public meeting on energy conservation program for … · 2012-05-22 · jennifer cleary association...

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR

CONSUMER PRODUCTS, ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS AND EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, D.C. 20585

Room SE-089 Review Center

Wednesday,

May 02, 2012

Facilitator:

Doug Brookman

Public Solutions

Baltimore, MD

Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

2 Participants Identified:

Charlie Stephens

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

Cory Watkins

Schumacher Electric

Jay Taylor

Schneider Electric

Spencer Stock

Lester Electrical

Ric Erdheim

Philips Electronics

Ken Salaets

Information Technology Industry Council

Jacinto Patrick Carrera

iRobot

Alex Boesenberg

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

Dave Denkenberger

ECOVA

Ken Rider

California Energy Commission

Pierre Delforge

National Resources Defense Council

Shahid Sheikh

Intel Corporation

Jennifer Cleary

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

Jeff Hailey

Dell


(301) 565-0064

3 Rick Habben

Wahl Clipper Group

Holly Evans

Strategic Council

Jim Spitaels

Schneider Electric

Paul Hamilton

Schneider Electric

Jordan Doria

Ingersoll Rand

John Clinger

ICF International

Russ Smith

Lutron Electronics

Keith Cook

Philips Electronics

Pekka Hakkarainenen

Lutron Electronics

Carin Stuart

Energizer Battery Manufacturing

Dennis Beck

California Energy Commission

Rich Fassler

Power Integrations

Brian Spak

Green Strategies

Eric Kuwana

Katten Law

John Whiting

Schumacher Electric


(301) 565-0064

4

Matt Malinowski

ICF International

Stephen Jeong

Underwriter Laboratories

Julia Farber

Underwriter Laboratories

Arnold Offner

Phoenix Contact

Joanna Mauer

Appliance Standards Awareness Project

Mark Sharp

Panasonic

John Clinger

ICF

Tim Ballo

Earth Justice

David Kim

LG Electronics

Doug Johnson

CEA

John Hodges

Wiley Rein

Eric Andreas

Wiley Rein

David Cassano

Apple

Joseph Anderson

TIA


(301) 565-0064

5

Participants from DOE:

Vic Petrolati

Department of Energy

Jim Raba


Jeremy Dommu


Michael Kido


Brenda Edwards


Participants from Consultants:

Brian Booher

D&R International

Ari Reeves

D&R International

Matt Nardotti

Navigant Consulting

Chris Skahan

Navigant Consulting

Peter Protopappas

Navigant Consulting

Dan Lauf

D&R International

Pamela Costello

Navigant Consulting


(301) 565-0064

6

Hayden Cook

Navigant Consulting

Sanaee Iyama

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab

Rob Carmichael

Navigant Consulting

Chris Skahan

Navigant Consulting


(301) 565-0064

7

AGENDA

ITEM PAGE

Welcome, Mr. Brookman 8

Welcome for DOE, Mr. Petrolati 8

Introductions 9

Agenda Review, Mr. Brookman 15

Purpose, Mr. Brookman 16

Opening Remarks, Background,

Regulatory History, Mr. Petrolati 18

Opening Comments from Participants 25

Rulemaking Scope, Product Classes

Mr. Booher 67

Market Assessment, Mr. Booher 87

Technology Assessment, Screening,

Engineering Analyses,

Mr. Protopappas and Mr. Skahan 95

Energy Use, Markups Analyses

Mr. Lauf 150

Life Cycle Cost, Payback Period Analyses,

Ms. Costello 186

Shipments, Mr. Lauf 199

National Impact, Regulatory Impact Analysis

Mr. Lauf 212

Regulatory Input Analysis, Mr. Lauf 221

Manufacturer Impact Analysis, Mr. Cook 223

Utility Impact, Employment Impact,


(301) 565-0064

8 Environmental Impact Analyses

Ms.Iyama 235

Summary of Results, Proposed Standards

Mr. Reeves 246

Labeling, Mr. Reeves 279

Closing Comments 290


(301) 565-0064

9 P R O C E E D I N G S 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning everyone and 2

welcome. This is the U.S. Department of Energy‘s 3

public meeting on Energy Conservation Program for 4

Consumer Products, Energy Conservation Standards for 5

Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies. Today 6

is Wednesday, May 2, 2012 here at the Department of 7

Energy in Washington, D.C. My name‘s Doug Brookman. 8

Glad you could make it. We‘re going to have a full 9

day ahead of us. We‘re going to start off this 10

morning with welcoming remarks from Vic Petrolati. 11

Welcoming Remarks 12

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Doug, thank you. 13

First of all, thank you everybody for coming here to 14

our meeting. We expected a pretty full meeting, it 15

looks like we‘re going to have it. We have a count 16

as to the number of registers yet on the webinar? 17

PARTICIPANT: Thirty-one. 18

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. We‘ve got 31 people 19

listening in through the webinar this morning. 20

First of all, I would like to thank you 21

for coming. Do want to apologize to the time frame 22

that it took us to get to this Notice of Proposed 23

Rule. As many of you know, we went through an 24

extensive comment period with the Office of 25

Management and Budget that lasted fairly close to 26


(301) 565-0064

10 eight months, put us behind on the schedule quite a 1

bit, but we are here. We are ready to present our 2

Notice of Proposed Rule and hopefully, we can move 3

forward in an expeditious fashion from this point 4

on. Again, I want to thank you for attending. I 5

think it‘s been always extremely helpful to get the 6

participants who have basically worked with us 7

through the preliminary analysis and the framework 8

document here, in this room, and hear your comments 9

directly. 10

We‘ll cover it a little bit later. The 11

comment period ends, of course, on May 25th, so 12

you‘ve got time to finalize your written comments, 13

but we certainly want to get an understanding of 14

what your main concerns are, and that is the primary 15

purpose of the meeting today. Thank you 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. It‘s our 17

tradition to start off by doing introductions around 18

the room. I‘m going to start to my left. Please 19

say your name and organizational affiliation. It 20

will also give you an opportunity to learn, 21

practice, turning these microphones on and off. The 22

little green button needs to be cued and you need to 23

get it fairly close to your face to make this thing 24

work. So, your name, organizational affiliation, 25


(301) 565-0064

11 please. 1

Introductions 2

MR. WATKINS: Corey Watkins, Schumacher 3

Electric. 4

MR. TAYLOR: Jay Taylor with Schneider 5

Electric. 6

MR. STOCK: Spencer Stock, Lester 7

Electrical. 8

MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim, Philips 9

Electronics. 10

MR. SALAETS: Ken Salaets, Information 11

Technology Industry Council. 12

MR. CARRERA: Patrick Carrera, iRobot. 13

MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg, National 14

Electrical Manufacturers Association. 15

MR. DENKENBERGER: Dave Denkenberger, 16

ECOVA. 17

MR. RIDER: Ken Rider, California Energy 18

Commission. 19

MR. DELFORGE: Pierre Delforge, National 20

Resources Defense Council. 21

MR. SHELKH: Shahid Sheikh, Intel 22

Corporation. 23

MS. CLEARY: Jennifer Cleary, Association 24

of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 25


(301) 565-0064

12 MR. HAILEY: Jeff Hailey, Dell. 1

MR. HABBEN: Rick Habben, Wahl Clipper 2

Group. 3

MS. EVANS: Holly Evans, Strategic 4

Council. 5

MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, Department of 6

Energy. 7

MR. BOOHER: Brian Booher, D&R 8

International. 9

MR. REEVES: Ari Reeves, D&R 10

International. 11

MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti, Navigant. 12

MR. SKAHAN: Chris Skahan, Navigant. 13

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Peter Protopappas, 14

Navigant. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: I think we‘ll just ask them 16

to stand and speak without the microphone. Would 17

you do that, please, those – you, yes, please. 18

MR. SPITAELS: Jim Spitaels, Schneider 19

Electric. 20

MR. HAMILTON: Paul Hamilton, Schneider 21

Electric. 22

MR. DORIA: Jordan Doria with Ingersoll 23

Rand. 24

MR. CLINGER: John Clinger, ICF 25


(301) 565-0064

13 International. 1

MR. SMITH: Russ Smith, Lutron 2

Electronics. 3

MR. COOK: Keith Cook, Philips 4

Electronics. 5

MR. HAKKARAINENEN: Pekka Hakkarainenen, 6

Lutron Electronics. 7

MR. DOMMU: Jeremy Dommu, Department of 8

Energy. 9

MS. COSTELLO: Pamela Costello, Navigant 10

Consulting. 11

MR. H. COOK: Hayden Cook, Navigant. 12

MS. IYAMA: Sanaee Iyama, Lawrence 13

Berkeley National Lab. 14

MS. STUART: Carin Stuart. 15

MR. BECK: Dennis Beck from California 16

Energy Commission. 17

MR. FASSIER: Rich Fassier, Power 18

Integrations. 19

MR. SPAK: Brian Spak, Green Strategies. 20

MR. KUWANA: Eric Kuwana, Katten Law. 21

MR. WHITING: John Whiting, Schumacher 22

Electric. 23

MR. MALINOWSKI: Matt Malinowski, ICF 24

International. 25


(301) 565-0064

14 MR. JEONG: Stephen Jeong, Underwriter 1

Laboratories. 2

MS. FARBER: Julia Farber, UL. 3

MR. OFFNER: Arnold Offner, Phoenix 4

Contact. 5

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance 6

Standards Awareness Project. 7

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Northwest 8

Energy Efficiency Alliance. 9

MR. RABA: Jim Raba, Department of Energy. 10

MR. SHARP: Mark Sharp, Panasonic. 11

MR. CLINGER: John Clinger, ICF. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Did we miss anyone? Yes. 13

MR. LAUF: Dan Lauf, D&R International. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Dan. Okay. So 15

thanks again to all of you for being here and giving 16

us a timely start on the day 17

All of you received a packet of 18

information as you checked in. In there is an 19

agenda and a colorful PowerPoint slide packet, as 20

well as the Federal Register notice. You‘ll also 21

note that attached to the agenda are a few relevant 22

attachments, including specific requests for comment 23

in sequence with the agenda. 24

25


(301) 565-0064

15 Agenda Review 1

MR. BROOKMAN: I‘m going to run through 2

the agenda very briefly. Immediately following this 3

agenda review, there is – Vic Petrolati is going to 4

make some opening remarks and describe briefly 5

background and regulatory history. Immediately 6

following that, there‘s an opportunity for anybody 7

that wishes to do so to make brief summary remarks 8

here at the outset – brief opening statements. 9

Several individuals have requested that they be 10

allowed to do so, and we‘re going to hear from all 11

of them here at the outset. 12

Immediately following those opening 13

comments, we‘re going to move straight into the more 14

detailed content that‘s in the packet: market 15

assessment, including product definitions and scope. 16

We‘ll take a break mid-morning, round about 10:30 or 17

so. We will direct you to the coffee shop, don‘t 18

worry. Immediately following the break, technology 19

assessments, screening and engineering analysis. 20

Following that, energy use and markup analyses. 21

We‘ll have lunch mid-day, round about 22

12:15. Life-cycle cost, shipments, national impact, 23

regulatory impact, and manufacturer impact analyses 24

following lunch. And then moving directly into 25


(301) 565-0064

16 utility impact, employment impact and environmental 1

impact analyses. 2

We‘ll break again mid-afternoon, and then 3

returning from break, summary of results and 4

proposes standards, labeling, and yet another 5

opportunity for anybody that wishes to to make a 6

closing remark or a closing comment. So plenty of 7

opportunity to hear from you as the day goes on 8

today. 9

Purpose 10

MR. BROOKMAN: The purpose of this meeting 11

is to 12

invite comment on the proposed energy 13

conservation standard levels. You can see, 14

this is slide five in your packet, just 15

referring to it. 16

To present methodologies and characterize 17

results of the rulemaking analyses, 18

to discuss specific issues related to each 19

analysis; 20

to seek input from interested parties on 21

methodologies, assumptions, data sources, and 22

results from the analyses, 23

and to describe next steps in the rulemaking. 24


(301) 565-0064

17 So questions and comments on either the 1

agenda or the purpose? 2

I‘d ask for your consideration. We‘ve done 3

a lot of these meetings over the years, and folks 4

have been willing to observe what I think are common 5

courtesies. Please speak one at a time. Please say 6

your name for the record each time you speak. You 7

don‘t need to say your organizational affiliation 8

each time, but many of you are in the habit of doing 9

so. Please say your name each time you speak. I‘m 10

going to be cuing individuals by name as best I can, 11

to speak. I also wish to encourage follow on 12

comments. The back and forth is sometimes very 13

helpful for the Department of Energy. 14

There will be a complete transcript of 15

this meeting, which is why we‘re using these 16

microphones, and we have a recording mechanism here. 17

And if you can keep the focus here. 18

Please turn your cell phones on silent mode. If you 19

can limit sidebar conversations. These microphones 20

actually work pretty well, so turn them on and off 21

as needed. And if you can be concise and share the 22

air time. For those of you who have looked at this 23

material, and I‘m sure most of you have, there‘s a 24

lot to cover today, so if we can stay focused, we‘ll 25


(301) 565-0064

18 get out of here before a late dinner, I think. 1

So that‘s what I have to say here at the 2

outset. Any additional comments before we move into 3

opening remarks, some background, and regulatory 4

history? Okay. Then back to Vic Petrolati. 5

Introductory Remarks 6

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. I‘m going to give a 7

very quick background and overview of the 8

legislation, some of the constraints that we have in 9

terms of establishing standards for battery chargers 10

and external power supplies. 11

I believe I introduced myself, but just 12

one more time, Vic Petrolati. I‘m the project 13

manager for battery chargers and external power 14

supplies under the Appliance Standards Program. 15

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended 16

EPCA, adding battery chargers and external power 17

supplies and that was further amended by the Energy 18

Independence and Security Act of 2007, EISA. All of 19

the responsibilities for the appliance standards 20

program through these acts are basically implemented 21

through the Department of Energy. 22

When EISA amended EPCA back in 2007, it 23

actually established a standard, mandated standard, 24

for Class A external power supplies and established 25


(301) 565-0064

19 a compliance date of July 1, 2008, and that standard 1

consisted of both an active mode requirement as well 2

as a no load standard. So we are showing you the 3

standard here that has been in effect since July 1, 4

2008 for Class A external power supplies. 5

We, of course, have gotten quite a few 6

revisions made to the test procedure for these 7

products. Battery chargers is in Appendix Y of 8

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 9

430(B), and external power supplies is in Appendix C 10

of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 11

430, subpart B. We included standby and off mode 12

into those test procedures back in March 2009, then 13

we revised the test procedures again in June 2011 by 14

incorporating measurements for BC active mode. We 15

also included in these test procedures some 16

clarifications for how external power supplies 17

should be tested. So at this point we feel we have 18

test procedures in place to not only cover, 19

obviously, any of the aspects of the EISA rule from 20

June 2008, but obviously to cover everything that‘s 21

necessary for our Notice of Proposed Rule that we‘re 22

going to be discussing today. 23

This gives you just a quick summary of the 24

timeline. The Energy Independence and Security Act 25


(301) 565-0064

20 was actually passed in December 2007. It 1

established the class A EPS standards which became 2

effective in July 2008. We published our first 3

framework document on battery chargers and external 4

power supplies in June 2009. We had the preliminary 5

analysis in September 2010. We are finally here 6

with our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which was 7

published in March 2012 and we‘re certainly hopeful 8

that we will get the final rule out, hopefully, by 9

the end of 2012 or early 2013. 10

Let me touch about compliance dates just 11

for a second. Proposed standards would become 12

effective two years after the final rule for 13

external power supplies, that‘s a legislative 14

requirement. At this point we are going to make a 15

determination as to the compliance date for battery 16

chargers, and certainly we‘re going to make that 17

determination based on stakeholder input. We‘ve 18

heard a lot of input that the sooner the better for 19

battery chargers, but again, we want to get 20

stakeholder input as to what is a reasonable 21

compliance date for battery chargers. 22

There‘s also a requirement for us to go 23

back in 2015 and take another look at standards for 24

external power supplies. That same requirement does 25


(301) 565-0064

21 not exist for battery chargers, but the Department 1

is required every seven years to go back and review 2

its standards and update them if necessary. 3

EPCA directs DOE to consider seven factors 4

when setting energy conservation standards. You‘ve 5

seen this before. Those seven factors are on the 6

left: 7

the economic impact on consumers and 8

manufactures 9

the lifetime operating cost savings 10

total projected energy savings 11

impact on utility or performance 12

impact of any lessening of competition 13

need for national energy conservation, and 14

other factors the Secretary considers 15

relevant. 16

To the right will be all of the analyses 17

that go into supporting each one of the seven 18

factors that we will be going through today. 19

This gives you a graphical presentation of 20

what we‘ll be going through today. We are at the 21

NOPR stage in green. We will start our analysis 22

on the left end and be covering all of these boxes 23

today as part of our analysis. The first part we 24


(301) 565-0064

22 consider to be the upstream analysis, the market, 1

the energy use associated with equipment, the 2

markups, et cetera; then we get into what we call 3

the downstream analysis with the life-cycle cost, 4

payback, shipment analysis, national impact 5

analysis, manufacturer impact analysis. Again, 6

every one of these boxes will be covered today, 7

briefly, in terms of what was done. 8

We are proposing, as part of this rule, 9

amended standards for Class A EPSs, these are more 10

stringent standards than were established by 11

Congress in June 2008. We are proposing new 12

standards for certain non-Class A EPSs. Congress 13

did not address what is typically called non-Class 14

A EPSs in EISA. We are addressing them in this 15

rulemaking. And new standards for battery 16

chargers. 17

Just quickly, a summary of the proposed 18

rules impact, national energy savings. You can 19

see the net consumer national energy savings for 20

EPSs is almost a quad. National energy savings 21

for battery chargers is just a little over a quad. 22

Net consumer benefits are positive at the selected 23

TSLs, and will range from almost eight-tenths of a 24

billion to almost two billion for external power 25


(301) 565-0064

23 supplies, based on the three percent and seven 1

percent discount rates that were used in the 2

analysis. And for battery chargers, we have a 3

range of approximately six to eleven billion 4

dollars in net consumer benefits associated with 5

the discount rates. 6

Now we also incorporate into our analysis, 7

net social benefits, which include the cost of 8

emissions reductions, and this will also 9

significantly help us in terms of justifying 10

standards. And as you see, there is almost the 11

equivalent of a – well, I can‘t tell what the 12

percentage increase is, but it is significant for 13

external power supplies and it is also significant 14

for battery chargers in terms of not only 15

combining net consumer benefits, but combining it 16

with social cost of carbon, nitrogen, et cetera. 17

I want to say that when we‘re going 18

through these presentations, please feel free to 19

ask clarifying questions of the presenter on any 20

figure that is up, but detailed discussions I 21

would like to hold off until we get to the issue 22

boxes. On every presentation we will have a 23

number of issue boxes to start the generation of 24

questions from the stakeholders. So when we get 25


(301) 565-0064

24 to the issue box, we‘re welcoming comments to aid 1

information concerning the NOPR, issues that 2

correspond to those raised in DOE‘s published 3

material, are numbered in accordance with the 4

material. Whether invited by an issue box or not, 5

comments are welcome on any part of the analysis. 6

We‘d like to, if possible, keep those comments 7

during the presentations to just clarifications 8

and wait until we get to an issue box. 9

Feedback. All of the following methods of 10

actually providing your final comments which are 11

due Friday, May 25, 2012. This is what you need 12

to do. You can e-mail them in, you can send them 13

by postal mail, you can send them by courier. 14

This provides you with all of the information for 15

getting your comments in, and again, that May 25th 16

date is a critical date for us to move forward, so 17

please make sure you have your comments in by that 18

period of time. 19

Yes, that question in the back. 20

PARTICIPANT: The Federal Register says 21

May 29th. Was there a change in the date? 22

MR. PETROLATI: We‘ll check that. If the 23

Federal Register says the 29th, then we‘ll give you 24

to the 29th. 25


(301) 565-0064

25 PARTICIPANT: Thank you. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: So thank you. 2

MR. PETROLATI: I guess that answered both 3

questions. Okay, Doug, we are ready for opening 4

statements. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Several individuals have 6

requested to speak here at the outset. I hope 7

it‘s possible to make these comments sort of 8

summarized, make them fairly brief. And I have a 9

list of individuals who have requested to speak 10

and we‘re going to go through them one by one, and 11

that doesn‘t mean that anyone else should think 12

they don‘t have the capacity to make an opening 13

statement. Everyone gets a chance right now. So 14

the first person I have on my list is Corey 15

Watkins. 16

Opening Statements 17

MR. WATKINS: Good morning. I‘m Corey 18

Watkins, General Counsel and Executive Vice-19

President for Schumacher Electric Corporation. I 20

will keep these comments brief because our intent is 21

to submit the public comments that are due, now on 22

May 29th, to the DOE. 23

Since 1947, Schumacher Electric has been a 24

leading manufacturer and supplier of 12 volt 25


(301) 565-0064

26 automotive battery chargers that are sold here in 1

the United States. And we pride ourselves on being 2

an industry leader in both efficient and sustainable 3

products and practices. We have voluntarily adopted 4

and incorporated international ROHA (ph) standards 5

for eliminating toxic substances, and likewise, we 6

have done, through our sustainability initiative, we 7

have reduced our package size and demonstrated the 8

fact that smart energy efficiency and business can 9

certainly work together. 10

We support the efforts to increase the 11

efficiency of these 12-volt automotive battery 12

chargers, and we‘re prepared to innovate and invest 13

to insure that we can provide our customers with 14

safe and reliable cost-effective energy-efficient 15

products. 16

I want to just highlight on that last 17

sentence briefly, that the safety and reliability in 18

our category, there are some issues that we will 19

address in the public comments because there is not 20

anything in the marketplace, currently, that would 21

meet this standard and the concern that the DOE has 22

of the switching technology from linear to switch 23

mode. 24

We also certainly support the DOE‘s 25


(301) 565-0064

27 efforts to have one set of national standards, but 1

we do have a few concerns in that regard. The 2

primary one is that in this shift from linear to 3

switch mode, one of the concerns that Mr. Petrolati 4

noted on his form was how that can affect 5

competition. And our sole concern in that regard is 6

that in a shift from linear to switch mode, you 7

would effectively, due to some patented technology, 8

put the rest of the competitors out of business. 9

Virtually all of our automotive battery chargers are 10

infrequently used, and when they are stored, they 11

are used unplugged, and so we think that some of the 12

assumptions made, at least in our product class, do 13

not generate the energy savings or cost savings that 14

are listed because this infrequent use is certainly 15

– doesn‘t justify that amount. 16

Finally, we certainly want to stress the 17

importance of your actions being consistent with 18

providing a sufficient time to design, test, and 19

manufacture these products, so that as we move 20

towards this different technology and this energy 21

efficiency, that we do so and can provide the end 22

consumer with a product that‘s not only reliable, 23

but is safe. 24

Again, we‘ll submit our written comments 25


(301) 565-0064

28 that are more exhaustively covering these issues and 1

we thank you for letting us speak today. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Next I have Jay 3

Taylor. Emily, do you need to cue his slides? 4

You‘re doing it. Great. Whenever you wish, just 5

get that microphone close to you. 6

MR. TAYLOR: (Pause.) A technology 7

challenge. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Spencer, you‘re next, 9

right? Let‘s – while she‘s cuing those slides, 10

let‘s have Spencer proceed and then we‘ll return to 11

you, Jay. Spencer. 12

MR. STOCK: My name is Spencer Stock. I‘m 13

the product marketing manager at Lester Electrical. 14

Lester Electrical is a manufacturer of commercial 15

and industrial battery chargers. Related to this 16

standard, the products that we make that are 17

affected currently are golf and electric wheelchair 18

chargers. Thanks for the opportunity. I just have 19

a couple general comments-slash-requests or issues 20

that we have with the current – with the NOPR. 21

Our largest issue is with golf cart 22

battery chargers being considered consumer products. 23

We believe strongly that the golf cart and golf cart 24

battery chargers are non-consumer products. The DOE 25


(301) 565-0064

29 – the NOPR has a link to a document that the DOE has 1

for helping to determine whether something‘s 2

consumer or non-consumer. In there there‘s a number 3

of questions you ask to figure out if something is 4

consumer or non-consumer. The two big issues we 5

have are, first of all, the fact that – and this is 6

in the NOPR, the DOE has their own research on what 7

percentage of electric golf cars get sold to 8

individuals, so to consumers, and the number is 89.4 9

percent. Our own numbers, based upon the business 10

we do with the major golf car manufacturers in the 11

United States would be slightly higher than that, 12

but either way, around 90 percent of the electric 13

golf cars are sold in the United States are sold to 14

commercial or industrial businesses, primarily golf 15

courses. And so we say that primarily and 16

principally, golf cars are being sold to non-17

consumer applications. 18

Another factor is comparing the model to 19

see if it has distinguishing design features and 20

characteristics to other models within the same 21

category. Golf battery chargers are very, very 22

similar in design and manufacture to chargers that 23

are made for very clear-cut commercial and 24

industrial applications, such as industrial 25


(301) 565-0064

30 vehicles, aerial work platforms like scissor lifts, 1

material handling equipment like lift trucks, and 2

floor machines. Whereas, they‘re very dissimilar in 3

design construction to most clear-cut commercial – 4

or excuse me – consumer battery chargers. And so we 5

continue to believe that golf should be considered a 6

non-consumer application. 7

Our next issue, I guess is just our 8

comment on compliance. We feel that for battery 9

chargers, at least based upon our major categories 10

are affected, that if golf was not considered a non-11

consumer application and excluded, the design cycle 12

for golf is very extensive because it involves an 13

OEM vehicle manufacturer, the charger manufacturer, 14

and the battery manufacturers. And when a new golf 15

battery charger system is introduced, it involves a 16

couple year design cycle, where there‘s lab testing 17

done and then it goes out for an extensive field 18

test where full fleets of battery chargers are 19

deployed with cars for a full season of golf use. 20

And so based upon that, our feeling is that two 21

years from the final rule would be a minimum amount 22

of time that would be appropriate for our 23

applications. Again, if golf is not excluded from 24

this. 25


(301) 565-0064

31 The final comment I‘ll make is that we, in 1

the NOPR, in the initial regulatory flexibility 2

analysis, Lester Electrical is identified as the 3

only affected small business manufacturer in the 4

United States, and the analysis is pretty clear-cut, 5

that based upon these regulations, the technology we 6

manufacture in Lincoln, Nebraska, will not meet 7

those regulations, and it lays out the options we 8

have. And the two that the DOE identifies as 9

potential, both have to do with shifting our 10

manufacturing overseas. And so we see this, for us 11

at least, as a jobs issue, because it‘s pretty 12

clear-cut that the DOE agrees that to meet these 13

standards and be cost-competitive, we‘re going to 14

have to manufacture overseas, and that‘s something 15

we are a vertically integrated manufacturer that 16

builds everything in Lincoln, Nebraska, and we have 17

concerns about that, so – thank you. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay, now we‘re 19

going to return to Jay Taylor. We have his slides 20

up. You going to advance the slides? Emily will 21

advance them. 22

MR. TAYLOR: Excellent. Thanks. My name 23

is Jay Taylor. I‘m with Schneider Electric. I‘m 24

the Director for global standards, codes, and 25


(301) 565-0064

32 environment. And the way the battery chargers 1

regulation impacts Schneider Electric is through our 2

EPS organization. 3

So when we‘re looking at the review, what 4

we find is that we‘re now going to be impacted by a 5

second development effort. We already have a 6

current set of codes coming at us through the 7

California Energy Commission. Given the breadth of 8

the scope that currently exists, the overlap doesn‘t 9

exist between what‘s going on with California and 10

what‘s going on with the DOE. So the impact to us 11

is now we‘re involved in a second design activity on 12

our current products. We think you should be 13

considering a longer term implementation for these 14

products, simply because there will be two design 15

cycles involved, and it may force us, in the short 16

term, if the design cycles are curtailed, if you 17

look at the amount of testing, the regression 18

testing for either safety and/or reliability, you‘ll 19

find there‘ll be insufficient time for us to exit 20

all of those regression testing activities in order 21

to complete the product under the marketplace. 22

So this is the category 10-A and 10-B, 23

which we believe apply to the EPS systems. 24

And so we plotted the DOE regulations 25


(301) 565-0064

33 against the California regulations as you see here. 1

Then we plotted those against the non-AVR 2

types of battery chargers, and if you‘ll notice, way 3

down in the far end of the corner, we believe 4

there‘s exactly one out of the data, that comply 5

with the current regulations. 6

For the AVR products, there are none that 7

we plotted to date that comply with the regulations. 8

In fact, it‘s a fairly substantial difference 9

between where the products exist and where the 10

regulation tries to get us. 11

So when we go and look at the scope, one 12

of our concerns is the scope. We feel – and this is 13

the scope as outlined in the NOPR. And it refers to 14

the US Code, and then as we read through the US 15

Code, we pretty much understand where it‘s at, and 16

where we run into a problem is is without regard to 17

whether such articles of such type is in fact 18

distributed for commerce or personal use or 19

consumption. 20

Now I know Vic‘s tired of me calling and 21

talking to him about what does consumer really mean. 22

And my concern, fundamentally, is that when Vic wins 23

the $600 million dollar lottery and retires to 24

Bermuda drinking Mai-tais, and the new Vic comes on 25


(301) 565-0064

34 board, does he have really the same understanding 1

regarding the scope of this rulemaking that the old 2

Vic had for me. 3

So when we look at consumer battery 4

chargers which are EPS systems, does the scope 5

really mean 115 volts, 60 hertz, 15 amps or less? 6

Now where did I get that? Well, I got that out of 7

the test procedure, because the test procedure 8

referred to a standard, IEC 62301, and I got that 9

out of the NEC, since that‘s the practical limit for 10

consumer wall sockets. Okay. So the challenge that 11

I have is that I don‘t really have clarifiers that 12

allow me to distinguish in my marketplace the 13

difference between consumer and industrial kinds of 14

products. You know, if, for instance, is 15

professional installation required? What are other 16

characteristics of those? 17

And then the other thing, when I read 18

through the document, I can‘t find that existing 19

standards were referenced in the NOPR. So – outside 20

of the test procedure, that is, I can‘t find 21

existing standards. 22

So what we did is we came up with a 23

standard that we proposed to Energy Star, we‘ve 24

proposed it to a number of venues, that basically 25


(301) 565-0064

35 allows you to define what consumer devices are. Now 1

this may not apply across the board, but it provides 2

the specificity needed for us to go off and design 3

products to. And one of the standards is the IEC 4

6950, which is a safety standard. One of them is 5

the current code, the 47CFR15, which allows us to 6

define Class A and Class B emissions devices. It‘s 7

also one of the tools that we‘ve used to define 8

consumer versus non-consumer products in a lot of 9

other places, such as the Energy Star program and 10

the European Union. So this is just a reference 11

example and not necessarily – you may not go down 12

this path – but we know that these things exist, or 13

we know that the standards exist for you to use. 14

So the time to implementation is a concern 15

for us, especially if we‘re going to go through and 16

design the product twice. The limits for the Notice 17

of Proposed Rulemaking, few, and now no systems. 18

There was one data point that met, that system is 19

not on the market any longer, so officially if you 20

look at the data that you have, none of the systems 21

meet the criteria that‘s currently listed in the 22

NOPR. 23

The scope for consumer battery chargers 24

are also problematic for us. We are requesting you 25


(301) 565-0064

36 consider a scope that‘s very similar to California. 1

We were able to work with the California Energy 2

Commission on their rulemaking for battery chargers. 3

They did adopt IEC6204-3, second edition, and they 4

allowed us to distinguish those EPS systems that 5

existed in their marketplace which were low-end 6

focus for the purposes of their rulemaking. And 7

then consumer EPS systems exist with specificity. 8

We can provide you the standards. We‘re here to 9

help you. It‘s a matter that we think right now the 10

scope is overly broad and we don‘t think the scope 11

is consistent with the direction given out of the 12

Energy and Independence Security Act of 2007. 13

And I believe that – and you were 14

wondering if I could get through in five minutes or 15

not. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 17

MR. TAYLOR: Thanks, Vic. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Next, we‘re going to hear 19

from Dennis Beck. 20

MR. BECK: It‘s actually going to be Mr. 21

Ryder for California Energy. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: I‘m sorry. 23

