[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 3, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56928-56976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-26192]
[[Page 56927]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 430
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Determination
Concerning the Potential for Energy Conservation Standards for Non-
Class A External Power Supplies; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 56928]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-DET-0005]
RIN 1904-AB80
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Determination
Concerning the Potential for Energy Conservation Standards for Non-
Class A External Power Supplies
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Proposed determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), as
amended, requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to issue a final
rule by December 19, 2009, that determines whether energy conservation
standards for non-Class A external power supplies (EPSs) are warranted.
In this document, DOE proposes to determine that energy
conservation standards for non-Class A external power supplies are
warranted. This document informs interested parties of the analysis
underlying this proposal, which examines the potential energy savings
and the direct economic costs and benefits that could result from a
future standard. In this document, DOE also announces the availability
of a technical support document (TSD), which provides additional
analysis in support of the determination. The TSD is available from the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
DATES: Written comments on this document and the TSD are welcome and
must be submitted no later than December 18, 2009. For detailed
instructions, see section VI, ``Public Participation.''
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE-2009-BT-DET-0005 and/or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
1904-AB80, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected]. Include docket
number EERE-2009-BT-DET-0005 and/or RIN 1904-AB80 in the subject line
of the message.
Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, Technical Support
Document for Non-Class A External Power Supplies, docket number EERE-
2009-BT-DET-0005 and/or RIN 1904-AB80, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed paper original.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department
of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024. Please submit one signed paper
original.
For additional instruction on submitting comments, see section VI,
``Public Participation.''
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, the
technical support document, or comments received, go to the U.S.
Department of Energy, Resource Room of the Building Technologies
Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024,
(202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the above
telephone number for additional information about visiting the Resource
Room. You may also obtain copies of certain documents in this
proceeding from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's
Web site at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Victor Petrolati, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4549. E-mail:
[email protected].
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. E-mail: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit or review public comments,
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone
(202) 586-2945. E-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of the Proposed Determination
A. Background and Legal Authority
B. Scope
II. Methodology
A. Market Assessment
1. Introduction
2. Shipments, Efficiency Distributions, and Market Growth
3. Product Lifetimes
4. Distribution Channels and Markups
5. Interested Parties
6. Existing Energy Efficiency Programs
B. Technology Assessment
1. Introduction
2. Modes of Operation
3. Functionality and Circuit Designs of Non-Class A EPSs
4. Product Classes
5. Technology Options for Improving Energy Efficiency
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Introduction
2. Data Sources
3. Representative Product Classes and Representative Units
4. Selection of Candidate Standard Levels
5. Methodology and Data Implementation
6. Relationships Between Cost and Efficiency
D. Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization
1. Introduction
2. Modes and Application States
3. Usage Profiles
4. Unit Energy Consumption
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
F. National Impact Analysis
III. Results
A. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
B. National Impact Analysis
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Proposed Determination
EPCA requires DOE to issue a final rule determining whether to
issue energy efficiency standards for non-Class A EPSs. DOE has
tentatively determined that such standards are technologically feasible
and economically justified, and would result in significant energy
savings. Thus, DOE proposes to issue a positive determination.
DOE analyzed multiple candidate standard levels for non-Class A
EPSs and has determined that it is technologically feasible to
manufacture
[[Page 56929]]
EPSs at some of these levels because EPSs with energy efficiencies
meeting these levels are currently commercially available.
DOE further determined that standards for non-Class A EPSs could be
economically justified from the perspective of an individual consumer
and from that of the Nation as a whole. For all EPSs that DOE analyzed,
at least one standard level could be set that would reduce the life-
cycle cost (LCC) of ownership for the typical consumer; that is, any
increase in equipment cost resulting from a standard would be more than
offset by energy cost savings.
Standards could also be cost-effective from a national perspective.
The national net present value (NPV) of standards could be as much as
$512 million in 2008$, assuming an annual discount rate of 3 percent.
This forecast considers only the direct financial costs and benefits to
consumers of standards, specifically the increased equipment costs of
EPSs purchased from 2013 to 2042 and the associated energy cost
savings. In its determination analysis, DOE did not monetize or
otherwise characterize any other potential costs and benefits of
standards such as manufacturer impacts or power plant emission
reductions. If the final determination is positive, then such impacts
would be examined in a future analysis of the economic feasibility of
particular standard levels in the context of a standards rulemaking.
DOE's analysis also indicates that standards would result in
significant energy savings--as much as 0.14 quads of energy over 30
years (2013 to 2042). This is equivalent to the annual electricity
needs of 1.1 million U.S. homes.
Further documentation supporting the analyses described in this
notice is contained in a separate technical support document (TSD),
available from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's
Web site at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
This document's information and format are unique to this
determination analysis and do not establish a precedent for future
determination analyses of the Appliance Standards Program. The unique
nature of this document results from the statutory requirement that the
determination be published as a rule (i.e., notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) and final rule). In addition, although Congress,
through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007),
Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007), directed DOE to perform this
analysis, some of the analyses and information contained in this
document were developed earlier as part of the determination analysis
required by EPACT 2005.
A. Background and Legal Authority
Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309)
provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products
Other Than Automobiles. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005)
amended EPCA to require DOE to issue a final rule determining whether
to issue efficiency standards for battery chargers (BCs) and EPSs. DOE
initiated this determination analysis rulemaking in 2006, which
included a scoping workshop on January 24, 2007 at DOE headquarters in
Washington, DC. The determination was under way and on schedule for
issuance by August 8, 2008, as originally required by EPACT 2005.
However, EISA 2007 also amended EPCA by setting efficiency
standards for certain types of EPSs (Class A) and modifying the
statutory provision that directed DOE to perform the determination
analysis (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I), as amended). EISA 2007 removed
BCs from the determination, leaving only EPSs, and changed the amount
of time allotted to complete the determination to 2 years after the
date of EISA 2007's enactment, i.e., by December 19, 2009.
In addition to the existing general definition of EPS, EISA 2007
amended EPCA to define a ``Class A external power supply'' (42 U.S.C.
6291(36)(C)) and set efficiency standards for those products (42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(3)). As amended by EISA 2007, the statute further directs DOE
to publish a final rule by July 1, 2011 to evaluate whether the
standards set for Class A EPSs should be amended and, if so, include
any amended standards as part of that final rule. The statute further
directs DOE to publish a second final rule by July 1, 2015, to again
determine whether the standards in effect should be amended and to
include any amended standards as part of that final rule.
Because Congress has already set standards for Class A EPSs and
separately required DOE to perform two rounds of rulemakings to
consider amending efficiency standards for Class A EPSs, the
determination analysis under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) does not
include these products. Therefore, DOE is interpreting 42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) as a requirement for a determination analysis that
will consider in its scope only EPSs outside of Class A, hence ``non-
Class A EPSs.'' This determination is scheduled for issuance by
December 19, 2009 and is the subject of this notice. The determination
will address whether efficiency standards appear to be warranted for
non-Class A EPSs, i.e., whether it appears that such standards are
technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in
significant conservation of energy (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).
EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA also require DOE to issue a final rule
prescribing energy conservation standards for BCs, if technologically
feasible and economically justified, by July 1, 2011 (42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(II)). This rulemaking has been bundled with the
rulemaking for Class A EPSs, given the related nature of such products
and the fact that these provisions share the same statutory deadline.
DOE initiated the energy conservation standards rulemaking for BCs and
Class A EPSs by publishing a framework document on June 4, 2009, and
holding a public meeting at DOE headquarters on July 16, 2009. If DOE
issues a positive determination for EPSs falling outside of Class A, it
may consider standards for these products within the context of the
energy conservation standards rulemaking for BCs and Class A EPSs
already underway.
In addition to the determination and energy conservation standards
rulemakings, DOE has conducted test procedure rulemakings for BCs and
EPSs. The test procedure for measuring the energy consumption of
single-voltage EPSs is codified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix
Z, ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of
External Power Supplies.'' DOE modified this test procedure, per EISA
2007, to include standby and off modes. DOE proposed a test procedure
for measuring the energy consumption of multiple-voltage EPSs in its
NOPR published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2008. 73 FR 48054.
DOE has set the target date of October 31, 2010 to finalize the test
procedure for multiple-voltage EPSs.
For more information about DOE rulemakings concerning BCs and EPSs,
see the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
B. Scope
The present determination analysis considers only those EPSs
outside of Class A, or non-Class A EPSs. EPCA, as amended by EPACT
2005, defines an EPS. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A).
[[Page 56930]]
EISA 2007 later amended EPCA, inserting a definition for Class A
EPS. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C).
Thus, the determination analysis concerns those devices that fit
the definition of an EPS (from EPACT 2005) but do not fit the
definition of a Class A EPS (from EISA 2007).
Considering the above definitions, DOE identified four types of
power conversion devices on the market to analyze for its determination
on non-Class A EPSs: (1) Multiple-voltage EPSs--EPSs that can provide
multiple output voltages simultaneously; (2) high-power EPSs--EPSs with
nameplate output power greater than 250 watts; (3) medical EPSs--EPSs
that power medical devices and EPSs that are themselves medical
devices; and (4) EPSs for battery chargers (EPSs for BCs)--EPSs that
power the chargers of detachable battery packs or charge the batteries
of products that are fully or primarily motor operated.
Class A EPSs, by definition, may provide only one output voltage at
a time and have nameplate output power no greater than 250 watts.
Multiple-voltage and high-power EPSs fall outside this group. Medical
EPSs and EPSs for battery chargers are specifically excluded from Class
A and can be considered non-Class A EPSs.
DOE considers both EPSs that power medical devices and EPSs that
are themselves medical devices to be non-Class A EPSs. A literal
reading of EPCA would exclude from Class A only those EPSs that are
themselves medical devices. As EPCA states, ``The term `class A
external power supply' does not include any device that requires
Federal Food and Drug Administration listing and approval as a medical
device in accordance with section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360c).'' 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C) However, a
search of FDA's product classification database for ``power supply''
reveals only one EPS that is a medical device--auxiliary power supply
(alternating current (AC) or direct current (DC)) for external
transcutaneous cardiac pacemakers. Furthermore, all EPSs used with
medical devices must meet the special requirements of UL 60601
(Underwriters Laboratories standard for power supplies for medical
devices), discussed further in section 2.2.3 of the TSD. Accordingly,
because the exclusion applies to ``any device'' covered by the FDA's
listing and approval requirements, DOE interprets EPCA to also exclude
from Class A those EPSs that power medical devices. Consistent with
this approach, DOE analyzed those EPSs that power medical devices that
are consumer products for purposes of today's proposed determination.
Lastly, DOE considered EPSs that power the chargers of detachable
battery packs or charge the batteries of products that are fully or
primarily motor operated. DOE refers to these two groups of products
collectively as ``EPSs for BCs.'' Products that are fully or primarily
motor operated include portable rechargeable household appliances such
as handheld vacuums, personal care products such as shavers, and power
tools.
EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, defines a detachable battery as ``a
battery that is (A) contained in a separate enclosure from the product;
and (B) intended to be removed or disconnected from the product for
recharging.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(52)) The phrase ``contained in a separate
enclosure from the product'' appears earlier within the Class A EPS
definition. In this context, the definition limits Class A EPSs to
devices ``contained in a separate physical enclosure from the end-use
product,'' i.e., a separate component outside the physical boundaries
of the end-use consumer product. (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)(IV))
Similarly, when applied to detachable batteries, this phrase can also
be interpreted to mean ``wholly outside the physical boundaries of the
end-use consumer product.'' BCEPS Framework Document, p. 21 (June 4,
2009), available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external_std_2008.html. This is in
contrast to batteries contained in an enclosure wholly or partly inside
the physical boundaries of the end-use consumer product (e.g., inside a
battery compartment).
Further, detachable batteries must be ``intended to be removed or
disconnected from the product for recharging.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(52)(B))
Thus, even if a battery is not contained inside the product, it may not
be considered detachable unless it is also intended to be removed or
disconnected from the product for recharging.
Several popular models of camcorders employ wall adapters that can
be used to power the camcorder and charge its battery. Even though
these batteries are not contained inside the product, it is not
necessary to remove them for charging. Rather, the wall adapter plugs
directly into the camcorder body or into a cradle that accepts the
entire camcorder. Because the batteries do not need to be removed for
recharging, DOE does not consider these batteries detachable.
Accordingly, wall adapters for these camcorders are included in the
Class A EPS definition (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(ii)(II)) and, therefore,
are not analyzed in this determination.
The statute does not provide clear guidance for determining which,
if any, of the devices that power battery-charged products are EPSs and
leaves open the issue of how DOE should classify the wall adapters that
are part of battery charging systems. Because ``external power supply''
has a specific legal meaning, the term ``wall adapter'' is used to
refer to the potentially larger set of external power converters for
consumer products. DOE's initial review of these products indicates
that some of these wall adapters for battery chargers could be
electrically equivalent to the wall adapters that power applications
other than battery chargers. However, while all wall adapters ``convert
household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC
current,'' as stated in the statutory definition (42 U.S.C.
6291(36)(A)), at least some wall adapters for battery chargers also
provide additional charge control functions necessary for battery
charging. These additional functions may add to the cost and power
consumption of the wall adapter. These wall adapters generally are not
interchangeable, but are designed to be components of specific BCs.
DOE is considering adopting one of two approaches relevant to this
determination analysis with respect to when a wall adapter would be
categorized as an EPS. The approaches differ in their scope of coverage
for EPSs. Under the first approach (Approach A), DOE would consider
only those wall adapters that do not provide additional charge control
functions to be EPSs. These EPSs have constant-voltage output that is
electrically equivalent to Class A EPSs. Under the other approach
(Approach D), DOE would consider wall adapters with and without charge
control functions to be EPSs. These include EPSs with constant-voltage
output equivalent to Class A EPSs as well as those that do not have
constant-voltage output, which may indicate the presence of charge
control. The approaches are described in greater detail in section
3.2.3.3 of DOE's framework document for the BC and EPS energy
conservation standards rulemaking (available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external_std_2008.html). Interested parties are encouraged
to refer to the framework document for more detail and provide input to
DOE on the approaches. (Other approaches described in that document are
not used in today's analysis because either they
[[Page 56931]]
would conflict with statutory requirements, i.e., Approach B, or would
be equivalent in scope to Approach A, i.e., Approach C.) DOE will
consider all comments received in its selection of an approach.
