

                 Table V.29--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Maximum active      Maximum standby
         Product class             Battery energy Ebatt     mode energy Ea      mode power Psb*   Off mode power
                                           (Wh)                  (Wh)                 (W)            Poff (W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a Fixed-Location Wireless.....  <=100..................  1.718*Ebatt + 8.5.  1.5...............               0
1b Open-Placement Wireless.....  N/A....................  N/A...............  0.8 (Pnb only)....               0
2a Low-Energy..................  <=100..................  1.222*Ebatt +       0.00098*Ebatt +                  0
                                                           4.980.              0.4.

[[Page 16161]]

 
2b.............................  100-1000...............  1.367*Ebatt + -
Medium-Energy..................                            9.560.
2c.............................  >1000..................  1.323*Ebatt +
High-Energy....................                            34.361.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Standby mode power is the sum of no-battery mode power and maintenance mode power, unless noted otherwise.

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2021$) of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, 
minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized 
monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission 
reductions.
    Table V.30 shows the annualized values for battery chargers under 
TSL 2, expressed in 2021$. The results under the primary estimate are 
as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
health benefits from reduced NOx and SO2 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards 
proposed in this rule is $89 million per year in increased equipment 
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $457 million in reduced 
equipment operating costs, $120 million in climate benefits, and $178 
million in health benefits. In this case. The net benefit would amount 
to $665 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $81 million per year in 
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $500 
million in reduced operating costs, $120 million in climate benefits, 
and $215 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit 
would amount to $754 million per year.

    Table V.30--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers
                                                     [TSL 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Million 2021$/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Low-net-        High-net-
                                                                      Primary        benefits        benefits
                                                                     estimate        estimate        estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................             500             487             516
Climate Benefits *..............................................             120             120             120
Health Benefits **..............................................             215             215             215
Total Benefits [dagger].........................................             834             821             850
Consumer Incremental Product Costs..............................              81              90              71
Net Benefits....................................................             754             731             779
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................             457             447             469
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)...........................             120             120             120
Health Benefits **..............................................             178             178             178
Total Benefits [dagger].........................................             754             744             766
Consumer Incremental Product Costs..............................              89              98              79
Net Benefits....................................................             665             646             687
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with battery chargers shipped in 2027-2056. These
  results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056. The
  Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the
  AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition,
  incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the
  Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. Note that the Benefits
  and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
  NOPR). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a
  3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate,
  and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-
  GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal
  government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
  in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
  preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that
  injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
  that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
  social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
  Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As
  reflected in this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents
  monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.

[[Page 16162]]

 
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan

    Manufacturers, including importers, must use product-specific 
certification templates to certify compliance to DOE. For battery 
chargers, the certification template reflects the general certification 
requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.12 and the product-specific 
requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.39. As discussed in the previous 
paragraphs, DOE is not proposing to amend the product-specific 
certification requirements for these products.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order (``E.O.'')12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented and reaffirmed by 
E.O. 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 
(Jan. 21, 2011), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to 
(1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and 
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the 
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory 
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent 
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that 
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, 
public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; 
and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance 
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance 
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess 
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing 
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user 
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices 
can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 
requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify 
anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as 
possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (``OIRA'') in OMB has emphasized that such techniques may 
include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result 
from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For 
the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action is 
consistent with these principles.
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has 
determined that this proposed regulatory action constitutes a 
``significant regulatory action within the scope of section 3(f)(1)'' 
of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 
12866, DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the underlying 
analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the proposed 
regulatory action, together with, to the extent feasible, a 
quantification of those costs; and an assessment, including the 
underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, and an 
explanation why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the 
identified potential alternatives. These assessments are summarized in 
this preamble and further detail can be found in the technical support 
document for this rulemaking.

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 (``IRFA'') 
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 E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 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 the General 
Counsel's website (www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has 
prepared the following IRFA for the products that are the subject of 
this rulemaking.
    For manufacturers of battery chargers, the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those 
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the 
statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine 
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the 
rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size standards are listed by North 
American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') code and industry 
description and are available at www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. Manufacturing of battery chargers is classified under 
NAICS 335999, ``All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and 
Component Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees or 
fewer for an entity to be considered as a small business for this 
category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    EPCA requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of 
any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish 
either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not 
need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy 
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)).
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered equipment, including BCs. Any new or 
amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy 
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    DOE conducted a more focused inquiry of the companies that could be 
small businesses that manufacture or sell battery chargers covered by 
this rulemaking. DOE referenced DOE's publicly available CCD to 
generate a list of businesses producing or selling covered products and 
referenced D&B Hoovers reports, as well as the online