MR. RYDER: Yes, this is Ken Ryder. I‘ll 24

be making the statement. 25


(301) 565-0064

37 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Ken Ryder. 1

MR. RYDER: The California Energy 2

Commission appreciates the opportunity to give this 3

prepared general statement for the public meeting on 4

the U.S. Department of Energy‘s proposed energy 5

conservation standards for battery chargers and 6

external power supplies. The Energy Commission is 7

the primary energy policy and planning agency of the 8

state of California. One of the chief mandates of 9

the Energy Commission is to reduce the wasteful, 10

uneconomic, inefficient and unnecessary consumption 11

of energy in the state by prescribing standards for 12

minimum levels of operating efficiency for 13

appliances that consume a significant amount of 14

energy on a state-wide basis. 15

The Energy Commission prescribed its first 16

appliance efficiency standards all the way back in 17

1976. Since then, the California Energy Commission 18

standards have reduced energy consumption in the 19

state by an average of 20,000 gigawatt hours per 20

year, and saved California consumers a total of $36 21

billion dollars in reduced energy costs. The Energy 22

Commission‘s efficiency efforts have enabled 23

California to keep per capita consumption flat for 24

three decades, while per capita consumption in the 25


(301) 565-0064

38 rest of the nation has increased by 40 percent. 1

On January 12th of this year, the Energy 2

Commission adopted regulations, including energy 3

efficiency standards, for consumer and non-consumer 4

battery charger systems. Standards for most 5

consumer battery chargers apply to products 6

manufactured on or after February 1, 2013. When 7

full compliance with the standard is achieved, the 8

standards are estimated to reduce energy consumption 9

in California by 2187 gigawatt hours and save 10

California consumers $300 million dollars in energy 11

cost per year, and reduce greenhouse gas covered 12

emissions by one billion metric tons per year. 13

The Energy Commission supports the efforts 14

of the Department to improve energy efficiency of 15

battery chargers and external power supplies 16

nationwide. And the Energy Commission would also 17

like to thank the Department for its research and 18

development regarding these products, as the results 19

of such research and development were incorporated 20

into the Energy Commission‘s standards development 21

and rulemaking process. 22

California has a vested interest in these 23

federal standards because by operation of federal 24

statute those standards will eventually preempt the 25


(301) 565-0064

39 California standards. As such, it is critical that 1

the Energy Commission, on behalf of all 2

Californians, make every effort to preserve the 3

anticipated energy monetary and environmental 4

benefits from its standards. 5

We believe that the Department can and 6

must do more to increase the overall stringency of 7

its proposed standards for battery chargers. The 8

standard levels contained in the Notice of Proposed 9

Rulemaking and the associated technical support 10

document are in some cases significantly less 11

stringent than the California standards. 12

Table 9.1 of the technical support 13

document compares California standards with the 14

Department‘s proposed candidate standard levels. 15

That table reveals that the proposed federal 16

standards are less stringent than the California 17

standards for product classes numbers two through 18

six. The products contained in these classes make 19

up over 77 percent of product shipments in the 20

United States according to Table 9.5 of the 21

technical support document. 22

Table 10.11 of the technical support 23

document indicates that alignment of proposed 24

federal standards for product classes two through 25


(301) 565-0064

40 six with the associated California candidate 1

standard levels would save an additional 0.93 2

quadrillion BTU nationally. More importantly, the 3

proposed federal standards would negatively impact 4

the energy savings anticipated to be derived by the 5

California standards by allowing the consumption of 6

an additional 0.12 quads in California. 7

The proposed federal standard levels do 8

not achieve all possible cost effective and feasible 9

improvements in maintenance mode. For product 10

classes two through four, the Energy Commission 11

identified charge termination into a low power mode 12

as the primary and most cost effective way to reduce 13

energy consumption. For the cost of less than a 14

dollar, energy consumption can be reduced through 15

the use of charge control chips, regardless of 16

battery chemistry or end use product. Improved 17

power consumption once the battery is fully charged 18

reduces the annual energy consumption for products 19

by half. 20

According to the Department‘s analysis, a 21

majority of the products shipped in these product 22

categories already use this technology. The Energy 23

Commission requests that the Department harmonize 24

the proposed federal standards with the California 25


(301) 565-0064

41 standards to the maximum extent possible, and to 1

adopt candidate standard levels that are at least as 2

stringent as the California levels. By harmonizing 3

the federal and California standards, the Department 4

will diminish compliance burdens for manufacturers 5

and achieve the maximum improvement in energy 6

efficiency that is technically feasible and 7

economically justified. Thank you. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Next I believe 9

we‘re going to hear from Christopher Henken. 10

MR. SALAETS: Actually, I‘m speaking on 11

behalf of Chris and the Information and Technology 12

District Council. My name is Ken Salaets, Director 13

of Global Policy at ITI. Our member companies are 14

leading global innovators of information and 15

communications technology, or ICT, an industry 16

committed to both developing energy efficient 17

solutions demanded by our customers and to help – 18

helping drive sustainable economic grown and energy 19

independence across every sector of our nation‘s 20

economy. I should also note that our manufacturers, 21

our companies, come from Europe, North America, and 22

Asia, so we are committed to that same principle, 23

globally, and not just in the United States. 24

While we intend to submit detailed, 25


(301) 565-0064

42 written comments later by the deadline, whatever the 1

deadline may be, we appreciate the opportunity to 2

offer our few short comments. 3

Addressing scope, initially, all prior DOE 4

regulations concerning these categories of products 5

strictly addressed consumer products. In other 6

words, those products intended for purchase and use 7

by individuals in either home or small office 8

settings. However, some confusion has been caused 9

by references that the NOPR covers consumer products 10

and commercial and industrial equipment. The 11

response to our inquiry with individuals like Jay 12

calling Vic on a constant basis, ITI has been 13

assured that the NOPR only covers EPSs and battery 14

chargers that operate, quote, ―consumer products,‖ 15

close quote, and we thank DOE staff for that 16

clarification. 17

Had the NOPR been intended to apply to 18

products designed for commercial and industrial use, 19

for example, ICT products designed to be used in 20

data centers, this expanded scope would have 21

constituted an extraordinary expansion of coverage 22

of the regulation with very significant 23

implications. These classes of products have much 24

longer design and development cycles than those 25


(301) 565-0064

43 needed for traditional consumer products. They‘re 1

also targeted for very different workloads and duty 2

cycles than their consumer-focused counterparts. 3

One way to address the confusion that 4

still may exist is we suggest adopting the Energy 5

Star battery charger definition, which would help 6

provide a clear line of distinction between EPSs and 7

battery chargers that operate consumer products and 8

those that are designed for commercial and 9

industrial use. 10

Regarding the EPS requirements, we believe 11

the proposed EPS limits appear to be both 12

unreasonable and economically unjustifiable. The 13

new efficiency limits for Class A EPSs were 14

unexpected. They have never been discussed with our 15

industry, to the best of my knowledge, and their 16

feasibility has not been adequately investigated. 17

These are activities that we are engaged in, both 18

with the CEC, with the folks at EPA and have been 19

with Vic, and we welcome the opportunity to continue 20

that engagement at a level of detail necessary to 21

basically inform that process. 22

Our member companies are still working to 23

fully understand and assess the potential impact. 24

It is clear that significant redesign of power 25


(301) 565-0064

44 supply architecture and components would be required 1

to enable EPSs to meet the proposed DOE average 2

efficiency in no load power limits. 3

A key concern that‘s a corollary to this 4

is whether there is enough, or a sufficient number 5

of components that can be produced in the new EPS 6

designs qualified within the timeframe, whatever 7

that timeframe may end up being, to meet the 8

potential demand that we anticipate that will be 9

driven by the regulation. In many cases, the power 10

supply redesigns will force global requalifications 11

of the power supply and the end product using the 12

power supply to verify product safety and EMC 13

compliance. Our concern is that the DOE proposal 14

needlessly breaks away from the established path of 15

global harmonization of efficiency limits and would 16

result in a massive industry-wide redesign effort. 17

This would be extremely difficult for our industry, 18

and possibly impossible for some manufacturers 19

within the given timeframe and may result in 20

tremendous economic cost. 21

If the Agency feels compelled to stick 22

with the relative schedule, which, of course it‘s 23

driven by statute, we strongly recommend that the 24

requirements be limited to efficiency level five. 25


(301) 565-0064

45 This would allow convergence with the international 1

system of efficiency levels and markings that have 2

been successfully implemented within Energy Star and 3

by Europe, Canada, Australia, China, and other 4

governments and regions. Doing so would also 5

alleviate the significant economic burdens that 6

would be imposed by the current proposal. 7

Another possibility would be to adopt a 8

phased approach with the initial phase being limited 9

to efficiency level five for Class A EPS only, and 10

possibly include an effective date as early as July 11

1, 2013. The second phase would be to investigate 12

efficiency standards for all classes of EPS with 13

input from industry and EPS manufacturers, and 14

again, we would welcome the opportunity to 15

participate in that process. The second phase could 16

even look to a voluntary requirement. Starting with 17

a voluntary efficiency requirement first, is 18

consistent with how higher levels of EPS efficiency 19

have been achieved in the past, where stretch 20

requirements began first as voluntary measures, 21

enabling us for the transition to higher levels of 22

adoption over time. 23

And finally, the compliance date for EPSs 24

manufactured outside of the EPS, which is typically 25


(301) 565-0064

46 the case for ICT products, we would recommend that 1

it be consistent with the requirements for domestic 2

manufacture. In other words, based on the date the 3

EPS is manufactured. 4

Regarding battery charger requirements. 5

ITI recommends the following changes to the battery 6

charger requirements as reflected in the NOPR. 7

First, DOE should reconsider the efficiency limits 8

for Class 1 inductive chargers. We believe this 9

limit is unfeasible for higher battery energy 10

products and could stifle innovation in certain 11

product categories. One suggestion is to revise the 12

Class 1 efficiency limit with scales by battery 13

energy. Another suggestion might be to make it 14

clear that inductive chargers can also meet DOE 15

regulations under other categories, such as two, 16

three, or four, based on battery voltage. 17

A second recommendation. The Agency 18

should reconsider the efficiency levels for Class 8 19

low voltage DC input chargers. We believe this 20

limit is unfeasible for a USB charger charging of 21

higher battery energy products and could stifle 22

innovation in certain product categories. One 23

suggestion to address this would be to revise the 24

Class 8 efficiency limit formula so it scales by 25


(301) 565-0064

47 battery energy. 1

Another recommendation is that DOE 2

considers harmonizing the Class 10 scope and limits 3

with those established by the California Energy 4

Commission. As proposed, the Class 10 limits exceed 5

CEC requirements in critical areas, causing yet 6

another redesign of battery chargers currently in 7

redesign for EPS systems, as Jay referenced. And 8

when the expanded scope is included, additional 9

system redesign are required to be included by July 10

1, 2012. 11

Fourth recommendation. Since the BC mark 12

is intended to facilitate enforcement at customs and 13

point of sale, we recommend the Agency allow the BC 14

marking to be applied to the exterior of the retail 15

packaging as an alternative to marking the surface 16

of the product itself. We believe that with the 17

recommended changes that industry will be able to 18

proceed accordingly and be able to achieve all of 19

the essential goals that were established, both by 20

statute and also by DOE in its regulation. 21

A couple other comments. Federal 22

preemption of state regulations. Manufacturers need 23

clear guidance on which state regulations are 24

preempted by the battery charger and EPS regulation. 25


(301) 565-0064

48 Specifically, a description is needed of the 1

portions of the CEC battery charger regulations that 2

would be preempted. 3

And then finally, we recommend exemption 4

for service parts and refurbished products. The 5

regulation must insure that the useful life of 6

existing products is extended and legal requirements 7

for supporting a product for up to five years are 8

met. The regulation must include an exemption for 9

service parts and refurbished products produced 10

prior to the effective date. This exemption is 11

needed both for battery charger products and 12

external power supplies sold prior to the effective 13

date. 14

So again, this precludes or concludes our 15

preliminary comments. We will be happy to submit a 16

more detailed comment at the later date, and we 17

thank the Agency for this process and the 18

transparency. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank you. Is 20

Larry Albert here? He‘s on the webinar. Okay. So 21

how – you going to cue his views, graphs? Yes? 22

Then how are we going to hear from him? You can 23

unmute him. Okay. Why don‘t you – maybe we could 24

just say anyone else who‘s listening in on the 25


(301) 565-0064

49 webinar and I neglected to recognize you at the 1

outset, and thank you for joining us via the web. 2

Thank you for that. Please mute, if you haven‘t 3

done so already, mute your devices so that we don‘t 4

have feedback in the room. So is he ready to go? 5

Okay. Larry Albert. Larry, we can‘t hear you. Any 6

indication that he‘s coming through? You don‘t 7

think he‘s there? Okay, so we‘re going to proceed 8

and then maybe we‘ll double back. 9

Okay. Now we‘re going to hear from Dave 10

Denkenberger who also has – from ECOVA – who also 11

has viewgraphs. 12

MR. DENKENBERGER: My name is Dave 13

Denkenberger and I work for ECOVA, formerly ECOS 14

Consulting. I‘m speaking on behalf of the 15

California Investor-Owned Utilities, who have formed 16

their works since 2002, to address the efficiency of 17

external power supplies and battery charging 18

systems, and proposed standardized test procedure 19

and efficiency specifications for these products, 20

both in California and federally. 21

In the heat of stakeholder discussions in 22

regulatory proceedings on these products over the 23

years, it has been tempting to frame government 24

decisions as a stark choice between what the market 25


(301) 565-0064

50 prefers, low cost, simple, nickel-based battery 1

chargers, and what saves the most energy, high cost, 2

complex, lithium-based battery chargers. Yet our 3

market research, product testing, and tear-downs 4

have consistently shown that there is a third path, 5

a middle path, retaining the low cost nickel 6

batteries, but charging them intelligently with 7

efficient power conversion. This delivers most of 8

the energy savings of the lithium design, at a cost 9

much closer to that of a nickel design. This 10

realization was central to the decision of the 11

California Energy Commission ultimately made, to 12

adopt standards at the levels it did, and we urge 13

the DOE to follow a similar course for product 14

categories where DOE‘s proposed standard levels are 15

less stringent than those already adopted in 16

California, particularly product classes two, three, 17

and four. 18

Specifically, the DOE has proposed trial 19

standard level, TSL-1 for product classes two 20

through four, which comprise, among other products, 21

phones, cameras, tools, and laptops. The DOE has 22

assumed that to meet the next stricter level, 23

lithium is required, which has significant 24

incremental cost for those types of products like 25


(301) 565-0064

51 consumer grade tools and cordless phones that are 1

mostly nickel at present. 2

Though it is true that no commercially 3

available nickel products currently meet the 4

stricter DOE level, other commercially available 5

charging circuitry can be incorporated into these 6

products to achieve the higher DOE levels. 7

We have performed a tear-down and redesign 8

of a Class 4 power tool. The charge profile as 9

shift is shown in slide two, and you can see it 10

consumes significant amount of power in maintenance 11

mode. By adding readily available, low-cost, 12

silicon-based charge control, the maintenance power 13

fell by two-thirds, while battery capacity was 14

maintained. And the blue line is the comparable 15

line, the power use. You can see falling 16

dramatically once the battery is full. 17

Then we calculated the effect of 18

substituting a level five power supply for the level 19

four power supply, saving additional energy, and 20

that‘s shown in slide four. The resulting tool 21

would meet both the California level and the 22

stricter DOE level. Using incremental bill and 23

materials cost and the incremental markup, the 24

payback would be less than one year. Still haven‘t 25


(301) 565-0064

52 gotten to slide four. Okay. So that‘s the summary. 1

Then, for Class 2, we support the DOE 2

proposal to create a TSL that was between improved 3

and best in class. We found one commercially 4

available nickel product that already meets the 5

intermediate level, and using a more efficient power 6

supply would cut the energy use by additional 40 7

percent. 8

For Class 3, we note that the TSL-1 and 9

TSL-2 are separated by a factor of five in annual 10

energy use, so that‘s the red line and the green 11

line. It‘s highly unusual to have such a wide gap 12

in the energy use of TSLs, therefore, we recommend 13

that the DOE evaluate an intermediate TSL at the 14

California level which could also be met with smart 15

nickel chargers. Strengthening the standard to the 16

CEC level for these three product classes would save 17

nearly one quad over 30 years, nationally, almost 18

equal to a multi-billion dollar coal-fired power 19

plant operating continuously. 20

In conclusion, we are generally supportive 21

of DOE‘s analysis of other product categories, 22

however in Classes two through four, significant 23

energy savings additionally can be achieved, cost-24

effectively, while maintaining consumer utility. I 25


(301) 565-0064

53 thank you for the opportunity to speak. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Next, I believe 2

we‘re going to hear from CEA, Doug Johnson. 3

MR. JOHNSON: I've got slides too. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: And if Larry Albert has 5

joined us, maybe we'll hear from him after Doug has 6

concluded his remarks. 7

MR. JOHNSON: Looks like I‘m here to talk 8

about the flu. Stay healthy. There we go. My name 9

is Doug Johnson. I‘m with the Consumer Electronics 10

Association. And this morning I wanted to highlight 11

a report that we and a few other associations 12

commissioned during the course of the California 13

Energy Commission‘s rulemaking on battery chargers. 14

We‘ve heard the call by parties that the Department 15

should harmonize with California‘s adopted 16

regulation, but we do not believe that would be the 17

correct course of action, and one of the biggest 18

reasons has to do with the cost benefit analysis 19

underlying that adopted regulation. 20

We, and other associations, jointly 21

commissioned the Berkeley Research Group in Los 22

Angeles to evaluate the Energy Commission‘s cost 23

benefit analysis and regulatory justification, as I 24

mentioned. We submitted the report from BRG in 25


(301) 565-0064

54 November 2011, and that report and the inputs to the 1

BRG analysis were based on the California Energy 2

Commission‘s staff report and related supporting 3

documents. The key findings of the BRG analysis are 4

these. Berkeley Research Group found that the CEC‘s 5

cost benefit analysis was fundamentally flawed and 6

logically unsound because it failed to account for 7

several important factors. 8

One is the turnover of existing stock, to 9

account for that in a proper way. 10

Second factor is the time value of money. 11

Thirdly, the potential impact of pending DOE 12

regulation. 13

Fourth, the incremental cost of compliance, and 14

Fifth, the technological improvements that 15

would happen in this class of product due to 16

competition. 17

BRG also found that the California Energy 18

Commission‘s cost-benefit calculations and 19

modeling contained arithmetic errors and were 20

based on stale data on battery chargers, which 21

then overstated product savings and understated 22

the incremental costs of compliance. 23

So what BRG did in its report was take the 24


(301) 565-0064

55 California Energy Commission‘s model, corrected 1

it for calculation errors, then accounted for the 2

cost of compliance, incorporated as an example a 3

DOE regulation taking effect in 2014, 4

incorporated also the technological innovation 5

due to competition in this product class, and 6

fifth, incorporated manufacturer input on cost of 7

compliance. 8

So BRG‘s substitute model, by taking these 9

factors into account, more accurately reflected 10

economic realities, particularly product turn-11

over, design life of products, the time value of 12

money, and in incorporating these corrections, 13

the first year savings using this more realistic 14

approach eliminated savings over most battery 15

charger-related product categories. 16

So in summary, BRG substitute model, under 17

both the Energy Commission‘s own flawed model as 18

well as BRG‘s more realistic approach, the firm 19

found that the net impact on consumers was 20

negative for the majority of product categories 21

impacted by the California Commission‘s proposed 22

battery charger regulation. And it is for this 23

reason and others that we do not recommend that 24

the Department simply harmonize with California‘s 25


(301) 565-0064

56 adopted battery charger regulation. 1

CEA will be submitting a copy of the BRG 2

report along with its comments as we submit them 3

later this month. Thank you. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Another 5

opportunity for anybody that wants to, to make an 6

opening statement right now. Pierre. 7

MR. DELFORGE: Pierre Delforge, NRDC. 8

Thank you for the opportunity to make an opening 9

statement. So on behalf of NRDC, we are pleased 10

to see DOE‘s rule move forward on battery 11

chargers and external power supplies, given the 12

large energy and consumer savings opportunity in 13

these products. We commend DOE for proposing a 14

strong, yet cost-effective, standard in a number 15

of battery charger product classes. We also 16

support DOE‘s proposal for revised and extended 17

standards on external power supplies beyond level 18

five levels, even though we will argue that 19

significant additional savings opportunities can 20

be captured cost-effectively on external power 21

supplies. 22

We also have concerns we will address in 23

regarding the definition of indirect operation 24

power supplies that unnecessarily potentially 25


(301) 565-0064

57 exclude a large number of power supplies. 1

Lastly, we also are pleased to see DOE‘s 2

proposed revised and extended marking 3

requirements for both external power supplies and 4

battery chargers. We believe that efficiency 5

marking is key to facilitate global adoption and 6

minimize the cost of compliance. 7

However, we are disappointed that the 8

proposed rule is significantly weaker than 9

California‘s in battery charger categories two 10

through six, which represent over three-quarters 11

of battery chargers sold in the U.S. We see no 12

reason why DOE cannot adopt the standard which is 13

at least as strong as California‘s in these 14

categories. CEC went through a thorough and 15

rigorous process and has a proven track record in 16

setting cost-effective standards. 17

We believe that DOE‘s cost estimates are 18

significantly too high, which unduly impacts the 19

cost-effectiveness of higher efficiency levels 20

that would otherwise be cost-effective. For 21

example, manufacturer setting prices, or the 22

delta of manufacturer setting prices for high 23

levels are based solely on manufacturer 24

interviews and they are inconsistent, and we 25


(301) 565-0064

58 believe, significantly overestimated in some 1

categories, for example, 60-watt external power 2

supplies. 3

California Energy Commission and the ILUs 4

also made a case, the case that we don‘t need to 5

shift from nickel based to lithium ion batteries 6

in order to meet their proposed levels. Even if 7

we concede lithium ion as a upper bound on the 8

cost of compliance, it appears that DOE has not 9

factored in the rapid decline of the cost of 10

lithium ion batteries in its estimates, and these 11

batteries are dropping in price dramatically 12

every year, as production volume increase and 13

technology improves. DOE itself has invested 14

over a billion dollars to accelerate the 15

development of advanced battery charger 16

technology in the U.S. and should be able to use 17

its own cost projections in its rulemaking. 18

So overall, DOE‘s proposal would result in 19

the loss of nearly half, estimates about 47 20

percent of energy savings for battery chargers 21

compared to the California standard. This would 22

require the need to build an additional 700 23

megawatt power plant and is equivalent to the 24

electricity use of nearly half the households in 25


(301) 565-0064

59 the city of Los Angeles. It also increases the 1

cost for American consumers by approximately $600 2

million dollars annually, reducing disposable 3

income and impacting American economic growth. 4

The weaker standard would also impact – 5

negatively impact American‘s health, due to the 6

additional harmful pollution resulting from the 7

unnecessary power wasted in the battery charger 8

adaptors. 9

We urge DOE to review its assumptions and 10

analysis, particularly regarding cost estimates 11

to reassess the cost-effectiveness of these 12

California IU proposals and to move forward with 13

efficiency marking proposal. Thank you for the 14

opportunity to comment, and we look forward to 15

continue working with you and stakeholders on 16

this rulemaking. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Alex. 18

MR. BOESENBERG: Hi. I‘m Alex Boesenberg, 19

with the National Electrical Manufacturers 20

Association. Again, as everyone else has, I will 21

thank the Department for allowing me to make some 22

brief opening remarks. 23

One of the benefits of going close to last 24

is many of the points I was going to make have 25


(301) 565-0064

60 already been made, so instead, I can just say ditto 1

and echo concerns about the size of the scope and 2

the difficulty in interpreting which products are 3

affected. That has basically consumed my last five 4

weeks and we hope now to get to some substantive 5

comments based on that. 6

We are conscious of the desire to move 7

forward on certain aspects of the rulemaking and 8

just as conscious of the desire to understand 9

everything and its potential impacts across the 10

range of products affected as best possible so that 11

we can make, not only the best comments, but so 12

manufacturers can begin to make their own personal 13

plans for how they will comply and address the 14

redesigns needed. 15

We echo the suggestions of reexamination 16

and clarification of the scope, and also comments 17

effective to consider phased-in approaches for 18

effective dates to afford manufacturers a greater 19

time to examine different designs and test those. 20

And also, one thing I didn‘t hear, was 21

that based on my reading of the current status of 22

the rulemaking was that the Department decided to 23

combine the battery chargers and EPS rules at a 24

certain point, and it might be a useful tool if we 25


(301) 565-0064

61 were able to split those apart or a phase in 1

approach or other concerns for effective dates as 2

those addressed. That‘s one idea I didn‘t hear yet. 3

And we have some other specific remarks 4

that we‘ll make as we get to those items, thank you. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 6

comments here at the outset? Yes, Jennifer. 7

MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary and this will be 8

very brief, so thank you for the opportunity to make 9

comments. AHAM is generally supportive of the 10

direction that DOE is taking in the proposed rule, 11

especially with regard to battery charger classes 12

two through four as they relate to AHAM‘s products. 13

Of course, we do have a number of comments and 14

suggestions which we‘ll make through the course of 15

the day and in our written comments, but 16

importantly, we do agree with DOE‘s analysis 17

regarding California‘s standards. As we argued to 18

California, those CEC standards for battery chargers 19

are not feasible and represent a negative NPV for 20

product classes two through six. Accordingly, DOE 21

should not adopt those standards as stringent as 22

California‘s because of the burden on manufacturers 23

and the net impact on consumers would be too great, 24

just supported by DOE‘s own analysis and also the 25


(301) 565-0064

62 cost-benefit analysis that was already discussed 1

today by CEA. Thank you. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. As I 3

understand it, Larry Albert has joined us, and 4

Larry, you‘re next, please speak. 5

MR. ALBERT: Yes, thank you, Doug. This 6

is Larry Albert. I work for Black and Decker in 7

Towson, Maryland and I‘m representing the Power Tool 8

Institute before the Department on the proposed 9

rule. Next slide please. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: We‘re working on it, just a 11

second, Larry. 12

MR. ALBERT: Can you hear me. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, we can hear you fine, 14

we‘re just – hang on just a moment, we‘ll advance 15

the slide. Here we go. 16

MR. ALBERT: Thanks again, by the way, for 17

accommodating our situation here. There‘s a trade 18

association meeting here this week and we‘ve been 19

tied up in all the meetings so couldn‘t make it in 20

person. The Power Tool Institute is the trade 21

association of power tool manufacturers, do business 22

in North America. As I think the Department is 23

aware, we‘ve been a frequent and a responsible 24

contributor to external power supply and battery 25


(301) 565-0064

63 charger rulemaking here at DOE and also in other 1

jurisdictions, including California. In addition, 2

PTI members have been pretty involved as partners in 3

Energy Star and indicate their support in general in 4

conservation efforts through their products that 5

they have as Energy Star compliant. 6

So we‘ve had this long time support of the 7

goal of battery charger energy efficiency, and we 8

basically look for some essential qualities in a 9

proposed rule. That the requirements are national 10

in scope – we are a global company and we are, in 11

this trade association of other companies in a 12

similar situation, it makes no sense to have 13

individual state regulations. We believe that it‘s 14

important to have a national standard, otherwise it 15

becomes a difficulty for manufacturers to comply. 16

And that these standards apply only to true power 17

supplies and not element of battery chargers as EPS 18

standards do, and that the standard is based upon a 19

meaningful measurement of usage, and that the 20

standard provides a positive financial consumer 21

benefit with respect to energy savings. That the 22

standards are achievable using proven technology. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Larry, I‘ve been handed a 24

note and I‘m supposed to ask you can you please turn 25


(301) 565-0064

64 sound off on your speakers? There‘s an echo. 1

MR. ALBERT: Okay. I‘ll try that. I‘ve 2

got the sound off, let me just try using my speaker. 3

Is that any better? 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Keep talking. 5

MR. ALBERT: Okay. So with respect to 6

EPS, PTI supports the gradation of class and EPSs. 7

We believe that it will have a significant impact on 8

initial battery design and the test of meaningful 9

and feasible will truly separate the case out of a 10

battery charger versus a power supply for an …ent. 11

We would appreciate I think the clarification in 12

this section with respect to how the class and test 13

applies to … battery pack. We‘re grateful that the 14

provision is there that covers essentially the 15

consideration that EISA had for … operated and 16

actual battery pack applications. 17

With respect to battery chargers, PTI 18

believes that the method that has been established 19

to limit these type of … are completely appropriate 20

for the classes of product that are covered, that 21

would be specifically classes two through four. We 22

think the method and limits fulfill what our 23

objectives are with respect to any regulation for 24

energy efficiency, that is, it provides both 25


(301) 565-0064

65 meaningful measure and meaningful benefit. We agree 1

with the approach that the Department took with 2

respect to vehicular powered battery chargers and 3

that they‘re essentially exempted by establishing 4

those standards, because we don‘t believe that they 5

contribute to the energy consumption meaningfully in 6

the United States. 7

And we believe the levels are appropriate 8

and we believe that they can also be achieved by the 9

July 1, 2013 date as expressed in the NOPR. In the 10

opposite consideration, DOE should not go to the CEC 11

levels of the new baseline because we believe that 12

they‘re unachievable by the CEC date and they‘re 13

also unachievable by the July 1st date. I think the 14

Department has found, and I think you heard earlier 15

comment to the effect that there‘s negative consumer 16

benefit, and with respect to power tools and in 17

particular, it provides no room left over in terms 18

of energy improvement for programs such as Energy 19

Star. 20

So with respect to Energy Star power tool 21

manufacturers have been very active participants in 22

the Energy Star battery chargers program. The 23

larger portion of the Energy Star listings that you 24

can find on the website are power tool and similar 25


(301) 565-0064

66 product has been over the years, the steady 1

transformation as our industry has signed on with 2

more and more product, and this process of having 3

center driven voluntary program has driven industry 4

innovation with respect to energy efficiency. By 5

creating any mandatory standard that would create a 6

recalibration of the specification levels of Energy 7

Star is understood, but having an overly restrictive 8

standard such as CEC, takes a larger reset that 9

could effectively eliminate all Energy Star 10

offerings while providing no participants in the 11

market, and that could have the effect of just 12

eliminating the BCS program entirely in practice. 13

Thank you for the opportunity to make 14

these comments for the Department, thanks for the 15

special accommodations for allowing me to 16

participate. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Larry. Other 18

comments here at the outset? Okay. So then let‘s 19

go straight into the PowerPoint slides that all of 20

you have in front of you, and first we‘re going to 21

hear from Brian Booher. It‘s – in my experience 22

it‘s unusual to have so much extensive comment here 23

in this opening segment, and so I‘m hoping, as we 24

proceed through these slides we don‘t have a lot of 25


(301) 565-0064

67 redundancy. I‘m hoping you can emphasize what you 1

need to emphasize and you can do it very 2

efficiently, because we have a lot of content to get 3

through here. So Brian, please. 4

Rulemaking Scope, Product Classes and 5

Market Assessment 6

MR. BOOHER: Good morning, everybody. 7

Again, I‘m Brian Booher with D&R International, and 8

I‘m going to be talking to you today about the scope 9

of the rulemaking, product classes and the market 10

assessment. The first step of the rulemaking 11

process was to establish the scope of the rulemaking 12

and divide battery chargers and EPSs into product 13

classes. According to the statute, DOE can create 14

product classes based on the type of energy used and 15

other performance-relating features, with the goal 16

to maintain the utility of different types of 17

products. DOE does not want regulations to 18

eliminate unique products. 19

So we‘ll start with EPSs. The statutory 20

definition of an EPS is a circuit that is used to 21

convert household electric current into DC current 22

or lower voltage AC current to operate the consumer 23

product. So, you know, here we‘re talking about an 24

EPS is outside the product that it operates. It 25

attaches to and obtains power from the mains. It 26

outputs DC current or a lower voltage AC current and 27


(301) 565-0064

68 it powers a consumer product. As you may notice, 1

this definition encompasses wall adapters that can 2

be used to charge batteries. About 80 percent of 3

EPSs are actually part of a battery charging system. 4

In order to deal with this overlap between 5

EPSs and battery chargers, DOE has revised its 6

approach from the preliminary analysis. Whereas a 7

wall adapter was only considered an EPS if it 8

contained charge control, now DOE considers all wall 9

adapters to be EPSs. The problem was that charge 10

control functionality was never clearly defined and 11

the more relevant question is whether the EPSs can 12

operate the end use product directly, or whether the 13

EPS is only designed to charge a battery. So DOE is 14

proposing to give special treatment to those EPSs 15

that cannot operate an end user consumer product 16

directly. We are calling these indirect operation 17

EPSs. It is DOE‘s position that these indirect 18

operation products are best regulated by the battery 19

charger standard and DOE is not proposing new EPS 20

standards for product class N at this time. Product 21

class N is indirect operation EPSs. 22

So how do you determine if a product is an 23

indirect or direct operation EPS? DOE developed 24

this protocol. The first step is to charge the 25

battery and then disconnect the EPS from the 26

product. Then you turn on the product and note how 27

long it takes to start. This is the normal start-up 28


(301) 565-0064

69 time. Operate the product until it runs out of 1

batteries and it stops functioning, then connect the 2

EPS to the product again. Immediately turn the 3

product back on and note how long it takes to start. 4

This is the dead battery start up time. When you 5

compare the two start up times, if the dead battery 6

start up time is less than or equal to the normal 7

start up time plus five seconds, this is a direct 8

operation product. On the other side, if the dead 9

battery start up time is greater than the normal 10

start up time plus five seconds, this is an indirect 11

operation product. 12

You know, the reasoning here is that if a 13

product takes more than five seconds to start up 14

with a dead battery, it‘s because the product is 15

drawing the power from the battery and not from the 16

EPS, and therefore it has to establish a charge in 17

the battery before it can operate. And you can find 18

this protocol outlined in full in the rule language. 19

So these diagrams are a rough depiction of 20

a direct, on the top, and an indirect operation 21

system. You can see in figure one how the EPS is 22

designed so it can provide power to the end use 23

operation, to the end use application. And then on 24

the bottom, all the power must flow through the 25

battery. I have a question? 26

MR. BROOKMAN: Please. Go ahead. 27

MR. HABBEN: Going back to your dead 28


(301) 565-0064

70 battery – 1

MR. BROOKMAN: It‘s Vic, right? 2

MR. HABBEN: Rick. Rick Habben from Wall 3

Clipper. Going back to the dead battery, is there a 4

definition for dead battery? 5

MR. BOOHER: It‘s if the battery is 6

completely exhausted of all charge. I don‘t know – 7

MR. HAVEN: Is it that the product is not 8

functioning or is it to a certain level determined 9

what that battery is designed for? 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Please find a microphone, 11

and say your name. 12

MR. SKAHAN: Chris Skahan, Navigant 13

Consulting. There‘s no official definition for dead 14

battery, but in the indirect operation procedure 15

it‘s taken as the point where it can no longer 16

operate the end user application as it was intended. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay, Rick? 18

MR. HABBEN: Yes, thank you for that 19

clarification. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. You‘re doing 21

very well. Keep going. 22

MR. BOOHER: So these are all of the EPS 23

product classes. Most Class A EPSs are in the four 24

product classes there on the left, and most non-25

Class A EPSs are in the three product classes on the 26

right. The exceptions are direct operation EPSs for 27

some motorized applications, like some shavers and 28


(301) 565-0064

71 beard trimmers, and indirect operation Class A EPSs 1

like some Blue Tooth headsets and MP3 players. 2

And this is a useful decision tree for 3

determining which of the seven product classes the 4

EPS falls into, so if the device meets the 5

definition of an EPS, the first question you ask is 6

whether it can directly operate a consumer product. 7

If not, the product is assigned to product class N. 8

If so, then determine whether it can output multiple 9

simultaneous output voltages, if so, it is in 10

product class X. And then you look at the output 11

power of the EPS and if it is greater than 250 12

watts, it is in product class H. Next, you look at 13

the output current – 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 15

MR. HAILEY: Hi. Jeff Hailey with Dell. 16

If you‘ll go back one slide. Product class X, we 17

have some external power supplies that have multiple 18

outputs of the same voltage but they‘re all 19

independent. Would that still be Class X? How 20

would we determine that? 21

MR. BOOHER: Yes, I believe so. If the 22

output more than one voltage, whether it‘s AC or DC 23

it doesn‘t matter, simultaneously – 24

MR. HAILEY: They‘re all the same voltage 25

though. They all have the same level output, they‘d 26

all be the same voltage output, but there are 27

multiple outputs and they‘re independent. 28


(301) 565-0064

72 MR. BROOKMAN: Why don‘t you describe 1

again. 2

MR. HAILEY: So, again, we would have an 3

external power supply, would have four outputs of 4

say 12 volts at 20 amps, but they‘re all 5

independent. The four outputs are independently 6

regulated, and so would that be a Class X or would 7

that be a high power Class H? 8

MR. BOOHER: My colleague, Chris, will 9

weigh in on that. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Chris. 11

MR. SKAHAN: Chris Skahan again. The 12

definition for multiple- voltage external power 13

supplies says that if there are multiple output 14

voltages operating simultaneously, it doesn‘t 15

specify multiple different output voltages, so – 16


MR. BOOHER: So then the next distinction 18

is between DC current and AC current output by the 19

EPS. And then following that we have divided 20

product classes into low voltage and basic voltage. 21

The low voltage definition is an output voltage less 22

than six volts and an output current greater than or 23

equal to 550 milliamps, and this is the criteria 24

used by the Energy Star EPS programs to determine 25

low voltage EPS. So all of these distinctions are 26

important factors to determine the utility of the 27

product, and all of them can affect the performance. 28


(301) 565-0064

73 The next few slides will be a market map 1

diagram to show how these distinctions play out in 2

the market. So DOE estimated that in 2009, 345 3

million EPSs were shipped. 83 percent of those are 4

considered Class A and are currently subject to the 5

standards established in EISA 2007. In addition, 6

many non-Class A EPSs are separately covered by 7

standards in California, shown here in the blue. 8

About 80 percent of EPSs are part of a battery 9

charging system, but many of these are not designed 10

to operate the end use product directly, and you can 11

see how this triangle includes both Class A and non-12

Class A EPSs. So these products will continue to be 13

subject to existing standards in the portion of the 14

market intersecting the green box, subject to EISA 15

2007 and the portion of the market intersecting the 16

blue box, subject to California‘s standards. 17

You can also see how some EPSs for 18

motorized applications, here above the triangle, 19

fall outside of product class A and again, some good 20

examples are shavers and some beard trimmers. 21

So DOE estimated that about 74 million 22

indirect operation EPSs shipped in 2009, which was 23

roughly 20 percent of total shipments. And if we 24

have any more questions on DOE‘s approach to 25

indirect operation, I‘d ask if we could wait until 26

we get through the battery charger product class 27

definition, and then we can address all the 28


(301) 565-0064

74 questions at once. 1

So moving on to battery chargers. A 2

battery charger is a device that charges batteries 3

for consumer products, including battery chargers 4

imbedded in other consumer products. It‘s important 5

to note here that a battery charger can be comprised 6

of components located inside of an EPS, inside of an 7

end use product, or in a separate housing 8

altogether. So it‘s the entirety of this battery 9

charging system that‘s within the scope of the 10

rulemaking. 11

This table shows the differences between 12

the battery charger product classes. The first 13

distinguishing factor is the type of input and 14

output voltage. In product classes eight and nine, 15

you can see how BCs with DC input are included 16

there. These products do not have losses from AC to 17

DC power conversion, and then in product class 10A 18

and 10B, these devices, such as uninterruptable 19

power supplies have a DC to AC converter 20

additionally, so that can increase losses. Battery 21

voltage and energy also drive the utility and 22

performance of the battery charger. Going back to 23

product class 10, you can see that it‘s further 24

distinguished between EPSs with automatic voltage 25

regulation and those without. 26

There at the top, product class one, 27

that‘s reserved for inductive battery chargers for 28


(301) 565-0064

75 use in a wet environment. DOE has also reserved an 1

eleventh product class that you don‘t see here on 2

this table, that‘s for products that use wireless 3

power to charge in a dry environment. 4

So consumer products were mentioned in 5

both the EPS and battery charger definition, and 6

many of our stakeholders have commented on this 7

issue already. The statutory definition of a 8

consumer product is here. But for further guidance, 9

there is a document that DOE has prepared located at 10

this link down below, and we encourage you to look 11

to that document. 12

So these are the issues for comment that 13

DOE is particularly interested in related to product 14

classes and scope, but we‘ll pause here for any and 15

all comments from stakeholders on these issues. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: We‘ll leave these comment 17

boxes up there so you can reference them. So let‘s 18

start on the first one, DOE seeks comment on its 19

proposed approach to classifying EPSs that 20

indirectly operate consumer products. Ric. 21

MR. ERDHEIM: Thanks, Doug. You described 22

the process for determining whether something is 23

direct or indirect, and we support the concept of 24

Class N. But what you didn‘t describe is what‘s the 25

efficiency issues for those products which are 26

potentially direct. You used a phrase, ―designed to 27

operate.‖ I‘m not sure that products which can be 28


(301) 565-0064

76 operated directly from the EPS are expected to 1

operate from the EPS, they would only operate in 2

emergency situations. So what‘s the energy issue 3

that you‘re trying to address when you distinguish 4

between direct and indirect? 5

MR. BOOHER: I would say that the main 6

issue here, and Vic, if you want to weigh in, you 7

can, is that the indirect operation EPSs are, in 8

DOE‘s view, best dealt with by the battery charger 9

standard and any EPSs that can directly operate the 10

consumer product should be regulated under the EPS 11

standard. 12

MR. PETROLATI: Rick, just to go a little 13

further. I think your question tends to revolve 14

around the usage profiles associated with those 15

products, potentially. But let‘s take the example 16

of a laptop computer. Obviously, a laptop computer 17

is what we call a direct operation EPS. We believe 18

there‘s a substantial amount of time where the 19

laptop computer is actually powered by the external 20

power supply. Consequently, by setting these 21

standard for the external power supply in that 22

particular case, we feel we have the potential for 23

significant energy savings. There are other 24

products where potentially the EPS can operate the 25

end use consumer product, where the savings would be 26

probably significantly less, based on the amount of 27

time the EPS is connected to the device. We don‘t 28


(301) 565-0064

77 have any information in this rulemaking currently, 1

as to for those direct operating EPSs, how much time 2

the EPS is actually connected to the product and 3

powering the product. So we can‘t give you that for 4

every specific product type. We‘ve got usage 5

profiles associated with each product type, but we 6

cannot give you that type of breakdown at this 7

point. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So that was Vic, now 9

back to you, Ric. 10

MR. ERDHEIM: So would you agree that if 11

there was information showing that products were – 12

that could be operated directly, but rarely were, -- 13

or let me put it to you – I‘ll rephrase that. 14

If we had information showing that 15

products could be, but rarely were used – powered by 16

the EPS, would that be something that you would 17

consider to say maybe we should move those products 18

into Class N? 19

MR. PETROLATI: I can‘t say we wouldn‘t 20

consider it, so I think that‘s very valuable 21

information to submit during the rulemaking process 22

so we can make a determination on that. 23

MR. ERDHEIM: Thank you. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Several 25

questions here before you, giving you a chance – 26

Pierre. 27

MR. DELFORGE: Still on the first question 28


(301) 565-0064

78 on the indirect definition, we are concerned that 1

the dead battery test with five seconds delay may 2

not accurately identify indirect operations, and I 3

think Vic used the example of a Notebook. I think 4

similar comment with MP3 players and phones. There 5

are some housekeeping functions when the battery is 6

below certain level for a number of reasons which 7

don‘t necessarily mean that in normal operation the 8

product is not operated directly from the EPS. So 9

we‘re concerned about using that definition for 10

defining product class N. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Would you suggest an 12

alternative to the five seconds? 13

MR. DELFORGE: We don‘t have a precise 14

number, but I think we encourage DOE to review this 15

and maybe either increase that to something which 16

will cover as intended, the products – most of the 17

products are directly operated by the EPS, or 18

potentially a different mechanism. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Is it 20