The present determination analysis includes only those devices that
are EPSs under Approach A (wall adapters without charge control). Under
Approach A, this draft determination finds that energy efficiency
standards are economically justified, technologically feasible, and
would result in significant energy savings. Based on the data collected
to date, the set of EPSs under Approach A is a subset of EPSs under
Approach D. Thus, DOE believes that were it to adopt the broader
Approach D, the energy savings potential from standards for non-Class A
EPSs would be greater compared to Approach A. DOE seeks comment on
whether Approach A reasonably estimates the minimum amount of
significant energy savings under this analysis.
While the approaches noted above address the question of what is
and is not an EPS, there are additional scoping issues unique to non-
Class A EPSs. In particular, there are four criteria under which an EPS
could be considered non-Class A: (1) Multiple output voltages, (2) high
output power, (3) designed for medical use, and (4) designed for
battery charging. This determination analysis examines EPSs that meet
any one of these criteria, but not those EPSs that meet multiple
criteria. These EPSs remain within the scope of the determination,
however. For instance, this analysis does not evaluate EPSs such as the
Astec Electronics power supply model DPT54-M, which has three
simultaneous output voltages and UL 60601 medical certification,
although it does address EPSs with either multiple output voltages or
medical certification under UL 60601. Based on its review of the
available data, DOE believes that there are few products that fall into
this ``multiple criteria'' category. Accordingly, a separate analysis
for these types of products was not conducted because the energy
savings potential from incorporating these devices into the analysis
would again be greater compared to the analysis under Approach A.
II. Methodology
A. Market Assessment
1. Introduction
To understand the present and future market for non-Class A EPSs,
DOE gathered data on these EPSs and their associated applications. DOE
also examined the industry composition, distribution channels, and
regulatory and voluntary programs for non-Class A EPSs. The market
assessment provides important inputs to the LCC analysis and national
energy savings (NES)/NPV estimates.
This notice is not intended to provide a general background on the
market for all EPSs, but rather to present specific information for
those EPSs outside of Class A. For additional background information on
EPSs in general, see the framework document and the companion draft
technical report published on June 4, 2009.
a. Overview
External power supplies are designed for use with an associated
consumer product. The market for these consumer products drives the
market for EPSs. References to an EPS application refer to the consumer
product that the EPS powers and not the conversion function of the EPS
itself. Energy savings potential for EPSs is thus a function of usage
and sales volume of applications powered by EPSs, in addition to EPS
efficiency.
Because EPSs are typically sold with their end-use application,
shipment data for EPSs alone are not directly available. Therefore, DOE
estimated EPS shipments based on applications known to use them. The
amount of energy an application uses over the course of a year will
directly affect the amount of savings that can be expected by improving
the efficiency of the EPS. The product application determines the power
requirements, usage profile, and load profile of the EPS.
For its market analysis, DOE first identified those applications
known to use non-Class A EPSs. DOE then analyzed shipments and energy
usage data for those applications to calculate shipments and energy
usage of the associated EPSs. DOE considered applications for which
publicly available data exist or for which industry and other
interested parties provided data.
Applications for each of the four types of non-Class A EPS DOE
identified are discussed below.
b. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies
The consumer product market for EPSs with multiple simultaneous
outputs (multiple-voltage EPSs) is limited. For consumer products that
require multiple voltages, most manufacturers indicated that it is more
cost effective to specify a single output EPS and employ local DC-DC
converters located within the application rather than a multiple-
voltage EPS. Multiple-voltage EPSs are commonly used in only two
circumstances:
(1) Low-volume applications, such as lab equipment and product
prototypes, where designing and implementing an internal splitter would
be cost-prohibitive. Because low-volume applications are, by
definition, limited in market size, DOE will not consider EPSs for
these products further.
(2) High-volume applications where space limitations may cause
manufacturers to seek alternatives to an internal power supply with
voltage splitting circuitry.
DOE has identified three consumer product applications that
sometimes use multiple-voltage EPSs: Video game consoles, multi-
function devices (MFDs), and home security systems.
The Xbox 360, manufactured by Microsoft Corporation, is one video
game console that uses a multiple-voltage EPS. This EPS functions much
like the internal power supply of a desktop computer, providing
separate voltage levels for standby, monitoring, and processing
functions. Competing systems such as the Nintendo Wii and Sony
PlayStation 3 use internal power supplies.
Multi-function devices duplicate the functions of some or all of
the following devices: Copiers, printers, scanners, and facsimile
machines. These devices are also commonly referred to as ``all-in-one''
systems or multifunction printers. MFDs eliminate the need to purchase
and maintain multiple pieces of office equipment and typically are used
in small- or home-office settings. A single multiple-voltage EPS design
can be used across multiple MFD models, eliminating the need to design
and build several different internal splitters. Also, using a multiple-
voltage EPS may allow the MFD to have a smaller form factor, which
refers to the physical size of the application.
Security systems in homes may include entry detection, video and
thermal detection, and emergency and fire alert systems. Such equipment
is often used in conjunction with a security subscription through which
a security services company monitors the equipment for the consumer. In
this way, security equipment is distributed and used in a similar
manner to cable set-top boxes and Internet modems provided by
telecommunications companies. In comments submitted to DOE following
the Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure NOPR Public Meeting on
September 12, 2008, the Security Industry Association indicated
[[Page 56932]]
that some of these products may be powered by multiple-voltage EPSs
(Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004. Security Industry Association, No. 7
at p. 2.). However, in a follow-up interview on March 19, 2009, SIA
indicated that the equipment powered by these multiple-voltage EPSs is
limited to fire alarm systems, specifically to power horns and strobe
light control circuitry in commercial buildings, not homes. Based on
this information, DOE did not analyze the multiple-voltage EPSs used to
power security equipment as part of the draft analysis. DOE encourages
interested parties to submit additional data on the use of multiple-
voltage EPSs with home security equipment. DOE also encourages
interested parties to submit information about any other consumer
product applications for multiple-voltage EPSs they are aware of.
c. High Power External Power Supplies
High-power EPSs--those with output power greater than 250 watts--
are rarely used to power consumer products. Internal power supplies are
generally preferred for higher powered applications. Industry experts
give three reasons for this preference. First, internal power supplies
offer increased ventilation options, including fans, vent slats, and
cooling fins, all of which would be difficult to include in most EPS
designs without increasing bulk. Second, most applications that would
require such a high power input will already be large, which means the
increase in volume from the internal power supply would have a
proportionally small effect. Third, power regulation and voltage drop
are much easier to control with an internal supply due to the shorter
transmission distances.
For these reasons, there are few circumstances in which an
appliance uses a high-power EPS rather than an internal power supply.
In fact, many appliances already use internal power supplies at a wide
range of power levels. Major applications for high power internal power
supplies include audio amplifiers, televisions, and computers.