[[Page 16163]]

presence of identified businesses in order to determine whether they 
might the criteria of a small business. DOE screened out companies that 
do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the 
definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign owned and operated. 
Additionally, DOE filters out businesses that do not directly produce 
BCs, but that rather sell sourced BCs with other products or relabel 
sourced BCs to sell separately.
    From these sources, DOE identified 296 unique businesses associated 
with at least one covered BC model and that fall under SBA's employee 
threshold for this rulemaking. While each of these small businesses 
certify models with DOE's CCD, DOE has only been able to identify a 
small number of domestic battery charger manufacturing facilities and 
therefore does not expect that many of the small businesses manufacture 
battery chargers, even if they may be OEM manufacturers of battery 
charger applications. From this list, DOE was able to identify three 
domestic small business manufacturers of battery chargers covered by 
this rulemaking--all operating in the high energy industry subsector.
    DOE requests comment on the number of small businesses identified 
that manufacture battery chargers covered by this rulemaking.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements for Small 
Entities
    DOE has estimated that conversion costs would be proportional to 
the annual revenue attributable to battery chargers that do not meet 
the standards. In way of a maximum-costs estimate--if, as a result of 
standards, one of the small businesses were to need to redesign all of 
their battery charger models, DOE expects that these small businesses 
would incur product conversion costs equivalent to one additional 
annual R&D expenditure across the two-year compliance window. DOE 
estimated the high energy subsector average annual R&D expenditure to 
be approximately 3.6 percent of annual revenue. DOE also expects that 
small businesses, under the same circumstances, would incur capital 
conversion costs equivalent to 75 percent of an additional annual 
capital expenditure--in the form of new tooling, plastic molding, and 
additional quality control equipment--across the compliance period. DOE 
estimated the high energy industry average annual capital expenditure 
to be 3.0 percent annual of non-compliant battery charger revenue. 
Therefore, DOE conservatively estimates that small manufacturers may 
incur conversion costs of up to 5.85 percent of revenue attributable to 
battery charger sales across the two-year compliance period.

                                       Table VI.1--Small Business Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Total
                                                                     Estimated       Estimated      conversion
                                                     Estimated        product         capital        cost as a
                 Small business                   annual revenue    conversion      conversion     percentage of
                                                                       costs           costs      annual revenue
                                                                                                        (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business 1................................     $13,130,000        $472,700        $295,425            5.85
Small Business 2................................      10,890,000         392,000         245,025            5.85
Small Business 3................................      40,470,000       1,456,900         910,575            5.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information about product conversion costs and small 
business impacts is in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
    DOE requests comment on the estimated product conversion costs of 
small businesses that manufacture or sell battery chargers covered by 
this rulemaking.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any other rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered today.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small 
businesses that would result from DOE's proposed rule, represented by 
TSL 2. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed rule, DOE examined 
energy conservation standards set at lower efficiency levels. While 
selecting TSL 1, would reduce the possible impacts on small businesses, 
it would come at the expense of a significant reduction in energy 
savings. TSL 2 achieves approximately 300 percent of the energy savings 
compared to the energy savings at TSL 1. DOE additionally estimates 
that TSL 1 would result in a lower net present value of consumer 
benefits than TSL 2 to the order of approximately $2,568 million.
    Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 2 
balances the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 2 with the potential 
burdens placed on BCs manufacturers and small businesses. Accordingly, 
DOE does not propose one of the other TSLs considered in the analysis, 
or the other policy alternatives examined as part of the regulatory 
impact analysis and included in chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue 
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an 
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a 
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final 
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally, 
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to 
DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain 
circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (``PRA''), a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information by a Federal agency unless that collection of information 
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
    OMB Control Number 1910-1400, Compliance Statement Energy/Water 
Conservation Standards for Appliances, is currently valid and assigned 
to the certification reporting requirements applicable to covered 
equipment, including battery chargers.
    DOE's certification and compliance activities ensure accurate and 
comprehensive information about the