Patrick? Patrick. 21

MR. CARRERA: Patrick Carrera from iRobot. 22

iRobot is a leading company for home robotics. And 23

by all means, we will support the rule for 24

classification of Class N, because even though the 25

definition of a dead battery is flexible, or up in 26

the air, nevertheless for robots below the thresh 27

level of operation for the battery, the robot will 28


(301) 565-0064

79 not work. Remember, this is an autonomous robot, 1

which definitely, if the battery doesn‘t have a 2

specific level of – above that threshold, it will 3

not operate, simply enough. And I believe whatever 4

method the DOE use for the five seconds, it‘s a good 5

combination out of the whole gamut of robots in the 6

market. 7

One thing that I definitely support the 8

DOE specification is because home robots is a global 9

market, and it‘s a global competition, and it‘s very 10

important for us not to be certified or compliance 11

our products with two different standards, whether 12

Europe or the U.S. For Europe, where there is the 13

EUP or the ERP directives in the guidance for 14

implementation, they do have a flow chart. Here the 15

flow chart is not like the DOE, I‘m sorry, like the 16

EC, however, it‘s very clearly that the unit 17

intended to operate is disconnected from the means, 18

therefore it definitely is autonomous and the unit 19

operates only with a battery charger. Although as 20

Vic … he reminds me that we have to comply with the 21

battery charger regulation. So it‘s not that we are 22

entirely exempt of any – exempt of meeting any level 23

of energy efficiency. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Vic. 25

MR. PETROLATI: Vic Petrolati. We are 26

very interested in getting comments on this proposed 27

test for determining whether or not a product is in 28


(301) 565-0064

80 indirect operation EPS and how it works with all of 1

your products, so if there is a concern of any sort 2

concerning this test, please provide that in your 3

comments. We want to come up with a test that is 4

reasonable, and we want to come up with an exclusion 5

for this particular situation, which we think 6

deserves an exclusion since these products are going 7

to be covered under the battery charger regulations 8

anyway. Thank you. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Let‘s see. Ken. 10

MR. RYDER: Yes, this is Ken Ryder from 11

the California Energy Commission. Just a quick 12

question, not really one of these items, but when 13

you say and you discussed not covering product class 14

N products in this rulemaking, does that mean that 15

there‘s a level four baseline for these Class A 16

products, or would it be that – what? 17

MR. PETROLATI: (answer off mic) I 18

apologize. Vic Petrolati. There are Class A 19

products within this product class. They are going 20

to be required to remain at the efficiency levels 21

for Class A. They will not be required to be more 22

stringent than Class A if they fit into this product 23

class. 24

MR. RYDER: Fantastic. That answers the 25

question. 26

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Alex. 27

MR. BOESENBERG: I have a comment on item 28


(301) 565-0064

81 nine and 33 if we‘re ready for that. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 2

MR. BOESENBERG: Item nine, NEMA is 3

concerned and will be submitting some comments for 4

clarification on external power supplies that are 5

used for building systems components, such as those 6

permanently installed in electrical rooms near 7

electrical entrances to buildings to power such 8

things as communication links, central processors 9

for building lighting management systems, motorized 10

shades, et cetera, and we‘ll offer some input to 11

that. That one doesn‘t cut cleanly into the 12

existing classes. 13

Relative to item 33, no. Solid state 14

lighting power supplies do not need to be a separate 15

class because they are not covered by this 16

rulemaking is our argument, because for starters, 17

solid state lighting is a system, ergo, the power 18

supply is almost always internal to the unit. 19

Underwriters Laboratories as well as manufacturers 20

list and test those products as a system, again, so 21

reinforcing the internal status of the power supply. 22

For those that have a no-load state, the performance 23

of the power supply typically is zero power 24

consumption. They wait to be – to have a light 25

source attached, and only then will they do 26

anything. Also a lot of solid state, because of its 27

solid state nature, being electronics, means that 28


(301) 565-0064

82 dimming capability is frequently included in those 1

products, and the DOE has a precedent for exempting 2

dimming products such as fluorescent ballast 3

rulemaking. Dimmable fluorescent ballasts were not 4

subjected to the same strict energy use requirements 5

of a standard fluorescent ballast because dimming 6

saves energy. 7

Also of course, we can call attention to 8

DOE‘s own statements in the NOPR, that they had no 9

test data for external power supplies for SSL 10

attributable to little or no 2009 sales. That‘s 11

because there are so few of those products that are 12

external, as we noted, and also the simple fact that 13

solid state lighting is an emerging technology and 14

that‘s why there weren‘t any sales in 2009 and 15

there‘s still very few on an annual basis. The 16

market is just taking off in the last year or so. 17

As a result, the DOE would be sorely tried 18

to gather any data that could reasonably be used to 19

reflect the future of that market, because nobody 20

knows what it is, and based on all those – well, the 21

last point is, we discourage regulations for solid 22

state except where absolutely necessary because its 23

status as an emerging market means that it is in a 24

high rate of development – evolution and innovation, 25

and when you regulate a product that is still 26

immature, you risk hampering innovation by 27

restricting choices of designs or alternative 28


(301) 565-0064

83 approaches that might pan out in the course of the 1

market to find is the best way to do it, so to 2

speak. 3

So, based on all those points, we think 4

SSL is an improper candidate for this rulemaking and 5

would also mention that due to its popularity, it‘s 6

already mentioned in several other lighting 7

rulemakings that will be addressed in the next few 8

years. So leaving it off doesn‘t mean it‘s going to 9

run around fancy free. It will be gotten to in a 10

couple more years, where we will have a little more 11

market data and a little more idea of where the 12

technology is heading. Thank you. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I don‘t think 14

we addressed – yes, Vic, please. 15

MR. PETROLATI: Yes, a couple things. 16

First of all, as you know, we‘re not regulating the 17

SSL, solid state lighting, we‘re regulating the 18

external power supply. We are aware of pictures of 19

products including an external power supply that 20

appears to be external. So I would appreciate it, 21

in your comments, when you send them in, please show 22

us the pictures of what you think are internal power 23

supplies, and do not meet the definition of external 24

power supply as written by Congress. 25

MR. BOESENBERG: We‘ll do that. 26

MR. PETROLATI: Thank you. 27

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. I don‘t 28


(301) 565-0064

84 think we‘ve addressed 34 yet, so let‘s see if we can 1

get some comment on item 34. Pierre. 2

MR. DELFORGE: So I have a comment, I 3

don‘t think it‘s on 34, but essentially a question. 4

In the decision tree that you showed early on, you 5

don‘t show Class A EPSs, but you do mention that the 6

Class A standard is amended. So could you clarify 7

how Class A, apart from those which are now in Class 8

N, how Class A EPSs are covered by the proposed 9

standard. 10

MR. BOOHER: I mentioned briefly how – 11

we‘re not necessarily making a distinction between 12

Class A and non-Class A in any of these product 13

classes in particular, that‘s not the defining 14

factor any more. I will say that most Class A EPSs 15

are in product classes B, C, D, and E. And most 16

non-Class A EPSs are in X, H, and N, but there is 17

that overlap. And non-Class A EPSs that, based on 18

this decision tree, fall into product classes B, C, 19

D, and E, will be covered by the standards under 20

those – that we‘re proposing today for those product 21

classes. 22

MR. DELFORGE: How about Class A EPSs that 23

are in B, C, D, will they be covered as well? 24

MR. BOOHER: Yes, I mean those – if we 25

follow the decision tree, will still filter into 26

classes B, C, D, and E. 27

MR. DELFORGE: All right, thank you. 28


(301) 565-0064

85 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 1

comments on this series of issue boxes. Okay. Why 2

don‘t we take a break at this point. It‘s 10:45. 3

How many of you are new to the Forrestal Building? 4

Many of you. You must wear your badge, the visitor 5

badge if you‘re walking around the Forrestal 6

Building. There‘s a coffee shop down on the ground 7

floor. Go back to the elevators and go down to the 8

ground floor and hang a left, and you can follow me 9

if you want. There are restrooms on both ends of 10

the hall, and we‘re going to break for 15 minutes, 11

which means we‘ll resume at 11:00 sharp. So we‘ll 12

see you back here at eleven. 13

(Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the meeting was 14

recessed for a 15 minute period.) 15

MR. BROOKMAN: So we are going to resume 16

where we left off, and go back to Brian and market 17

assessment overview. 18

Market Assessment 19

MR. BOOHER: Welcome back everybody. Hope 20

we‘ll all sufficiently caffeinated. Again, I‘m 21

Brian Booher, D&R International. I‘m going to be 22

talking about the market assessment right now. 23

The purpose of the market assessment is to 24

analyze the consumer end uses of battery chargers 25

and EPSs, and to characterize the markets for those 26


(301) 565-0064

86 products. The outputs of the market assessment are 1

shipments, lifetimes and efficiency distributions 2

for battery chargers and external power supplies, as 3

well as general market trends that may affect power 4

consumption – or energy consumption, excuse me. 5

So I‘m going to talk about shipments and 6

lifetimes. I‘m not going to get so much into the 7

efficiency distributions right here, because those 8

estimates were based on test data that we did as 9

part of the engineering analysis, and then more so 10

in the shipments analysis, so I‘ll defer to my 11

colleagues on those. 12

DOE used a bottom-up approach to 13

characterize the market for battery chargers and 14

EPSs, looking first at the applications that BCs and 15

EPSs are sold and used with. So the end use 16

applications are the main drivers of the shipments, 17

the lifetimes and the power requirements of these 18

products, and we identified approximately 80 19

applications that use BCs and/or EPSs, and all of 20

those applications are outlined in Appendix 3A of 21

the TSD. 22

So for the EPS market, in the base year of 23

our analysis, which was 2009, DOE estimated 24

approximately 345 million products that were sold, 25

more than half of which were in product class B. 26

You can see here that product classes X and H are 27

very small proportions of the market, and for the 28


(301) 565-0064

87 purposes of our analysis, product class N made up 1

about 20 percent, split evenly in our estimates 2

between non-Class A and Class A. 3

These are the top 15 EPS applications by 4

shipment. You can see here that mobile phones is 5

the biggest shipment. DOE actually estimated that 6

in 2009 there were over 90 million mobile phones 7

shipped, but you can see here that our estimate for 8

EPS shipments is half of that. The reason here is 9

that DOE believes that due to standardization in the 10

industry around the micro USB plug, the market for 11

mobile phones will evolve in the near future and 12

many phones will begin to ship without a power 13

supply. You can see here also that many of these 14

mobile phones, the majority are in product class C, 15

the low voltage product class, and then you can see 16

some of the products that have been assigned to 17

product class N for the purpose of the analysis. 18

On the battery charger side, in the base 19

year, there was 437 million battery chargers 20

shipped. Again, the majority of these were in 21

product class 2. You can see that product class 4 22

is also – there‘s also significant shipments 23

assigned to product class 4, and here, if you look 24

at the top 15 applications by shipments for battery 25

chargers, you can see that Notebooks and power tools 26

have been assigned to product class 4. 27

DOE found relatively few medium and high 28


(301) 565-0064

88 energy battery chargers on the market. And I guess 1

another important point here is that some mobile 2

phones have been assigned to product class 8 because 3

DOE found that they were shipped with a USB charger, 4

and the same with some MP3 players. 5

This table shows the lifetimes, the 6

average lifetimes of a number of key applications, 7

and here, the lifetime of a battery charger and EPS 8

is dictated by its associated application, and if 9

you look at all EPSs on average, the lifetime is 10

four years, and for all BC‘s on average, the 11

lifetime is five years. 12

So the market assessment methodology is 13

outlined in full in Chapter 3 of the TSD, and you 14

can explore all of our estimates in the market 15

assessment workbook, which is also published on the 16

DOE website. 17

We‘re seeking comments on all the 18

estimates that we used for shipments and lifetimes 19

for each application and product class, as well as 20

any other questions and comments you may have today. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Jeff. 22

MR. HAILEY: Yes, if you‘ll go back to 23

your per rater chart, I think two slides back, 24

battery chargers. Okay. So you have mobile phones 25

and MP3 players into product class 8 because they 26

have USB input, correct? 27

MR. BOOHER: This was – yes, solely a USB 28


(301) 565-0064

89 charger, and based on retail surveys that we 1

conducted and other market research. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Is that eight? 3

MR. BOOHER: That is product class 8. 4

MR. HAILEY: So, if we can do that with 5

USB, can we claim a Notebook to be a product 6

category 9? It‘s DC input from the EPS over 20 7

volts. Could we potentially get that into there, 8

even though it‘s shipped with an EPS? 9

MR. BOOHER: No, because, if I understand 10

correctly, the EPS that is shipped with that 11

Notebook computer is – contains some of the battery 12

charger functionality. That – 13

MR. HAILEY: It does not. It absolutely 14

does not. It is strictly AC to DC conversion. 15

There is no battery charger function whatsoever. 16

The battery charger is solely contained in the 17

Notebook. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: For all Notebooks, or your 19

Notebook? 20

MR. HAILEY: I cannot speak for the rest 21

of industry, but for Dell, and I think most of the 22

major players, that is the case. Dave, it‘s that 23

way for Apple, isn‘t it? 24

(response off mic) 25

MR. BROOKMAN: I think this is useful 26

content, I want to make sure we capture it. Dave, 27

say it on the record. Push that little button 28


(301) 565-0064

90 there. 1

MR. DENKENBERGER: We‘ll provide written 2

comments. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Great. 4

MR. HAILEY: So I just want to clarify, 5

because, again there‘s the issue of preemption of 6

scope. By the California definition, if you 7

recommend or sell an EPS with your battery charging 8

system, you‘re tasked with that EPS. And so those 9

cell phones that have a USB input would be into the 10

class – probably the Class 3 even though they may 11

have a USB input because there is a EPS sold or 12

recommended with them. And so by that analysis with 13

the Notebook, we‘ve determined we probably be class 14

4 on most of them. But again, we need crisp 15

definitions on what‘s in and what‘s out of scope. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: You got a microphone? 17

MR. NARDOTI: Yes, this is Matt Nardotti 18

from Navigant. Part of the DOE test procedure has 19

the same stipulation that if a manufacturer sells, 20

recommends, or has a EPS or a wall adapter that‘s 21

used with their battery charger, then that‘s how you 22

would test the product, and that would be – that 23

would dictate which product class you would fall 24

under in terms of battery charger standard. 25

MR. HAILEY: So – 26

MR. NARDOTI: So the wall adapter, the AC 27

to DC conversion unit that you would you that you 28


(301) 565-0064

91 would plug, I guess, the DC input would come from 1

that, right, to charge the whole battery. That‘s 2

how you would test the whole unit and that‘s 3

stipulated in the test procedures as well. 4

MR. HAILEY: But it‘s in the test 5

procedure, it‘s not in the regulation. And so we 6

need to be clear. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Jeff. 8

MR. BOOHER: I will also say that by 9

assigning certain shipments to product class 8 for 10

mobile phones, this was mainly for the purpose of 11

the analysis and that doesn‘t necessarily say 12

anything about DOE‘s position on where EPSs or 13

battery chargers would fall for all of these 14

products in general. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let‘s go back to the 16

comment boxes, items 4, 5, and 27. I‘ll leave it to 17

you to read them, because you can do it quicker than 18

I can. Let‘s get comment on these. And let me say, 19

those of you that are joining us by the web, we‘re 20

going to endeavor to entertain your questions here, 21

if you have questions, so please feel free to write 22

them in and our capable computer person will do what 23

she can to pass them forward. No additional 24

comments on these? Market data, use in commercial 25

sector, and 27, on its estimates of proportions of 26

certain applications that ship with UPSs. We‘re 27

moving on. 28


(301) 565-0064

92 MR. BOOHER: So we‘re – this was our 1

normally scheduled break, but – 2

MR. BROOKMAN: We‘re going to keep going. 3

MR. SKAHAN: Hello, everybody. I‘m Chris 4

Skahan with Navigant Consulting for anyone who 5

didn‘t hear me talk earlier, and I‘m going to take 6

you guys through the technology assessment, the 7

screening analysis and the engineering analysis for 8

external power supplies. 9

Technology Assessment, Screening Analysis, 10

Engineering Analysis 11

MR. SKAHAN: So we‘re going to start with 12

the technology assessment. And the purpose of the 13

technology assessment is to examine the factors that 14

affect the efficiency of battery chargers and 15

external power supplies, and DOE does that by 16

generating a list of specific technology options for 17

improving efficiency. 18

However, before you look at how to improve 19

efficiency, you have to define what efficiency means 20

for these products, as well as how to measure it. 21

For EPSs, DOE looked at two modes of operation, and 22

two corresponding measures of operating efficiency. 23

The first is no- load mode, where all the power 24

drawn from the mains is consumed by the EPS, and we 25

measure that with an instantaneous power consumption 26

metric in watts. The next is the active mode, which 27

is an average efficiency measure at 25 percent, 50 28


(301) 565-0064

93 percent, 75 percent and 100 percent rated load 1

capacity of the EPS. 2

Next, there‘s actually a couple more modes 3

for battery chargers. First, there‘s active or 4

charge mode, where the battery chargers is charging 5

the battery from a depleted state over a 24 hour 6

period, and that‘s measured in watt-hours. Next is 7

maintenance mode, which is an instantaneous power 8

consumption metric in watts, and that‘s when the 9

battery charger is maintaining the battery charge, 10

keeping it fully charged. Next, standby mode, where 11

the battery is removed from the charger, the charger 12

is connected to the mains, and that‘s measured in 13

instantaneous power consumption, that the power 14

drawn from the mains by the charger. 15

Last, is off mode where the battery is 16

removed, the charger is connected to the mains, but 17

any on/off switches on the charger itself are 18

switched to off. 19

Each one of these BC metrics is weighted 20

and combined into a single metric called unit energy 21

consumption, or UEC, which is measured in kilowatt 22

hours per year, and we‘ll go into much more detail 23

on the UEC calculation in the battery charger 24

engineering analysis. This is just sort of a first 25

look. 26

As I mentioned, DOE identifies specific 27

options for improving the energy efficiency of EPSs 28


(301) 565-0064

94 and BCs, and because the two technologies are so 1

closely related, several technology options actually 2

apply to both types of products. For instance, 3

we‘ve listed improved transformer core material, 4

low- power integrated circuits, shock schottky 5

diodes… and synchronous rectification, as well as 6

low- loss transistors. However, because BCs provide 7

a different utility than external power supplies, 8

certain options only apply to those products, for 9

instance, the elimination of maintenance current, 10

the elimination of no battery current, and the 11

battery chemistry for the battery charger. And I 12

would encourage you, for more details on each one of 13

these options, as well as some additional ones that 14

DOE looked at, to go to Chapter 3 of the TSD. 15

So one of the main technology options that 16

DOE looked at as a method to improve the efficiency 17

of these products is the move toward switch- mode 18

topologies from more inefficient linear designs. As 19

I‘m sure many of you know, linear power supplies 20

tend to be bigger and less efficient than their 21

switch- mode counterparts. Unfortunately, in 22

general, switch- mode power supplies tend to be 23

noisier and generate more electromagnetic 24

interference or EMI. 25

And DOE looked into the impact of EMI on 26

power supply performance in the non-Class A 27

determination analysis, but through additional 28


(301) 565-0064

95 research, DOE has become informally aware of a 1

potential decrease in utility with external power 2

supplies for high power external power supplies in 3

amateur radio applications having to do with EMI. 4

DOE‘s current stance is that it does not believe 5

there‘s any decrease in consumer utility with these 6

high power power supplies in amateur radio 7

applications due to the existence of EMI filters and 8

the fact that these power supplies are subject to 9

FCC regulations for EMI emissions. 10

However, today DOE is actively seeking 11

comment on this assumption, as well as any 12

additional design options that should be considered 13

to mitigate any decrease in utility. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on item 10? No 15

comments. Okay. 16

MR. SKAHAN: Okay. So next we move to the 17

Screening analysis. And the purpose of the 18

screening analysis is to tearpair down or screen out 19

any of the technology options DOE identified in the 20

tech assessment that could have negative 21

consequences for consumers or manufacturers based on 22

a set of statutory criteria. And the output of the 23

screening analysis is a list of design options that 24

DOE considered as viable pathways to improving the 25

energy efficiency of both BCs and EPSs. 26

As I mentioned, there is a list of 27

criteria that DOE uses. Each one – each technology 28


(301) 565-0064

96 option is evaluated for 1

technological feasibility, 2

practicability for to manufacture, to install 3

and service, 4

Impacts on product utility or availability to 5

consumers, and 6

Impacts on health or safety. 7

If any technology option for either BCs or 8

UPSs EPSs returns a negative consequence in any one 9

of these four categories, it is subsequently 10

screened out and not considered as a viable option 11

to improve the energy efficiency of BCs and UPSs 12

EPSs in each prospective engineering analysis. 13

For this rulemaking, DOE did not screen 14

out any technology options for external power 15

supplies. However, for BCs, there were three 16

options that were not considered in the engineering 17

analysis. Those were lowering the charging current 18

or increasing the voltage, hazard of capacitive 19

reactance, and non-inductive chargers for 20

toothbrushes and other wet applications. 21

So up to this point in the analysis, DOE 22

has established a framework for the possible 23

pathways for improving energy efficiency for these 24

products. It‘s at this point in the engineering 25

analysis that it starts to examine the relationship 26

between costs and the energy efficiency of EPSs and 27


(301) 565-0064

97 BCs, and it does that by generating a series of cost 1

efficiency curves, examples of which are shown in 2

these two graphs for both EPS energy consumption 3

metrics, as well as the battery charger unit energy 4

consumption metric. 5

Traditionally, the way these curves go is, 6

as a product becomes more efficient, the cost, in 7

this case, the manufacturer‘s selling price, also 8

increases, and you can see that on the far left with 9

the EPS active- mode efficiency. As the number 10

increases, the price goes up. Somewhat counter-11

intuitively, and this is going to be important to 12

remember as we go down the line here, that curve is 13

flipped for the EPS and BC metrics, where a lower 14

number indicates a more efficient product. So you 15

can see as we go more efficient from right to left, 16

the manufacturer‘s line selling price increases. 17

And now I‘m going to talk about the 18

engineering analysis DOE conducted for external 19

power supplies in product classes B, C, D, and E, 20

which Brian outlined earlier. 21

As a high level overview, and we‘re going 22

to go into each one of these steps in more detail as 23

we move through the presentation here, but just as 24

an overview, these are all the steps DOE took in 25

conducting its engineering analysis. 26

The first step was to choose 27

representative product classes based on market 28


(301) 565-0064

98 volumes and existing standards. Within those 1

representative product classes, DOE identified 2

specific representative units using market survey 3

data, it looked at the market and where things 4

tended to clump up, that‘s where DOE selected 5

representative units. From there each one of these 6

representative units was analyzed and a set of 7

candidate standard levels of efficiency or CSLs were 8

developed, based on benchmark levels of performance, 9

including maximum technologically feasible or max 10

tech efficiency level. 11

In order to corroborate DOE‘s choices of 12

these CSLs, it conducted testing on representative 13

units, actual products in the market, to support its 14

choices. Once those were established, DOE reached 15

out to manufacturers, and under an NDA secured their 16

cost information for what it would take to meet each 17

subsequent CSL above the current standard. To make 18

the data comparable, all the manufacturer data was 19

scaled to the DOE representative units identified 20

earlier on in the analysis. And finally, DOE marked 21

up the resulting costs to the manufacturer selling 22

price, which is the cost used in the final cost- 23

efficiency curves. 24

So as I mentioned, the first step DOE took 25

is to identify representative product classes. For 26

these four product classes, only one is deemed 27

representative, and that‘s product class B, which 28


(301) 565-0064

99 you can see in the table here. Within that product 1

class, DOE looked at four representative units and 2

developed CSLs based on those four units, the 3

results of which are scaled to the remaining product 4

classes, C, D, and E. 5

So, like I said, DOE looked at four 6

representative units within the representative 7

product class B, and those are listed in the table 8

here at 2.5 watts, 18 watts, 60 watts, and 120 9

watts, based on a set of criteria which is listed 10

below. 11

First they had to be within the representative 12

product class 13

Next, they had to be popular products in order 14

to be sure there would be many units to test 15

and support DOE‘s choices for CSLs 16

Lastly, we wanted to identify a wide range of 17

output power in order to curve-fit a continuous 18

function for the proposed standard. 19

For each representative unit, DOE looked 20

at a set of five candidate standard levels, ranging 21

from the baseline which is the current EISA 2007 22

standard for external power supplies, all the way up 23

to the max tech level, which was created based on 24

manufacturer input through manufacturer interviews 25

and other external discussions. Because EPSs are 26

regulated with two metrics simultaneously, DOE took 27

the approach of using a matched pair of efficiency 28


(301) 565-0064

100 metrics for each CSL for each rep unit, and I‘m 1

going to explain more what that means on the next 2

slide here, but the important thing to remember is 3

that there are two sets of equations for each CSL, 4

for an active- mode efficiency, as well as a 5

discreet no- load power dissipation metric. 6

So as I was saying, the matched pairs 7

approach uses a specific active- mode efficiency and 8

no- load power for each CSL for each rep unit. So 9

the graph here shows an example for the 18 watt 10

representative unit. Each one of these colored 11

right angles, if you will, demonstrates the matched 12

pair DOE used in its analysis, ranging from the 13

baseline CSL-0, which is that light green right 14

angle on the far left, all the way down to a maximum 15

technologically feasible level, and you can see that 16

no metric ever decreases in stringency as you move 17

from one CSL to the other. In order to support 18

these choices of matched pairings, DOE also 19

conducted multiple tests which are illustrated by 20

all the black data points, as well as the green data 21

points which most closely match their selected 22

matched pairings for CSL-0, CSL-1, and the best in 23

market, CSL-3. 24

Additionally, those matched pairings were 25

used to determine intermediate CSL-2 as a mid-point 26

between unit number 941 and number 118. But the 27

overall point, or the reason for doing this matched 28


(301) 565-0064

101 pairs approach is because DOE doesn‘t have any 1

evidence to date to suggest that these two metrics 2

can be separated and examined as independent 3

variables, or a separate cost efficiency analysis 4

can be performed on both. More often, we have ideas 5

of how the two relate to each other, but we can‘t be 6

certain that modifying the circuitry to improve one 7

metric won‘t have an impact on the other metric. So 8

in order to create the truest possible cost 9

efficiency curve, DOE looked at incremental 10

improvements to both metrics simultaneously. 11

So once each one of these CSLs was 12

created, DOE reached out to manufacturers to gather 13

their data on their products that most closely 14

resembled the representative units under a non-15

disclosure agreement for both efficiency, no load, 16

and cost. What DOE found was that the manufacturer 17

data often did not align exactly with the CSLs and 18

even the rep units that DOE had identified 19

initially. And you can see that demonstrated for 20

both active mode efficiency and no load power, where 21

each one of these dotted lines represents a CSL for 22

a specific representative unit, and each one of the 23

data points represents a manufacturer data point. 24

Again, this is illustrative. None of this is actual 25

manufacturer data. But you can see that not all the 26

data points line up exactly on each line. 27

So DOE was faced with the problem of how 28


(301) 565-0064

102 do we make all of this data comparable. Well, to 1

answer that, it developed a series of scaling 2

methodologies. And I‘m going to go through just a 3

high level example, but all of these are detailed in 4

Chapter 5 of the TSD, as well as we provide examples 5

of how everything was done. 6

So depending on where the manufacturer 7

information came from, because DOE talked to 8

everyone from component manufacturers of external 9

power supplies, to ODMs, original design 10

manufacturers, all the way up to OEMs, which means 11

there‘s a variety of input sources which required 12

scaling for certain different metrics. For 13

instance, output cord length. Talking to component 14

manufacturers who often do reference designs for 15

external power supplies, their efficiency numbers 16

did not factor into things like cord loss, because 17

their numbers were measured based on a PCV PCB, 18

direct coreboard contact. So in order to account 19

for those losses as well as the cost, the 20

information we received from them was scaled for 21

efficiency as well as cost. 22

Similarly, for output power, we would talk 23

to a manufacturer, they would give us information on 24

the 65 watt power supply, because that‘s the power 25

supply they made. The DOE representative unit is 60 26

watts. So in order to bring the data to the 27

representative unit, DOE scaled for output power for 28


(301) 565-0064

103 both efficiency and cost, as components tend to be 1

more robust for higher output powers, higher 2

switching currents, things like that. 3

Lastly, there was scaling for output 4

voltage in the efficiency as all things being the 5

same for a given output power, a higher output 6

voltage tends to be more efficient than a lower one. 7

So in cases, again, going back to the 60 watt 8

representative unit, the representative voltage is 9

15 volts. A manufacturer might make a 60 watt power 10

supply at 12 volts, and give us efficiency data for 11

that. But it was scaled afterwards to bring that 12

efficiency information to the representative unit at 13

15 volts. And again, I would encourage everyone to 14

look at the details in Chapter 5 of TSD. 15

So as I mentioned, DOE looked – gathered 16

data from a variety of different input sources, 17

ranging from component manufacturers all the way up 18

to OEMs, to developed a series of markups. In 19

order to make the data most comparable, DOE brought 20

all the cost information to a single point, the 21

manufacturer production cost, which is the cost that 22

the OEM – I‘m sorry, the cost of the ODM purchases 23

the components as well as labor and utilities, and 24

then sells that to the OEM. As a manufacturer‘s 25

selling price is the price the OEM pays the ODM for 26

external power supplies. So, for instance, I think 27

someone mentioned Dell earlier, and again, this is 28


(301) 565-0064

104 just an example. Someone might -- you know, you 1

might have a stamp of Dell on an external power 2

supply, but it might have been made by Yeong Phihong 3

or Delta. That‘s an example of an OEM buying from 4

an ODM. 5

Lastly, I just want to point out that 6

these additional markups for retailing retail and 7

consumer were factored into the analysis, just not 8

at this stage of the analysis. All that the 9

engineering is concerned with is up into the 10

manufacturer‘s selling price, so up until the point 11

it reaches the original equipment manufacturer, the 12

OEM. 13

Once all the data was brought to the 14

manufacturer‘s selling price at the representative 15

unit, DOE was faced with how best to aggregate this 16

data to develop a single cost efficiency curve. And 17

took the approach of doing 3-D aggregation as its 18

primary tool. So you can see each one of these blue 19

spheres represents a scaled manufacturer data point 20

orbiting around a specific CSL. So, for instance, 21

the lowest one, which I‘m told hope I can point this 22

out, so down here, would be CSL-0, which you can see 23

has an associated no- load power and average active- 24

mode efficiency in 2-D, as well as the 25

manufacturer‘s selling price in the third dimension. 26

Since this is CSL-0 and we look at incremental 27

manufacturer selling price, the price here is zero 28


(301) 565-0064

105 and subsequently increases for each additional CSL. 1

To develop the cost efficiency curve, DOE 2

did a curve fit through all these spheres in 3-D 3

space, and then used the resulting equation of that 4

red line you see there to estimate the costs exactly 5

at the CSLs it identified for each representative 6

unit. 7

Lastly, because product class B was the 8

only class directly analyzed for the external power 9

supplies supply engineering analysis, DOE had to 10

scale the results to the remaining product classes, 11

C, D, and E. And the scaling methodologies were 12

based on existing efficiency programs as well as 13

inherent technical characteristics of the power 14

supplies themselves. For instance, basic voltage 15

output, EPSs, are have to meet more stringent 16

efficiency metrics than, for instance, the low- 17

voltage output EPSs, because by definition, low- 18

voltage EPSs tend to be a lower voltage and a higher 19

output current, which means you have higher 20

resistive or conductive losses and the low- voltage 21

output EPSs cannot meet the same efficiency levels 22

as a basic voltage output, all things being the 23

same. 24

Similarly, AC- to- DC conversion EPSs have 25

more stringent no load requirements than the AC- to- 26

AC conversion EPSs, that‘s mostly due to the fact 27

that the AC- to- DC conversion EPSs have secondary 28


(301) 565-0064

106 circuitry that allow them to go into low- power 1

states when there is no load present on the output. 2

Whereas AC- to- AC supplies typically do not. 3

So from here we‘re going to move into the 4

engineering analysis for product classes X and H, 5

which are the multiple- voltage and high power 6

product classes, respectively. In the early stages 7

of this rulemaking, DOE looked at the possibility of 8

setting standards for non-Class A EPSs, which at 9

that time included product classes X and H, and 10

generated a set of CSLs as well as associated costs 11

for both representative units in X and H. For the 12

purposes of this NOPR, DOE took those inputs and 13

applied the same analytical structure that I just 14

went through for product classes in B, C, D, and E 15

to generate the cost- efficiency curves for X and H. 16

Only multiple voltage and high power EPSs 17

were directly analyzed for this NOPR where medical 18

and some motorized applications and …detachable 19

battery EPSs were rolled into the direct operation 20

or engineering analysis for product classes B, C, D, 21

and E. 22

So as I mentioned, DOE only looked at 23

product classes X and H for this NOPR and within 24

each product class there was only one representative 25

unit that DOE could identify. In product class H, 26

that was a 203 watt, and -- or product class X that 27

was a 203 watt, and for product class H, the 345 28


(301) 565-0064

107 watt. The resulting cost- efficiency curves for 1

product class H behaved as we would expect, where an 2

increase in efficiency yielded a higher manufacturer 3

selling price over the current baseline. However, 4

high powered EPSs showed a negative trend from the 5

baseline to higher order CSLs, based on test units 6

where the baseline CSL was a linear power supply and 7

CSL-1 was a more efficient and also less costly 8

switch- mode design. 9

So in order to create the higher ordered 10

CSLs for the high power product class H beyond the 11

two test units, DOE scaled its 120 watt CSLs to the 12

345 watt representative unit to generate new best- 13

in- market and max tech CSLs with the associated 14

costs. And while there was – yes. 15

MR. TAYLOR: This is Jay Taylor with 16

Schneider Electric. When you say less costly, your 17

CSL-1 was a switching power supply – 18

MR. SKAHAN: Yes. 19

MR. TAYLOR: -- are you just speaking from 20

the material cost point of view? 21

MR. SKAHAN: Yes. 22

MR. TAYLOR: Because there‘s a whole lot 23

of other costs in there like IP and those kinds of 24

things. 25

MR. SKAHAN: Yeah. For the purposes of 26

the engineering analysis, we look at – we take the 27

BOM cost and mark that up to the manufacturer 28


(301) 565-0064

108 production cost, and finally to the manufacturer‘s 1

selling price. So for our baseline unit, that ended 2

up being a very large and very expensive linear 3

power supply which was more or less a chunk of iron 4

that you can use for these 345 watt power supplies, 5

whereas the CSL-1 was a much smaller, more 6

efficient, power supply. So the materials cost was 7

much less between the two, which is why we have that 8

negative trend there. But we do – we do welcome 9

comment on the markets, as we mentioned, for high 10

power power supplies, as well as the methodologies 11

for generating these higher order CSLs because the 12

existing standard – or the standard proposed for 13

today is based on scaled CSLs from the 120 watt 14

representative unit. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: So now we are to item 12. 16

DOE seeks comments on its methodology for generating 17

CSL-3 and CSL-4 for high powered EPSs. No comments 18

on CSL, the methodology for CSL-3 and CSL-4. Yes, 19

please. Dave? 20

MR. DENKENBERGER: Dave Denkenberger, 21

ECOVA. So what you‘re saying is there were no other 22

external power supplies that were larger power? 23

Like, wouldn‘t there be something from golf carts or 24

other – 25

MR. SKAHAN: Well, golf carts are part of 26

the battery charger – 27

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay, so – 28


(301) 565-0064

109 MR. SKAHAN: So they were not – for 1

consumer electronics that were just subject to 2

external power supply regulation, DOE could only 3

identify one consumer application and one subsequent 4

representative unit. 5

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. Thanks. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments here? 7

Okay. 8

MR. SKAHAN: All right. So now I‘m going 9

to turn it to Peter Protopappas to go over the 10

battery charger engineering analysis. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Pierre, I don‘t know where 12

your comments fit. You want to wait until the end? 13

MR. DELFORGE: I have a comment on the 14

engineering analysis results on the methodologies, 15

so is it now the right time to make them? 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Let‘s do it at the end. 17

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Hi, Peter Protopappas 18

from Navigant Consulting. I‘m going to now go over 19

the engineering analysis for the battery chargers, 20

for the battery charger part of the rule. So 21

similar to EPSs we walk through the engineering 22

analysis in stages, beginning with choosing 23

representative product classes based primarily on 24

market data and volumes. And unlike the EPS rule we 25

didn‘t have existing standards to base those product 26

classes off of. Next we selected representative 27

units in each of those product classes. We 28


(301) 565-0064

110 developed candidate standard levels. We‘ll go 1

through those first in terms of the different 2

definitions, and levels. We tested and tore down 3

representative units to evaluate the material cost 4

associated with different energy efficiency levels. 5

We discussed those results with manufacturers 6

through manufacturer interviews. We then generated 7

the final cost curves and unlike EPSs, we ended by 8

scaling based on the range of varied energies in 9

each product class. 10

We‘ve been over these before in the 11

earlier part of the analysis. Here are the product 12

classes that we analyzed for the various engineering 13

analysis. Again, they‘re mostly divided by 14

input/output type, battery energy, and then we 15

talked – Brian talked a little bit about some of the 16

special characteristics of product class 1 and 10, 17

which differentiate them from the rest of the 18

product classes. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Closer to the microphone. 20