Amateur radio equipment is the only consumer product application
DOE identified as using high-power EPSs. (Other applications identified
include laboratory testing equipment and other low-volume applications
that were not considered for analysis.) Amateur radio operators
typically use high-power EPSs when they need to power multiple
components simultaneously and transmit at output powers between 100 and
200 watts. (Interview with the with the American Radio Relay League on
August 18, 2008.) Operators typically use an EPS with nameplate output
power greater than 250 watts to allow for a cushion should equipment
requiring additional power be added to the set-up. This is often the
case for portable transmission setups, such as those used at amateur
radio fairs or in emergency situations. In both cases, the need to
power multiple components while maintaining sufficient transmission
power requires an EPS with a suitably high output.
However, in home or office use, most radio operators use a more
standardized setup. In this environment, most amateur radio equipment,
including transmission equipment, is designed to run directly off mains
power, using internal power supplies. In addition, when transmitting at
higher power, a radio operator will likely use a separate signal
amplifier that contains an internal power supply. Therefore, EPSs are
seldom used in fixed transmission setups.
d. External Power Supplies for Medical Devices
EPSs are used to power a wide variety of medical devices, from
laboratory test equipment to home care devices. As discussed further in
section 2.2.3 of the TSD, EPSs are required by the Federal Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) to meet labeling, safety and durability
requirements such as those included under UL 60601. To maintain
certification, the medical device manufacturer must always use the same
components in the device, including those used in the EPS. Therefore,
once a device is certified, its EPS cannot be exchanged for a different
EPS model without re-certification. An EPS model must also use the same
individual components for the entirety of the production cycle. These
requirements tend to lengthen the design cycles for medical device EPSs
because after being designed they must be registered, which can take up
to 2 years. Despite long design cycles, there are already medical
device EPSs on the market that meet the energy efficiency standards for
Class A EPSs that took effect on July 1, 2008. (SL Power Web site
(Accessed October 30, 2008) http://www.slpower.com/ProductDetails.aspx?CategoryID=46.)
For this determination, DOE examined medical devices designed for
in-home use that employ EPSs, specifically sleep therapy devices,
nebulizers, portable oxygen concentrators, blood pressure monitors, and
ventilators. EPSs for these medical devices exhibit a broad range of
nameplate output powers, similar to those of Class A EPSs.
Sleep therapy devices include continuous positive airway pressure
(CPAP), bi-level positive airway pressure (biPAP), automatic positive
airway pressure (autoPAP), and similar machines used to treat
obstructive sleep apnea. Some sleep therapy devices are battery
powered, some plug directly into mains, and others are powered by EPSs,
which typically have nameplate output power of approximately 30 to 35
watts. (Schirm, Jeffrey. Personal Communication. Philips Electronics,
NV. Phone call with Matthew Jones, D&R International. December 15,
2008.)
Nebulizers administer liquid medication as a mist that can be
inhaled into the lungs. They are commonly used to treat asthma and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The EPSs that provide
power to nebulizers tend to have nameplate output power in the range of
10 to 20 watts. Of the 26 nebulizer models DOE identified, only four
employ EPSs; the remainder use internal power supplies. (Models using
EPSs include the PARI Trek S, Omron Comp Air Elite Model NE-C30, Omron
Micro Air Model NE-U22VAC, and John Bunn Nano-Sonic Nebulizer Model
JB0112-066. An EPS is an option for Omron Micro Air, which is typically
powered with primary batteries. The EPS cannot charge these batteries.
The other nebulizers are sold with an EPS to power the product but
offer rechargeable battery packs as an optional accessory.)
Portable oxygen concentrators absorb nitrogen from the air to
provide oxygen to the user at higher concentrations, eliminating the
need for oxygen tanks. These devices typically use higher powered wall
adapters ranging from 90 to 200 watts. The wall adapters are used to
charge batteries, but can also operate the device directly.
Blood pressure monitors are used by those who must take frequent
readings of their blood pressure. Most digital units operate with
primary batteries; however, some units are also sold with an EPS or
offer an optional EPS. (The Omron IntelliSense blood pressure meter,
model HEM780, has an EPS rated at 6V and 500 mA but can also be powered
by primary batteries (``AA,'' ``AAA,'' ``C,'' among others).) The EPSs
for blood pressure monitors that DOE identified have a nameplate output
power of 3 watts.
Though most commonly found in hospitals, ventilators are also
available for home use. While most models have internal power supplies,
some use EPSs with output power in the range of approximately 100 to
150 watts.
[[Page 56933]]
e. External Power Supplies for Certain Battery Chargers
This group is composed of EPSs for two types of battery chargers:
(1) Battery chargers used to charge detachable battery packs, and (2)
battery chargers that charge the batteries of products that are fully
or primarily motor operated. The term ``detachable battery'' means a
battery that is (A) contained in a separate enclosure from the product;
and (B) intended to be removed or disconnected from the product for
recharging. DOE's interpretation of ``detachable battery'' is explained
in section I.B.
Under its interpretation of the term ``detachable battery,'' DOE
has not identified any non-motor operated applications with an EPS that
powers the charger of a detachable battery pack. DOE invites interested
parties to submit any information they have about applications of this
type that use non-Class A EPSs.
DOE identified a number of motor-operated, battery-charged products
that use wall adapters. The applications DOE identified can be divided
into two groups: rechargeable power tools and cordless rechargeable
household appliances. The latter can be further subdivided into kitchen
appliances (e.g., can openers and electric knives), personal care
appliances (e.g., electric toothbrushes, shavers, and trimmers), and
floor care appliances (e.g., handheld vacuums and robotic vacuums).
Although there are many grades of cordless-rechargeable power
tools--ranging from entry-level, do-it-yourself (DIY) tools intended
for occasional homeowner use to high-end tools designed for frequent
use by professionals--all can be purchased and used by consumers and,
thus, are considered consumer products. However, it appears that very
few, if any, professional-grade power tools use wall adapters. Instead,
the charging base is plugged directly into mains. Thus, DOE only
considered DIY tools.
DOE has included in the present determination analysis only those
devices that are EPSs under Approach A (only those wall adapters that
do not provide additional charge control functions are EPSs), with the
understanding that the set of EPSs under Approach A is a subset of EPSs
under Approach D (wall adapters with charge control functions are also
EPSs). Thus, the analysis presents the minimum level of expected energy
savings from a potential standard for these products. If DOE were to
later adopt Approach D (i.e., include coverage of wall adapters with
charge control functions), the energy savings potential from standards
for non-Class A EPSs would either increase or remain unchanged, but
would not decrease below the current analysis' projected energy savings
potential.
2. Shipments, Efficiency Distributions, and Market Growth
a. Overview
Based on its market analysis, DOE estimates that 11.3 million non-
Class A EPSs are sold in the United States each year. For the national
impact analysis, DOE also created forecasts of market size to 2032, the
last year of sales in the analysis. Table II.1 summarizes DOE's
estimates of market size and growth rate for each type of non-Class A
EPS. These estimates are discussed in detail in the subsections that
follow.
Table II.1--Market Size and Growth Prospects for Non-Class A External
Power Supplies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market size
in 2008 Annual growth
Type of external power supply (shipments rate
per year) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for Multifunction 5,085,000 1
Devices................................