[[Page 16164]]

energy and water use characteristics of covered products and covered 
equipment sold in the United States. Manufacturers of all covered 
products and covered equipment must submit a certification report 
before a basic model is distributed in commerce, annually thereafter, 
and if the basic model is redesigned in such a manner to increase the 
consumption or decrease the efficiency of the basic model such that the 
certified rating is no longer supported by the test data. Additionally, 
manufacturers must report when production of a basic model has ceased 
and is no longer offered for sale as part of the next annual 
certification report following such cessation. DOE requires the 
manufacturer of any covered product or covered equipment to establish, 
maintain, and retain the records of certification reports, of the 
underlying test data for all certification testing, and of any other 
testing conducted to satisfy the requirements of part 429, part 430, 
and/or part 431. Certification reports provide DOE and consumers with 
comprehensive, up-to date efficiency information and support effective 
enforcement.
    Revised certification data would be required for battery chargers 
were this NOPR to be finalized as proposed; however, DOE is not 
proposing amended certification or reporting requirements for battery 
chargers in this NOPR. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to establish 
certification requirements and reporting for battery chargers under a 
separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification. 
DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400 at that time, 
as necessary.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA 
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include 
a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that establish energy 
conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment. 
10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this 
rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 because it is a 
rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer 
products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in 
categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances 
exist that require further environmental analysis, and it otherwise 
meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See 
10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the 
final rule.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes 
certain requirements on Federal 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 this proposed rule and has 
tentatively determined that it would not have a substantial direct 
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs 
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 
conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed 
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) 
Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 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, (3) provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general 
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), 
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive 
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: 
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly 
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive 
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses 
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations 
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or 
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined 
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the 
relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 
1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that 
may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any 
one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA 
requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates 
the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national 
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal 
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by 
elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed 
``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan 
for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially 
affected small governments before establishing any requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 
published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental 
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also 
available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    Although this proposed rule does not contain a Federal 
intergovernmental

[[Page 16165]]

mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one 
year by the private sector. Such expenditures may include: (1) 
investment in research and development and in capital expenditures by 
battery charger manufacturers in the years between the final rule and 
the compliance date for the new standards and (2) incremental 
additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency 
battery chargers, starting at the compliance date for the applicable 
standard.
    Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the 
content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that 
accompanies the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content 
requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector 
mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this NOPR and the TSD for this 
proposed rule respond to those requirements.
    Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is 
required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to select from those 
alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes 
an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an 
alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), 
this proposed rule would establish amended energy conservation 
standards for battery chargers that are designed to achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be both 
technologically feasible and economically justified, as required by 42 
U.S.C 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6295(o)(3)(B). A full discussion of the 
alternatives considered by DOE is presented in chapter 17 of the TSD 
for this proposed rule.

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

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not 
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result in 
any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution.

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

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review 
most disseminations of information to the public under information 
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general 
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving 
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 
reviewed this NOPR 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

    E.O. 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 OIRA at OMB, 
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.
    DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which 
proposes amended energy conservation standards for battery chargers, is 
not a significant energy action because the proposed standards are not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by 
the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 
Statement of Energy Effects on this proposed rule.

L. Information Quality

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines 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 2664, 2667.
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of 
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses 
that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer 
review.\61\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and 
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and 
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the 
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. 
Because available data, models, and technological understanding have 
changed since 2007, DOE has engaged with the National Academy of 
Sciences to review DOE's analytical methodologies to ascertain whether 
modifications are needed to improve the

[[Page 16166]]

Department's analyses. DOE is in the process of evaluating the 
resulting report.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer 
Review Report'' is available at the following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed December 2, 2022).
    \62\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

    The time and date of the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES 
section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration 
information, participant instructions, and information about the 
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on 
DOE's website: https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/public-meetings-and-comment-deadlines. Participants are responsible for ensuring their 
systems are compatible with the webinar software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution

    Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this 
NOPR, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that has 
an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral 
presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to 
[email protected]. Persons who wish to speak 
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect, 
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes 
the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they 
wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone 
number where they can be reached.