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Okay. So here we‘re 21

looking at the chosen representative battery energy 22

units for each of the product classes. As you can 23

see, each representative unit has a representative 24

voltage and battery energy, and here are some of the 25

typical applications that we chose to represent, 26

based on market data, those different product 27

classes. 28


(301) 565-0064

111 Similar to EPSs, we chose definitions for 1

the CSLs based on those available on the market up 2

to and including the maximum technologically 3

feasible level, in this case indicated by 4

manufacturers and technical experts. So here, most 5

of the – almost all of the CSLs for zero, one, and 6

two, they were based off test data, and then we use 7

manufacturer and technical expert data to determine 8

the CSL-3, which in most cases is the maximum 9

technologically feasible level. 10

At this point in the process we began to 11

develop – we combined the test procedure outputs to 12

develop the unit energy consumption or UEC equation, 13

and as stated before, that‘s stated measured in 14

kilowatt hours per year. 15

So here I‘m going to begin talking about 16

what the UEC equation, how it was developed and how 17

it measures the unit energy consumption for battery 18

chargers. So what we‘re looking at here is a 19

typical output for a 24 hour metered charge test. 20

Everything under the blue curve, what we‘re looking 21

at here under the blue curve, is the measured energy 22

power over the 24 hour period, and here we‘re 23

looking at a typical 24 hour charge. From this test 24

we‘re getting three outputs: that‘s the 24 hour 25

charge energy, the maintenance mode power, and the 26

battery energy. 27

So the first I spoke about is that 24 hour 28


(301) 565-0064

112 energy. The second is the yellow dotted line which 1

is instantaneous maintenance mode power, and we find 2

that typically over the last five hours of the test, 3

that‘s the average power over the last five hours 4

after the battery is done charging. And then, 5

finally, with the secondary test we can determine 6

that red area, which is the battery energy and 7

that‘s from the dead battery discharge test. 8

Now I‘m going to go over the actual 9

equation we used and developed to measure unit 10

energy consumption and bear with me, because I‘m 11

going to jump back and forth between this slide and 12

the previous slide to kind of visualize what I‘m 13

talking about. 14

So when we‘re looking at this equation I 15

want you to keep in mind that the variables that are 16

indicated by blue are products of the test 17

procedure, and those that are indicated by red are 18

assumptions based on usage profiles and usage data. 19

And those are all indicated in the test procedure, 20

there‘s a table. 21

So the first part of the equation is – we 22

talked before about the four modes of a battery 23

charger: active mode, maintenance mode, standby 24

mode, and off mode. Indicated by the red box here, 25

we‘re looking at active mode. I‘m actually going to 26

go back now and talk about how we can visualize 27

active mode in this 24 hour charge test. So, I‘ll 28


(301) 565-0064

113 try to stay close. Ideally, I‘d be close to the 1

screen. 2

So what we‘re doing in that part of the 3

equation is we‘re taking the 24 hour energy, which 4

is indicated by the blue – the entire blue area, and 5

we‘re subtracting out the average maintenance mode 6

power, which is the instantaneous power at the 7

yellow line multiplied by the hours that – the five 8

hour period. So then we‘re subtracting that out. 9

And then we‘re taking the battery energy part of 10

that red box and we‘re subtracting that out. So what 11

we‘re left with is the area to the left of the 12

dotted green line, which is the active mode energy 13

minus the losses from the battery energy. So 14

finally, that part of the equation is multiplied by 15

N which is the number of charges per day, and we 16

have active mode energy. 17

Similarly here, what we‘re doing is we‘re 18

taking, for the maintenance mode power, taking 19

instantaneous power and we‘re multiplying by the 20

time that the battery charger is in that mode, and 21

that‘s the – T, A, and M is the active and 22

maintenance mode time, and we‘re subtracting out the 23

charge time which is the time that the battery 24

charger is actually charging in active mode. And 25

the result there is the maintenance mode power. 26

Similarly, we‘re taking the – an 27

additional test is the standby test. We‘re taking 28


(301) 565-0064

114 the power in that mode and we‘re multiplying by the 1

time and that‘s the same thing for the off mode. 2

So all of these modes together, multiplied 3

by 365, gets us the annual energy consumption for 4

that particular battery charger being tested. 5

During the analysis we found that there 6

were some issues determining the time of charge for 7

a lot of products. Because of that, we broke out 8

that base equation into two separate equations, and 9

one equation – and this outlined in the rulemaking 10

language – is for products that have charge and or 11

maintenance time less than or equal to the threshold 12

charge time, and those charge times are indicated in 13

the rule language. The second equation is for those 14

products that have charge or maintenance that are 15

greater than the threshold charge time. And as 16

you‘ll see here, the TC has now been removed from 17

the equation, which was an assumption, and we‘re 18

going with an output, which is TCD, of the test 19

procedure. So that‘s the time to completely charge 20

– a fully discharged battery. 21

The biggest difference between these two 22

equations as you can see is the second equation 23

doesn‘t have a part for maintenance mode, and we‘ve 24

just adjusted to scale that back to represent what 25

the battery‘s doing in the full active mode which 26

represents the annual energy consumption in that 27

case, which is the battery time is above the 28


(301) 565-0064

115 threshold charge time. 1

As a result of these equations, we then 2

took our representative units and we plugged them in 3

and we got representative CSL levels and 4

corresponding watt hour per year for each of the 5

product classes. Here we‘re looking at product 6

classes one through five. Same here, we‘re looking 7

at the product classes six through ten, and here are 8

the representative levels for the chosen 9

representative units. 10

Next, once we determined how we were going 11

to measure the UEC for each of the batteries, we 12

conducted testing and tear downs. Here we purchased 13

several battery chargers at various rated battery 14

energies in each of the product classes. Each was 15

tested then according to the DOE test procedure, and 16

we got those corresponding UECs, we selected those 17

units that were closest to each of the CSLs and we 18

tore those down. And we tore these down along with 19

a company called iSuppli who‘s an expert in consumer 20

products manufacturing costed BOMs. They do that by 21

tearing down the units and then estimating the cost 22

based on manufacturer data and industry standards. 23

They created BOMs which essentially inventoried all 24

components of battery chargers that affect battery 25

charging and different efficiency levels. 26

We took that data and we entered into NDAs 27

with various manufacturers in each of the different 28


(301) 565-0064

116 markets for the product classes and they provided us 1

with additional costs for designs with specific 2

parameters across the various energy efficiency 3

levels. We took that data, and in most cases, we 4

used test data, however, in product classes one and 5

ten, we relied heavily on manufacturer data to 6

produce the cost efficiency relationships. 7

Finally, we took input from manufacturers 8

to develop in each of the product classes that 9

maximum technology feasible level which I alluded to 10

before. Most all CSLs up to the max level are 11

mostly dependent on testing and tear down and 12

manufacturer input, but the max tech is solely based 13

on manufacturer input. 14

Another output of the discussion from the 15

manufacturers and the costing is getting the markups 16

– this is similar to what we talked about in the EPS 17

part of the analysis and here you can see the 18

average manufacturer markups for each of the product 19

classes. And again, this is at the point – before 20

the OEM gets the product if they aren‘t producing it 21

themselves, the same point at which we take the 22

markup for the EPS rule. 23

During the analysis, we needed to adjust 24

for the range of battery energies that were 25

available in each of the product classes. So we 26

took that representative unit and we scaled it to 27

account for the range of battery energies that would 28


(301) 565-0064

117 be expected in those product classes. And the 1

scaling was based on the three metrics, which is 24 2

hour, energy maintenance mode power, and standby 3

power. 4

So using the usage profiles, we then 5

scaled those products up to account for the range of 6

battery energies. In some cases, at the lower end of 7

the battery energies, without adjusting, using a 8

boundary condition, we found that it would be too 9

stringent, so using this equation which was derived 10

from the base equation, we developed a boundary 11

condition at the lower level for each product class 12

that was needed. As was pointed out in some of the 13

comments, product class one and eight were not 14

scaled and have a constant standard. 15

What we‘re looking at here is a graphical 16

representation of our scaling. As you can see to 17

the far left, the flat lines, that‘s a 18

representation of the boundary condition that was 19

developed from the equation I noted on the previous 20

slide, and then to the right, based on the usage and 21

the type of battery used, we scaled up as you can 22

see, at increasing slope. I want to point out in 23

this case we‘re looking at product class four, and 24

these are the proposed standards which we‘ll talk 25

about at the end of the presentation. The top line 26

and the yellow line, the green and yellow lines, are 27

CSL-0 and 1, and in this case those are primarily 28


(301) 565-0064

118 nickel cadmium technologies, and the bottom two are 1

typically lithium ion. So you can see there, we 2

adjusted based on the different units in that 3

product class and the different technologies to get 4

to the various levels. 5

Towards the end of our analysis, after 6

taking all this into consideration, we noticed that 7

for product class 10, which the proposed level based 8

on all the analysis is the maximum technologically 9

feasible level, and that‘s based on manufacturer 10

input for CSL-3. We found that we were unable to 11

test any products that performed as well as 12

manufacturers had stated was possible. Now, we 13

realize that this may be because of the fact that 14

the manufacturer data that we received was not 15

equivalent to what the DOE test procedure output. 16

But instead we realized, or assumed, that it may be 17

based on the power supplied directly to the battery, 18

and not by the other functions in the unit. And in 19

this case, we‘re talking about product class 10, 20

this is mostly uninterruptable power supplies. 21

In order to investigate and account for 22

this discrepancy, DOE acquired additional units and 23

tested those UPSs with a slight modification to the 24

test procedure by adding a reading for battery input 25

power, and that battery input power is the power 26

delivered directly to the battery from the battery 27

terminals, as opposed to the other reading in the 28


(301) 565-0064

119 test procedure, which is from the wall to the unit. 1

We developed an adder and then we applied 2

that adder to each of the product class 10 product 3

classes, in this case we actually broke it up to 4

those basic units which have minimal additional 5

functionality and those 10b units which are units 6

with automatic voltage regulation and other 7

functionality. 8

Just to get a little bit more into how we 9

determined this adder and how we progressed in our 10

analysis, what we see here is our additional 11

testing, and overlaid were the CSLs at that point in 12

the analysis, as our data was telling us. On this 13

graph, the yellow part of the bar represents the 14

battery input power – that‘s that additional 15

measurement we included in the test procedure for 16

this additional testing. The green part is the rest 17

of the power that is measured, so the full bar is 18

the measured test procedure metric, and the yellow 19

bars are our additional measurement. And we‘re just 20

– here is a sample of units and as you can see, the 21

units to the far left actually confirms our 22

assumption there that we‘re basically looking at the 23

battery input power equal to that maximum 24

technologically feasible level that was indicated by 25

the manufacturers. 26

So bear with me here, we‘re going to get 27

into how we developed that adder specifically. So 28


(301) 565-0064

120 what we‘re looking at here on the top dotted line is 1

our best in market unit, which is – actually that‘s 2

the unit that we saw in the previous slide, and that 3

red dot is the measured test procedure level. And 4

as I said before, we took those levels and we scaled 5

those up based on the battery energy, so that‘s why 6

you have an increasing slope on that. Our 7

representative battery energy level is between 60 8

and 80, indicated by that black line. The dotted 9

line on this graph represents the battery input 10

power for that representative unit. As you can see 11

it‘s lower, and it‘s also scaled to the same way 12

that the dotted – the red dotted line is. That 13

delta there is point four watts. 14

We took that point four watts and we took 15

the manufacturer indicated maximum technology 16

feasible energy use which was indicated by 17

manufacturers to be point two, and we applied that 18

point four – in this case it‘s a basic unit – to 19

achieve our maximum technologically feasible level, 20

which is indicated by that solid red line. So we 21

did this for all the CSLs. We scaled all the CSLs 22

based on this which is from the previous slide, and 23

as you can see, for the red line here which is CSL-24

2, we have that same red dot which indicates that 25

that‘s the market unit. 26

So now – 27

MR. BROOKMAN: Now we have – hit the – 28


(301) 565-0064

121 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Sorry. Here we have a 1

comment – 2

MR. TAYLOR: This is Jay Taylor with 3

Schneider Electric. Unfortunately, the one unit 4

that you chose that was best in market is no longer 5

in the market. And one out of the 12 units that 6

were listed in the data. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: You want to say more why 8

it‘s not in the market? 9

MR. TAYLOR: Well, first of all, it‘s not 10

a Schneider product. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 12

MR. TAYLOR: So I can‘t say why it is or 13

why it was withdrawn or why it‘s no longer in the 14

market, I just know you can‘t buy it as a new 15

product any longer. Now, the flip side of that is 16

we‘re still back to the characteristic curve that‘s 17

been provided by this spec that no units pass. Now 18

my assumption of AVR is VI, the equivalent of VI in 19

62040-3, and then my assumption is also that the 20

equivalent to non-AVR is VFD. And unless you come 21

back – so the AVR and non-AVR constructs by DOE, 22

they‘re not used in the industry at all. So unless 23

we come up with some kind of equivalency between the 24

two of them, I think that these things apply, I just 25

don‘t know that they apply. But I look at the 26

characteristic and look at the information available 27

and with no units that pass I still question that 28


(301) 565-0064

122 the curve is the appropriately placed location. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Is that equivalency easily 2

done, or is that pretty tough. 3

MR. TAYLOR: Well, we participated with 4

California and did it. I believe that it‘s just a 5

matter of working through what we need. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Keep going. 7

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Yeah. That concludes my 8

presentation for the battery charger engineering 9

analysis. Are there any other questions? 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Please, yes. 11

MR. CARRERA: Pat Carrera, iRobot. You 12

should also make a comparison study or interject 13

there in your data, using autonomous robots, and you 14

will see some variation there, because – so your 15

expectations will be there. When you have 16

autonomous robots you have motorized parts, you have 17

sensors, and they do require more than a minimum 18

threshold level to operate, so you will see the 19

difference there. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Joanna, you 21

want – please. 22

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Going back to 23

the equations describing the UEC, can you explain 24

again what the difference is between TC and TCD? 25

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: TC was assumed charge 26

time based on the – TC is an assumption based on the 27

input from the manufacturers and the assumed time 28


(301) 565-0064

123 based on the voltage and the battery that that 1

battery would take to charge. TCD is, through the 2

test procedure, it‘s an output of the test procedure 3

and it‘s a measurement of how long the battery 4

charger is charging and when an indicator light or 5

some other light or a drop in the data shows that 6

that charge is no longer charging, so it‘s a much 7

closer representation of the time of charge. You 8

want to add – 9

MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti. TCD is the 10

length of the charge in maintenance mode test, which 11

in most cases is 24 hours, that‘s by default of the 12

test procedure. 13

MS. MAUER: So it‘s not the time to charge 14

-- to fully charge the battery? 15

MR. NARDOTTI: No. 16

MS. MAUER: Okay. 17

MR. NARDOTTI: It‘s the length of that 18

test. 19

MS. MAUER: To charge the battery is not 20

an output of the test procedure. 21

MR. NARDOTTI: Right, exactly. 22

MS. MAUER: So the description of TCD as 23

time to completely charge a fully discharged battery 24

is – is that what it‘s describing? 25

MR. NARDOTTI: TCD should be – so that 26

should be changed to say the time – the duration of 27

the charge in maintenance mode test. So our slide 28


(301) 565-0064

124 is incorrect. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Matt, repeat it one more 2

time. It should say – 3

MR. NARDOTTI: The TCD is the duration of 4

the charge in maintenance mode test. And if you 5

look in the rule language section, TCD is described 6

there, and that‘s an appropriate – you can find out 7

what that value is from 5.2 in the test procedure, 8

Appendix 1. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay? Ken. 10

MR. RIDER: Yes, Ken Rider. And I have a 11

question. Your representative units, especially in 12

– well, I think for every representative unit, were 13

pretty distant in terms of battery capacity – 14

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Are we looking here? 15

MR. RIDER: Sure, that‘s a good thing to 16

look at. So you can see that the capacity of the 17

batteries for representative units were pretty 18

fairly evenly spaced, and I was just wondering, in 19

choosing a representative unit, was there a lot of 20

overlap in – I guess the product classes are 21

differentiated by voltage, and I‘m just wondering if 22

you were to differentiate 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 by battery 23

capacity, how much overlap – how many products would 24

get shoved from one category to another. 25

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: By battery capacity? 26

MR. RIDER: Yes. So right now – 27

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: You‘re talking about the 28


(301) 565-0064

125 ampere rating of the battery? 1

MR. RIDER: The watt-hour rating 2

determined by the test procedure, and you have – 3

currently, if it‘s a certain voltage that‘s how you 4

determine whether you‘re class 2, 3, or 4, and 5

between 5 and 6 as well, so however, you notice that 6

the representative units have a large spread around 7

battery capacity. So I‘m just wondering if you were 8

to use battery capacity instead of voltage to 9

determine product class, if that would upset the 10

representative units that you chose, or if you would 11

end up with the same representative units. 12

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: I don‘t have an answer 13

right now, but I think it‘s something that we can 14

look into. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Daniel, you have – 16

you want to use that microphone? Daniel has 17

something that came in from a person on the web. 18

MR. LAUF: Daniel Lauf from D&R. The 19

comment is from Larry Albert, and it‘s regarding the 20

battery charger. So the test procedure uses the 21

last four hours to determine maintenance power. But 22

the equation displayed uses five hours of 23

maintenance power. So – when this is backed out – 24

do you have any comments on that? 25

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: I‘ll let Matt respond. 26

MR. NARDOTTI: So I can comment on that. 27

And the reason – this is Matt Nardotti from Navigant 28


(301) 565-0064

126 – and the reason we backed out five hours of 1

maintenance mode is because if you look at the test 2

procedure in 5.2, the assumption is to run the test 3

– like if a manufacturer has an indicator light, you 4

run a test for an initial five hours after that 5

product‘s indicator light comes on, or if you have 6

to calculate the duration of the test, you calculate 7

the time to charge a product plus an additional five 8

hours. So, when you have your E24 measurement, that 9

should be – that consumes – five hours of that 10

portion of the test is in maintenance mode, assumed 11

to be in maintenance mode. It‘s just that the last 12

four hours are used to determine what the 13

maintenance mode power is. So that the unit is 14

actually in maintenance mode for five hours, but 15

four hours of the test is what‘s used. 16

MR. LAUF: Okay. 17

MR. NARDOTTI: Does that make sense? 18

MR. LAUF: Yeah. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: That makes sense to me. 20

Okay. Let‘s see, Alex first, and then to Dave. 21

MR. BOESENBERG: I have a question also 22

about the UEC calculation, to make sure that I 23

didn‘t zone out. This is for all product classes? 24

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Correct. 25

MR. BOESENBERG: Okay. And so you said 26

365, that is – that is your equation for estimated 27

annual energy -- 28


(301) 565-0064

127 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Correct. 1

MR. BOESENBERG: -- use and savings? 2

Particularly for the product classes that include 3

power tools, just a personal observation – I never 4

charge my cordless drill every day. So has the DOE 5

included any scaling factors for products that are 6

not charged every day? 7

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: I think when you look at 8

usage in each product class, they vary, and they 9

vary by user. 10

MR. NARDOTTI: So this is Matt Nardotti 11

again. Our usage profiles that were developed – and 12

I think Dan will get into this a little bit later, 13

we have one usage profile, which is – one usage 14

profile for each product class, and that was a 15

weighted assumption of each mode of – time spent in 16

each mode of operation for the entire application 17

set for that product class. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Are you saying Alex, the 19

interpretation is not as simple as that? You‘ve 20

done a profile and – 21

MR. NARDOTTI: Right. So for product 22

class 4, there‘s lap tops that spend a certain 23

amount of time in each mode of operation. There‘s 24

power tools that spend – they have a different usage 25

profile. And so we weight the usage profiles. 26

MR. BOESENBERG: Okay. So your answer to 27

my final question is yes? 28


(301) 565-0064

128 MR. NARDOTTI: Yes. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Dave, go ahead. 2

MR. DENKENBERGER: Dave Denkenberger. So 3

the point four watt adder, are you saying this is 4

the difference between automatic voltage regulation 5

and not? Peter? 6


MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay, so – 8

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: No, I‘m sorry. It‘s the 9

difference between our – the point four is the 10

difference – is representing basically the other 11

functionality which may not have been considered 12

when we talked about point two as a max tech level. 13

So there is – there is a difference. I don‘t have 14

both of them up here, but the AVR CSLs are shifted 15

based on the average difference in the AVR. Off the 16

top of my head I don‘t know exactly how we shifted 17

it, but if you look at the equations which were 18

represented earlier, and we‘ll see later, there are 19

two different equations for AVR and for basic units. 20

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. But for a UPS 21

without automatic voltage regulation, then your 22

representative unit analysis would apply? 23


MR. DENKENBERGER: So your max tech, CSL-25

3, is point one seven (.17) watts, correct? I think 26

it was listed – 27

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: At the representative 28


(301) 565-0064

129 unit, yes. It‘s where that line crosses, so – 1

MR. NARDOTTI: This is Matt, at point two, 2

that‘s the point one seven (.17), right. Before we 3

did the adder, that‘s the CSL that we had at max 4

tech. 5

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. So you‘re saying 6

that even for a UPS without AVR, there is an adder, 7

correct? 8

MR. NARDOTTI: Yes, and that‘s represented 9

by – 10

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. And there‘s a 11

different adder when you add AVR? 12

MR. NARDOTTI: Exactly. 13

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. And you‘re 14

saying so that is why your CSL representative unit 15

has about 1.5 kilowatt hours per year, whereas your 16

standard is about 5 kilowatt hours per year. 17

MR. NARDOTTI: Correct. 18

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Matt says yes. Okay. 20

Thanks, Matt. Ric. 21

MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim with Philips. I 22

wanted to follow up on Matt‘s response on usage 23

profiles. So you do have usage profiles for the 24

different products, and then you combine the usage 25

profiles in the various categories, correct? 26

MR. BROOKMAN: He says yes. 27

MR. ERDHEIM: Matt says yes. So when you 28


(301) 565-0064

130 look at slide 39, 56 percent of all the EPSs are in 1

Class B and when you look at slide 41, 57 percent of 2

all the battery chargers are in product class 2. 3

And so the question I have is, even though you‘re 4

using the usage profiles, by averaging so many 5

different products, do you wind up – you‘re doing 6

the average, but you‘re not dealing with products 7

that are more unique or extreme. In other words, 8

are we dealing with a situation where the person‘s 9

average body temperature is 98.6, but he died. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: You‘ll have to repeat the 11

question, I think. 12

MR. ERDHEIM: Oh, God. It was a long 13

question. 14

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: We could also push this 15

to the usage profile – 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Peter, go ahead. 17

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: If you‘d like we could 18

push this discussion to the usage profile section. 19

MR. ERDHEIM: That‘s fine. I was actually 20

going to ask the question then, but Matt got into it 21

now, so we can defer that. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Let‘s defer that, then. 23

Okay. Jeff. 24

MR. HAILEY: Just one comment on the NOPR, 25

that the UEC equations given give you an output in 26

watt-hours per year, and yet your limits are in 27

kilowatt hours per year. And some of our 28


(301) 565-0064

131 counterparts have looked at that and scratched their 1

heads, going, this doesn‘t make sense. So, it would 2

be good if you could scale the UEC equations 3

appropriately to give an output in kilowatt hours 4

per year. 5

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: That‘s something we‘ll 6

take into account. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: I see several heads around 8

the room, nodding in agreement with that statement. 9

Ken? 10

MR. SALAETS: I was just going to say 11

divide by 1000 on the equation, and that‘s in the 12

NOPR as well. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks. Do we have 14

more from the web? Daniel, please, go ahead. And 15

Pierre, shall we cue you here, is this a good time? 16

MR. DELFORGE: I mean it depends on what 17

snags – are we going to discuss the results of the 18

engineering analysis, I think that would be more 19

appropriate. 20

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: The results are 21

presented at the end of the presentation. 22

MR. DELFORGE: So I think I would rather 23

you go now. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Daniel. 25

MR. LAUF: This is Dan Lauf again from 26

D&R, and the comment is from Dan Jackal on the 27

webinar. He points out that the UEC equations 28


(301) 565-0064

132 presented may be slightly different than what‘s 1

actually in the NOPR, and that there may be some 2

parentheticals added. So, unless you have any 3

specific comments, now it may be something to look 4

into later to verify. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I‘m still not clear. 6

Do you want to present now? 7

MR. DELFORGE: Yes, please. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Can you cue Pierre‘s 9

slides? You want to present from there? And Emily 10

will advance your slides. 11

MR. NARDOTTI: Can I just address that 12

comment that came in? Doug? 13

MR. DELFORGE: Slide 3 please. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Slide 3. 15

MR. NARDOTTI: Doug, can I just address 16

that – 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. One thing 18

from Matt. 19

MR. NARDOTTI: So this is Matt Nardotti 20

again. In the NOPR there is a discussion where we 21

walked through the evolution of the UEC equation, 22

however, in the rule language, there are two 23

equations which are the exact same equations that 24

Peter just presented on the second slide, and those 25

are the ones that will be used. But there is – we 26

walk through why that‘s evolved and getting into the 27

charge time issue that Peter alluded to. 28


(301) 565-0064

133 PARTICIPANT: (comment off mic) 1

MR. NARDOTTI: Well the NOPR‘s not 2

incorrect, it just goes through how it‘s changed. I 3

think the issue is the NOPR summary that was 4

originally released had no parentheses, but then the 5

TSD did have those parentheses. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: And you guys didn‘t think 7

they were looking at this stuff. 8

(Laughter.) 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for that 10

clarification, it‘s very helpful. Now, Pierre, 11

you‘re on. Go ahead. 12

MR. DELFORGE: Thank you. I want to 13

comment on the LCC which results from the 14

engineering analysis. This is from the TSD and it 15

shows that for the 60 watt power supplies, the LCC 16

is negative, and we believe the reason it is 17

negative is because of the cost curve, and this is 18

just plotting data from the TSD Page 182. If you 19

look at the cost curve, in blue, for 60 watts power 20

supplies, that‘s above the baseline. To reach 88 21

percent efficiency the cost is $1.30, but the same 22

cost curve for 120 watts is around thirty cents, so 23

there‘s a $1.00 difference here, which doesn‘t make 24

sense unless the data assumes that the 120 watt 25

already has a different topology … specification, 26

and we don‘t believe this is necessary to include 27

that. So as a result, I think we are over-28


(301) 565-0064

134 estimating the cost of 60 watts – the cost of 1

efficiency for 60 watt power supplies. 2

So if we look at the 120 watt curve, which 3

we believe is much more representative of the cost 4

of increasing efficiency of these power supplies 5

would be that the LCC for 60 watt power supplies 6

would be positive. And not only would it be 7

positive, but I think by using that cost curve, we 8

think that we could increase the level cost 9

effectively, and if you look at the difference – and 10

this is again from the TSD, between CSL-3 and CSL-4, 11

there‘s a large difference between these two CSLs. 12

We think that CSL-3 is not the most stringent level 13

which is cost-effective. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: CSL-3 is red. 15

MR. DELFORGE: The red line, yes. And we 16

could have CSL-3.5, higher than CSL-3, which could 17

be cost-effective. 18

So this looks at the data from the test 19

data from the TSD, and the data points that are 20

circled are the best in market units for 60 watt 21

power supplies. And these represent the Energy Star 22

V2 plus about one percent margin on level five, plus 23

one percent margin. But it‘s not represented cost-24

effective threshold in the market. We say that it 25

should be based not just on these levels, but on a 26

high level of cost-effectiveness. 27

What we propose based on this 120 watt 28


(301) 565-0064

135 cost curve, is to test the CSL-3 at both 80.5 and 89 1

percent efficiency, and based on this curve, we 2

believe that at least at 80.5, and possibly at 89 3

percent levels should be cost-effective. Thank you. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Are there 5

questions on anything that Pierre presented. Yes – 6

you have to find a microphone – 7

PARTICIPANT: (off mic) That‘s all right, 8

I just wonder if he could clarify the acronyms. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Clarify the acronyms, 10

Pierre? 11

MR. DELFORGE: The TSD, technical support 12

documents. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Technical support document, 14

Chapter 5, Page 182 – it may be hard to read from 15

the back of the room. Ari. 16

MR. REEVES: Ari Reeves, D&R. Pierre, I 17

just wanted to see – are you suggesting that DOE 18

should look at a CSL that is above CSL-3 across all 19

the nameplate output powers? 20

MR. DELFORGE: Yes. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks. That‘s 22

good. Now, we‘re still considering, on slide 90, 23

this issue for comment. Comment on its methodology 24

for generating product class 10, CSLs based on 25

battery input power, and input from manufacturers. 26

Additional comments? That was quite a methodology, 27

I have to say. Quite extensive. Additional 28


(301) 565-0064

136 comments on this? Ken. 1

MR. RIDER: Just a point of clarification. 2

Will this require modification to the test 3

procedure, and would this portion be to consider 4

these adders, would it be done in the form of a 5

standard, or would it be done in the test procedure 6

in Appendix Y? 7

MR. BROOKMAN: I‘m not sure – 8

MR. RIDER: This new measurement – they 9

discussed a new measurement. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, I‘m not sure who here 11

might address that. 12

MR. PETROLATI: Let me start for 13

addressing that. The reason that the adder was put 14

in, Ken, was that we do realize that there is a 15

problem in the test procedure in that the test 16

procedure incorporates in its measure, measurement 17

of this additional functionality in this particular 18

product class. The perfect solution, of course, if 19

we could find it, would be to revise the test 20

procedure such that additional functionality is not 21

measured. We‘re not certain at this point how to do 22

it, but we are taking that into account currently in 23

this process through the standard. And, Matt, is 24

there anything else that you want to add to that? 25

Okay. 26

MR. BROOKMAN: So, Jeff, please. 27

MR. HAILEY: Yes, so as part of industry, 28


(301) 565-0064

137 we‘ve had a discussion within ITI, in the energy 1

working group within ITI, about the flaws in the 2

battery charging test procedure and it comes exactly 3

around to that, that it does not comprehend other 4

functions that may be on there. And there are also 5

some other shortcomings in the assumptions that 6

products can charge whenever it‘s in an off mode. 7

So we would very much like to see the test procedure 8

modified to comprehend that there are other 9

functions within the charger. You can‘t isolate the 10

charger, in many cases, so I just want to go on 11

record as having said that. And we‘ve had that 12

discussion with California, and we‘re getting there 13

here, and specifically the Class 10, I think it‘s 14

really very apparent. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Vic. 16

MR. PETROLATI: Yes, and just to follow up 17

on that. We want your comments as to how that test 18

procedure should be revised to eliminate this 19

additional functionality, and whether or not it can 20

be performed properly under those circumstances. 21

Thank you. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ric. 23

MR. ERDHEIM: I have a question going back 24

to the slides – the external power supplies with the 25

DOE estimate of EPS markups. 26

MR. BROOKMAN: Let‘s go back to that 27

slide. Which one is it? 28


(301) 565-0064

138 MR. ERDHEIM: I think it‘s slide 64. 1

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: I‘ll go back, but I 2

think this is for Chris. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Maybe you can 4

address it. Ask your question. 5

MR. ERDHEIM: So, I‘d just like some 6

clarification as to the nomenclature up there and 7

when you guys obtain these cost estimates, as far as 8

what the markups would be, was that – how is that 9

based as far as volume of units that were quoted, 10

and the volumes and stuff, and I guess my real 11

question is, if this is based on millions of units 12

when you‘re talking a price markup. You know, not 13

all manufacturers and not all products are going to 14

be sold in those types of quantities, so that 15

drastically affects your pricing and your markups. 16

And also I‘m curious as far as on your retailer to 17

consumer, there seems to be some indication that the 18

costs that were used were not the actual retail, but 19

they were cost that the manufacturer sold them to. 20

I was wondering why that was. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Chris. 22

MR. SKAHAN: This is Chris Skahan. So 23

there are a couple different things in your question 24

there. First of all, in terms of volumes, all the 25

markups along that chain were derived based on the 26

markups with several different manufacturers, 27

usually producing products in the millions, like you 28


(301) 565-0064

139 talked about, especially with BOM to the ODM markup, 1

or the BOM to MPC markup. And this is actually 2

going to get addressed a little bit later in the 3

downstream in more depth. 4

And I guess to your second point, about 5

the retail cost, the engineering analysis, like I 6

said, only goes to the manufacturers selling price, 7

which is the price that the OEM pays the ODM for the 8

power supply. Like I said, the retail and those 9

markups to consumers, for one, it‘s hard to 10

determine the retail price of a power supply because 11

it‘s ultimately sold with the product that it 12

powers. There‘s only a couple of instances where 13

you can actually do that effectively. But those 14

markups are considered, again, in the downstream 15

analysis. So for the purpose of the engineering, we 16

only go to the OEM price. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Ric. 18

MR. ERDHEIM: So when you‘re taking those 19

numbers, though, and you‘re doing a cost benefit to 20

the consumer, you actually have to take the cost 21

that the consumer‘s going to be paying for the 22

product. 23

MR. SKAHAN: Yes. 24

MR. ERDHEIM: And was that done? 25

MR. SKAHAN: Yes. But not in the 26

engineering. Later. 27

MR. ERDHEIM: Okay. Thanks. 28


(301) 565-0064

140 MR. BROOKMAN: So, Rick, and anybody else 1

in the room, if you have different numbers, I‘m sure 2

the Department would like to see that. So more 3

detail on this later. 4

I‘d like to close on this segment and take 5

final comments on this issue if there‘s anything 6

else to be said, because it‘s just about time for us 7

to go to lunch, and we‘ve really made a tremendous 8

amount of progress this morning. We‘re a little bit 9

behind schedule, but the quality of the comment and 10

the exchange has been excellent. So I thank you for 11

that. It‘s now almost 12:30. It takes just about 12

an hour to eat and get back here. I‘ll give 13

instructions on that in just a moment. So let‘s 14

resume at 1:30 here in this room. You can leave 15

your stuff in this room. This room will be locked 16

up or supervised. You may – the best place to go is 17

to go down to the ground floor and walk about 100 18

yards that way to there‘s a big cafeteria. There‘s 19

also a subway sandwich shop right where the coffee 20

shop is, almost directly below us on the ground 21

floor. 22

You need to wear this badge. You might 23

need to have an ID to get back through security as 24

you reenter from the cafeteria into the Forrestal 25

Building proper. Maybe, maybe not. Hard to say. 26

You will have to clear through a screening x-ray 27

machine. Scanner, thank you. I think that‘s it. 28


(301) 565-0064

141 We‘ll resume at 1:30. Don‘t leave. Don‘t go off 1

campus, stay close by, because you won‘t get back in 2

time. And we‘ll see you back here. Leave stuff 3

here. 4

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the meeting in 5

the above captioned matter was adjourned for lunch 6

recess, to reconvene at 1:37 p.m.) 7

AFTERNOON SESSION 8

1:37 p.m. 9

Energy Use and Markups Analysis 10

MR. LAUF: Hello and welcome back from 11

lunch. My name is Dan Lauf and I am with D&R 12

International. Today, I am going to talk to you 13

about the energy use analysis. The energy use 14

analysis draws on product class level data from the 15

engineering analysis and application level data from 16

the market assessment, along with usage assumptions 17

made specifically for this analysis. The outputs of 18

the analysis are annual energy consumption estimates 19

for battery chargers and external power supplies for 20

each application and product class. Annual energy 21

consumption is also referred to as unit energy 22

consumption – or UEC – and is measured in kilowatt 23

hours per year. All of the assumptions are outlined 24

in chapter 7 of the TSD and in the energy use 25


(301) 565-0064

142 workbook on DOE‘s website. 1

DOE did not change its methodology for the 2

NOPR, but it did make a number of changes to its 3

usage profile assumptions – particularly where new 4

data was available. Data for these usage 5

assumptions – which I will explain later – is from a 6

variety of sources, including published reports, 7

stakeholder input, and DOE assumptions. There has 8

been some question about the accuracy of DOE‘s usage 9

assumptions, but since DOE found empirical data on 10

40% of applications, which represent 80% of annual 11

BCEPS energy consumption, it is confident in its 12

assumptions. A complete list of the assumptions 13

that DOE made is available in the Excel workbook 14

available at the link on this slide. 15

Now I will walk through the overall 16

approach to calculating energy use for BCs and EPSs. 17

BCs and EPSs are unique in that they are power 18

conversion devices and not typically the end-use 19

products. Thus, energy consumption for BCs and EPSs 20

is the difference between the energy that flows into 21

the BC or EPS and the energy that flows out to the 22

application or battery. 23

BC and EPS energy use is a function of a 24

couple of inputs, including the power requirements 25


(301) 565-0064

143 of the battery or application, consumer usage 1

patterns, and the efficiency of the BC or EPS. Power 2

requirements were determined in the engineering 3

analysis and usage patterns were estimated in the 4

energy use analysis. DOE assumes that use does not 5

vary with efficiency, so there is no take-back or 6

rebound effect. 7

To illustrate how energy consumption is 8

calculated, I will go through two examples – one for 9

EPSs and one for BCs. For EPSs, the application we 10

will look at is notebook computers. And I‘ll run 11

through the various inputs that we used and then sum 12

up with how DOE goes about calculating energy 13

consumption. So the first two inputs that we have 14

for EPSs are what are known as application states 15

and loading points. These are important because the 16

nameplate output power of an EPS illustrates the 17

maximum amount of power that that EPS can provide to 18

an application. But it‘s important to note that the 19

application rarely requires, if ever, that much 20

power. The amount of power that it actually 21

requires from the EPS is dictated by how it‘s used 22

at any given moment. So those are the application 23

states. 24

So you can see here, when a laptop is 25


(301) 565-0064

144 charging the battery and actively operating, it 1

requires – and we got this from test data – it 2

requires about 66 percent of the nameplate output 3

power of the EPS. Whereas, if it‘s in sleep mode, 4

it only requires 1.6 percent. 5

DOE then makes assumptions of how these 6

products are used. There‘s been a little bit of 7

confusion about that these usage profiles are 8

intended to represent, so I‘ll clarify by saying, 9

they‘re not – for each application, they‘re not 10

intended to necessarily represent any specific user. 11

They‘re intended to represent the average across all 12

users. And sometimes DOE does this by looking at 13

multiple user types and taking some sort of a 14

weighted average. It did do this in this case with 15

notebook computers. You can see we had one 16

published source that identified two user types for 17

notebooks, one user type that usually leaves their 18

notebook plugged in, and the other that usually 19

unplugs their notebooks, possibly for travel or 20

other reasons. 21

DOE assumed that 40 percent of notebook 22

users fell in the former case, and 60 percent in the 23

latter case. So you can see their unique usage 24

profile estimates. These are measured in hours, and 25


(301) 565-0064

145 the total usage profile for any EPS should sum up to 1

168 hours which are the number of hours in a week. 2

And so we have an estimate for the amount of time 3

that the EPS is providing power to the application 4

in each application state as well as the amount of 5

time in no load mode and in unplugged mode. Taking 6

an average of these two user types, using a weighted 7

average usage profile which you can see on the 8

right, that‘s the usage profile that DOE used for 9

its analysis. 10

DOE has a couple of efficiency metrics 11

that we received through the engineering analysis, 12

so these were discussed earlier in the day. You can 13

see we have active mode efficiency, which increases 14

as the CSL or the efficiency level increases, which 15

makes sense, and no load power decreases. 16

So to summarize those inputs, EPSs are 17

categorized by nameplate output power. Multiplying 18

that output power by the loading point yields the 19

power requirements of the EPS at any given 20

application state. The EPS‘s efficiency then 21

determines the amount of power that‘s lost in the 22

conversion process. That power loss is essentially 23

the consumption of the EPS. And then usage profiles 24

tell us how long the EPS spends in any given 25


(301) 565-0064

146 application state. So basically, the product of 1

these yield the UEC or that no energy consumption. 2

These were analyzed values for each application 3

state. By summing down across all the application 4

states, we have an estimate of the annual energy 5

consumption of the EPS, and we do this for each CSL. 6

And as you can see, and as is to be expected, the 7

annual energy consumption declines as the efficiency 8

level increases. 9

So I‘ll now turn to battery chargers and 10

describe a fairly similar concept. So for each 11

application for battery chargers, DOE estimates the 12

number of chargers per day, the time spent in 13

active, maintenance, no battery or standby, and off 14

modes. And then combines – 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, we have a question. 16