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for Xbox 360...... 4,000,000 3
High-Power EPSs......................... 3,000 0
Medical EPSs............................ 1,450,000 3
EPSs for Cordless Rechargeable Floor 297,000 1
Care Appliances *......................
EPSs for Cordless Rechargeable Power 499,400 2
Tools *................................
-------------------------------
Total............................... 11,334,400 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE estimates that a maximum of 5 percent of the wall adapters that
ship with products of this type are EPSs under Approach A.
Source: DOE estimated long-run growth rates by examining published
shipments growth estimates (both past and projected) from the Consumer
Electronics Association (CEA) (``U.S. Consumer Electronics Sales and
Forecasts 2004-2009'', Consumer Electronics Association, July 2008),
Appliance Magazine (``31st Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance
Industry'', Appliance Magazine, September 2008) the Darnell Group
(External AC-DC Power Supplies Worldwide Forecasts, Third Edition.
Special estimate for North America, Darnell Group. May 2008), and
others.
In addition to assessing the size of the market for each EPS type,
DOE also assessed the efficiency of those EPSs. DOE defined four
candidate standard levels (CSLs) for each EPS type and described market
distribution in terms of efficiency across those levels (section
II.C.4) DOE also created two base-case forecasts of efficiency
distribution to 2032. These efficiency distributions describe the
market in the absence of a standard and are required as a point of
comparison in the national impact analysis. DOE's characterizations of
present-day efficiency and its efficiency forecasts are also discussed
in detail in the following subsections.
b. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies
EPSs for Multifunction Devices
In field research, DOE found that Hewlett-Packard (HP) manufactures
all those MFDs that currently use multiple-voltage EPSs. In August
2008, DOE visited five retail outlets to determine which MFDs use
multiple-voltage EPSs. DOE inspected 87 unique MFD models for sale at
Best Buy, Circuit City, Office Depot, Staples, and Target. Of these 87
models, 16 used multiple-voltage EPSs; the remainder either had
internal power supplies or used single-voltage EPSs. Many of these
models were among the top-selling MFDs on Amazon.com, BestBuy.com, and
CircuitCity.com.
In a written comment DOE received in October 2008 in connection
with its Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure rulemaking, HP indicated
that it plans to phase out multiple-voltage EPSs. It stated, ``About
45% of HP's total current usage of external-style power supplies is
made up [multiple-voltage output power supplies (MVOPS)]. HP is
planning to eliminate the use of MVOPS by early 2010. So our product
designs will consist entirely of [single-voltage output power
supplies].'' (Comment from Hewlett-Packard dated October 29, 2008.
Docket Number EERE-2008-BT-
[[Page 56934]]
TP-0004. Comment 30.) Nevertheless, DOE is including multiple-
voltage EPSs for MFDs in its analysis as some MFDs may continue to ship
with multiple-voltage EPSs after 2010, or new applications with similar
power requirements may be introduced.
Based on the available data, DOE estimated that 5,085,000 multiple-
voltage EPSs for MFDs shipped for sale in the United States in 2008.
Using data from Gartner Dataquest and the Consumer Electronics
Association, DOE estimated that about 20 million inkjet printers and
MFDs shipped in 2008. (Gartner Dataquest. ``Gartner Says United States
Printer and MFP Shipments Declined 4 Percent in Second Quarter of
2006.'' August 2006. Last accessed February 27, 2009, http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=496184&format=print.; Consumer
Electronics Association. U.S. Consumer Sales and Forecasts, 2004-2009.
July 2008. CEA: Arlington, VA.) According to Gartner Dataquest, HP
controlled 56.4 percent of the inkjet printer/MFD market in the second
quarter of 2006. DOE assumed HP's market share remained unchanged in
2008, resulting in shipments of 11.3 million HP inkjet printers and
MFDs that year. As HP claimed that 45 percent of its EPSs are multiple-
voltage EPSs, DOE estimated that 5,085,000 multiple-voltage EPSs for
use with MFDs (45 percent of 11.3 million) were shipped in 2008. Given
HP's stated intent to discontinue use of multiple-voltage EPSs, DOE
assumed in its model a modest market growth rate of 1 percent annually.
DOE defined four CSLs for multiple-voltage EPSs for MFDs (Table
II.2) DOE tested two multiple-voltage EPSs for MFDs, and neither unit
tested above CSL 0. Thus, DOE assumed that all units on the market
today are at CSL 0.
Table II.2--Efficiency of Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies for MFDs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
active mode Maximum no- Market share
Candidate standard level (CSL) efficiency load power (percent) Shipments
(percent) (W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Current Level................................ 81 0.50 100 5,085,000
1. Mid Level.................................... 86 0.45 0 0
2. High Level................................... 90 0.31 0 0
3. Higher Level................................. 91 0.20 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
All Levels.................................. .............. .............. 100 5,085,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated the market distribution across CSLs using test data from two units.
DOE examined two base case efficiency forecasts in its national
impact analysis. In the first, efficiency does not improve during the
period of analysis. In the second, which considered spillover effects
from existing Class A EPS standards, non-Class A EPSs for MFDs
gradually become more efficient throughout the period of analysis, with
three-quarters of the market still at CSL 0 and the remainder at CSL 1
in 2032, the last year of sales.
EPSs for the Xbox 360
The NPD group estimates that since its release of the Xbox 360 in
November 2005, more than 14 million units have been sold in the United
States at an annual average of 4 million units. (NPD Group, reported
from http://www.joystiq.com archives, last accessed February 28, 2009.)
Because demand for a specific video game console is generally driven by
novelty, the majority of shipments for a given model tend to occur
early in its production cycle, with shipments generally decreasing over
time as newer competing consoles or next-generation consoles become
available. Therefore, DOE assumed a market size of 4 million units in
the base year.
The market for video game consoles, including the Xbox 360, has
grown considerably in recent years, and analysts expect the market to
continue growing annually at between 5 percent (``U.S. Consumer
Electronics Sales and Forecasts 2004-2009,'' Consumer Electronics
Association, July 2008) and 10 percent (``External AC-DC Power Supplies
Worldwide Forecasts, Third Edition.'' Special estimate for North
America by the Darnell Group. May 2008.) Because the market for the
Xbox 360 represents a subset of the console market, DOE developed a
conservative growth forecast for this market of 3 percent annual
growth.
DOE defined four CSLs for multiple-voltage EPSs for the Xbox 360
(Table II.3). An estimated 95 percent of units on the market today--
those units sold with the Xbox 360--have average active-mode efficiency
of 86 percent and consume 0.4 watts in no-load mode. Replacement units,
which have poorer energy performance, comprise the remaining 5 percent
of the market.
Table II.3--Efficiency of Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies for Xbox 360
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
active mode Maximum no- Market share
Candidate standard level (CSL) efficiency load power W (percent) Shipments
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Generic Replacement.......................... 82 12.33 5 200,000
1. Manufacturer Provided........................ 86 0.40 95 3,800,000
2. EU Qualified Level........................... 86 0.30 0 0
3. Higher Level................................. 89 0.30 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
All Levels.................................. .............. .............. 100 4,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimates are based on test data and market share of generic replacements for the Xbox 360 EPS.