C. Conduct of the Webinar

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public 
meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. 
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, 
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA. (42 
U.S.C. 6306) A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings 
and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order 
of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct 
of the webinar. There shall not be discussion of proprietary 
information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters 
regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar and until the end 
of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments 
on the proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
    The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE 
will a general overview of the topics addressed in this rulemaking, 
allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and 
encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues 
affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a 
general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the 
discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other 
participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should 
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants 
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of 
participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The 
official conducting the webinar/public meeting will accept additional 
comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The 
presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or 
modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper 
conduct of the webinar.
    A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which 
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of 
this document. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript 
from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the 
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed 
rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other 
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section 
at the beginning of this document.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If 
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying 
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. 
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and 
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly 
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
No

[[Page 16167]]

telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any 
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or 
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked 
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' 
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    (1) DOE requests feedback on DOE's approach of establishing these 
higher efficiency CSLs and welcomes stakeholders to submit any data on 
the actual market distribution of these higher efficiency CSLs.
    (2) DOE requests stakeholder feedbacks on these analyzed 
incremental costs as well as any topic covered in chapter 5 of the NOPR 
TSD. DOE also welcomes stakeholders to submit their own cost-efficiency 
results, should there be any.
    (3) DOE requests comment on how the proposed energy conservation 
standards might affect domestic battery charger manufacturing.
    (4) DOE requests comment on possible impacts on manufacturing 
capacity stemming from amended energy conservation standards.
    (5) DOE requests comment on potential impacts on fit, function, and 
utility of the battery chargerss from the proposed standard.
    (6) DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative 
regulatory burden on manufacturers of battery chargers associated with 
multiple DOE standards or product-specific regulatory actions of other 
Federal agencies.
    (7) DOE requests comment on the number of small businesses 
identified that manufacture battery chargers covered by this 
rulemaking.
    (8) DOE requests comment on the estimated product conversion costs 
of small businesses that manufacture or sell battery chargers covered 
by this rulemaking.
    Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the 
conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in 
this document.

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of 
proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 3, 
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on March 3, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
2. Amend Sec.  430.32 by revising paragraph (z)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and their 
compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (z) Battery chargers. (1)(i) Battery chargers manufactured on or 
after June 13, 2018, and before [date two years after publication of 
the final rule], must have a unit energy consumption (UEC) less than or 
equal to the prescribed ``Maximum UEC'' standard when using the 
equations for the appropriate product class and corresponding rated 
battery energy as shown in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Maximum UEC (kWh/
                                  Product class    Rated battery energy         Special            year) (as a
         Product class             description          (Ebatt**)          characteristic or       function of
                                                                            battery voltage         Ebatt**)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  Low-Energy......  <=5 Wh...............  Inductive Connection*  3.04.
2.............................  Low-Energy, Low-  <100 Wh..............  <4 V.................  0.1440*Ebatt +
                                 Voltage.                                                        2.95.
3.............................  Low-Energy,       <100 Wh..............  4-10 V...............  For Ebatt<10 Wh,
                                 Medium-Voltage.                                                 1.42; For
                                                                                                 Ebatt>=10 Wh,
                                                                                                 0.0255*Ebatt +
                                                                                                 1.16.
4.............................  Low-Energy, High- <100 Wh..............  >10 V................  0.11*Ebatt +
                                 Voltage.                                                        3.18.
5.............................  Medium-Energy,    100-3000 Wh..........  <20 V................  0.0257*Ebatt +
                                 Low-Voltage.                                                    0.815.

[[Page 16168]]

 
6.............................  Medium-Energy,    100-3000 Wh..........  >=20 V...............  0.0778*Ebatt +
                                 High-Voltage.                                                   2.4.
7.............................  High-Energy.....  >3000 Wh.............  .....................  0.0502*Ebatt +
                                                                                                 4.53.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Inductive connection and designed for use in a wet environment (e.g., electric toothbrushes).
** Ebatt = Rated battery energy as determined in 10 CFR part 429.39(a).

    (ii) Battery chargers manufactured on or after [date two years 
after publication of the final rule], must meet the following active 
mode energy, standby mode power, and off mode power standards:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Maximum active      Maximum standby
         Product class             Battery energy Ebatt     mode energy Ea      mode power Psb*   Off mode power
                                           (Wh)                  (Wh)                 (W)            Poff (W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a Fixed-Location Wireless.....  <=100..................  1.718*Ebatt + 8.5.  1.5...............               0
1b Open-Placement Wireless.....  N/A....................  N/A...............  0.8 (Pnb only)....               0
2a Low-Energy..................  <=100..................  1.222*Ebatt +       0.00098*Ebatt +                  0
                                                           4.980.              0.4.
2b Medium-Energy...............  100-1000...............  1.367*Ebatt + -
                                                           9.560.
2c High-Energy.................  >1000..................  1.323*Ebatt +
                                                           34.361.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Standby mode power is the sum of no-battery mode power and maintenance mode power, unless noted otherwise.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-04765 Filed 3-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.