MR. LAUF: Sure. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your name. 18

MR. SHEIKH: Shahid from Intel. On your 19

previous slide, could you go back, please? Was this 20

duty cycle based on some study? 21

MR. LAUF: The usage profiles were. So 22

you're talking about these, and they were based on a 23

published study, and again, where possible we used 24

empirical data. 25


(301) 565-0064

147 MR. SHEIKH: Is this based on residential 1

only or enterprise notebooks too? 2

MR. LAUF: I believe the study focused on 3

notebook use in general, but because we have the two 4

user types, we adapted it to our interpretation of 5

how a residential user – 6

MR. SHEIKH: The study is quoted 7

somewhere? 8

MR. LAUF: Yes, it‘s a study that was put 9

out by NRDC, and the link that I had earlier in the 10

presentation to the UEC Workbook outlines all of the 11

studies that DOE looked at and the assumptions that 12

it gathered from those studies. It also shows the 13

situations where data wasn‘t available, and DOE 14

needed to make an assumption, so of course – any 15

data for any application is very much appreciated. 16

MR. SHEIKH: Thank you. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Rick, go ahead. 18

MR. HABBEN: Rick from Wahl. On your next 19

slide, well, the slide that has the CSLs, when you 20

determined – 21

MR. BROOKMAN: EPS or BC? 22

MR. HABBEN: For the EPSs. How do you – 23

how do you determine what the CSL levels are? I 24

mean, how is that – is that a percentage that they 25


(301) 565-0064

148 go up in – 1

MR. LAUF: What do you mean what the CSL 2

levels are? I had to reidentify those efficiency 3

metrics. 4

MR. HABBEN: Yeah, how do you determine, 5

you know, how much more efficient a CSL-2 should be 6

versus a three? 7

MR. LAUF: So that was described a little 8

bit earlier in the engineering analysis, and I‘ll 9

actually defer to Chris if he‘s available. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, go on. 11

MR. SKAHAN: This is Chris Skahan, 12

Navigant. So the CSLs, I did actually, I went 13

through that in the engineering analysis. But CSL-0 14

– I‘ll just walk through them – is based on the 15

current EISA standard. CSL-1 was based on the 16

Energy Star program that EPA had for external power 17

supplies. CSL-2 is an intermediate level that we 18

determined based on test data between CSL-1 and CSL-19

3. CSL-3 is the best- in- market unit, the unit 20

that we tested, it was the most efficient unit that 21

we could find. And then CSL-4 was based on 22

manufacturer input, so the maximum technology 23

feasible efficiency level that manufacturers gave us 24

for every single rep unit. 25


(301) 565-0064

149 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Jeff, you want to 1

get in here? 2

MR. HAILEY: Jeff Hailey. If you go to 3

slide 95, you identified these stages. You said 4

this was taken empirically. What was your sample 5

set to determine this? And I am assuming we have 6

similar sample sets for all of the various usage 7

models you have, but I‘m just curious about how 8

large your sample set was. 9

MR. LAUF: Again, that‘s something that 10

I‘d defer to Chris to answer this – Chris, do you 11

know that off-hand? How many notebooks we tested? 12

MR. SKAHAN: Maybe we can dig that out. 13


MR. LAUF: Then I can tell you that we do 15

have – that DOE tested a couple of different 16

products to get a general idea for how those loading 17

points work in different – you‘re talking about 18

loading point values or – 19

MR. HABBEN: Correct, and if you took a 20

sample size of two, that may not be very 21

representative. I was hoping to hear you took a 22

sample size of 20 to 30 products to come up with 23

these numbers. And you said a couple, so that 24

concerns me that these may not be representative. 25


(301) 565-0064

150 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Chris, please. 1

MR. SKAHAN: This is Chris Skahan. Yes, 2

it was part of what I was trying to convey with the 3

engineering, is that we had a specific list of 4

criteria for selecting the representative units that 5

we chose, as well as associated applications. And I 6

had a small sample set – those black dots, if you 7

remember, those were all tested data points. So 8

there was a significant amount of testing done for 9

each representative unit and a specific application. 10

I can assure you there‘s more than two units. So 11

yes, there was a significant sample size. What it 12

is, I don‘t remember off hand. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Your analysis says that 14

these were statistically significant sample sizes. 15

MR. SKAHAN: Yes. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ken – pardon 17

me, Pierre. 18

MR. DELFORGE: Just a quick comment, if 19

you could go back to the notebook load points. We 20

have recent data by Energy Star, by EPA on Energy 21

Star-6, which shows some loading point for idle, 22

which is a good proxy for normal operation, which is 23

significantly lower than 28 percent. I think most 24

of it is between 10 to 20 percent. 25


(301) 565-0064

151 MR. LAUF: Okay. And that would be – if 1

there is more data like that, the Department would 2

appreciate seeing it, we can incorporate it into the 3

analysis. So, thank you. 4

MR. SHEIKH: One more question. 5


MR. SHEIKH: Shahid from Intel again. On 7

slide number 96, so what you show here is – trying 8

to clarify – is the number of hours per week spent 9

in charging the battery and using unplugged versus 10

plugged, is that how you read it? 11

MR. LAUF: Yes, not just charging the 12

battery, but in any of the possible applications 13

it‘s used for. 14

MR. SHEIKH: No, no. It‘s an example, 15

charging the battery, when you are unplugged, 16

usually unplugged, you‘re spending 5.75 hours per 17

week, and then you‘re plugged, usually plugged in, 18

you‘re spending 1.13 hours per week? 19

MR. LAUF: Yes, so for each of these 20

possible user types, and they were described in the 21

report as – or we described them as a user typically 22

plugs in their application, versus when they 23

typically unplug. So, it‘s two user types who use 24

their battery charger or use their application in 25


(301) 565-0064

152 different ways, so the left column describes the 1

usage patterns for one user type. The column in the 2

middle describes the usage pattern for a different 3

user type, so there will be some variation there. 4

Taking the average of the two, or the weighted 5

average of the two leads to an assumed – 6

MR. SHEIKH: So a user who is unplugged is 7

spending more time charging the battery? 8

MR. LAUF: Yes. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Brian. 10

MR. BOOHER: We have a question here from 11

the webinar from Richard Hodson. Can you please 12

describe the no load condition further? Is it that 13

the laptop power adapter is connected to the wall 14

but no laptop connected? 15

MR. LAUF: Yes. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So, keep going, 17

you‘re doing good. 18

MR. LAUF: So now I‘ll proceed to battery 19

chargers. As I mentioned, DOE has a couple of 20

inputs to this analysis, including the usage profile 21

in item one, which I already described. And then a 22

number of energy consumption metrics that were 23

derived in the engineering analysis, and those were 24

discussed earlier. I‘ll run through them again very 25


(301) 565-0064

153 quickly. So this is the usage profile for battery 1

chargers for notebooks, once again. It‘s from a 2

different source, but it is consistent with the 3

other source that we saw, and you can see here we 4

have an estimate of the number of charges per day, 5

the active plus maintenance mode in hours per day, 6

no battery mode, off mode, and unplugged mode. And 7

again, this is all measured in hours per day for 8

battery chargers, rather than hours per week. So, 9

of course, summing down would give 24 hours. 10

We then have a couple of energy 11

consumption metrics again from the energy analyses. 12

Feel free to stop me if you have any questions, 13

although I‘ll go through them and describe them 14

quickly since they were explained earlier. We have 15

24 hour energy consumption; charge time measured in 16

hours, battery energy in watt-hours; maintenance 17

power in watts; and no battery power also in watts, 18

and these vary depending on the CSL that we‘re 19

looking at. And once again, it‘s the usage profile 20

that remains constant across efficiency levels. 21

So the equation that we use to combine 22

these – if you want to refer back to it, they‘re on 23

slides I believe, 77 and 78 in your handout, and 24

they yield these estimates for unit energy 25


(301) 565-0064

154 consumption by mode of operation and summing across 1

those gives a total estimate of unit energy 2

consumption, or annual energy consumption for 3

battery chargers at each efficiency level. Yes. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead. 5

MR. RIDER: This is Ken Rider, California 6

Energy Commission. Two questions on what you just 7

showed. On the slide before this, your no batter 8

power for CSL-2 and 3 – for 3, the no battery power 9

was increased. Can you explain what the rationale 10

is behind that? And also – well, let‘s get to that 11

then I‘ll ask the second question. 12

MR. LAUF: So the rationale – Matt, do you 13

want to take this? He‘s asking why the no battery 14

power for CSLs 2 and 3, why it increased in 3? 15

MR. NARDOTTI: I would have to go back and 16

look at the TSD write up in that section. 17

MR. RIDER: But it would be contained in 18

the – 19

MR. NARDOTTI: It should be in the TSD. 20

MR. RIDER: Okay. All right. Second 21

question I wanted to ask is you have the total UEC 22

numbers calculated using the duty cycle and the 23

assumed performance that you just presented. 24

MR. LAUF: Yes. 25


(301) 565-0064

155 MR. RIDER: So you‘ve got a different 1

equation for actually calculating UEC for the 2

standard. What would the standard outputs be for – 3

or I guess I‘m wondering – these aren‘t the same 4

results that you‘d get from the standards equation, 5

right? 6

MR. LAUF: It‘s my understanding that the 7

difference is for this analysis since we‘re -- what 8

we‘re looking for analytical purposes at the 9

specific usage profiles for the application, so we 10

don‘t have that one usage profile that‘s applied for 11

the product class. So that would be – the bigger 12

difference here is that the usage profile inputs are 13

specific to each application. And the energy use 14

metric, which I showed on the previous slide, are 15

specific to each product class. 16

MR. RIDER: I guess I‘m wondering how does 17

that translate, when you‘re doing this, you know, 18

national impact, and then you‘re having a different 19

requirement actually – you‘re not actually requiring 20

this level, you‘re doing this other equation, how 21

you can show that you‘re going to get to these 22

levels given that you‘re playing a different UEC 23

requirement than what‘s presented here for CSLs zero 24

through three. 25


(301) 565-0064

156 MR. LAUF: And the coefficients – the 1

usage coefficients that are meant to be used for 2

compliance are really supposed to be representatives 3

of the average use across a product class. So, they 4

don‘t necessarily need to be looked at as 5

representative of any specific use, but really as 6

coefficients that should be used to determine 7

whether or not a product is in compliance with the 8

standard. And then for the national impact 9

analysis, since we‘re looking – this really comes 10

before that, and it‘s the usage impact – inputs for 11

each application that we‘re -- 12

MR. RIDER: Okay. Maybe I‘ll ask my 13

question again when we get – maybe when we get 14

further along I‘ll raise – reask this question 15

because it‘s about how this translates – you‘re 16

saying the CSLs are going to drive you to these 17

UECs, but the compliance isn‘t going to be on the 18

same UEC that you‘ve got here, so I‘m just wondering 19

– so I‘ll ask it again later. 20

MR. LAUF: Okay. 21


MR. SHEIKH: Shahid again from Intel. So 23

just to clarify Ken‘s point. So your original 24

equation is that was shown earlier before lunch, 25


(301) 565-0064

157 they were based on a different modeling which is – 1

MR. LAUF: No, we used the same equations 2

to calculate – 3

MR. SHEIKH: Same coefficients? 4

MR. LAUF: Same equations, but different 5

coefficients. So the coefficients that we use in 6

this analysis are based on the usage patterns for 7

each individual application. Then for compliance, 8

since we‘re looking at an entire product class, we 9

then look at all of the usage coefficients for 10

products in that product class and try to determine 11

what an approximate average would be. 12

MR. SHEIKH: Weighted average based on the 13

volumes or energy usage or what? 14

MR. LAUF: Shipments, I believe. 15

MR. SHEIKH: Shipments. That methodology 16

is somewhere, you know, explained? 17

MR. LAUF: Yes, it‘s all explained in, I 18

believe, the TSD. 19

MR. SHEIKH: Thank you. 20


MR. LAUF: So at this point I‘ll pause for 22

any other questions that you have on the energy use 23

analysis. DOE is also seeking comments specifically 24

on its usage assumptions. I explained where you can 25


(301) 565-0064

158 find those, so if there‘s any other data that we 1

overlooked, we‘d love to hear about it. Also 2

loading points and other assumptions that were made. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ric. 4

MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim with Philips. 5

So I think this is the point to ask the question I 6

had asked earlier. So someone had raised the issue 7

of infrequent charge, and Matt said that that was 8

considered as part of the usage profile, and that 9

all the different products were then averaged. And 10

I guess we heard it‘s – used a weighted average. My 11

question related to the fact that when you look at, 12

for EPS class B, which is on slide 39 – you don‘t 13

have to go back to it, but just to reference – 56 14

percent of the products were in – of the EPSs were 15

in product class B and for battery chargers, 57 16

percent of the battery chargers were in product 17

class 2, and of the 15 largest categories of battery 18

chargers, 11 of those 15 had at least some products 19

in product class 2. And so my question, I 20

appreciate the work that you‘ve done on the usage 21

profiles, but in averaging over such a large class 22

of products, don‘t you wind up not considering, or 23

treating certain products that might be at the end 24

differently, such that you won‘t get the average 25


(301) 565-0064

159 results would bring you? And again, I‘m speaking – 1

I‘m using the example of infrequent charge, but it 2

could be for something else. 3

MR. LAUF: And you‘re talking about 4

averaging for analytical purposes or to determine 5

compliance – for the coefficients that were used to 6

determine compliance? 7

MR. ERDHEIM: Well, I understand you‘re 8

averaging all of this data to come up with the 9

coefficients, right. And so you‘ve got an average 10

coefficient, but for a particular product, the usage 11

profile may be very different than the average, and 12

therefore you‘ve got an energy use requirement that 13

doesn‘t really make any sense for that particular 14

product. I understand you can‘t have a different 15

standard for every product, otherwise not only would 16

Vic be retiring, his children would be retiring 17

because it would take so long. But again, those two 18

classes are so large that it leads you to think 19

maybe they should be subdivided to look more 20

carefully at different characteristics so you don‘t 21

have this unintended effect. 22

MR. LAUF: Appreciate that input. 23

MR. PETROLATI: And Ric, I think you 24

stated it clearly, but we are limited in terms of 25


(301) 565-0064

160 looking at these things from a product class 1

standpoint, and the product classes have been 2

defined in accordance to the parameters and 3

specifications of either the battery charger or the 4

external power supply, and we would not be allowed 5

to look at different end use consumer products 6

unless the performance characteristics of the 7

battery charger led us to develop another product 8

class that happened to break out these products in a 9

different manner. So we would be very happy if you 10

could provide us comments as to how we might change 11

our product class, but that wouldn‘t necessarily be 12

on a different end use consumer products that are 13

within that product class. 14

MR. ERDHEIM: I think this came up at the 15

last hearing, Vic, and if I remember the slide 16

correctly, and it‘s not in this slide deck – I don‘t 17

want to take too much time, but I think it said you 18

consider this and such other factors as the 19

Department thinks are appropriate. And that‘s the 20

part where I said well, why couldn‘t you then 21

consider that? So we need to – I need to go back 22

and – 23

MR. PETROLATI: Fair enough. 24

MR. ERDHEIM: -- suggest to you that maybe 25

you can do it, and then if you can do it, is there a 26


(301) 565-0064

161 basis for doing it. But I think those product 1

classes are so broad that you may wind up having 2

unintended consequences of products that fall at an 3

end. 4

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Ari, did you want to chime 6

in? 7

MR. REEVES: Sure. Ric, this is Ari 8

Reeves. I don‘t think your concern extends to 9

external power supplies, because when it comes to 10

determining compliance with the external power 11

supplies standards, there‘s no consideration for 12

usage, the usage profile doesn‘t factor into that. 13

It‘s only in the case of battery chargers where 14

we‘re looking to combine the energy performance of 15

multiple modes into a single metric, the UEC metric, 16

that a single duty cycle is required. 17

And then just to emphasize again what Dan 18

said earlier about the – for analytical purposes we 19

use these application-specific duty cycles or usage 20

profiles, and again, that‘s in order to arrive at 21

the most accurate estimates possible of the real 22

costs and benefits of the proposed standards. And 23

we felt that calculating energy use and thus energy 24

savings at the application level was the right way 25

to go, both in EPSs and in BCs. 26

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Ari. 27

Brian has a question or comment from someone on- 28


(301) 565-0064

162 line. 1

MR. BOOHER: Yes, and this is related to 2

this point. This is a question from Henry Sully. 3

Usage profiles seem to be a point of contention. 4

Why not eliminate usage profiles entirely and just 5

use charging efficiency as a requirement. And then 6

he goes on to say, isn‘t it the goal to improve 7

efficiency and not regulate usage? 8


MR. LAUF: Sure, and at least, from what 10

we‘re looking at here, I don‘t believe DOE is 11

looking to regulate usage, it is regulating 12

efficiency. The reason why it takes these usage 13

profiles into account for the analysis is like Ari 14

described, to truly understand how these products 15

are used so then DOE can go ahead and estimate 16

exactly how much energy is consumed by each battery 17

charger or power supply. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: We‘re still looking for 19

additional comment, should there be any, on item 22 20

and 23, usage profiles and loading points. Have we 21

covered it? Are we ready to move on now? Move on. 22

MR. LAUF: So now I‘ll switch gears away 23

from the energy analysis and move over to the 24

markups analysis. The purpose of the markups 25

analysis is to take the estimates of cost that were 26

estimated in the energy use analysis and step those 27

up to a final retail price. So DOE does this by 28


(301) 565-0064

163 looking at markups applied to various stages in the 1

distribution process. 2

So this figure here will look familiar. 3

It is a simplified model of the distribution 4

process, or distribution path for battery chargers 5

and power supplies. In the engineering analysis, 6

DOE estimated the manufacturer‘s selling price 7

indicated in the middle there. That‘s the price 8

that the battery charger or power supply 9

manufacturer will sell the completed BC or EPS unit 10

to the OEM, and in this case, the OEM that we‘re 11

referring to is the end use application 12

manufacturer. 13

So this analysis picks up there and 14

applies two markups to the manufacturer‘s selling 15

price. One is the markup applied by the OEM, the 16

next is the markup applied by the retailer. And 17

then the analysis goes on to estimate or calculate 18

sales tax as well. So DOE does recognize that 19

distribution for these products can be variable and 20

very complex, but DOE makes the simplifying 21

assumption that the most common path to market 22

dictates the final product price. So this model 23

here is intended just to represent that common path 24

to market for most BCs and EPSs. 25

Now there‘s very limited data available on 26

actual markups applied to BCs and UPSs, and this is 27

true for a couple of reasons. First of all, it is 28


(301) 565-0064

164 typically held confidential by manufacturers, but 1

also battery chargers and power supplies are 2

components of other end use products, and so it‘s 3

difficult to tease out when a consumer buys an 4

application what they‘re actually paying for that 5

battery charger or the EPS. So to estimate the 6

markups applied to these products at those two 7

stages of distribution, DOE assumed that the 8

company-wide markup – the average markup applied to 9

all of the company‘s products could be a proxy for 10

the markup applied to the battery charger and the 11

EPS. DOE goes about estimating this by looking at 12

corporate gross margins, which it was able to glean 13

through public financial filings, and it looked up 14

filings from 83, end use product manufacturers, 15

retailers and distributors, and then looked 16

application by application to see which of those 17

manufacturers and which of those retailers would be 18

a part of the distribution path for each EPS and 19

used a combination of those – or EPS or BC and used 20

a combination of those markups to step up the price 21

to a retail price. 22

So DOE actually estimates two markups for 23

each application – for each BC and EPS. For 24

products that are more efficient than the baseline, 25

or CSL-0, DOE estimates one markup that‘s applied to 26

the baseline cost, known as the baseline markup, and 27

that‘s represented here by the green bars, and one 28


(301) 565-0064

165 markup that‘s applied to the incremental cost known 1

as the incremental markup. 2

The baseline markups are intended to 3

relate price to cost for the baseline component of 4

the product‘s price and cover all of an OEM or 5

retailer‘s expenses, including profit. The 6

incremental markup, however, is only intended —it 7

covers the incremental changes in the customer price 8

due to standards, or due to increased efficiency. 9

So DOE assumes that some distribution costs remain 10

fixed as efficiency increases. These might include 11

overhead and general labor. And then there are 12

other costs that vary with efficiency, and then of 13

course companies also need to cover products in – or 14

profits in the incremental markup as well. 15

So since the incremental markup does not 16

cover all of the cost, but only those costs that 17

vary, it‘s typically slightly lower than the 18

baseline. So to illustrate an example. This is a 19

hypothetical product here, with a baseline MSP of 20

$10.00. The baseline markup is 50 percent or 1.5, 21

so for CSL-0, that baseline cost would be stepped up 22

from $10.00 to $15.00. For a more efficient version 23

of that product, say at CSL-1, there is a $2.00 24

incremental cost that arose due to the increase – 25

the components needed to increase efficiency. So 26

the incremental markup, as I mentioned, would most 27

likely be less than the baseline markup, so we‘re 28


(301) 565-0064

166 seeing here it‘s a 15 percent markup applied to that 1

incremental component of cost, so the baseline cost 2

still steps up from $10.00 to $15.00. That 3

incremental cost steps up from $2.00 to $2.30, 4

leading to a final product price of $17.30. 5

Comments? 6

MR. ERDHEIM: Yeah, this is Rick from 7

Wahl. Where did you get the information that just 8

because your efficient product markup of $2.00 it 9

would still increase your 150 percent. Why do you 10

think you can apply it on the base, but not the 11

efficient product? 12

MR. LAUF: So this is actually the 13

approach that DOE has been using for a number of 14

years in a number of different product categories. 15

And it‘s intended to get at the fact that it can be 16

difficult to pass this entire cost along to 17

consumers with the full markups, so retailers and 18

manufacturers – 19

MR. ERDHEIM: I think I can tell you for 20

sure that that‘s no longer accurate, at least on our 21

dealings with retailers. The retailers aren‘t going 22

to take less points on their markup just because you 23

had a price increase on your product. They‘re still 24

going to want their same margins, I can guarantee 25

you that. So I think this is an incorrect 26

assumption that you‘re making. 27

MR. BROOKMAN: How should they do it, 28


(301) 565-0064

167 Rick? 1

MR. ERDHEIM: Well, I think that you‘re 2

pretty accurate on your baseline product, of your 3

one and half times. I think you should carry that 4

over on your efficient product, so basically, if 5

you‘re adding $2.00 to your manufacturer‘s sale 6

price, then it‘ll be $3.00 added to your retail 7

price. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. And if 9

there are any other – well, Ken was in the queue, 10

but maybe Dave, you‘ve got comments that are 11

specific follow-on. 12

MR. ERDHEIM: I don‘t. 13

MR. DENKENBERGER: Yeah, I mean the 14

thought here is that if you have the same product 15

that you‘re selling, same sized product, then it may 16

take the same amount of time to check it out or to 17

load it on the shelves, so those are costs that 18

wouldn‘t go with just making the product more 19

efficient. 20

MR. LAUF: Exactly. 21

MR. DENKENBERGER: So – and the shipping 22

cost as well. You know, if it doesn‘t weigh any 23

more it might not be any greater shipping cost. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Let me – let Rick follow 25

on. Ken, hang on. 26

MR. HABBEN: It‘s mixed in with all of 27

this. 28


(301) 565-0064

168 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Go ahead. 1

MR. HABBEN: Well, it‘s just what exactly 2

is it that this incremental cost is? Is it to 3

recover shelf space? Is it just pure profit? Are 4

retailers just going to take the efficiency and mark 5

it up 1.5 and just make a bunch of money on a more 6

expensive products? I guess that‘s really at the 7

root of what my question was, which relates to what 8

both of these gentlemen are saying, which is, what 9

is it that DOE‘s – is it just trying to recoup some 10

cost that the retailers are going to have to deal 11

with the efficiency, or is it profit to those 12

retailers, what is it? 13

MR. LAUF: The incremental markup – there 14

are costs that will scale with efficiency, so it 15

could be marketing materials, it could be for the 16

OEM, because this applies at that level as well. 17

There are R&D costs and other materials costs and 18

just building added efficiency into – and new 19

applications and end use products. So the 20

incremental markup is intended to cover those costs 21

and then cover some measure of profit as well. But 22

again, like the gentleman from ECOVA pointed out, 23

not all costs are assumed to increase just because a 24

product is made more efficient, which is why that 25

markup that you see here is lower. 26

MR. BROOKMAN: Rick, follow on. 27

MR. HABBEN: So when I‘m looking at your 28


(301) 565-0064

169 slide here, what I‘m assuming is that the 1

manufacturer sale price, he had to increase that 2

$2.00. And I guess what I‘m saying is that when you 3

take a product and you increase it by $2.00 and 4

you‘ve got to sell it to the retailer for that 5

$2.00, the retailer is still going to – they have a 6

set amount of points of profit that they are going 7

to make on every product, and just because you sell 8

a product at a higher price to them doesn‘t mean 9

that they‘re going to take a lower profit and sell 10

it at the same price. It doesn‘t work like that. 11

So what they‘re going to do, is if you mark it up by 12

$2.00, they‘re going to still take their same amount 13

of profit and that percentage is still based on 14

that, and the one and a half times is a fairly 15

accurate number. I think it‘s kind of low, still, 16

but it‘s fairly accurate. It depends on your 17

retailer. 18

MR. LAUF: So are you saying that the 19

final price that consumers would see would be 20

$18.00, or that – 21

MR. HABBEN: Yes, the consumer is going to 22

spend – 23

MR. LAUF: -- pressure from the retailer 24

that the added cost that the 70 cents would have to 25

be taken out elsewhere? 26

MR. HABBEN: No, I‘m saying the consumer 27

is going to spend $18.00 for that product, and 28


(301) 565-0064

170 there‘s – I hope other manufacturers around here 1

will back me up. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: I see Corey, and then to 3

Rick. 4

MR. WATKINS: Yes, Corey from Schumacher. 5

I think that part of what happens when we look at 6

this analysis is that we‘re not looking at the 7

fundamental difficulties that we have in selling to 8

many of our fine retailers that we sell to. They 9

just absolutely are not going to absorb this, and 10

any sort of calculation that suggests that they are 11

is only made in the public sector, not the private. 12

If you raise the price $2.00, they‘re going to make 13

the same margins because Wall Street says you‘ve got 14

to make the same margins. In fact, they‘re grinding 15

on them daily to actually increase what those 16

margins are. It is not going to be passed on for 17

the common good, or for saving energy, or anything 18

else. 19

If you have, I guess by way of analogy, we 20

recently had a value added tax that changed in 21

China, and as a manufacturer we only raised the 22

price the amount that we absorbed. Let‘s say for 23

argument‘s sake, that was $1.00. The retailer 24

didn‘t just raise his price $1.00. He took that 25

price and multiplied it times his margin, which 26

actually make the cost to the consumer $2.00 in this 27

hypothetical. So certainly, any sort of analysis 28


(301) 565-0064

171 that looks at what the retail price is going to be, 1

the retailer is absolutely not going to absorb that. 2

They‘re going to raise the end user price. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Ric, you‘re next. 4

MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim with Philips. I 5

agree completely. If you look at any quarterly or 6

annual report for a retailer, what they‘re concerned 7

about is not only the gross profits, but the 8

margins, and you‘ll see sometimes gross profits may 9

go up but the margins will go down and the stock 10

market will crush the stock because the margins have 11

gone down. So margins are a key factor that all 12

retailers are using. And I mean Corey‘s exactly 13

right. They‘re going to do everything to keep the 14

margins that they need to show Wall Street that 15

they‗re growing their margins, not shrinking their 16

margins. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments 18

on this? Vic, please. 19

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah, just one other 20

comment. Again, this has been an issue that has 21

been in play for a number of product regulations 22

that DOE has gone forward with. And your comments 23

are not dissimilar from the comments made by many of 24

the other manufacturer groups as part of this. 25

Anyway, I would appreciate you making those comments 26

as part of the record so that they can be 27

considered. Obviously, the statements you made here 28


(301) 565-0064

172 will be considered. The Department has taken a 1

different position in the past on other rulemakings, 2

and I‘m not sure if there‘s anything here that‘s 3

different than what was stated in those other 4

previous rulemakings. But I just wanted to make you 5

aware of that. Anyway, just make sure that your 6

comments are directed to us concerning this. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Corey, go ahead. 8

MR. WATKINS: We‘ll address that in the 9

comments, I guess, Vic what I‘m hearing you saying 10

is like we‘ve always done it this way, so we‘re 11

going to continue even if we know it‘s wrong, and 12

certainly the retailers are going to absorb that 13

cost, right, so if you say or if the analysis says 14

that look, we‘ve done it this way, we‘ve done it in 15

other scenarios so we‘re going to carry on doing it 16

this way, well all you‘re doing is not being 17

completely forthcoming on what the facts are. 18

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Let me respond to 19

that. And I didn‘t mean it exactly in that manner, 20

Corey. The Department has evaluated this issue, and 21

even has a paper that Lawrence Berkeley National 22

Laboratory put together to evaluate the approach 23

that is being used. So the Department has taken a 24

position that the position that was identified by 25

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a perfectly 26

reasonable position why there shouldn‘t be a full 27

markup. Now I think what we might be able to do is 28


(301) 565-0064

173 provide everybody here a little more information as 1

to how the Department made this decision in the past 2

so that you can critique the way it was made. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Charlie 4

Stephens. 5


Energy Efficiency Alliance. I work for an 7

organization that spends millions of dollars or has 8

spent millions of dollars to look at the marketplace 9

for products that have undergone several rounds of 10

energy efficiency standards upgrades, clothes 11

washers, refrigerators, and that sort of thing, and 12

we can‘t get at the data that‘s down in the 13

distributor level or the retailer level all the 14

time, but we can see what happens at the retail 15

level. In fact, we collect that data over a long 16

period of time and all of our – I can‘t say where it 17

disappears, but I can tell you that the markups 18

you‘re suggesting here at 1.5 on the more efficient 19

products, do not show up at the retail level in 20

general. I don‘t know where they go. I can‘t say 21

what happens to it, but it is not the case, based on 22

our data, that those same markups show up at the 23

retail level when you actually look at the price of 24

last year‘s model that was less say what happens to 25

it, but it is not the case, based on our data, that 26

those same markups show up at the retail level when 27

you actually look at the price of last year‘s model 28


(301) 565-0064

174 that was less efficient versus this year‘s model 1

that‘s more efficient, essentially the same product. 2

So again, I don‘t know where those markups go, but 3

the fact is they don‘t arrive at retail from all the 4

data we see. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: In the northwest, Charlie? 6

MR. STEPHENS: Right, in the four states 7

of the Northwest and in the studies that we‘ve seen 8

from other people that we use in our own work. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Would this be nationwide? 10

MR. STEPHENS: Sometimes, yes. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. You‘re next. Say 12

your name, please. 13

MR. BECK: Dennis Beck from the California 14

Energy Commission. And if I can kind of extend what 15

Mr. Petrolati was saying to industry on this, and 16

coming from a state regulator on this is, I think 17

not only what – the markups that they‘ve used in the 18

past have been based on some data and some analysis 19

that they had and there‘s been nothing that‘s been 20

given to them in the interim that has changed the 21

way that they do that analysis. So in the comments 22

that industry would provide, it wouldn‘t simply be – 23

and please correct me if I‘m wrong – if my 24

assumption is incorrect, Mr. Petrolati, but what the 25

Department needs is not just an assertion from 26

industry that the markups have to be the same for or 27

are going to be required to be the same from the 28


(301) 565-0064

175 retailer for the baseline and the incremental, but 1

also some actual data and some actual hard 2

information that backs that up, and I don‘t know 3

whether that can be done through the NDA that the 4

Department has with the manufacturers or not, but 5

this is the same kind of issue that we run into on 6

the state level where industry or manufacturers or 7

the stakeholders will make assertions but not 8

necessarily back it up with data that we can use to 9

verify those assumptions. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Jay, 11

please. And in a little bit we‘re moving on because 12

I think we‘re starting to double back on ourselves. 13

MR. TAYLOR: With all due respect for the 14

requests for information specifically around costs 15

and volume, every time we get a request like that it 16

must be analyzed under the anti-trust regulations 17

that exist, not only in the United States, but 18

worldwide. So a lot of the reason you don‘t get 19

costing information from manufacturers has to do 20

with the laws we operate under and the codes of 21

conduct that we‘re required to comply with. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: And NDAs don‘t – 23