[[Page 56935]]
DOE examined two base-case efficiency forecasts in its national
impact analysis. In the first, efficiency does not improve during the
period of analysis. In the second, EPSs for the Xbox 360 gradually
become more efficient. No units remain at CSL 0 in 2018, the sixth year
after the standard is assumed to take effect. By 2032, one-quarter of
the market has moved up to CSL 2, while the remainder is at CSL 1.
c. High Output Power External Power Supplies
Due to the highly specialized and relatively uncommon application
of high power external power supplies, only about 30,000 units are in
use. (Communication with the American Radio Relay League (August 2008).
Despite the inherent limitations of high-power EPSs and the increasing
use of internal power supplies for home amateur radio equipment setups,
DOE expects the market for high-power EPSs to remain level throughout
the analysis period based on input from the Amateur Radio Relay League.
Given an average lifetime of 10 years and assuming that the same number
of new units is put into service each year that is taken out of
service, it follows that approximately 3,000 new units are put into
service each year. (DOE interview with manufacturer, September 15,
2008.)
Table II.4 shows the four CSLs DOE defined for high-power EPSs.
Line frequency EPSs account for an estimated 60 percent of the market;
switched-mode EPSs comprise the remaining 40 percent. Line frequency
EPSs historically have been preferred over switched-mode EPSs for
amateur radio applications. However, they are slowly losing market
share to switched-mode EPSs, which are considerably more efficient and
much less expensive.
Table II.4--Efficiency of High Power External Power Supplies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
active mode Maximum no- Market share
Candidate standard level (CSL) efficiency load power (percent) Shipments
(percent) (W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Line Frequency............................... 62 15.43 60 1,800
1. Switched Mode--Low........................... 81 6.01 40 1,200
2. Switched Mode--Mid........................... 84 1.50 0 0
3. Switched Mode--High.......................... 85 0.50 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
All Levels.................................. .............. .............. 100 3,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimates are based on test data and manufacturer interviews.
In the first base-case efficiency forecast in its national impact
analysis, efficiency does not improve during the period of analysis. In
the second forecast, increased consumer preference for switched-mode
high-power EPSs and spillover effects from existing Class A EPS
standards lead to efficiency improvements in high-power EPSs. In this
second forecast, high-power EPSs at CSL 2 are introduced in 2010 and
gradually become more efficient throughout the period of analysis. By
2032, 38 percent of units remain at CSL 0, 40 percent are at CSL 1, and
the remaining 22 percent have reached CSL 2.
d. External Power Supplies for Medical Devices
DOE examined those medical devices that are used in home-care
settings and employ an EPS. An estimated 1.45 million of these devices
shipped in 2008. (External AC-DC Power Supplies Worldwide Forecasts,
Third Edition. Special estimate for North America by the Darnell Group.
May 2008.) This market is expected to grow at an average rate of 11.4
percent per year between 2008 and 2013. The reasons for this growth are
numerous. Over this period, the population aged 65 and older is
expected to grow at 2.5 percent per year, compared to 0.75 percent per
year for the population under age 65. (U.S. Population Projections.''
U.S. Census Bureau. 2008.) Demand for home care devices is increasing
as the high cost of hospital stays encourages home care. (``DME Market
of the Future.'' Home Care Magazine. July 1, 2000.) Patients' demands
for greater portability are also driving an increase in the number of
medical devices that can operate on battery power, some of which
require wall adapters. (``Oxygen Concentrator Market Opportunities,
Strategies, and Forecasts, 2005 to 2011.'' Wintergreen Research. 2005.)
Finally, in some cases, medical device manufacturers can bring new
products to market faster by using an EPS. (Personal communication.
Phone call with Marco Gonzalez, Director of Supplier Management for
Power. Avnet Inc. September 30, 2008.) This last trend in particular is
increasing the number of medical devices using EPSs with output power
greater than 90 watts. DOE forecasts the long term growth rate of
medical device EPSs for consumer products to be 3 percent per year.
Additionally, the market for sleep therapy devices shows
significant potential for growth. Based on available studies, DOE
estimates that approximately 20 million Americans experience a moderate
form of obstructive sleep apnea, which causes the afflicted to stop
breathing momentarily during sleep. (``What is Sleep Apnea?'' National
Heart Lung and Blood Institute Diseases and Conditions Index. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/SleepApnea/SleepApnea_WhatIs.html.) As the number of diagnoses of obstructive sleep apnea
increases, demand for sleep therapy devices, one of the most common
treatments for the condition, increases as well. DOE estimates that
approximately 50 percent of sleep therapy devices, or about 1 million
new units annually, are powered by EPSs. (Schirm, Jeffrey. Personal
communication. Philips Electronics, NV. Phone call with Matthew Jones,
D&R International. December 15, 2008.)
Nebulizers are commonly used to treat asthma and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). An estimated 22 million Americans
have been diagnosed with asthma, and an additional 12 million Americans
have been diagnosed with COPD. (``What is Asthma?'' National Heart Lung
and Blood Institute Diseases and Conditions Index. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Asthma/Asthma_WhatIs.html.;
``What is COPD?'' National Heart Lung and Blood Institute Diseases and
Conditions Index. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Copd/Copd_WhatIs.html.) The prevalence of COPD is increasing as the
population ages. The incidence of asthma has also increased over time.
A June 2005 report, ``U.S. Nebulizers and Markets,'' indicates that
portable nebulizers, which are more likely to
[[Page 56936]]
employ EPSs, have taken market share from non-portable units. (``U.S.
Nebulizers and Markets.'' Frost & Sullivan. June, 2005.) From the
available data, DOE estimates shipments of nebulizers to be 3 million
units per year. However, DOE observed only a few examples that use
EPSs. Accordingly, DOE assumes 15 percent of nebulizers, or 450,000
units per year, employ an EPS.
DOE did not consider the remaining three applications--ventilators,
blood pressure monitors, and portable oxygen concentrators--further in
the determination analysis. Very few ventilators or blood pressure
monitors employ EPSs. Due to time constraints, DOE did not analyze or
develop cost-efficiency curves for medical EPSs with high output power,
so portable oxygen concentrators also were not included in the
analysis. DOE may examine these products as part of a possible future
standards rulemaking for medical EPSs.
DOE defined four CSLs for medical EPSs (Table II.5). DOE believes
that roughly 66 percent of medical EPSs sold into the market today meet
the Federal standard for Class A EPSs and could be labeled according to
the international efficiency marking protocol with a ``IV''. The
international efficiency marking protocol, initiated by the ENERGY STAR
program and adopted by the U.S., Australia, China and Europe, provides
a system for power supply manufacturers to designate the minimum
efficiency performance of an external power supply, so that finished
product manufacturers and government representatives can easily
determine a unit's efficiency. Under this protocol manufacturers place
a roman numeral from I (less efficient) to V (more efficient) on an EPS
that corresponds to the EPS's efficiency. For instance, the mark of
``IV'' corresponds to the efficiency of the EISA 2007 standard. More
information on the protocol can be found on the ENERGY STAR Web site
at: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/International_Efficiency_Marking_Protocol.pdf.
DOE based its view regarding the ability of medical EPSs to satisfy
current Federal Class A standards enacted by Congress on available test
results and its understanding that SL Power, a leading manufacturer of
medical EPSs, is designing its EPSs for medical devices to meet the
standard for Class A EPSs. Competing medical EPS manufacturers such as
Elpac and GlobTek are also beginning to offer EPSs that meet the Class
A standard. From this information, DOE assumes that 17 percent of units
are less efficient and that the remaining 17 percent of units are more
efficient.
Table II.5--Efficiency of Medical External Power Supplies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
active mode Maximum no- Market share
Candidate standard level (CSL) efficiency load power W (percent) Shipments
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Less than the II Mark........................ 66 0.56 17 246,500
1. Meets the IV Mark............................ 76 0.50 66 957,000
2. Meets the V Mark............................. 80 0.30 17 246,500
3. Higher Level................................. 85 0.15 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
All Levels.................................. .............. .............. 100 1,450,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated shipment distributions based on test results from six units.
In the first base-case efficiency forecast in the national impact
analysis, efficiency does not improve during the period of analysis. In
the second forecast, additional manufacturers adopt Class A EPS
standards for medical device EPSs, which are projected to become
gradually more efficient throughout the period of analysis. By 2032, 5
percent of units remain at CSL 0, 54 percent of the market is at CSL 1,
and the remaining 41 percent of units are at CSL 2.
e. External Power Supplies for Certain Battery Chargers
As noted above, DOE identified several battery-powered applications
that could potentially use non-Class A EPSs. Many of these applications
were excluded from further consideration because DOE's analysis
indicated they accounted for only a trivial amount of non-Class A EPS
energy consumption. Battery-powered kitchen appliances were excluded
because only a small number of units are sold annually. Personal care
products were excluded because wall adapters used to power these
products typically incorporate battery-charging circuitry and are
unlikely to be EPSs under Approach A. Furthermore, personal care
products that employ EPSs spend the vast majority of their time
unplugged and stowed. (Comments on the Framework Document for Battery
Chargers and External Power Supplies (74 FR 26816). Philips Electronics
(Philips, No. 22 at p. 3).) Lawn mowers and yard trimmers were excluded
because those models that have wall adapters are unlikely to be EPSs
under Approach A. However, DOE did include two of these applications in
the determination analysis: Floor care appliances and power tools.
Floor Care Appliances
DOE estimated that almost 6.5 million cordless rechargeable floor
care appliances shipped in 2007. (Based on estimates of all stick
vacuum and handheld vacuum shipments in ``31st Annual Portrait of the
U.S. Appliance Industry,'' Appliance Magazine, September 2008.) DOE
further estimates that approximately 90 percent or 5.9 million of those
units use wall adapters. (Wayne Morris. Personal Communication.
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Letter to Victor Petrolati
(DOE) and Michael Scholand (Navigant Consulting). August 11, 2006.) DOE
lacks reliable data to determine what fraction of these wall adapters
provide constant voltage and are therefore EPSs. In the absence of
reliable data, DOE's preliminary estimate is that a maximum of 5
percent of these wall adapters, or 297,000 units per year, are EPSs
(see Table II.6). DOE welcomes input on the accuracy of these
estimates.
[[Page 56937]]
Table II.6--Annual Shipments of Floor Care Appliances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cordless rechargeable units
-----------------------------------------------
With wall adapter
Type of floor care appliance Total -------------------------------
Total Without charge
Total control (EPS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handheld Vacuums................................ 5,580,000 3,683,000 3,315,000 166,000
Stick Vacuums................................... 4,500,000 1,800,000 1,620,000 81,000
Robotic Vacuums................................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 50,000
=================
All Types................................... 11,080,000 6,483,000 5,935,000 297,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the stable market for floor care appliances, improvements
in battery technology and the greater adoption of robotic vacuums may
enable growth in the cordless rechargeable segment of the market.
(``Robot Home Vacuum Cleaning, Cooking, Pool Cleaning, and Lawn Mowing
Market Strategy, Market Shares, and Market Forecasts, 2008-2014.''
Electronics.ca Publications. January 2008.) Thus, DOE forecasts 1
percent annual growth in the size of the market for cordless
rechargeable floor care appliances.
DOE defined four CSLs for EPSs that power the BCs of cordless
rechargeable floor care appliances (Table II.7). Based on test data
from 12 EPS units, DOE believes that three-quarters of EPSs for floor
care appliances sold today meet or exceed the Federal standard for
Class A EPSs and could be labeled according to the international
efficiency marking protocol with a ``IV'' or ``V.'' DOE assumes that 8
percent of these units are somewhat less efficient, but could still be
labeled with a ``II,'' while the remaining 17 percent of units are even
less efficient.
Table II.7--Efficiency of External Power Supplies for Cordless Rechargeable Floor Care Appliances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
active mode Maximum no- Market share
Candidate standard level (CSL) efficiency load power (percent) Shipments
(percent) (W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Less than the II Mark........................ 24 1.85 17 50,490
1. Meets the II Mark............................ 45 0.75 8 23,760
2. Meets the IV Mark............................ 55 0.50 58 172,260
3. Meets the V Mark............................. 66 0.30 17 50,490
---------------------------------------------------------------
All Levels.................................. .............. .............. 100 297,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated market distributions based on test data of 12 Class A EPSs.
In the first base-case efficiency forecast in the national impact
analysis, efficiency does not improve during the period of analysis. In
the second forecast, EPSs for BCs that power cordless rechargeable
floor care appliances gradually become more efficient throughout the
period of analysis. By 2032, 5 percent of units remain at CSL 0, 20
percent of units are at CSL 1, 52 percent of units are at CSL 2, and
the remaining 23 percent of units are at CSL 3.
DIY Power Tools
DOE estimates that 499,400 wall adapters without charge control
(EPSs) are sold annually for use with rechargeable power tools. This is
a preliminary estimate based on the assumptions shown in Table II.8. As
noted above, professional tools, which DOE assumed account for 50
percent of shipments, do not employ wall adapters. The remaining 50
percent, the DIY tools, can be divided into those with a detachable
battery and those with an integral battery. DOE assumed that the former
account for 30 percent and the latter 20 percent of the market. Based
on data obtained from the Power Tool Institute, DOE estimated that 80
percent of DIY tools with detachable batteries and 100 percent of DIY
tools with integral batteries employed wall adapters. DOE's preliminary
estimate is that a maximum of 5 percent of those 9,990,000 wall
adapters lack charge control and, thus, are considered EPSs under
Approach A.
Table II.8--Shipments of Cordless Rechargeable Power Tools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wall adapter
Percent of Annual unit With wall With wall without charge Wall adapter
Type of power tool shipments shipments adapter adapter control without charge
(percent) (percent) control
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professional............................................ 50 11,350,000 0 .............. .............. 0
DIY with Detachable Battery............................. 30 6,810,000 80 5,450,000 5 272,400
DIY with Integral Battery............................... 20 4,540,000 100 4,540,000 5 227,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tools........................................... 100 22,700,000 .............. 9,990,000 .............. 499,400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56938]]
According to forecasts from the Darnell Group, the market for
cordless rechargeable power tools will continue to grow at an average
annual rate of 10.6 percent until 2013. This growth is attributed to a
falling cost for increasingly powerful and flexible tools. DOE believes
that short-term growth will be tempered by the slowdown in the
construction and remodeling industries. Given these factors, DOE
estimates long-term shipments growth of 2 percent per year.