MR. TAYLOR: NDA does not preclude that 24

because the Department of Energy, like the EPA, is 25

subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 26

MR. BROOKMAN: Vic. 27

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah, Jay, we normally 28


(301) 565-0064

176 have done the NDAs through our contractors, and once 1

they‘re done through the contractors, the data that 2

we get is more or less aggregated, consequently, 3

even if we do get a Freedom of Information request, 4

generally we‘re not providing what you would 5

consider your proprietary data through that request. 6

So there is a mechanism through the contractors to 7

do NDA, and again, I think Dennis‘ recommendation is 8

excellent here. If we can get hard data that shows 9

this, potential markup being actually applied for 10

all of these products at the 1.5, and again, we 11

might be able to do that in the NDA, that would be 12

helpful. 13


MR. LAUF: So I think we‘ve covered that 15

and thank you again for those comments, they‘re very 16

helpful. So this slide here, just shows the average 17

markups that were calculated – it‘s intended to be 18

illustrative because again, we do have more specific 19

markups that were calculated for particular 20

applications. Those are all available in the TSD in 21

Chapter 6, and also in the market assessment 22

workbook, which is available on DOE‘s website. 23

So at this point I‘ll pause for any other 24

comments, questions or input that you have. 25

MR. BROOKMAN: Would you call out anything 26

here specifically, or have we covered it largely? 27

MR. LAUF: I think we‘ve covered it 28


(301) 565-0064

177 largely. Really it would just be any kind of 1

information -- 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Supplemental comments here 3

before we move on. Okay. So who‘s next up? 4

Pamela? Let me note we‘re making good progress but 5

we‘re about an hour behind, and I think we‘ll 6

probably make it up by the end of the day, but we‘re 7

not getting out of here a lot early, I don‘t think. 8

Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 9

MS. COSTELLO: Hi. I‘m Pam Costello with 10

Navigant Consulting and I‘m going to be talking 11

about the Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period 12

analysis. The purpose of the life-cycle cost 13

analysis is to assess the impact on the consumer due 14

to energy conservation standards. It‘s conducted 15

from the consumer‘s perspective and shows the cost 16

of owning and operating a product over the product‘s 17

lifetime. 18

As you can see from this diagram, the 19

life-cycle cost is made up of two main components, 20

total installed cost and operating cost of the 21

product which is discounted to present value. The 22

installed cost is made up of the purchase price of 23

the product and any installation cost, which for 24

these products, DOE assumes is zero. The operating 25

costs are made up of unit energy consumption, energy 26


(301) 565-0064

178 cost, and any maintenance or repair costs, which DOE 1

also assumes as zero for these products. This 2

allows DOE to calculate the total life-cycle cost 3

for each standard level considered. Results are 4

then expressed as life-cycle cost savings or the 5

baseline LCC minus the standard level LCC. Simple 6

payback periods are also calculated and reported for 7

each level. 8

After receiving comments during the 9

preliminary analysis, DOE made two main changes to 10

the LCC. First, in the preliminary analysis, DOE 11

analyzed battery chargers and EPSs in the 12

residential sector as the reference case and in the 13

commercial sector as the sensitivity. For the NOPR 14

analysis, a weighted average of residential and 15

commercial sectors was used as the reference case. 16

All application inputs to the LCC were 17

specified as either residential or commercial. DOE 18

sampled each application based on its shipments 19

weighting and used the appropriate residential or 20

commercial inputs based on this sample. This method 21

allowed for an examination of the LCC results for a 22

given representative unit or product class in total, 23

and provided more specificity as to the appropriate 24

input values for each sector. 25


(301) 565-0064

179 Second, in the preliminary analysis, DOE 1

used base case market efficiency distributions for 2

each representative unit or product class. Using 3

this approach, DOE noticed that efficiency 4

distributions could be heavily influenced by one or 5

two very common applications. To help prevent this, 6

in the NOPR analysis, base case market efficiency 7

distributions specific to each application were 8

derived and included in the analysis where there was 9

sufficient data to do so. This approach insured 10

that market distributions for applications with 11

fewer shipments were not disproportionately skewed 12

by the market distributions of applications of major 13

shipments. 14

This table here shows the results for 15

external power supplies at the selected TSL which 16

for all EPSs was TSL-2. As you can see LCC results 17

are generally positive for the selected TSL for 18

EPSs. 19

This table here shows the selected TSL 20

results for all of the battery charger product 21

classes. You can see that these results are all 22

positive and range anywhere from about 16 cents to 23

about $40.00. Also as you can see here, we have a 24

place holder for product class nine, because no 25


(301) 565-0064

180 standard is being proposed for this product class. 1

DOE feels that no level is economically justified 2

for this product class as every level has negated 3

LCC savings. 4

So we can pause here for any comments on 5

the LCC. 6


MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim, Philips. Can 8

you go back to slide 115. 9

MS. COSTELLO: This one. 10

MR. ERDHEIM: So I understand there was 11

some contention about the way you did the LCC, but 12

this shows the LCC at 60 watt is negative, and at 13

the 2.5 watt, barely positive. 14

MS. COSTELLO: Yes, so the four 15

representative units on the top are all part of 16

product class B, so overall the LCC savings for 17

product class B is positive. But we wanted to 18

select a uniform TSL for all the representative 19

units in that product class. 20

MR. ERDHEIM: But is that because you 21

averaged those four representative products 22

together? 23

MS. COSTELLO: We don‘t actually ever 24

present a total LCC for EPS product classes, just by 25


(301) 565-0064

181 the way the representative units are. We just 1

present them for representative units. But overall 2

the benefits for that TSL had the most positive 3

benefits. 4

MR. ERDHEIM: But would this slide show, 5

again assuming the data is correct, that for 6

external power supplies at 60 watts from AC – using 7

AC to DC basic voltage, that the LCC is negative? 8

MS. COSTELLO: Yes. 9

MR. ERDHEIM: Okay. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Your name, please. 11

MR. SPITAELS: Jim Spitaels with Schneider 12

Electric. You made a statement to the effect that 13

DOE assumed the installation cost was zero in the 14

financial models? 15

MS. COSTELLO: Uh-huh. 16

MR. SPITAELS: Can we infer from that that 17

anything with a non-zero installation cost, say it 18

requires an electrician to be installed, is out of 19

scope? 20

MS. COSTELLO: No. 21

MR. PETROLATI: That is the correct 22

answer. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Vic Petrolati. 24

MR. PETROLATI: Yes, sorry, that is the 25


(301) 565-0064

182 correct answer, no. But please provide us 1

information on this specific project that needs an 2

installation cost so we can consider it as part of 3

our evaluation. And I did want to point out, and I 4

don‘t think it‘s necessary to Rick that 60 watt EPS 5

unit, of course, is not a product class. Those are 6

four representative units within the product class. 7

MR. ERDHEIM: So just to put a finish on 8

this, based on the point I was raising before, so 9

you used four representative units, so you‘ve 10

decided on the product class, but it‘s at least 11

conceivable that you might, instead of having 12

product class B, you might have product class B-1, 13

B-2, B-3, B-4, and have different standards for – 14

based on the LCCs. 15

MR. PETROLATI: Yes, that certainly is 16

considerable, yes. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Were you finished? 18

MR. ERDHEIM: Yeah. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna. 20

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. So I guess my 21

question gets back to the engineering analysis, but 22

I think as Pierre‘s slides were showing the 23

manufacturer data showed that it‘s significantly 24

more expensive to improve the efficiency of the 60 25


(301) 565-0064

183 watt unit compared to the 120 watt unit which is not 1

a result that I think we would expect, so I think 2

the question for DOE is, what is the explanation for 3

why the analysis shows a significantly higher cost 4

to improve the efficiency of the 60 watt unit 5

compared to the 120 watt unit? 6

MR. BROOKMAN: So, Chris, yes. Chris is 7

right there, Chris. 8

MR. SKAHAN: So every one of our cost- 9

efficiency curves for all of those representative 10

units that you see up there were generated based on 11

manufacturer data. So, any of the costs and 12

associated markups, but ultimately the same markups 13

were used for our representative units, so the 14

difference is going to come from those initial costs 15

that we received from manufacturers. As to reason 16

why it‘s more expensive for a 60 watt versus a 120 17

watt, I can‘t really address that. I thought – I 18

think it was Pierre – mentioned earlier about a 19

possible topology switch when you get toward the 20

higher power, more efficient EPSs, you usually 21

require more components. That could possibly skew 22

those cost results. 23

But in terms of an actual efficiency 24

standard, the 60 watt and the 120 watt, when you 25


(301) 565-0064

184 look at a continuous function, are required to meet 1

the same efficiency standard. But the reason this 2

LCC is negative is because of that 60 watt cost 3

efficiency curve. It‘s as this slide shows, is much 4

flatter than the 120 watt curve, so the deltas 5

between the CSLs are much – the slope is much lower. 6


MR. PETROLATI: Chris, did we do a tear 8

down analysis on a 60 watt? 9

MR. SKAHAN: Yes. 10

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. But we used 11

manufacturer‘s data rather than the tear down 12

analysis? 13

MR. SKAHAN: Yes. 14

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. And could you 15

indicate to the stakeholders what the tear down 16

analysis indicated? 17

MR. SKAHAN: Well, the tear down data for 18

the purposes of the NOPR was only used to help 19

support our choices of CSLs. During the preliminary 20

analysis we did do tear downs on representative 21

units and attempted to cost those out for every 22

single rep unit within the product class. 23

Unfortunately, the data showed a negative trend, so 24

as efficiency increased, the cost actually 25


(301) 565-0064

185 decreased, based on the numbers that we received 1

from iSuppli, which is the company that Peter 2

mentioned that was used for BCs. So we had problems 3

with that original data, and we got overwhelming 4

comments that had problems with that original data, 5

as to be expected. So, the suggestion was to use 6

only manufacturer data, which is what DOE ended up 7

doing. So any results were entirely based on what 8

manufacturers told us. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna, did you have an 10

additional question? 11

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I think we just 12

encourage DOE to go back and look at that cost 13

analysis for this product class, because again, it‘s 14

a result that I don‘t think that we would expect to 15

see. I don‘t think we‘d expect that it would be 16

significantly more expensive. So we would encourage 17

DOE to go back and look especially if, you know, 18

it‘s not clear to stakeholders what – what those 19

costs are based on, what the assumptions are about 20

technology changes, so it‘s hard to evaluate those 21

results. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Rick. 23

MR. HABBEN: I guess I would just like to, 24

as a manufacturer, I‘d like to maybe put a little 25


(301) 565-0064

186 bit of clarification in it. It seems like it‘s hard 1

to get through to, you know, some of the people here 2

is that so much of this cost, when you‘re talking 3

about changes in components, depends on the amount 4

of volume that you‘re purchasing. And there‘s no 5

volumes ever mentioned in any of these cost 6

analysis. So if you have a manufacturer that‘s 7

maybe making cell phones or computers or whatever, 8

and they‘re selling millions and millions of these 9

units a year, the costs, and the incremental cost 10

are going to be much less than some of the smaller 11

manufacturers, such as ourselves, that are selling a 12

couple hundred thousand pieces a year on a 13

particular item. We cannot get those same type of 14

good costs that a manufacturer can get when they‘re 15

selling millions of. So this is maybe why you‘re 16

seeing some of the difference in data and getting 17

some of these different costs on the 120 watt versus 18

the 60 watt. So I just want to throw that out there 19

that nobody‘s considering that, and that is a huge 20

factor if you‘ve ever went to quote components. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks. Chris. Okay. 22

Alex. Pardon me, thanks to Rick, now to Chris. 23

MR. SKAHAN: Sorry, I just wanted to kind 24

of go back to the original question where DOE was 25


(301) 565-0064

187 encouraged to go back and reexamine those test and 1

tear down results, and as part of this NOPR 2

analysis, we talked to manufacturers about why we 3

were getting these negative cost- efficiency curves. 4

And there were a number of reasons provided to try 5

and explain out the data. But ultimately, none were 6

substantial enough where DOE felt comfortable using 7

that data to do this analysis, so again, we relied 8

on the manufacturers for all of our cost- efficiency 9

analysis. But I will say, possibly – and I would 10

like to – this is – we do ask for comment on this, I 11

believe, in the NOPR. 12

But one scenario we heard was that 13

possibly the EPSs we purchased for test and tear 14

down were designed in different years, so that as 15

the years moved on, the costs for a certain 16

component decreased over time so that we were 17

comparing units that were designed from, say, 2007 18

and another one that was designed in 2009, where we 19

may have seen, as things got more integrated, a 20

lower overall cost for higher efficiency products. 21

And we do explain that in the NOPR, and I believe 22

the TSD, and we‘d look for comment on that. 23


MR. PETROLATI: Chris, one more thing I 25


(301) 565-0064

188 want you to address. Rick‘s point concerning … -- 1

this is Vic Petrolati – in the tear down analysis, 2

from what I remember, we looked at two different 3

volume figures for those costs in the tear down 4

analysis. Did the manufacturer interviews include 5

the analysis in terms of the various volumes 6

associated with those costs. 7

MR. SKAHAN: Yeah, we talked to all high 8

volume manufacturers, so in the millions, which, to 9

your point tends to create overall costs for each 10

individual representative unit, each design. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: That was an issue you 12

covered in the manufacturer interviews? 13

MR. SKAHAN: Yes. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Alex, 15

thanks for being patient. 16

MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg, NEMA. I 17

have a question regarding the list of assumptions in 18

the LCC section of the NOPR for EPS. Specifically, 19

if I recall correctly, the life-cycle cost analysis 20

estimate for installation cost was zero? Since the 21

definition of an external power supply includes 22

those that can be hard wired, it is logical that a 23

licensed electrician is usually required or 24

encouraged for that event, which means, you know, 25


(301) 565-0064

189 $100 to $150 bucks an hour if you‘re lucky. So how 1

is the installation cost zero in that case? 2

MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti from 3

Navigant. I guess just the answer would be that for 4

the time being, we‘ve assumed zero installation 5

cost, but to Vic‘s point earlier, any data that you 6

can provide to change that assumption, we would be 7

happy to consider that. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Charlie 9

Stephens. 10


Energy Efficiency Alliance. We do a lot of this 12

sort of thing all the time and I think what will 13

prove to be important, if there is any, is the 14

incremental installation cost, due to energy 15

efficiency. It isn‘t enough that it costs money, it 16

has to cost more money for the more efficient 17

product, and I think you may be hard pressed to find 18

that data. But – I‘m not very worried about it, not 19

that you wouldn‘t do it, but what it usually does is 20

just increase the overall numbers in the life-cycle 21

cost table. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: You‘d be hard pressed to 23

find that data, or you‘d be hard pressed – 24

MR. STEPHENS: You‘d be hard pressed to 25


(301) 565-0064

190 find an increase due to efficiency in this 1

particular case. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: I‘ve got you. Ken – same 3

thing, you were reinforcing – you also – Dave, same 4

thing as Charlie? Okay. I‘m glad we clarified 5

that. Additional comments here? Where are you? 6

MS. COSTELLO: Ready. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: You‘re ready? 8

MS. COSTELLO: Uh-huh. So I think we‘ll 9

turn it back over to Dan. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Back to Daniel. How we 11

doing with our folks on the web? Are they still 12

with us? They are. How many do we have on there, 13

about? Wow, 52 participants via the web. 14

MR. PETROLATI: I told you we should 15

charge. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: (Laughter) A subscription 17

fee or something. Okay. Dan. 18

MR. LAUF: Hello, once again, Dan – 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Those of you that are on 20

pins and needles, we are probably going to go until 21

ten, 15 more minutes or so, and then we‘ll take a 22

break. We‘ll see where we are. Okay? Go ahead. 23

Shipments Analysis 24

MR. LAUF: So once again, my name is Dan 25


(301) 565-0064

191 Lauf and I‘m with D&R International. I‘ll be 1

talking to you about three more analyses now, the 2

Shipments Analysis, the National Impact Analysis, 3

and then briefly about the Regulatory Impact 4

Analysis. So I‘ll start off with shipments. 5

The purpose of the shipments analysis is 6

to forecast how much shipments and efficiency will 7

change throughout the duration of the analysis 8

period, so both in the years leading up to the 9

effective date of the federal standard, and then 10

following the federal standard. So outputs are 11

forecasts of shipments and forecasts of energy 12

efficiency distributions across the CSLs through 13

2042. 14

And just for reference, when I refer to 15

the analysis period, it‘s 30 years of shipments 16

following the effective date of the standard, so in 17

this case for the analysis, that effective date was 18

assumed to be 2013, so it‘s looking at products 19

shipped from 2013 through 2042. So the basic 20

structure of this analysis involves two stages. 21

It‘s that period leading up to the effective date, 22

and then 30 years following the effective date. 23

In the period leading up to 2013, it‘s expected 24

that shipment volumes may increase or decrease due 25

to any number of factors and that efficiency for the 26

products overall may improve due to factors outside 27


(301) 565-0064

192 of standards, so these are not due to federal 1

standards. After the federal standards take place, 2

the shipments can once again continue to change. 3

Efficiency will change due to those standards, and 4

they may change further due to external factors. 5

Leading up to 2013and beyond, DOE assumed 6

that shipments would increase by .75 percent per 7

year, and this change mirrors population growth. 8

DOE made this assumption because it understands that 9

there‘s a good deal of complexity in terms of how 10

these products will change, and it can be very 11

difficult to look a couple years out in the consumer 12

electronics market, let alone 30. And the various 13

changes and trends that it sees with its 14

applications will ultimately balance out to a rate 15

of growth that‘s equal to population growth. 16

DOE does not assume that the mix of 17

applications is going to change over time. This is 18

a simplifying assumption. And it also believes that 19

there‘s no real difference in terms of shipments 20

between the base case and the standards case. 21

There are a couple of changes that DOE 22

also assumed for efficiency leading up to 2013, so 23

these are changes that would take place before the 24

standard takes effect. The first is a modest 25

increase in EPS efficiency. This is due to 26

standards that took effect in Europe in 2011, and I 27

believe they were at the Energy Star level. DOE 28


(301) 565-0064

193 believes that since Europe represents such a large 1

share of the global market there will be some 2

spillover of that standard into the US market, and 3

DOE therefore shifted a portion of the products 4

falling in CSL-0 to CSL-1, which is equal to the 5

Energy Star level. I‘ll show you exactly how this 6

was done in the next slide. 7

Now DOE also recognizes that the CEC 8

standard will be taking effect in February 2013, and 9

this will impact BC efficiency distributions in the 10

US. DOE assumes that there will continue to be less 11

efficient products outside of California, so it 12

didn‘t touch the efficiency of those products. 13

However, we assume that the products in California 14

will shift up to meet the California standard. 15

California GPD represents 13 percent of the US GDP, 16

so DOE shifted 13 percent of the products below the 17

California standard levels up to that standard 18

level. 19

And those efficiency levels are 20

represented in the figure in this slide. So for 21

each battery charger product class, there is a CSL 22

that best approximates the CEC standard. We‘ll get 23

into how exactly that was figured out a little later 24

in the day. This figure shows EPS efficiency 25

distributions, both in 2009 and 2013 for each 26

product class and representative unit. Each pair of 27

horizontal bars represents a product class. You see 28


(301) 565-0064

194 product class B at the top, C, D, E, X, and H. The 1

upper bar shows what the efficiency distribution was 2

in 2009, and this was derived through product 3

testing. And then the lower bar for each product 4

class shows what the distribution will be in 2013, 5

or at least what DOE believes it will be. 6

So, if you recall, the change that 7

happened in the market here was that European EPS 8

efficiency standards took effect. DOE assumed that 9

50 percent of the products in CSL-0, and these only 10

affect class A EPSs, so it doesn‘t impact product 11

class X or product class H, 50 percent of the EPSs 12

in CSL-0 were shifted up to meet CSL-1. CSLs 2, 3, 13

and 4 were not impacted by the standard, so those 14

remain unchanged. 15

For battery chargers, it‘s the CEC 16

standard that will impact the market by the time the 17

federal standard takes effect. And once again it‘s 18

those products in California that will be shifted up 19

to meet the California efficiency levels. So 20

looking at product class 2 for example, DOE believes 21

that the California level is approximately 22

equivalent to CSL-2, so you can see in 2009 there 23

were 21 percent of BCs in this product class at CSL-24

0, and 26 percent were at CSL-1. Each of those was 25

reduced by 13 percent and those products were moved 26

up to CSL-2. So the overall market share at CSL-2 27

goes from 51 percent to 57 percent. And a similar 28


(301) 565-0064

195 exercise was done for each product class. 1

After standards take effect, DOE once 2

again shifts its efficiency distributions to reflect 3

that, and it assumes that shipments will follow a 4

rollup response to standards. This essentially 5

means that every product that is less efficient than 6

the standard will move up to meet the federal 7

standard. Products above the standard won‘t be 8

impacted. 9

So the example that we‘ll look at right 10

now is product class 2. The standard that DOE is 11

proposing is at CSL-1, so you can see in the base 12

case, where there is no standard, 18 percent of the 13

market falls at CSL-0. Once that standard takes 14

effect, that 18 percent will move up to CSL-1 and 15

the market share at CSL-1 moves from 22 percent to 16

40 percent. Had the standard been set at CSL-2, the 17

40 percent of products at CSL-0 and CSL-1 would be 18

shifted up to CSL-2. So this just illustrates how 19

that would work at any standard level. And I‘ll 20

emphasize once again, products above the proposed 21

standard are assumed not to shift in efficiency one 22

way or the other. 23

So at this point I‘ll pause for comment, 24

particularly on the methodology that was employed in 25

this analysis. 26


MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim, Philips. On 28


(301) 565-0064

196 slide 122, Dan, I just have a question. 1

MR. LAUF: Sure. 2

MR. ERDHEIM: So if you look at product 3

class B, you find much lower efficiencies for 2.5 4

watts than for the other three representative units. 5

Is there any technological reason for that, or is 6

that just the way the data fell out? 7

MR. LAUF: It is what the data showed. I 8

would defer to Chris if there‘s a technological 9

reason for it. 10

MR. SKAHAN: Yes. So the 2.5 watt EPSs do 11

typically show, or do tend to have lower 12

efficiencies than the rest of our representative 13

units, and you can see that the current use standard 14

accounts for that. There is a significant roll off 15

below 51 watts for the required efficiency, and that 16

is based on the technical limitations of the 17

topology. For all representative units, you were 18

talking about a five volt, 2.5 watt power supply, 19

which will have typically higher conduction losses. 20

The loss ratio between a 2.5 watt power supply 21

versus a 120 watt power supply is much greater, so 22

the efficiencies will be lower. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Perhaps we should go 24

back to the issue boxes. 25

MR. LAUF: Sure. 26

MR. BROOKMAN: There you see 19, 20, 21, 27

and 24 and 25. Please scan down there and see if 28


(301) 565-0064

197 you have any additional comments on these. Is there 1

anything here in particular you would push out for 2

comment? 3

MR. LAUF: Nothing in particular, really. 4

Any of the assumptions that we made, specifically in 5

terms of how shipments are projected or how 6

efficiency distributions will be shifted in the 7

years leading up to or following the standard. 8


PARTICIPANT: Yes, and this is – the CEA 10

brought up their study that they submitted to the 11

Energy Commission. It projects future improvements 12

in energy efficiency. I was just curious to know if 13

that part of the report, if the CEA would recommend 14

those efficiency trends to be considered by the DOE 15

or not. That‘s part of the Berkeley groups – and 16

you said – I‘m just wondering if in this instance, 17

you would recommend or not recommend the 18

considerations of that report. 19

MR. JOHNSON: We‘ll be submitting 20

comments. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Doug. 22

MR. SHEIKH: Shahid from Intel. On slide 23

122 – 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Is your microphone on? 25

MR. SHEIKH: Yeah. 26


MR. SHEIKH: So looking at 2009 versus 28


(301) 565-0064

198 2013, is this looking at with no regulation? 1

MR. LAUF: With no federal regulation. So 2

changes due to regulations in Europe. 3

MR. SHEIKH: What was that? 4

MR. LAUF: This is looking at scenarios in 5

2009 and 2013 with no federal regulation. 6

MR. SHEIKH: Right. 7

MR. LAUF: So the shift is due to 8

regulation in Europe, but that‘s independent of what 9

DOE is doing here. 10

MR. SHEIKH: Are you saying, industry on 11

its own, will actually lower some efficiencies in 12

some cases? Right? 13

MR. LAUF: Improve efficiency. 14

MR. SHEIKH: No, from CSL-0 – 15

MR. LAUF: Products are being shifted from 16

CSL-0 to CSL-1, which is the level that Europe set 17

their standard at. So it‘s assuming that there‘s 18

going to be some spillover from that standard. So 19

CSL-0 is less efficient than CSL-1. I‘ll just look 20

at those top two bars there, so the 2.5 watt rep 21

unit, in 2009, 84 percent of the market is at CSL-0, 22

so that‘s at the level that would just meet the EISA 23

standard. Let‘s assume that by 2013 half of those 24

units, so 42 percent, will be shifted up to the next 25

higher efficiency level, so CSL-1, so you‘ll see 26

then, that CSL-1 market share goes from seven 27

percent to 49 percent. 28


(301) 565-0064

199 MR. SHEIKH: So that percent is the 1

volume, right? 2

MR. LAUF: That‘s percent of total 3

shipments in that product class. Yes. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Pierre. 5

MR. DELFORGE: Regarding the rate of 6

growth, you‘ve taken the assumption based on 7

population growth of 0.75 percent. I believe this 8

is much lower than the historical growth, in at 9

least some of the product categories, particularly 10

electronics. I‘d like you to comment on why not use 11

the historical growth, or at least something which 12

is a little bit more realistic than just population 13

growth. Because I believe it significantly 14

underestimates the number of products that will 15

realistically be in the market by 2013. 16

MR. LAUF: Sure, and I‘m just curious -- 17

you said just historical growth for electronics in 18

general going across the board? 19

MR. DELFORGE: Only products in scope, 20

but, you know, if you look at electronics in 21

particular, the growth is more in the high single or 22

even double digits on an annual basis. 23

MR. LAUF: Okay. And if you do have a 24

source to that effect, it would be very helpful to 25

see the data, so the Department can consider 26

incorporating it into its analysis. So if that‘s 27

something you could provide in comments, it would be 28


(301) 565-0064

200 appreciated. 1

MR. DELFORGE: Okay. 2

MR. LAUF: Thank you. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on 4

this? Yes, Ari. 5

MR. REEVES: Ari Reeves. I‘ll just say 6

one thing on that, which is that you are thinking 7

about certain projections of increasing market size 8

for certain applications, but what you might not be 9

thinking about at the same time is the decreasing 10

market size of other applications that use BCs and 11

EPSs, so this estimate that we arrived at that 12

mirrors population growth takes account of the fact 13

that applications for BCs and EPSs will come and go 14

over the next 30 years, and we don‘t really know 15

whether on balance that will end up yielding a 16

larger number of such applications and individual 17

units, or a smaller number. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, 19

Doug. 20

MR. JOHNSON: Doug Johnson with CEA. 21

Sorry if I missed this point if it was made earlier, 22

but with reference to slide 126, what drives DOE to 23

make these assumptions and projections to the year 24

2042 in the national impact analysis? 25

MR. LAUF: I‘ll actually defer to Vic. Do 26

you know the answer to that? 27

MR. PETROLATI: I know the answer, and 28


(301) 565-0064

201 it‘s not going to be necessarily one that‘s going to 1

be different for any product. This is the standard 2

approach that has been used for DOE on all its 3

products, is to look at a 30 year life cycle, and 4

more or less, a 30 year range of the savings. So, 5

obviously, Doug, there is a lot of different 6

lifetimes associated with all the products that we 7

regulated. The way to normalize that information is 8

to take it over a 30 year term and to try to project 9

potential savings so they can compare to other 10

product regulations. And we know there are some 11

pitfalls with doing that. 12

MR. JOHNSON: So it‘s DOE practice, but 13

not statutory requirement? 14

MR. PETROLATI: Correct. That‘s right. 15

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I think we‘re going 17

to move on. 18

MR. LAUF: That concludes the shipments 19

analysis. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: So, let me see, the next 21

series of – 22

MR. LAUF: So we‘re part way through this 23

series. We have the national impacts, regulatory, 24

and manufacturer impacts analyses. 25

MR. BROOKMAN: Can we take a break now? I 26

think we‘ve got a fair amount to continue – finish 27

this segment? Okay. Do you think it will go rather 28


(301) 565-0064

202 quickly? 1

MR. LAUF: Yes. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let‘s do it. 3

National Impact and Regulatory Impact Analyses 4

MR. LAUF: Okay. So I‘ll move straight to 5

the national impact analysis now, and the purpose of 6

this is to really estimate the national impact of 7

standards, again in that analysis period, so 2013 8

through 2042. The outputs that I‘m about to 9

describe are looking at the benefits and costs 10

specifically to consumers, and there‘s another 11

analysis that we have that we‘ll discuss later that 12

looks at those impacts to manufacturers. 13

So there are three main outputs to this 14

analysis: 15

The first are national energy savings, measured 16

in quads; 17

There are also the net consumer benefits, so 18

these are energy cost savings less the 19

incremental product cost increases that would 20

result from standards; 21

And then there are net social benefits. These 22

are net consumer benefits plus the monetized 23

social benefits of avoided power plant 24

emissions. 25


(301) 565-0064

203 There are a number of inputs to this 1

analysis. This is one of the downstream analyses, 2

so most of what you heard today were the upstream 3

analyses, and the majority of them do feed into the 4

NIA. Specifically regarding the inputs that you‘re 5

looking at here, there are a few that we get from 6

outside areas. In particular, we use a 3 percent 7

and a 7 percent discount rate, and these were 8

provided through OMB guidance. We also use a couple 9

inputs from EIA‘s annual energy outlook, such as 10

electricity price forecasts and a site to source 11

conversion factor. 12

For each product class and in each 13

standards case, DOE calculates the per unit cost 14

increase and the per unit energy savings that would 15

result through standards. DOE then forecasts the 16

number of units in use – so this has to do with both 17

shipments and lifetime – and the energy savings each 18

year from 2013 through 2052. Now there‘s a reason 19

why we‘re looking to 2052 and that‘s because we‘re 20

looking at shipments through 2042, and the maximum 21

lifetime for a BC or EPS application is ten years, 22

so we look at those shipments through 2042, and then 23

we accumulate benefits or costs of those products 24

that were shipped through the end of their useful 25


(301) 565-0064

204 lives, so that would bring us to 2052. Combining 1

the above inputs determines the NES and the consumer 2

benefits. 3

I‘m not going to go through all of the 4

results -- that‘s actually something that we will 5

discuss later when DOE discusses its proposed 6

standards -- but I will illustrate here an example 7

of the net consumer benefits and how those are 8

calculated. 9

In the upper portion of the chart, you‘ll 10

see a number of green bars. Those are national 11

energy cost savings to consumers each year from the 12

products that are in use. On the bottom of the 13

chart you‘ll see a number of yellow bars. Those are 14

the national improvement costs from the purchase of 15

more efficient products, so those are the 16

incremental cost increases. DOE looks at costs 17

through 2042 -- the last products shipped in the 18

analysis -- but continues to accrue the benefits of 19

those last products through the end of their useful 20

lives. For this product class -- the two and a half 21

watt rep unit of product class B --you can see that 22

that goes out to about 2047 or so. So the 23

difference between the green bar and the yellow bar 24

-- the energy cost savings and the national 25


(301) 565-0064

205 improvement costs -- yields the net savings. This 1

can either be positive or negative. And by 2

discounting those later years and summing across all 3

the years in the analysis, you have the net present 4

value of those net savings, or what we are referring 5

to as the net consumer benefits. 6

And I should mention that this was done 7

for every product class and at every potential 8

standard level for comparison purposes. Question. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Ken. 10

MR. RIDER: Can you help me understand 11

something. 12

MR. LAUF: Sure. 13

MR. RIDER: If, on a per unit basis, 14

you‘ve shown the LCC to be positive for a product, 15

why the nationwide impact is negative in those first 16

couple years? If every unit sold is going to have a 17

positive LCC, why do we end up with this negative … 18

I‘m probably just missing something. 19

MR. LAUF: No, I can explain that, and 20

that‘s because in the first couple years, we‘re 21

selling a number of products at that efficiency 22

level but it takes a couple of years to accrue 23

energy savings. So the payback period usually isn‘t 24

less than a year. It may be a couple years. So it 25


(301) 565-0064

206 takes a couple years for enough energy cost savings 1

to accrue to offset that increase in product costs. 2

MR. RIDER: Alright. Thanks. 3

MR. SHEIKH: Shahid from Intel. Was that 4

LCC analysis, was that based on five years or was it 5

ten years? 6

MS. COSTELLO: (response off mic) 7

MR. SHEIKH: That was for eight years? 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Restate it, please. 9

MS. COSTELLO: I don‘t know the lifetimes 10

off the top of my head, but they‘re based on – 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Based on the lifetime of 12

the product. 13

MS. COSTELLO: Based on the lifetime of 14

the product. This is Pam Costello. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: And those lifetimes – 16

MR. LAUF: The NIA is based on the same 17

lifetimes, and they vary depending on the 18

application. So on average it‘s about four to five 19

years, but it can range to as few as two for some 20

applications or as much as ten years for others. 21

And that‘s all taken into account in the analyses. 22


MR. LAUF: So to contextualize the energy 24

savings that we‘re looking at for battery chargers 25


(301) 565-0064

207 and power supplies, this chart here shows the 1

projected energy savings for EPSs in the left red 2

bar; BCs are the red bar on the right, and those are 3

compared to a few other recently announced final 4

rules from the Department of Energy, from 2010 and 5

2011. 6

So you can see here – and Vic stated this 7

earlier in his presentation – on DOE‘s projects one 8

quad of energy savings from EPSs and about one and a 9

quarter to one and a third quads for BCs. 10

DOE recognizes that there‘s a good deal of 11

uncertainty in many of these analyses, so to account 12

for this in the NIA, we performed a couple of 13

sensitivity analyses to account for that 14

uncertainty. And the first is one in which the 15

price elasticity of demand was taken into account, 16

so that really looks at an alternative scenario in 17

which shipment volume is expected to decrease 18

slightly due to an increase in product prices. 19

Just as there was assumed to be some 20

spillover of the EU standard into the US, the 21

Department also looks at a situation in which 22

there‘s some spillover of the CEC standard into 23

other areas of the US. So, we looked at the extreme 24

case in which the CEC standard becomes the de facto 25


(301) 565-0064

208 standard for the US. So this doesn‘t mean that 1

federal standards are set at that level, but what 2

DOE did is shift all of those efficiency 3

distributions that you saw earlier that fell below 4

the CEC standard up to that level, and then looked 5

at the cost and benefits of setting a federal 6

standard under that scenario. 7

And I‘ll pause now just to mention that 8

detailed assumptions and results for all of these 9

sensitivity analyses are available. They‘re in 10

Appendices 10A and 10B of the TSD. 11

So to conclude the last two sensitivity 12

analyses that were considered: one looked at 13

alternative price trend for costs throughout the 14

analysis period, and another looked at alternative 15

price trends, and that‘s specifically the situation 16

in which the incremental cost declined slightly over 17

time as manufacturers ramp up production at the more 18

efficient levels. 19

MR. SHEIKH: Question? 20

MR. LAUF: Yes. 21

MR. SHEIKH: On the previous slide. 22

MR. LAUF: Okay. 23

MR. SHEIKH: Shahid. So what was the net 24

– this was energy savings? 25


(301) 565-0064

209 MR. LAUF: Yes. 1

MR. SHEIKH: What was the net consumer 2

savings in dollars for EPSs or battery chargers? 3

MR. LAUF: So for – 4

PARTICIPANT: (comment off mic) 5

MR. LAUF: Right, we‘ll cover that for 6

each product class later on. And if you look at the 7

beginning of your presentation, I think they 8

presented a slide that showed the total net present 9

value of consumer benefits for BCs and EPSs. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: So if you go ahead to the 11

next slide, comment box 26. DOE seeks comment on 12

the methodology employed for conducting the national 13

impact analysis, including the calculations for 14

national inventory, national energy savings, and net 15

present value. Comments on that? Rick. 16

MR. HABBEN: Yeah. I‘m just going to kind 17

of repeat – kind of what we stated earlier, that we 18

don‘t think that the cost to actually make the 19

improvements was accurate, as far as going to the 20

retail, and so that would affect these numbers as 21

well. So I just wanted to put that on the record. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And Rick, I 23

don‘t want to put you on the spot, but do you think 24

you could come forward with some data to support 25


(301) 565-0064

210 that for the Department through the NDA mechanism, 1

through Navigant, or not? Can they expect it or 2

not? 3

MR. HABBEN: Yeah, I think we can see what 4

we can do if it‘s through the consulting firms. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good. Thank you. 6

It‘s helpful. Let‘s get this information out there 7

in a protected sort of a way. Okay. You want to do 8

one more segment and then we‘ll take a break? 9

MR. LAUF: Actually I have one more slide 10

and then I‘m done and we can move on to the 11

manufacturer‘s impact analysis. 12


Regulatory Impact Analysis 14

MR. LAUF: This slide describes the 15

regulatory impact analysis. So this is detailed in 16

Chapter 17 and Appendix 17A of the TSD, and DOE was 17

directed by Executive Order 12866 to perform this. 18

Essentially what DOE did is look at a number of 19

alternatives to setting standards. It used the NIA 20

model to weigh the costs and benefits of those, and 21

then compare those net benefits to the cost and 22

benefits of standards. 23

So DOE looked at six possible 24

alternatives. Those included: 25


(301) 565-0064

211

Consumer rebates, 1

Consumer tax credits, 2

Manufacturer tax credits, 3

Voluntary energy efficiency targets – so that 4

would be a program similar to Energy Star, 5

Early replacement, or 6

Bulk government purchases. 7

Again, if you‘re curious about the details 8

of this analysis and wish to comment on that, it‘s 9

all available in Chapter 17, but suffice it to say 10

that DOE did not find that any of those alternatives 11

were as beneficial or more beneficial to consumers 12

than federal standards. 13

So are there any questions on that? 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Comment? 15

MR. LAUF: Okay. Thank you very much. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Quite a few slides on 17

manufacturer impact analysis, so let‘s break now. 18

It‘s almost ten after. Let‘s start back at 3:25. 19

We are in the home stretch, so hang with us here. 20

3:25 we‘ll resume. You already know where the 21

restrooms are. There‘s a Coke machine down on the 22

ground floor just as you go left towards the coffee 23

shop, it‘s tucked away in an alcove on your left. 24


(301) 565-0064

212 You need to look for it. 1

(Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the meeting was 2

recessed for a 21 minute period.) 3

MR. BROOKMAN: We‘re about to embark on 4

manufacturer impact analysis and we‘re going to hear 5

from Hayden. 6

7

Manufacturer Impact Analyses 8

MR. H. COOK: Hi. My name is Hayden Cook 9

from Navigant Consulting. I‘ll be discussing the 10

manufacturer impact analysis or MIA that was 11

conducted for this NOPR. The MIA slides present 12

three things: 13

First, they present an overview of how the MIA 14

was conducted, 15

Second, they briefly discuss the manufacturer 16

impacts at the proposed standard levels, and 17

Third, they introduce the MIA topics DOE is 18

seeking comment on. 19

The main purpose of the MIA is to assess 20

the impacts of standards on battery charger and EPS 21

manufacturers. A second purpose is to identify and 22

estimate the impacts on manufacturer subgroups. And 23

the final portion of the MIA involves a discussion 24

on direct employment, manufacturing capacity, and 25

the regulatory burden. 26

The main tool DOE uses to evaluate the 27


(301) 565-0064

213 impact of standards on manufacturers is a discounted 1

cash flow model called the government regulatory 2

impact model, or GRIM. The major output from this 3

model is industry net present value or INPV, which 4

is a metric used to represent the quantitative 5

impact standards have on manufacturers. 6

For the MIA, DOE also conducted interviews 7

with manufacturers to refine the inputs of the model 8

and to understand the qualitative impacts that 9

standards may have. 10

This slide shows the basic structure of 11

the MIA process, which takes place in three 12

different phases. In the first phase, which 13

occurred during the preliminary analysis, DOE used 14

publicly available information such as 15

manufacturers‘ annual reports to develop a profile 16

of each industry. The next two phases were 17

conducted as part of the NOPR analysis. In phase 18

two, DOE developed the cash flow spreadsheets that 19

are used to estimate the impacts on each industry, 20

and the interview guides that are used to gather 21

information from manufacturers during interviews. 22

In phase three, DOE conducted interviews with 23

manufacturers and used the information to further 24

develop the analyses and to finalize the inputs that 25

went into the GRIM. 26

Switching from the MIA methodology to the 27

specifics about this rulemaking, these next two 28


(301) 565-0064

214 slides present the key issues we learned from some 1

of the manufacturers concerning battery chargers and 2

EPSs. And some of these, if not most of these, have 3

been previously brought up in today‘s discussion. 4

First, some manufacturers expressed 5

concern about how different applications are grouped 6

together within the same product class and would 7

have to meet an equivalent standard. For battery 8

chargers, DOE is using one UEC equation for each 9

product class, therefore, the individual usage 10

profile of an application might be different than 11

the individual profile of the product class that 12

it‘s grouped into. DOE‘s battery charger MIA 13

evaluates the manufacturer impacts on an 14

application-specific basis to give the MIA more 15

granular results. 16

Second, some manufacturers expressed 17

concern about the potential increase in the price of 18

a battery charger application due to standards. 19

Some battery charging applications compete directly 20

with applications that use another form of energy, 21

such as gasoline, disposable batteries, or a power 22

cord. An increase in the cost of a battery charger 23

could cause some consumers to switch to these non-24

battery charging applications. As Dan brought up, I 25

believe, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis 26

examining the price elasticity effects of an 27

increase in the price of a battery charger on all 28


(301) 565-0064

215 applications. 1

Third, some battery charger manufacturers 2

stated it could be difficult to separate the battery 3

charger function from other functions, therefore 4

manufacturers wanted to make sure that DOE‘s test 5

procedure clearly separates out the charging portion 6

of the energy consumption. DOE tried to take this 7

factor into consideration, especially for UPS 8

manufacturers. 9

Fourth, manufacturers are concerned that 10

an application could be subject to a battery charger 11

standard and a separate EPS standard for the same 12

application. DOE is aware that this could place a 13

difficult burden on application manufacturers, 14

therefore DOE is proposing to leave the standard for 15

indirect EPSs, those are EPSs that cannot directly 16

operate an application, at their current standard 17

level. 18

Fifth, manufacturers stated they expect 19

standards to negatively impact profitability. 20

Manufacturers are concerned standards will increase 21

their MPC and they may not be able to pass those 22

increases on to their consumers. DOE evaluated a 23

range of profitability or markup scenarios in the 24

MIA that take these specific concerns into account. 25

Lastly, manufacturers indicated they might 26

have to remove useful features in order to meet 27

higher efficiency standards. DOE‘s engineering 28


(301) 565-0064

216 analysis generally attempts to only analyze utility 1

neutral design changes that meet the potential 2

standards. Therefore, the impacts presented in the 3

MIA generally do not assume that manufacturers are 4

removing any features that provide a significant 5

utility to consumers. Further, a manufacturer‘s 6

decision to remove useful features in order to meet 7

a standard would be primarily a business decision 8

and would be made by those individual manufacturers 9

and not covered as part of the MIA. 10

DOE examined the impacts of battery 11

charger standards on application manufacturers or 12

OEMs since DOE believes that application 13

manufacturers would be most directly financially 14

impacted by a battery charger standard. Also, 15

application manufacturers are the ones who typically 16

design the battery chargers for their applications, 17

and for most battery chargers the testing would be 18

done after the battery charger is fully integrated 19

into the application. 20

In order to address concerns that some 21

battery charger application manufacturers could be 22

disadvantaged by standards relative to others, DOE 23

conducted a subgroup analysis on battery charger 24

applications, and DOE identified four application 25

subgroups. These are: 26

1. small appliances, 27

2. consumer electronics, 28


(301) 565-0064

217 3. power tools, and 1

4. high energy. 2

All battery charger applications were 3

grouped into one of these four industry subgroups. 4

DOE separately examined the potential effects of 5

standards on each industry subgroup when applicable. 6

Moving on to the markup scenarios 7

analyzed. This slide presents an overview of the 8

profitability or markup scenarios DOE ran for the 9

MIA. DOE analyzed two profitability scenarios for 10

EPSs, a flat markup and a preservation of operating 11

profit markup. And they analyzed three 12

profitability scenarios for the battery charger MIA. 13

Those were a flat markup, a pass-through markup, and 14

a constant price markup. 15

With the flat markup, manufacturers earned 16

the same markup percentage as they do in the base 17

case on any increase in the MPC due to a standard. 18

This generally represents the upper bound or least 19

severe impact on manufacturers for the battery 20

charger and the EPS MIAs. With a preservation of 21

operating profit, manufacturers earned the same 22

operating profit in the base case as they do in the 23

standards case in the year after the standard goes 24

into effect. This generally represents the lower 25

bound or most severe impact on manufacturers for the 26

EPS MIA. 27

With a pass-through markup, manufacturers 28


(301) 565-0064

218 are able to fully pass on the costs of any increase 1

in the MPC, but are not able to earn any additional 2

revenue from that increase in the MPC. With a 3

constant price markup, application MSPs remain 4

unchanged in the standards case compared to the base 5

case, so manufacturers do not increase the price of 6

the applications at all due to standards. This 7

generally represents the lower bound for the battery 8

charger MIA. 9

In addition to the markup scenarios 10

selected, three other main factors drive INPV at 11

each TSL level. These factors, which are specific 12

to each application, are the application‘s 13

efficiency distribution, which are the capital and 14

product conversion costs associated with converting 15

all the applications that fall below the standard to 16

meet that standard – sorry, in the efficiency 17

distribution, which is the – the efficiency 18

distribution at the time the standard goes into 19

effect. And then second is the conversion costs 20

which are the capital and product conversion costs 21

associated with converting all applications that 22

fall below the standard to meet that standard. And 23

lastly, the relative incremental increase in the 24

price of the battery charger compared to the 25

application MPC. 26

DOE calculated the conversion costs on an 27

application-specific basis, based on three factors. 28


(301) 565-0064

219 These are the share of products within each 1

application that fall below the standard level; the 2

magnitude of the technology change from one CSL to a 3

higher CSL; and the normal research and development 4

and capital expenditure costs for that application 5

in the base case. 6

The markup scenarios and the conversion 7

costs described in the previous slides yields the 8

EPS INPV results shown here. This slide shows the 9

EPS manufacturer impact for product classes B, C, D, 10

and E. Throughout these next slides the column 11

highlighted in yellow are the TSLs that are proposed 12

in the NOPR. 13

These are the remaining INPV impacts for 14

EPS manufacturers, covering product classes H and X. 15

The range of impacts shown in these tables 16

correspond to the different markup scenarios that 17

were used during the MIA. 18

Moving on to battery chargers. These next 19

three slides present the INPV impacts on battery 20

charger application manufacturers, and the first 21

table shows the battery charger manufacturer impact 22

for product class 1, in the second table for product 23

classes 2, 3, and 4. Also as previously mentioned 24

about the industry subgroups for battery chargers, 25

in the NOPR the INPV results are shown by industry 26

subgroup for product classes 2, 3, and 4, which is 27

the only product class grouping that has a variety 28


(301) 565-0064

220 of different subgroups across the product class 1

grouping. 2

Here two more battery charger product 3

class application groupings for product classes 5 4

and 6, and for product class 7. In this last INPV 5

slide result, the INPV impacts are for the remaining 6

battery charger product classes, which cover product 7

class 8 and product class 10. 8

One of the criteria DOE looks at is the 9

impacts of standards on small businesses. To be 10

considered a battery charger or EPS small business 11

manufacturer, the Small Business Administration or 12

SBA sets a limit of 500 total employees or less for 13

those manufacturers. DOE used publicly available 14

information to identify potential small business 15

manufacturers, such as SBA‘s database, DOE‘s 16

compliance certification management system, various 17

trade association lists, and the websites Hoovers 18

and Dunn & Bradstreet. Also during the interview 19

process, DOE asked manufacturers if they were aware 20

of any potential small businesses that might exist 21

in their markets that they compete in. 22

After refining the list of potential small 23

businesses based on DOE‘s initial research, DOE 24

contacted the remaining small businesses to 25

determine if they met SBA‘s definition of a small 26

business manufacturer. DOE found only one battery 27

charger small business manufacturer, and did not 28


(301) 565-0064

221 find any EPS small business manufacturers. 1

DOE also conducted a domestic employment 2

analysis along with the small business manufacturer 3

analysis. DOE did not identify any domestic EPS 4

manufacturers and only one domestic battery charger 5

manufacturer, which is the same as the small 6

business identified in the previous slide. Based on 7

DOE‘s analysis, it estimates a total of 100 domestic 8

employees involved in battery charger and EPS 9

manufacturing, and based on these findings, DOE does 10

not expect the proposed standards to have a 11

significant impact on domestic manufacturing 12

employment. 13

However, DOE is aware that this is a 14

highly fragmented market with many applications, and 15

public resources may not be comprehensive in all 16

instances, therefore DOE requests comment on any 17

known domestic EPS manufacturers and any additional 18

domestic battery charger manufacturers and whether 19

they qualify as a small business. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. Holly. 21

MS. EVANS: Holly Evans. Did you evaluate 22

the impact of small businesses that sell EPSs or 23

battery chargers with their products, or just the 24

manufacturers of the EPSs and the battery chargers? 25

For example, if a company sells an end product that 26

has a bundled device, but it meets the definition of 27

a small business, did you evaluate the impact on 28


(301) 565-0064

222 those entities? 1

MR. H. COOK: We are looking at small 2

business impacts for application manufacturers, if 3

that‘s what you‘re asking for. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Spencer. 5

MR. STOCK: Spencer Stock, Lester 6

Electrical. I just want to go on the record that we 7

take exception to the no significant impact based 8

upon the fact that we are the one identified US 9

small business manufacturer, and that, you know, the 10

current economic climate that loss of US jobs, 11

however many they be, 100 or 1000, 10,000 is 12

significant, so we just want to go on record with 13

that. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Doug. 15

MR. JOHNSON: Doug Johnson, CEA. Many of 16

our 2000 member companies are small businesses and I 17

would agree with the statement made by Holly a 18

moment ago, that it‘s important for the Department 19

to look at the impact on small businesses that make 20

products that use battery chargers or external power 21

supplies, or that sell those products. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 23

comments on direct employment and small business 24

impacts? Okay. 25

26

27

28


(301) 565-0064

223 Employment Impact, Utility Impact, and 1

Environmental Impact Analyses 2

MS. IYAMA: Good afternoon. I am Sanaee 3

Iyama with then Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, and 4

I‘m going to present four of the additional analyses 5

which were developed in at the NOPR stage, starting 6

with the employment impact analysis. 7

The purpose of this analysis is to assess 8

the impact of standards on national employment. 9

And just now Hayden talked about the direct 10

employment impacts, but here we‘re looking at 11

indirect employment impacts. DOE used the ImSET 12

model, which is the acronym for Impact of Sector 13

Energy Technologies. It allows assessing changes 14

in national employment as a result of standards. 15

On this next slide, we‘re showing an 16

example of the results for external power supplies 17

expressed in thousands of jobs. And again, these 18

are the indirect employment impacts. The range 19

represents two situations. The first one where all 20

of the money spent on imported EPSs returns to the 21

US economy, and then the second situation 22

represents a scenario where none of the money spent 23

on imported EPSs returns to the US economy. 24

And next we have the utility impact 25

analysis. So the purpose of this analysis is to 26

assess the impact of standards on domestic 27


(301) 565-0064

224 electricity suppliers. And the method that DOE has 1

used in the past, and that we‘re using in this 2

rulemaking is to apply a modified version of the 3

NEMS model called NEMS-BT. NEMS stands for 4

National Energy Modeling System. It‘s the current 5

model used by the EIA when developing the energy 6

forecasts that you can find in their Annual Energy 7

Outlook reports. 8

The inputs to the model are the national 9

energy savings coming from the NIA, the national 10

impact assessment, and the outputs are expressed in 11

terms of forecast of electricity generation, as 12

well as in terms of avoided capacity resulting from 13

the different considered standard levels in 14

comparison to a base case. 15

And here we have, just to illustrate, an 16

example of the type of results that you can find in 17

the utility impact analysis. Here it‘s the example 18

of external power supplies. We have the reduction 19

in electric generating capacity expressed in 20

gigawatts for the different TSLs and different 21

product classes. 22

And I‘ll move on to the emissions 23

analysis, which is – which purpose is to assess the 24

impacts of standards on air emissions from 25

electricity power plants. Again, here we‘re using 26

the NEMS-BT model, which allows estimating 27

reductions in national emissions for different 28


(301) 565-0064

225 types of emissions. And we looked at carbon 1

dioxide, mercury, and nitrogen oxides for the 2

states where these emissions are not capped. For 3

the states where nitrogen oxide emissions are 4

capped, as well as for sulfur dioxide where there‘s 5

an existing legislation capping these emissions, 6

DOE states that applying standards do not have an 7

impact on these emissions. 8

Here again, an example of the results of 9

the emissions analysis for external power supplies. 10

We have the cumulative emission reductions over the 11

analysis period for the different product classes 12

at the different TSLs. And in yellow, is the – we 13

highlighted the proposed TSL. So These are the 14

physical emission reductions. 15

However, DOE also monetizes the emission 16

reductions, and the way to do so is by using the 17

most current social cost of carbon values developed 18

through interagency review. Social cost of carbon 19

is intended to represent the monetized value of the 20

incremental damage caused by greenhouse gases 21

emissions, and here on this slide you have the 22

approximation of the values that we used for 23

monetizing carbon emissions. And DOE also monetized 24

nitrogen oxide emissions. 25

And on this next slide we have the example 26

of the monetized emission reduction for product 27

classes B, C, D, and E for external power supplies. 28


(301) 565-0064

226 Different values are calculated with different 1

rates, and typically when calculating net social 2

benefits, which is the sum of the net present value 3

and monetized emissions, DOE uses the carbon value 4

calculated at a $22.3/t rate, and a nitrogen oxide 5

value calculated with the medium rate. 6

So that‘s all for the downstream analysis 7

that we conducted. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: So that‘s a whole lot of 9

data. A whole lot. Please feel free to back us up 10

and ask questions about any of it. I see Ken first. 11

MR. RIDER: Yeah, so for your lower case, 12

you said – and I‘m referring to slide, I believe, 13

150 – the low case was the situation where no, I 14

believe, correct me if I‘m – 15

MS. IYAMA: Six.156? 16

MR. RIDER: -- where no money returns to 17

the US that is spent on the incremental cost for 18

efficiency. 19

MS. IYAMA: So none of the money spent on 20

the imported EPSs returns to the US economy. Yes. 21

MR. RIDER: Right. And is that including 22

the price with the retailer markup and sales tax? 23

MS. IYAMA: Yes. 24

MR. RIDER: So I would just recommend – I 25

mean sales tax is obviously not money that‘s going 26

to be outside of the United States, and the base 27

case not include money paid for sales tax and also 28


(301) 565-0064

227 money paid in a retail markup, which is pretty much 1

guaranteed to be US dollars, and especially sales 2

tax, and back that out and into your minimum amount 3

of – in your low end calculation. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Ken. So we 5

really went through a lot of data there, let me 6

emphasize again. Any other questions or comments on 7

these series of employment impacts, emission 8

analyses, utility impacts. Yes, Doug. 9

MR. JOHNSON: It‘s Doug Johnson with CEA. 10

Can you explain the rationale with the seven and the 11

three percent discount rates? 12

MS. IYAMA: So these are the rates that we 13

used in the NIA as well, and for nitrogen oxide 14

they‗re also the discount rates that DOE uses, but 15

I‘m not sure I have the explanation – 16

MR. PETROLATI: Yes, Doug? 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Vic, please. 18

MR. PETROLATI: Those are required to be 19

analyzed by the Office of Management and Budget. So 20

we are specifically required to analyze both of 21

those rates, three percent and seven percent 22

discount rates. 23

MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Other questions. 25

MR. SHEIKH: Yes, the question. Shahid 26

from Intel. On slide 152. So the purpose of this 27

is to show that what is the reduction in – how many 28


(301) 565-0064

228 power plants you don‘t need or is it to understand 1

the impact of this on unemployment? 2

MS. IYAMA: Here we‘re looking at the 3

impact of standards on domestic electricity 4

suppliers and here it‘s mostly looking at, yeah, at 5

avoided generating capacity, so avoided power plants 6

that you wouldn‘t have to build. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: And this is – it says ―in 8

2042‖ – it‘s not cumulative. It‘s in 2042. 9

MS. IYAMA: It‘s cumulative until 2042. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: And this aligns with that 11

overall savings numbers that we had looked at 12

earlier? 13

MS. IYAMA: Yes, because the inputs to the 14

utility impact analysis, or the inputs to the NEMS-15

BT model that we‘re using, are the national energy 16

savings that were presented earlier. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, go ahead, Dave. 18

MR. DENKENBERGER: Dave Denkenberger. So 19

the unit of gigawatts is a power, so isn‘t this 20

power in a given year? 21

MS. IYAMA: I believe it‘s the cumulative, 22

but I will check. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Dave, would you restate the 24

question please? 25

MR. DENKENBERGER: So basically, a 26

gigawatt is a unit of power, which is a continuous 27

rate of use of energy. And so that would be 28


(301) 565-0064

229 something that would be happening at all time, 1

basically. And I mean these are roughly consistent 2

with, you know, half a gigawatt is a power plant, 3

roughly. So that would be consistent with saving a 4

power plant for that entire time. It‘s not a 5

cumulative number. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: I see. Okay. Do you have 7

any additional comment on this? No additional 8

comment. Okay. Thanks for that. Pierre. 9

MR. DELFORGE: Going back to the indirect 10

employment impacts. So they include – does the 11

model include the employment impact or benefits of 12

reinvesting saved – money saved from lower 13

electricity costs, due to the positive LCC, which 14

should be significant? 15

MS. IYAMA: Yes, it looks at exactly the – 16

how the consumers respend the money that they save 17

on their electricity bills, so how is this money 18

reinjected in the US economy. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: So it is included. Rick. 20

MR. HABBEN: I guess I need you to go back 21

to slide 150 and I guess I‘m not fully understanding 22

what that slide is really telling me. If you could 23

– I guess maybe just take an example, you know, 24

product classes B, C, D, and E. Are we saying that 25

the employment effects are going to go from negative 26

1.4000 4 thousands to potentially a positive plus 27

600 people? That‘s what you‘re saying during that 28


(301) 565-0064

230 year? 1

MS. IYAMA: Yes. 2

MR. HABBEN: And is that from the best to 3

the worst? Is that where that range comes from, or 4

is that just because of the amount of manufacturers, 5

that‘s just the given range? 6

MS. IYAMA: The range again, represents, 7

the worst case which is none of the money that is 8

spent on the imported EPSs – 9

MR. BROOKMAN: This is indirect. 10

MS. IYAMA: Yes. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Indirect, right? 12

MS. IYAMA: Indirect employment. Returns 13

to the US economy and then the best case scenario 14

where all the money spent on the imported EPSs 15

returns to the US economy, so it provides a range. 16

MR. RIDER: Okay. So that‘s – the 17

negative 1.4 in this case to the positive point six, 18

that‘s the range of money not coming into the 19

country, versus the money coming into the country. 20

MS. IYAMA: Here the results are expressed 21

in thousands of jobs. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Brian. A question 23

from the internet. 24

MR. BOOHER: Another question from the 25

internet that has to deal with the general scope of 26

the analysis, so we could hold off until all of the 27

impacts analysis questions have been dealt with. 28


(301) 565-0064

231 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, let us know where it 1

fits. 2

MR. BOOHER: Okay. If we have no more 3

questions on impact analysis. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Let‘s follow on here. Ken. 5

MR. RIDER: This is my final question on 6

this. Again, slide 150. So for these products, the 7

life-cycle cost have been shown to be positive. So 8

where I‘m confused is that if you – if all the money 9

you spend on the product leaves the United States, 10

but then you save all this money in the United 11

States on utility bills, we‘re talking about 12

indirect, not utility impacts, but the indirect 13

effect is that consumers, even if all their money 14

leaves the United States, they earn all this money 15

in the United States with utility savings. Why –So 16

you‘re going to have a net positive amount of money, 17

even if they put it all in their bank accounts. Why 18

–How do you get a negative shift, I guess, given 19

that fact. How does the money – in other words, 20

kind of on Pierre‘s point – the money that you save, 21

how is that invested, and how is that being looked 22

at? Is that money leaving the United States as 23

well? 24

MS. IYAMA: It‘s – so Some of it will 25

stay, some of it will be leaving the economy, but 26

this is something that doesn‘t change from the 27

baseline to the standard case. We keep those these 28


(301) 565-0064

232 assumptions the same. We don‘t assume that the 1

consumers will change the way they spend their 2

money, in the case of standards or in comparison to 3

the base case. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Dave. 5

MR. DENKENBERGER: So what is that 6

percentage? So say you have an LCC savings. The 7

consumer has more money to spend. What percent goes 8

to the US and what percent goes abroad? 9

MS. IYAMA: I don‘t have the precise 10

assumptions that are used by the ImSET model, but 11

it‘s something that is embedded in the model. 12

MR. SHEIKH: Question. The numbers on 150 13

would be similar for battery chargers? 14

MS. IYAMA: It‘s also – it‘s in the same 15

range of magnitude, and the results, the full 16

results are presented in the TSD chapters. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Chapter what? 18

MS. IYAMA: So for the employment impact 19

it‘s Chapter 13, I believe. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Maybe we can confirm that. 21

Thank you. So additional questions here before I go 22

back to Brian? Okay, Brian. 23

MR. BOOHER: This is a question from 24

Marcel Marchot. It‘s about – in the test procedure, 25

Appendix Y, the test procedure does not appear to 26

cover an integral battery charger that – where 27

there‘s like multiple battery charging stations and 28


(301) 565-0064

233 it‘s powered by only one EPS. I don‘t know if we 1

can address that. 2

MR. NARDOTTI: I don‘t have a good answer. 3

This is Matt Nardotti. I guess I don‘t have a good 4

answer. I‘m not entirely sure what exactly is being 5

asked. If I could perhaps see what the product was, 6

get more information on the product, that might – 7

provide more information – 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, go ahead. 9

MR. PETROLATI: Yes, please submit that as 10

rulemaking, and it will be addressed. Thank you. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. So now 12

we‘re moving on to results and proposed standards. 13

This is the – one of the final substantive elements. 14

Ari, yes. 15

Summary of Results and Proposed Standards 16

MR. REEVES: Ari Reeves, with D&R. So I 17

have a sequence of slides here that deal with the 18

proposed standards and results. First for EPSs, and 19

then for BCs. And what you‘ll see is one or more 20

slides that depict the proposed standards in the 21

context of the TSLs that were analyzed, followed by, 22

in most cases, two slides of results, summary 23

results. 24

And in the interest of time, what I‘d like 25

to do is run through the EPS slides and then take 26

comments, and then run through the BC slides and 27

take comments on those. So I still have some 28


(301) 565-0064

234 remarks regarding labeling to follow. 1

So let‘s start with EPS product class B, 2

the basic-voltage external power supplies. What you 3

see here on this chart is the EISA standard in cyan, 4

perhaps, and above that, TSLs 1, 2, and 3. You can 5

see that TSL-2 is the level that DOE has selected 6

for the standard. And then in the table just below, 7

you can see the maximum power in no load that 8

corresponds to each of those TSLs with the selected 9

TSL in the red box. And this is the same format 10

that you‘ll see throughout this presentation. 11

For B, C, D, and E, conveniently, the 12

active-mode efficiency standard for B and D are the 13

same, and the TSLs analyzed for C and E are the same 14

as one another, so we have two sets of active-mode 15

efficiency curves. TSL-2, again, is the proposed 16

TSL. As you can see, the EISA baseline in cyan at 17

the bottom, right there, and then the no load mode 18

standard down below. So AC/DC are the products in 19

classes B and C, and classes D and E are the AC/AC 20

EPSs. 21

So here we have a summary of results for 22

product class B. In the upper left hand corner, the 23

pie chart shows the applications for which the EPSs 24

fall into this class:: notebook computers, LAN 25

equipment, answering machines, and down the line. 26

Over to the right there are four bar charts showing 27

the average life-cycle costs. One note here is that 28


(301) 565-0064

235 what you see is not the total life-cycle cost of 1

each of these units, but rather the life-cycle cost 2

over and above the installed price, or the first 3

cost of the baseline unit. So the operating costs 4

are total, but the installed price or first cost is 5

incremental. 6

And the little black boxes indicate the 7

CSL that is at the proposed standard level. So you 8

can see the four rep units there, the life-cycle 9

cost for each of those. And then in the lower left, 10

I‘ll draw your attention to the efficiency 11

distribution. This is much like the charts that Dan 12

Lauf showed earlier, showing what percent of the 13

market is at each level, and throughout this section 14

of the presentation, what I‘m showing is the base 15

case efficiency distributions in 2013. 16

So if you look at EPS product class B as a 17

whole, you can see that the net social benefits are 18

maximized at TSL-2. DOE‘s primary criterion for 19

selecting standard levels was net social benefits. 20

That‘s what you see depicted on the left hand side. 21

And then the table on the right hand side shows, in 22

addition to net social benefits in the last row, 23

several of the other factors that DOE considered 24

when looking at selecting a level for the proposed 25

standards for this class, and the same goes for 26

other classes. 27

The national energy savings, the consumer 28


(301) 565-0064

236 benefits, the change in industry net present value, 1

CO2 emission savings, and the net social benefits. 2

If you move from product class B to B, C, 3

D, and E taken together, what you see is that the 4

net social benefits increase because you‘ve got a 5

larger pool of products. Again, TSL-2 is the level 6

that DOE selected for all four of these classes. 7

And the blue and orange bars show the net benefits 8

at a three-percent discount rate and at a seven-9

percent discount rate. 10

So moving on to product classes X and H. 11

I apologize this chart is a little bit busy, but 12

since high power EPSs, the definition of those 13

starts at 250 watts nameplate output power, you can 14

see those are the ones off to the right there. The 15

multiple voltage only goes up to 250. I‘ll draw 16

your attention first to the multiple voltage curves, 17

the average active mode efficiency curves. TSL-1 18

and TSL-2 are coincident. The red line there 19

corresponds to both of those levels because the 20

variation between those two is only in the maximum 21

no load mode power, as seen in the table. 22

And for high power, we have the TSL-2 in 23

red is the proposed level. And you can see the 24

other two TSLs that were evaluated. TSL-1, down 25

below in yellow, and TSL-3 up above in blue. 26

So let‘s look at some results for product 27

class X, and then for product class H. For X, again 28


(301) 565-0064

237 we have one application, the video game console. 1

This is the Xbox 360 EPS. The life-cycle costs are 2

as shown in the chart just below. CSL-2 is the 3

selected TSL, or CSL, which corresponds to TSL-2. 4

And you can see from the efficiency distribution 5

here, you‘ve got basically all the market at two 6

different levels, CSL-0 and CSL-1. The CSL-2 is the 7

best in market. The five percent that you see there 8

is aftermarket EPSs that are available for the Xbox 9

360. And then the net social benefits on the right 10

hand side, again, the selected TSL maximizes those, 11

and then other values shown in the table in the 12

lower right. 13

MR. SHEIKH: Question on the previous 14

slide? 15

MR. REEVES: Yeah. 16

MR. SHEIKH: On the table, change in 17

industry NPVNPV. Can you explain that line, please? 18

MR. REEVES: Sure. You heard about the 19

manufacturer impact analysis earlier. And a range 20

of scenarios were evaluated for that, looking at 21

different profitability scenarios. And so the range 22

of values you see there corresponds to that range of 23

profitability scenarios from a worst case to a best 24

case scenario. 25

MR. SHEIKH: Worst case is negative? 26

MR. REEVES: Indeed. Yes. For product 27

class H, again, we have one application, the amateur 28


(301) 565-0064

238 radios, or EPSs for amateur radios. This is the 1

first time that you‘ve seen the whole life-cycle 2

cost. For this product class and for all of the 3

battery charger product classes we looked at the 4

total installed price, rather than just the 5

incremental installed price. Again, the selected 6

TSL is highlighted in green, over on the right, or 7

in a little black box on the left. And we estimate 8

that the market will be evenly split between CSL-0, 9

the baseline, and CSL-1 prior to federal standards 10

taking effect. And CSL-3 in this case is the best 11

in market CSL. So that‘s EPSs. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Let‘s pause. Yes. 13

Comments on these EPS tables, all of these product 14

categories. Yes. Ric. 15

MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim, Philips. Ari, 16

I just have a question on slide 162. You‘ve got the 17

net social benefits for product class B. 18

MR. REEVES: Uh-huh. 19

MR. ERDHEIM: But earlier, on slide 115, 20

DOE had the life-cycle cost for the four 21

representative class B voltages. I‘m wondering 22

whether you have the net social benefits broken down 23

by the four representative units. 24

MR. REEVES: I don‘t have it in this 25

presentation, however, I know that you can obtain 26

those from the NIA workbook, the national impact 27

analysis workbook, and they may also appear in the 28


(301) 565-0064

239 TSD. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Dan. Dave. 2

MR. DENKENBERGER: Dave Denkenberger. In 3

the best case scenario of the industry NPV industry 4

gets to charge the same markups on a more expensive 5

product, so wouldn‘t that be beneficial to industry? 6

MR. H. COOK: This is Hayden Cook. This 7

basically has to do with conversion costs. If 8

conversion costs are large enough, where 9

manufacturers can‘t recoup those costs, even with 10

the markup, then those results will be negative. 11

MR. DENKENBERGER: But I thought the 12

assumption was that they would be able to pass those 13

conversion costs through. 14

MR. H. COOK: It‘s not conversion costs, 15

it‘s the increase in the MPC that they‘re able to 16

pass through. 17

MR. DENKENBERGER: MPC is? 18

MS. CLEARY: Manufacturer production cost. 19

So it‘s just the production cost. It‘s not the 20

total. 21

MR. DENKENBERGER: I see. You‘re saying 22

variable versus fixed costs on the manufacturers? 23

MR. CARMICHAEL: This is Rob Carmichael, 24

Navigant. Exactly. So it‘s a one-time cost, one 25

time investment, cash outflow, versus an increase in 26

the variable cost per product. 27

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. So you‘re saying 28


(301) 565-0064

240 the manufacturer would not always pass through the 1

one-time cost. 2

MR. CARMICHAEL: Right. Exactly. So 3

really there are two factors working against each 4

other, offsetting factors. So one is the conversion 5

cost. It‘s a one-time outflow. And the second is 6

the marked up increase in product cost. So if it‘s 7

a relatively flat curve, they‘re really not marking 8

up a whole lot, but it could be that the one-time 9

outflow is large enough to offset that. 10

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. Thanks. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. Holly. 12

MS. EVANS: Holly Evans. I‘m looking at 13

slide 161, the bottom left chart. So does this 14

chart show that the limits are set so CSL-3 level, 15

only those blue products would be able to be sold in 16

the United States? Is that what that chart is 17

showing? 18

MR. REEVES: What it‘s showing is what we 19

expect the market distribution to be prior to the 20

standards taking effect, but with the standard in 21

effect the whole market would move up to that CSL-3. 22

MS. EVANS: Okay. I guess I‘m trying to 23

compare with the Energy Star program, which sets a 24

limit at 25 percent of the market, and usually the 25

voluntary programs are designed to kind of reward 26

the top performers, and this seems to set a 27

mandatory standard at a percentage of the market 28


(301) 565-0064

241 that is just so stringent. I mean, has there been 1

any consideration of percentages of the products, 2

and how to reward like the top percentages in order 3

to make the limits stringent, but also recognize 4

that, you know, there needs to be some recognition 5

of where the technology is?? Has that been 6

considered? 7

MR. REEVES: I can say that that‘s not 8

explicitly considered in the analytical process;; 9

however, that might be something that DOE takes into 10

account. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Please say your name 12

for the record. 13

MR. CLINGER: (off mic) Hi. This is John 14

Clinger from ICF International. I just wanted to 15

remind everyone that the EPS program, Energy Star 16

program … 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Has been sunset you said? 18

Rick, go ahead. 19

MR. HABBEN: So I just wanted to go on the 20

record. We had a discussion a little bit earlier 21

off line, but regarding the product class C EPSs, 22

for some of our products, they are extremely low 23

voltage and looking at slide 160, they‘re extremely 24

low voltage and have high current outputs. So at 25

this point I don‘t think the technology is available 26

for the voltage and current levels that we are 27

currently using to meet a TSL-2 level. So I‘ll be 28


(301) 565-0064

242 commenting on that further, but to meet those 1

efficiency requirements with those voltage and 2

currents, it‘s currently impossible to do. 3

MR. REEVES: So just for the record, 4

you‘re referring to a low voltage AC/DC EPS? 5

MR. HABBEN: With high current. Yes. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So these 7

comments have been useful. Additional comments on 8

this series of slides, EPSs? Yes, Jeff. 9

MR. HAILEY: Hi. Jeff Hailey, Dell. Just 10

to reiterate. As an industry group within ITI and 11

what was related earlier in the opening comments 12

from ITI, we believe that, you know, this TSL-2 – 13

I‘m not sure that it‘s fully comprehended on the net 14

social benefit basis, based on what it‘s going to 15

take to get there and the volumes that are produced, 16

and the cost to the consumer. I‘m not sure that‘s 17

been totally reflected in this analysis in the net 18

social benefits here, and, you know, just to 19

reiterate what we said at the beginning within ITI, 20

I think going down to the next level is a better 21

consideration, and I‘m not sure the net social 22

benefit is truly accurate here. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Are we ready to 24

move on? 25

MR. REEVES: Okay. On to battery 26

chargers. We‘ll start at the beginning with product 27

class 1. As mentioned earlier, the standards being 28


(301) 565-0064

243 proposed for product class 1 are constants across 1

the range of battery energies. I believe this 2

product class theoretically extends up to 100 watt-3

hours. Is that correct? Well, no limit, I‘m told. 4

So you see the standards here with the 5

baseline at the top. This is different from EPSs. 6

Baseline is at the top and the highest efficiency 7

level analyzed is down at the bottom with UEC 8

decreasing as you make the battery charger more 9

efficient. 10

Next is a quick summary of results on two 11

slides. First, here we have one application, 12

primarily, almost exclusively rechargeable 13

toothbrushes in this class. W. We can show energy 14

use by CSL here in the chart in the upper right. 15

And you‘ll see these for all the battery charger 16

product classes. In the dark red, that‘s the unit 17

energy consumption of the representative unit each 18

year, decreasing from 8.7 kilowatt hours a year at 19

CSL-0 to 1.3 kilowatt hours per year at CSL-3. And 20

then the corresponding energy savings in light pink. 21

In the lower left, an efficiency 22

distribution in 2013, just as we saw for the EPSs, 23

with CSL-2 being the selected CSL;; that‘s in the 24

light green over to the right. And then in the 25

lower right, the average life-cycle cost. Again, 26

these are the total average life-cycle costs, not 27

incremental. And you can see that they‘re minimized 28


(301) 565-0064

244 at CSL-2, and that‘s the case for all the battery 1

charger product classes;; that is, life-cycle costs 2

are minimized at the selected TSL. 3

Again, net social benefits are maximized 4

at TSL-2. Maybe this bears repeating just once 5

again that net social benefits are the sum of the 6

net consumer benefits and the monetized emission 7

savings. 8

There is a summary of other results over 9

on the right hand side. Let me point out that your 10

handout has different numbers in the table. I just 11

caught that error last night. So the slides here 12

are correct, but the handouts are not. 13

Moving on to battery charger product class 14

2. Again you see the TSLs that were examined. TSL-15

1 was selected for the proposal. Here we‘ll move on 16

to product class 3. These look similar to one 17

another. The only thing to point out here is that 18

there‘s a kink in the bar as shown earlier, as 19

explained earlier. The required maximum UEC would 20

be a constant at low battery energies and then at 21

some point would turn up and increase as battery 22

energy increases. Similarly for product class 4. 23


MR. NARDOTTI: There‘s also another – this 25

is Matt Nardotti – for product classes 3 and 4, 26

there‘s a change to the legend relative to the 27

handout. The yellow lines on both of these 28


(301) 565-0064

245 equations represent TSL-1 and 2. And then the red 1

line is TSL-3 and black is TSL-4. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: State it again, Matt. 3

MR. NARDOTTI: So on the UEC battery 4

energy plots for product classes 3 and 4, the yellow 5

line is TSL-1 and 2, the red line is TSL-3, and the 6

black line is TSL-4. 7


MR. REEVES: Okay. So let‘s look at some 9

results for product classes 2, 3, and 4. As for the 10

other product classes, the pie chart shows what 11

applications fall into these classes. The bar 12

charts directly underneath show how the unit energy 13

consumption of products at each CSL varies and 14

declines as you move towards the right. And the 15

efficiency distributions at the bottom show market 16

efficiency distribution in 2013, prior to standards 17

taking effect. 18

And I‘ll point out here that these are 19

efficiency distributions after we‘ve taken account 20

of the California standards and their effect on the 21

efficiency of battery chargers in the market. 22

PARTICIPANT: You say after? 23

MR. REEVES: After, yes. So the other 24

half of the story for 2, 3, and 4 relates to life-25

cycle costs and net social benefits and the other 26

benefits in the lower right. You can see again, 27

life-cycle costs are minimized at the selected TSL 28


(301) 565-0064

246 or CSL – or selected efficiency level, let‘s say, 1

and again, the net social benefits are maximized at 2

TSL-1, which represents CSL-1 in all three of these 3

product classes. 4

And so the energy savings numbers – energy 5

and other numbers that you see in the lower right 6

are for all three classes taken together. Again, 7

you can find the results for the individual product 8

classes, I believe they‘re in the notice, the TSD, 9

and in the analytical workbooks, all of which are 10

available from DOE‘s website. Okay. 11

Here we see the standards being proposed 12

for product class 5 in the context of the other TSLs 13

that were examined. The proposed standard is at 14

TSL-2 which corresponds to CSL-2. 15

And similarly, for product class 6, so 16

let‘s look at the results for those. These are the 17

battery chargers with battery energies between 100 18

and 3000 watt hours, the medium energy ones. And 19

the pie charts show the applications – toy ride-on 20

vehicles being predominating predominant in product 21

class 5, electric scooters in product class 6. 22

These are what I think of as the most fun 23

applications because you can ride on them, so 24

product classes 5 and 6 are special for me. The bar 25

charts in the middle show the UECs at each TSL, and 26

again, efficiency distributions at the bottom, and 27

CSL-2 is the light green portions. 28


(301) 565-0064

247 And additional results for product classes 1

5 and 6 are the life-cycle costs on the top half of 2

the slide, and the net social benefits on the lower 3

left. , and other impacts in the lower right. 4

Okay. Product class 7, the high powered 5

EPSs-energy battery chargers. DOE examined three 6

TSLs, and the TSL-1 is the proposed standard. 7

Another product class, with a single application, in 8

this case, golf cars. You can see what we believe 9

is the efficiency distribution in the marketplace on 10

the lower left, and on the – there actually isn‘t a 11

CSL-3 defined, so this is an error on the slide. 12

You can ignore that label, CSL-3 with the blue. The 13

energy use is shown in the upper right – . You can 14

see that it decreases by 63 kilowatt hours a year 15

moving from CSL-0 to CSL-1, and then by an 16

additional amount going from 1 to 2. And the 17

average life-cycle costs are minimized at CSL-1. 18

Next slide shows the net social benefits 19

and other impacts projected for standards for 20

product class 7. 21

Then product class 8 has again three TSLs 22

that were looked at; TSL-1 is the level where the 23

standard is being proposed. Several applications 24

here – MP3 players being the primary one. You can 25

see that there‘s very little energy use at all CSLs 26

for products in this class, ranging from a high of 27

point nine kilowatt hours a year, to a low of point 28


(301) 565-0064

248 two kilowatt hours a year. So this shows up in the 1

life-cycle cost chart immediately below. You see 2

that almost the entire life-cycle cost of these 3

products is the installed price, that is the up- 4

front cost and not the operating cost, very little 5

difference from one CSL to another. So the 6

decrease, the upfront cost is minimized at CSL-1, 7

the first cost of the product, and that‘s where the 8

savings come from, primarily. So you can see very 9

little energy savings in this class – point zero 10

zero nine six (.0096) quads, but a substantial 11

amount of dollar savings from moving products from 12

CSL-0 to CSL-1. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Rick. 14

MR. HABBEN: On your slide there, that 15

should say product class 8 at the bottom? 16

MR. REEVES: Yes, sorry about that. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Ken, did you – 18

MR. RIDER: Yes. So the operating cost is 19

the operating cost of the battery charger system 20

itself. I just wanted to point out that for these 21

products, there‘s an additional loss that isn‘t 22

incorporated here which is the conversion from AC to 23

DC that‘s going to happen outside of this product. 24

So just like to point out that these are in the very 25

low end of an estimate of what the energy 26

consumption will be as they will eventually be 27

connected to a computer or to some other product 28


(301) 565-0064

249 that will have to do that work for it, and so that I 1

at least think that these life-cycle costs – the 2

estimates of the operating costs are low for these 3

products. 4


MR. REEVES: That brings us to product 6

class 10, which is, as you know, has been split into 7

10A and 10B. So you see the standards for 10A on 8

this slide, or rather the TSLs, and then shift them 9

all up about 3.7 watts or watt-hours I think – or 10

kilowatt hours, rather, to get to this slide, which 11

is for the products with AVR. 12

So you can see here we have – you can see 13

immediately the effects of the California standard: 14

that 13 percent on the right hand side of the 15

efficiency distribution chart is products being 16

increased – increasing in efficiency to meet that 17

California standard, which we approximate with CSL-18

3. And we consider it to be the max tech level. 19

Somebody mentioned earlier that there was 20

a product at CSL-2, but there is no longer – it‘s no 21

longer on the market. 22

And here you can see the net social 23

benefits are maximized at this max tech level, TSL-24

3, which coincides, roughly speaking, with the 25

California standard. And I have a set of slides a 26

few down the road here to compare – to look at the 27

California standards in a little bit more detail. 28


(301) 565-0064

250 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you recommend we take 1

comments now on all the preceding before we go to 2

the CEC comparison? Or should we do that – let‘s 3

illuminate the – 4

MR. REEVES: Let‘s take a few comments 5

now. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We‘ve already had 7

some. Additional comments on all of these proposed 8

standard levels? Rick. 9

MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim with Philips. 10

I‘m looking at the last item, which is an additional 11

item, where DOE‘s asking for compliance for input on 12

the length of compliance period for battery 13

chargers. For at least Class A external power 14

supplies, you have a two year mandate. I think 15

you‘re proposing two years for the nonClass A. But 16

for battery chargers you don‘t have a requirement, 17

but we would say, and I think most industry would 18

say, in general, a minimum of two years is necessary 19

to make the sorts of changes that we‘re talking 20

about. The problem is that we have a very unique 21

situation in that for product classes, battery 22

charger classes 2 through 6, the California 23

standards go into effect February 1st. At least at 24

the proposal stage, the DOE has found that those 25

standards present a negative net present value, and 26

you‘ve not proposed those levels, you‘ve proposed 27

different levels. 28


(301) 565-0064

251 So under your mandate you‘re supposed to – 1

your statutory requirements but you‘re looking for 2

net present value that‘s positive. So if you did 3

the normal two years, we would then have the 4

California standards go into effect, and in effect 5

by lack of action, you would result in net negative 6

present value as you‘ve currently found. So I think 7

because of this unique situation I guess we would 8

argue for at least product classes two through four, 9

and maybe 5 and 6 would want to agree, that you 10

should have a much shorter compliance period so that 11

we don‘t run into this problem dealing with 12

California. So I would say normally we would say 13

two years at minimum two years, but because of this 14

unique circumstance, at least with those products -– 15

I‘m not talking about product class 10 because 16

they‘ve got different issues-- but for 2 through 4, 17

which we have, and then 5 and 6 also where you found 18

there‘s a net negative present value, unless you act 19

soon, we‘re going to result in a net negative 20

present value as a result of California. So we 21

would urge you to act much more quickly for those 22

categories. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jen. 24

MS. CLEARY: This is Jennifer Cleary with 25

AHAM. I think our comments echo Rick‘s in large 26

part, but I just – so I don‘t want to repeat what he 27

said, but I do just – I think we may be a little 28


(301) 565-0064

252 narrower, so I do want to offer some additional 1

comments. In all other cases, AHAM believes that 2

proper lead-in time is necessary, generally, for our 3

products, that‘s three years. In this case, two 4

years, and we believe strongly that should be 5

adhered to. But this is a unique case for all the 6

reasons that Rick mentioned, and I won‘t go into 7

those again. And so under these circumstances, for 8

product classes two through four, and with respect 9

to the products that AHAM covers we‘ll have details 10

in our written comments, we do support the July 2013 11

effective date, or at least a very quick action by 12

DOE for the reasons that Rick mentioned as well. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, 14

Jay. 15

MR. TAYLOR: So Vic and I talked about 16

this briefly over lunch, but our view on the 17

category 10 about – we have an opportunity here to 18

do the design twice. And one of the things we‘re 19

concerned about is having to do the design twice. 20

Currently we‘re engaged in the California 21

regulations. We‘re targeting them, but the scope is 22

smaller than the current regulations proposed by 23

DOE, or what was in the NOPR, and so we could, and 24

probably withwill, withdraw some of the systems from 25

the California marketplace simply because we won‘t 26

be able to get them finished in time, and the amount 27

of difference between the spec and what we‘re 28


(301) 565-0064

253 capable of achieving is larger than we could do it. 1

But we could still withdraw a handful of systems and 2

have the other systems ready to deploy into the 3

marketplace to cover what was there and meet the 4

requirement in the timeframe. 5

When you start broadening the standard, 6

and then also there‘s a fair amount of uncertainty 7

because some of the names have changed. AVR and 8

non-AVR – I don‘t know whether that translates into 9

things that we had defined with the California 10

regulation. So given that level of uncertainty, 11

that‘s what our concern would end up being. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: I‘m sure you‘ll go into 13

considerably – considerable detail in your written 14

comments about how you would like the Department to 15

handle this, with dates and the whole thing? 16

MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Yes, and we will be 17

following up with pretty verbose written comments. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Rick. 19

MR. HABBEN: Again, I don‘t want to take a 20

lot of time, but I want to echo what Ric Erdheim and 21

Jennifer from AHAM said about product classes 2 22

through 4, that we would like DOE to pursue on 23

implementing those as quickly as possible and we 24

would concur that the July date is acceptable for 25

those product classes. We‘d like DOE to move on it. 26

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Do we have 27

other – I guess we will rely on written comments. 28


(301) 565-0064

254 Do we have other product manufacturers who wish to 1

echo that, just so we have it here on the record at 2

this time? Forward written comments then. Okay. 3

So those were useful comments. You see item 1, 8, 4

36 and an additional item listed there. Please scan 5

through them, even though we‘re all getting a little 6

tired out, let‘s make sure we do our diligence right 7

now. Yes. Please. We have someone comment from the 8

internet. 9

MR. BOOHER: Larry Albert says that PTI 10

supports the earliest practical adoption of the DOE 11

levels for product classes 2 through 4. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That‘s helpful. 13

I‘m looking at Ken and Dave. You have something? 14

No? Not at this time, okay. So then we‘re going to 15

move on. 16

MR. REEVES: We‘re on slide 190 now. This 17

table here compares DOE‘s proposed standard levels 18

with thisthe California standard, or rather the CSL 19

that DOE has identified that best approximates the 20

CEC standard. And you can see that in the case of 21

product classes 2 through 6, the California standard 22

is set at a level that‘s higher than where DOE‘s 23

proposing to set its standards. For product classes 24

1 and 8, the California standard is best 25

approximated by our – the DOE baseline level. And 26

for product classes 7 and 10, they‘re roughly 27

equivalent. 28


(301) 565-0064

255 So I‘m going to show you a series of two 1

slides that hone in just on product classes 2 though 2

6. So in this slide here, we compared the net 3

social benefits at the two levels. And I just want 4

to be clear here that what we‘re showing is the 5

projected national impacts, not impacts in 6

California, but national impacts with all the 7

assumptions and caveats underlying DOE‘s analysis at 8

these two levels, the DOE proposal on the left, and 9

the CEC standards on the right. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Extrapolated. 11

MR. REEVES: Yeah, approximated. So, as 12

you can see, the net benefits, both from a social 13

and a consumer perspective, are positive in the case 14

of the levels that DOE is proposing, and negative in 15

the case of the California standard levels. This is 16

product classes 2, 3, and 4 taken together, and the 17

story is similar, though the numbers are a little 18

different, for product classes 5 and 6. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: So let‘s just pause. 20

Comments here? Joanna. 21

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. We believe that 22

the DOE engineering analysis for battery charger 23

product classes 2 through 4 is not complete because 24

it hasn‘t looked at improving efficiency – using an 25

improved nickel design similar to that presented by 26

ECOVA this morning, so we believe that the costs 27

that DOE estimates for achieving the CEC levels are 28


(301) 565-0064

256 overestimated, and we think that if you look at a 1

design based on something similar to what ECOVA 2

presented that you‘d see very different results 3

looking at the impact of the CEC levels. So we urge 4

DOE to go back and examine a design based on that 5

improved nickel chemistry. The current engineering 6

analysis is based on available units on the market, 7

and hasn‘t looked at how you could achieve the 8

similar high efficiency levels at a lower cost. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Ken. 10

MR. RIDER: This is Ken Rider, California 11

Energy Commission. So first, I guess a second to 12

step back to 36 and then move on to this. You know, 13

DOE was interested to in how we can minimize the 14

impact to industry, and in the comment that I read 15

at the beginning of this meeting, I mentioned that 16

it‘s the Energy Commission‘s position that 17

harmonizing standards is the best way to minimize 18

impacts to manufacturers. Of course these graphs 19

you presented here show quite negative net social 20

benefits to the California- associated CSLs. These 21

CSLs, first of all, are not perfectly aligned with 22

the California standards, and secondly, I think 23

there are a number of assumptions that we‘ll embody 24

in more detailed written comments that refute some 25

of these negative estimated impacts. So that‘s just 26

from the Energy Commission‘s perspective on these. 27



(301) 565-0064

257 MR. RIDER: And just to say on the record, 1

we‘ve also found and adopted standards that we 2

believe to be cost-effective, and we‘ve done our own 3

analysis of this in the context of California, to 4

show that these – and that‘s what our proceedings 5

showed at the end, was that these are positive on 6

the right side, so there‘s a difference of analysis 7

here. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Vic Petrolati. 9

MR. PETROLATI: Yes. Just to respond to 10

that. You know, we fully realize that our analysis 11

is different because it is looking at the national 12

impacts. We fully realize that potentially the cost 13

of electricity used in California was different than 14

what we used as a national impact. We certainly 15

believe there is the possibility that your standards 16

are, in fact, cost-effective in California. We are 17

not convinced at this point that they would be cost-18

effective nation wide. That‘s our concern at this 19

point. At this point we would not be able to 20

indicate to management or OMB that we should 21

harmonize with the California standard currently 22

because of the impacts that we‘re showing. 23

MR. RIDER: And I think that‘s part of the 24

burden of the comment that we need to give, that the 25

Energy Commission needs to submit to try to convince 26

you otherwise. 27

MR. PETROLATI: Right. Exactly. Thank 28


(301) 565-0064

258 you. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks to both of 2

you. Additional comments here on this CEC 3

comparison. Yes. Dave. 4

MR. DENKENBERGER: So just comparing 5

slides 191, so this is classes 2, 3, and 4, you show 6

that for CSL-2 large negative values for net social 7

benefits. However, if I‘m understanding correctly, 8

on slide 174, 9

MR. PETROLATI: (comment off mic) 10

MR. DENKENBERGER: Ah. 11

MR. REEVES: Yeah, so I can clarify, I 12

think. CSL-2 is TSL-2 for product class 2. But 13

CSL-2 is TSL-3 for product classes 3 and 4. So in 14

order to arrive at those California comparison 15

numbers, we had to pick values from different TSLs 16

for the different product classes. 17

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. And then my next 18

question is how did you arrive at the comparison 19

between the DOE CSLs and the levels? 20

MR. REEVES: For somebody from Navigant. 21

MR. NARDOTTI: This is Matt Nardotti. So 22

if you remember, one of the things that Peter 23

addressed during the engineering analysis was that 24

we needed to scale from a representative unit to all 25

the battery energies for a given product class. And 26

when we did that, we broke down the individual 27

performance parameters that go into the UEC 28


(301) 565-0064

259 calculation. So --24- hour energy, maintenance mode 1

power, and standby mode power-- and for each of 2

those individual performance parameters we developed 3

a function relative to battery energy – so: P-key 4

P-maintenance as a function of battery energy, E24 5

as a function of battery energy, and standby mode 6

power as a function of battery energy. And when you 7

compare our E24, the equation that we developed for 8

that, that went into that scaling equation, we 9

compared that to the CEC requirement for E24 and 10

then the combination of the maintenance mode and 11

standby mode functions that we created relative to 12

the combined maintenance mode and standby mode 13

allotment that CEC requires. 14

So we looked at our CSLs on the 15

performance parameter level, not ; we didn‘t put the 16

CEC standard into a UEC. 17

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. 18


MR. PETROLATI: Is it advisable to show 20

the graphs, do you still have those as backups? 21

MR. NARDOTTI: Yeah, we do have those, so 22

we could show those. 23

MR. REEVES: On this computer? 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Are they in the packet? 25

(discussion off mic.) 26

MR. REEVES: You asked about 2, 3, and 4, 27

I think? 28


(301) 565-0064

260 MR. DENKENBERGER: Yes. 1

MR. REEVES: So here‘s 2, and the CEC 2

standard is shown in the dotted blue line, and so we 3

– let‘s see, CSL-3 was used to approximate that. 4

MR. DENKENBERGER: I was just curious. 5

How did you develop the scaling factors for these 6

lines that you‘ve drawn here? 7

MR. NARDOTTI: Say again? This is Matt, 8

and this is – this is outlined in the engineering 9

chapter, Chapter 5, but what we – this is all based 10

on test data. So when we tested a range of products 11

across the different battery energies, we could see 12

how each of these parameters changed with respect to 13

battery energy, and so we could create a best fit 14

line through those. 15

MR. RIDER: Right, so I guess my question 16

is is your – the proposed standard is on a kilowatt 17

hour basis, and it scales by kilowatt hour based on 18

duty cycle, so I‘m wondering how you back calculate 19

that into something that scales by watt hours. 20

Because we‘re not talking about the raw data, we‘re 21

talking about the standards themselves and comparing 22

one standard to another standard. How do you get 23

from the standard scaled by E battery in kilowatt 24

hours and the DOE standard, so how do you see that 25

scale? 26

MR. NARDOTTI: So there is no perfect 27

examination, right. There is no perfect way to 28


(301) 565-0064

261 compare UEC to what California was comparing. So 1

the best we could do was see how our – the rep units 2

and how the different parameters change with respect 3

– we put our standard basically into the terms of 4

your standard before we aggregated and made 5

assumptions about usage profile. And so before 6

doing that assumption about usage profile, we could 7

make a comparison of our products at each CSL level, 8

or at each CSL relative to this California standard. 9

MR. DENKENBERGER: Makes sense. 10

MR. REEVES: I misspoke: it‘s CSL-2 that 11

is the closest approximation of the CEC standard. 12

Here‘s product class 3; again, CSL-2 is the – was 13

selected as the nearest approximation. 14

(discussion off mic) 15

MR. NARDOTTI: This is Matt. CSL-2 and 3 16

are very close to each other, so it‘s just very hard 17

to see. 18

MR. REEVES: Oh, I see. And again, for 19

product class 4, it‘s CSL-2. 20

MR. HABBEN: Will these be made available 21

on the web? 22

MR. PETROLATI: (off mic) Yes, 23

absolutely. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then we have – 25

take final comments on this segment, and then we 26

have another slide or two, one on labeling – a 27

couple on labeling, then we‘re pretty much there. 28


(301) 565-0064

262 Rick. 1

MR. HABBEN: I just wanted to make a final 2

comment that was in this section, that was kind of 3

made earlier from Doug from the CEA that, you know, 4

we had submitted a report, --AHAM, along with CEA, -5

-that had discrepancies as far as the numbers 6

regarding what the California Energy Commission 7

Report originally stated, and which our report 8

corrected some of their numbers and found some 9

negative benefits. So I think that more aligns with 10

what DOE was actually getting in their numbers as 11

well. 12


Jennifer. 14

MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary. Yes, AHAM agrees 15

with DOE‘s analysis. We think it more accurately 16

reflects the situation, and we‘ll provide that more 17

in our written comments. And as Rick said, along 18

with CEA, we pointed this out to CEC as well. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Let‘s look at 20

labeling. 21

Labeling 22

MR. REEVES: Okay. I‘ll keep this brief. 23

So DOE – there already is a labeling requirement for 24

Class A EPSs, which was put in place by Congress 25

with EISA 2007. So what DOE is proposing here is to 26

extend that to the other EPSs within – several other 27

EPSs that are being dealt with within this 28


(301) 565-0064

263 rulemaking, and battery chargers, and to propose a 1

different marking for the higher levels that DOE is 2

proposing today for Class A EPSs, specifically, the 3

Roman numeral VI. 4

So the proposal is to have the Roman 5

numeral VI marking on all direct operation EPSs, and 6

then have a similar marking for indirect operation 7

EPSs, which can be broken out into two groups, the 8

Class A and the non-Class A. So the Class A 9

indirect operation EPSs already have a marking 10

requirement and comment incumbent upon them, because 11

they are Class A EPSs. But for easy identification 12

of these EPSs and differentiation of these from 13

those for which higher standards are being proposed, 14

DOE is proposing to require this N or similar kind 15

of marking be placed in conjunction with the Roman 16

numeral. And the exception to this would be in 17

cases where the EPS, though it is indirect 18

operation, meets the higher standards of the higher 19

direct operation EPSs. Then there‘s no need to 20

differentiate them, they meet the prevailing 21

standard for the regular run-of-the-mill direct 22

operation EPS, so they can just bear that marking 23

and don‘t need the N. 24

And then I‘ll also add that for non-class 25

A EPSs, while DOE is not proposing new standards for 26

these products today, DOE is proposing a marking to, 27

again, enable for easy identification of these EPSs 28


(301) 565-0064

264 and differentiation between these and those for 1

which standards do apply. And the marking here, 2

EPS-N is what is included in the proposal. And all 3

of this again is detailed in the rule section, the 4

rule language section, that follows the preamble of 5

the Notice. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ken. 7

MR. RIDER: The NOPR discusses security 8

EPSs as something that was changed in legislation. 9

They have no standby mode standard. I may have 10

missed it, but does the labeling proposal in this 11

rulemaking address the labeling for security system 12

power supplies? 13

MR. REEVES: DOE did include that, and DOE 14

is seeking comment from the public on what would be 15

an appropriate marking for those products, yes. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Rick. 17

MR. HABBEN: So I guess I need a 18

clarification at the beginning here. So in indirect 19

operation, non class N EPSs, potentially then, that 20

could be a battery charger so you would have the 21

battery charger symbol on the product and then you 22

would have this marking on the actual EPS, is that 23

correct? 24

MR. REEVES: Correct. 25

MR. HABBEN: Okay. So then my other 26

suggestion, and we can do this as a comment, is I 27

would prefer that maybe we just have the circle with 28


(301) 565-0064

265 an N on it and eliminate the EPS, because as many of 1

these EPSs get very small, the labels get very small 2

so the circles are not very big in diameter. So by 3

the time you try and get four letters on a circle 4

that‘s maybe 50,000ths 50 thousandths in diameter, 5

you can‘t read anything. So my proposal would be 6

maybe just go with the letter N. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Doug. Yes. 8

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Doug Johnson 9

again with CEA. We‘ll make this comment again in 10

our written submission, but we think it‘s important 11

to have some flexibility about the physical labeling 12

that is allowed for labeling on packaging as opposed 13

to the physical device. Thank you. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jennifer. 15

MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary. I just have a 16

couple of questions. I believe that California will 17

allow the mark to be on the packaging, and so we 18

just have some – having kind of two different 19

marking schemes, it introduces some complexities and 20

I think we‘re wondering will DOE allow maybe early 21

compliance with its marking requirements to address 22

the potential time where there‘s no preemption, 23

which could be a very short period of time, and also 24

how would DOE treat – like if, for example, a 25

manufacturer were to choose to put the California 26

marking on the packaging, how would DOE treat that 27

situation after preemption? Would it be viewed as a 28


(301) 565-0064

266 statement about energy that has not been made in 1

compliance with DOE requirements and therefore like 2

a labeling violation, for example? Would DOE 3

consider using its enforcement discretion in that 4

type of situation? I think we just – we don‘t have 5

– we‘ll try and think of some proposed solutions as 6

well, but we were just trying to see if this was 7

something that DOE had been thinking about to date. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 9

MR. KIDO: These are all issues that DOE 10

is currently considering, so to the extent that 11

you‘ve got any specific ideas as to how we might 12

want to handle some of those issues, I encourage you 13

to submit those in comments. And I would add that 14

nothing has been finalized yet in terms of the 15

labeling requirements at this time, so to the extent 16

that anyone‘s got some input on that issue, we would 17

encourage you to provide something. These are all 18

issues that DOE is currently considering, so to the 19

extent that you‘ve got any specific ideas as to how 20

we might want to handle some of those issues, I 21

encourage you to submit those in comments. And I 22

would add that nothing has been finalized yet in 23

terms of the labeling requirements at this time, so 24

to the extent that anyone‘s got some input on that 25

issue, we would encourage you to provide something. 26

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Jeff. 27

MR. HAILEY: Hi, Jeff Hailey with Dell. 28


(301) 565-0064

267 So the Roman numerals IV and V are part of the 1

international marking protocol that is published by 2

the EPA. It‘s part of the now, as John Clinger with 3

ICF said, defunct Energy Star for external power 4

supplies. Level VI is not contained in that, and so 5

at this point, if we were to go with this level VI 6

marking, we would potentially have to put the V on 7

there as well for international acceptance of this. 8

So I‘m wondering, are we going to be working – are 9

you going to be working with the Environmental 10

Protection Agency to update the international 11

marking protocol for level VI? I‘m just not certain 12

what‘s going to happen there. So it‘s just a 13

question to you. How are we going to resolve that 14

potential issue? 15

MR. PETROLATI: We already have. We have 16

worked with EPA. We are going to be revising the 17

international marking protocol as part of our 18

rulemaking. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Vic. Please. 20

MR. BECK: Dennis Beck with the CEC. Ms. 21

Cleary brought up an issue. I don‘t know if it was 22

articulated quite correctly, or I would articulate 23

it a different way in terms of the labeling 24

requirement. That certainly, we in California want 25

to make sure that DOE‘s labeling requirement 26

dovetails with ours as best as possible, and I think 27

that that would include some guidance on preemption. 28


(301) 565-0064

268 I know the Department does not typically go out and 1

make statements necessarily about preemption, but 2

the preemption rules differ from labeling and 3

testing than they do from standards, depending on 4

the situation. So it may be a situation where the 5

labeling has a preemptive effect that precedes the 6

preemptive effect of the standards themselves. So 7

we would want to make sure that we work with the 8

Department and that we let people know what – 9

because the question we‘ll get is what do we need to 10

put on there? And it‘s certainly, I don‘t think 11

it‘s anything that the Department would need to take 12

an enforcement action against anybody, particularly 13

the state of California, but they would want to 14

provide us, certainly, with their opinion about what 15

provisions apply at which time so we can coordinate 16

our message with industry and let them know what 17

they need to be putting on their products. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Brian, 19

do you have one from the web? 20

MR. BOOHER: Yes, we have a request from 21

Susan Anderson to please clarify the difference 22

between direct and indirect operation. And I‘ll 23

just do this very briefly. DOE developed a protocol 24

for distinguishing direct and indirect operation, 25

and essentially a direct operation EPS is designed 26

so that the power can flow directly to the end use 27

application; whereas an indirect operation EPS, all 28


(301) 565-0064

269 of the power flows through the battery, and the 1

battery charger. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Finish the next 3

slide so we can finish this labeling segment. Ari. 4

MR. REEVES: So I have two slides here on 5

DOE‘s proposal relative to battery chargers. 6

There‘s a marking here you can see in big, bold, 7

black and white, BC III. Simply, the idea here was 8

to create something that was similar to the EPS 9

marking that would be suitable for BCs. As many of 10

you already know that, California‘s requirement is 11

that there be a marking that says, I think, just BC 12

for standards- compliant battery chargers. And 13

here, DOE is contemplating there being maybe an 14

international marking protocol for BCs, but whether 15

or not there is such a protocol materializes, 16

there‘s an allowance for there to be markings 17

showing that products meet some protocol – meet some 18

standard, but a standard that‘s lower than DOE‘s 19

standard, that‘s BC II, and then BC-I for BCs that 20

meet no established standard, and . This is 21

parallel to thisthe international marking protocol 22

that exists today for EPSs. 23

And then lastly, DOE received a proposal 24

from NRDC that specified locations for the battery 25

charger marking, and you can see that here. I think 26

that California‘s requirement is that the marking 27

appear on – either on the packaging or on the 28


(301) 565-0064

270 housing of the battery terminals. 1

MR. RIDER: This is Ken. That‘s correct. 2

MR. REEVES: Okay. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Brian. 4

MR. BOOHER: We have one more question 5

from the web. Larry Albert is asking on behalf of 6

Jen Cleary, whether the California marking during 7

the preemption period would violate federal 8

requirements regarding making a claim of efficiency 9

not supported by federal regulations. And this was 10

specifically directed at Mike Kido. I can repeat 11

the question if you -- 12

MR. KIDO: No, that‘s all right. We‘ll 13

have to take a closer look at that. I‘m not going 14

to provide an answer at this point. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: And Jennifer, I wasn‘t 16

sure, I thought you wanted to get back in the queue 17

a moment ago. Did you get your comment in? You‘re 18

all set. That one? Okay, fine. Michael, you – 19

MR. KIDO: I had a real quick factual 20

question. A number of folks have mentioned these, I 21

guess within the battery charger context, these more 22

efficient nickel based systems, and I was wondering 23

are those particular types of systems currently 24

available on the market? 25

MR. BROOKMAN: Dave, did you raise that 26

one? 27

MR. DENKENBERGER: There is a variety of 28


(301) 565-0064

271 efficiency within nickel. And the – I think it‘s 1

Page 5-89 in the TSD talks about – graphs the 24 2

hour efficiency of nickel and lithium, and one thing 3

we notice is that the most efficient nickel chargers 4

are actually on the trend line, the average, for 5

lithium chargers. So, yes, there are products on 6

the market that are nickel-based that are more 7

efficient than the average nickel charger. We are 8

not aware of products that meet the stricter level 9

that are commercially available, which is why we 10

have built one. Two of them, actually. 11

PARTICIPANT: Can I add to that? And we 12

looked at what it would take to move a nickel 13

charger to compliance with the California standard, 14

not necessarily yours, but the majority of it was in 15

reducing the maintenance mode power and switching 16

into a lower power mode. There‘s data in the DOE 17

data set and the California Energy Commission data 18

set where you can look at existing products in their 19

maintenance modes, and imagine if they turned off, 20

what their annual energy consumption or, in our 21

case, their maintenance mode would look like. And 22

so you can easily model, using existing data, what 23

that efficient nickel cadmium charger would be if it 24

just had the simple feature to turn off, 25

essentially, into a lower power mode, or into a 26

lower trickle mode. 27

MR. BROOKMAN: Ari, I wasn‘t sure that you 28


(301) 565-0064

272 finished this. Did you finish it? 1

MR. REEVES: I did, yes. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: So now is the – yes, Holly. 3

MS. EVANS: Holly Evans. A question. I 4

think I know the answer to this, but I just want to 5

clarify for the record. So if you have a wall 6

adapter that‘s an external power supply, and it also 7

powers a battery chargers or charges a battery, that 8

product would need to have both the EPS label as 9

well as the battery charger label. Is that correct? 10

MR. REEVES: Correct. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: So, we‘ve gone through the 12

slides. Why don‘t you flash up the last slide which 13

shows how people submit their comments. 14

MR. REEVES: Oh, yes. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: And as we promised first 16

thing this morning, now is yet another opportunity 17

to take closing remarks – to make any other 18

statement that you think is necessary at this time, 19

surrounding the meeting today. 20

And I‘m handing out the evaluation forms. 21

Please take 30 seconds to fill them out. 22

Closing comments? Yes, Dave. 23

Closing Comments 24

MR. DENKENBERGER: So this may be 25

answered. There was a note on the pollution impacts 26

that there‘s already a cap for SOX, I believe. And 27

so therefore the standard would not affect 28


(301) 565-0064

273 emissions, which is true, but it could reduce the 1

compliance to the cap, as in, if we‘re reducing 2

battery charger energy and EPS energy, and we‘re 3

reducing sulfur dioxide from there, then that means 4

we have to spend less money to, for instance, reduce 5

sulfur dioxide emissions from coal power plants. 6

Was that considered? 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Use the microphone, please. 8

Thank you. 9

MS. IYAMA: This is Sanaee. Right now the 10

emissions analysis only looks at carbon dioxide, 11

mercury, and nitrogen oxides. 12

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. So I would go on 13

the record to say please consider that reduction in 14

compliance cost associated with that reduced battery 15

charger and EPS emissions. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo. 17

MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with Earth Justice. 18

We actually made that argument repeatedly a few 19

years ago and what we found out was that to the 20

extent it has any impact at all in the sulfur 21

dioxide allowance prices within the realm of noise, 22

so it just – you just can‘t really estimate a 23

variable – an accurate number for the impact. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments here at 25

the end. Joanna Mauer. 26

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. So just a 27

question on the engineering analysis. Has DOE 28


(301) 565-0064

274 assumed a specific cost per kilowatt hour of 1

different battery chemistries for the battery cost 2

itself? So what the cost per kilowatt hour the 3

battery energy is for different battery chemistries? 4

MR. NARDOTTI: No. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Matt. 6

MR. NARDOTTI: If I understand you 7

correctly. 8

MS. MAUER: I guess my – so the battery 9

charger system, the cost of the battery charger 10

system includes the cost of the battery itself, so 11

what are the assumptions about – the data on – I 12

wasn‘t able to find in the TSD or the spreadsheets, 13

what the assumptions were for the cost of batteries 14

themselves. 15

MR. NARDOTTI: So for –This is Matt 16

Nardotti. For the product classes with the NiCad 17

batteries and the lithium batteries, DOE assumed, 18

talking with manufacturers, that the lithium 19

batteries tend to have an incremental cost. I don‘t 20

know what the percentage is, relatively, to the 21

nickel-based batteries. And so for the CSL where we 22

tore down a product with a lithium ion battery, 23

there‘s an incremental battery cost, and that should 24

be in the tear down results that are in one of the 25

Chapter 5 appendices. 26

MS. MAUER: All right, so you‘re saying – 27

MR. NARDOTTI: So there is an incremental 28


(301) 565-0064

275 cost for lithium. 1

MS. MAUER: -- the incremental cost – 2

MR. NARDOTTI: Relative to NiCad 3

batteries. 4

MS. MAUER: Okay. Is that in the analysis 5

of maintenance costs where you‘re replacing the 6

battery before – where the battery fails before the 7

product fails? Because I know there is – that was 8

the only piece of information that I could find was 9

a case where you‘re replacing the battery during the 10

life of the product, so you incorporate the 11

incremental cost of the lithium battery when you 12

replace it. 13

MR. NARDOTTI: Right. 14

MS. MAUER: If it‘s possible to provide 15

also the cost of the – kind of the absolute costs of 16

the batteries, the nickel and lithium, that would be 17

useful. 18

And my other question is, are those 19

battery costs based on a certain year? 20

MR. NARDOTTI: Whenever the tear down was 21

conducted. 22

MS. MAUER: Okay. I think we‘d encourage 23

– the trend is seeing a significant decrease in cost 24

of lithium batteries, so if that tear down was 25

conducted several years ago and we‘re talking about 26

a standard that won‘t go into effect for a couple 27

years, we‘d urge DOE to incorporate the trend we‘re 28


(301) 565-0064

276 seeing in lithium costs, declining over time. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional closing remarks? 2

Yes, Dave. 3

MR. DENKENBERGER: So the manufacturer 4

impacts, we would recommend that DOE consider a 5

scenario where the manufacturer can pass on the 6

retooling cost, or the one-time cost, because we 7

think that is realistic. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Final 9

comments. Yes, Ken. 10

MR. RIDER: I would like to bring up again 11

the issue that I brought up a little bit earlier, 12

which was that the UECs calculated in the 13

engineering analysis are different from the UECs as 14

you would calculate them in the compliance equation. 15

And I‘ll include this in comment, be interested to 16

see and to encourage the DOE to look at whether the 17

compliance equation will push appliances to comply 18

at the levels that they proposed in the engineering 19

analysis, as the UECs – the compliance equation 20

doesn‘t require performance at the levels that are 21

discussed in the engineering analysis. So I look at 22

the bare minimum, I think all the roll up analysis 23

DOE did, both at what is the bare minimum for 24

someone to comply with the regulations, and I think 25

that the engineering analysis, because of the 26

difference in the equation for UEC, isn‘t 27

considering the bare minimum to comply with the 28


(301) 565-0064

277 compliance equations that are proposed in the NOPR. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. So, for 2

my part, I want to thank you and I will turn it 3

over to Vic. It‘s been a very constructive 4

meeting, a tremendous amount of content that 5

covered a lot of very, very positive comment, and 6

so, back to Vic Petrolati. 7

MR. PETROLATI: Again, I just want to 8

remind everybody the comment period closes, not on 9

May 25th, but on May 29

th, in accordance with our 10

NOPR. Please get your comments in in written form. 11

I think, just like Doug has indicated, I want to 12

thank everybody for their input at this meeting. I 13

think we‘ve learned a lot. I think the comments 14

and the criticisms have all been constructive, and 15

I think we‘ve got some work to do, obviously, 16

before we issue a final rule. 17

Again, we need your comments, and we need 18

them in writing to get the best product out as 19

possible. 20

Thank you again for the amount of time 21

that you‘ve spent, not only here at the meeting, 22

but reviewing our 1500 pages of documents to be 23

prepared to come to this meeting. That is the 24

tough part. So we thank you quite a bit in terms 25

of being a stakeholder as part of this process. 26

That‘s it from me. 27


(301) 565-0064

278 MR. BROOKMAN: Safe travels. 1

(Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the meeting in 2

the above captioned matter was adjourned.) 3

4

5

6

7

8

9


(301) 565-0064

279 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the attached proceedings

before:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

In the Matter of:

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR

CONSUMER PRODUCTS, ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS AND EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES

Were held as herein appears and that this is the

original transcript thereof for the file of the

Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law

Judge or the Agency.

Further, I am neither counsel for nor related to

any party to the above proceedings.

Wendy Greene

Official Reporter Dated: May 7, 2012

public meeting on energy conservation program for … · 2012-05-22 · jennifer cleary association...

Documents