DOE defined four CSLs for EPSs that power the BCs of cordless
rechargeable power tools (Table II.9). Based on test data from 12 EPS
units, DOE believes that three-quarters of power tool EPSs sold into
the market today meet or exceed the Federal standard for Class A EPSs
and could be labeled according to the international efficiency marking
protocol with a ``IV'' or ``V.'' DOE assumes that 8 percent of units
are somewhat less efficient, but could still be labeled with a ``II,''
while the remaining 17 percent of units are even less efficient.
Table II.9--Efficiency of External Power Supplies for Rechargeable Power Tools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
active mode Maximum no- Market share
Candidate standard level (CSL) efficiency load power (W) (percent) Shipments
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Less than the II Mark........................ 38 1.85 17 84,898
1. Meets the II Mark............................ 56 0.75 8 39,952
2. Meets the IV Mark............................ 64 0.50 17 84,898
3. Meets the V Mark............................. 72 0.30 58 289,652
---------------------------------------------------------------
All Levels.................................. .............. .............. 100 499,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated market distributions based on test data of 12 EPSs.
In the first base-case efficiency forecast in the national impact
analysis, efficiency does not improve during the period of analysis. In
the second forecast, the less efficient EPSs for BCs that power
cordless rechargeable power tools gradually become more efficient
throughout the period of analysis. By 2032, 5 percent of units remain
at CSL 0 and the market for units at CSL 1 increases to 20 percent.
EPSs at CSL 2 and CSL 3 continue to comprise 17 percent and 58 percent
of the market, respectively.
3. Product Lifetimes
a. Overview
DOE considers the lifetime of an EPS to be from the moment it is
purchased for end-use up until the time when it is permanently retired
from service. Because the typical EPS is purchased for use with a
single associated application, DOE assumes that the EPS will remain in
service for as long as the application does. High-power EPSs are the
exception, as they are purchased separately, not as part of another
end-use consumer product. Table II.10 shows the values for EPS lifetime
that DOE used in its draft analysis. Where there are multiple
applications with different lifetimes for a single type of EPS, DOE
calculated a weighted-average lifetime for that EPS type using the
applications' shipment volumes as weights. Additional detail on each
EPS type is given in the subsections below. DOE seeks comments on its
assumptions for product lifetime.
Table II.10--Lifetime of External Power Supplies by Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Type of EPS lifetime
years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for MFDs............................. 5
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for Xbox 360......................... 5
High-Power EPSs............................................ 10
Medical EPSs............................................... 8
Wall Adapters for Certain Battery Chargers................. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimates are based on numerous sources. See subsections below for
detail.
b. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies
For the Xbox 360, DOE assumed an average console lifetime of 5
years, which is roughly the time between console generations. While
consoles, especially modern consoles, may have extremely long
functional lifetimes, this may differ significantly from the length of
time they will actually be used. When a new console is introduced, the
industry stops developing and releasing new games for that console's
predecessor. Consumers then begin retiring the older system in favor of
the new one. Thus, while the console may in fact remain functional, it
will no longer remain in use.
Based on availability dates for video game consoles from the
current leaders in the console market (Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft),
DOE determined an average period of 5 years between generations of
consoles. Table II.11 lists these consoles by manufacturer. In each
line of consoles, DOE assumed that the effective run of a console ended
upon release of the next generation of console. In many cases, the
older consoles are still available for purchase, and some overlap will
occur, as consumers continue to use older systems. However, DOE
anticipates that within 2 years of release, the majority of consumers
will prefer to use newer consoles. Therefore, DOE considers an estimate
of 5 years to be a suitable value for the average effective lifetime
for video game consoles, including the Xbox 360 and any subsequent
console that may use a non-Class A EPS.
Table II.11--Video Game Console Release Dates by Manufacturer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North American
Manufacturer Console release date Years until subsequent release
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nintendo........................... Nintendo.............. 1985 6.
Super Nintendo........ 1991 5.
Nintendo 64........... 1996 5.
Game Cube............. 2001 5.
[[Page 56939]]
Wii................... 2006 Currently available.
Sony............................... Playstation........... 1995 5.
Playstation 2......... 2000 6.
Playstation 3......... 2006 Currently available.
Microsoft.......................... Xbox.................. 2001 4.
Xbox 360.............. 2005 Currently available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: http://www.thegameconsole.com/; http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/video/hov/.
In a recent interview, Robbie Bach, President of Entertainment and
Devices Division at Microsoft, stated that, ``The life cycle for this
generation of consoles--and I'm not just talking about Xbox, I'd
include Wii and PS3 as well--is probably going to be a little longer
than previous generations.'' (http://xbox.joystiq.com/2009/01/12/xbox-360-life-cycle-to-be-a-little-longer-than-previous-generat) It is
unclear whether this statement would apply only to this particular
generation of consoles, or to all future console development cycles
generally. In light of this uncertainty, DOE considers 5 years to be an
appropriate estimate for console lifetime.
Multifunction devices are also assumed to have an average useful
lifetime of 5 years, according to Appliance Magazine. (``31st Annual
Portrait of the U.S. Appliance Industry,'' Appliance Magazine,
September 2008.)
c. High Output Power External Power Supplies
As described above, DOE normally calculates the life of an EPS
based on the end-use application that the EPS is intended to power.
High-power EPSs, however, are sold separately from their end-use
applications. DOE cannot use the lifetime of the end-use application as
a proxy, as the EPS may power different and multiple applications.
Therefore, DOE based the lifetime of these EPSs on the functional
lifetime of the EPS itself. Based on input from industry experts, DOE
estimates that these EPSs have an average functional lifetime of 10
years. (Based on interviews conducted with the American Radio Relay
League (August 2008) and Astron (December 2008).)
d. External Power Supplies for Medical Devices
DOE assumed an average lifetime of 8 years for medical device EPSs.
According to a representative of SL Power, medical devices in general
have an average lifetime of 11 years. (Tim Cassidy, SL Power. Committee
Workshop before the California Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission meeting transcript. 1/30/06 California Energy
Commission.) However, this determination analysis focused on medical
devices for use in home care settings, which generally have shorter
lifetimes. Medicare guidelines state that durable medical equipment
must have a lifetime of at least 5 years before a replacement is
eligible to receive reimbursement. (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services. CMS Manual System Pub. 100-02 Medicare Benefit Policy,
Transmittal 30, Change Request 3693. February 18, 2005.) The length of
product warranties and comments from users in online discussion forums
suggest that sleep therapy devices can last 7 to 12 years before
replacement is necessary. (American Sleep Apnea Association. Apnea
Support Forum discussion amongst users on sleep therapy device
lifetimes. January 25, 2007. http://www.apneasupport.org/about8124.html.) Given the similarities in form and function, DOE
assumes nebulizers have a comparable lifespan.
e. External Power Supplies for Certain Battery Chargers
Based on input from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
and the Power Tool Institute, DOE estimated an average lifetime of 5
years for EPSs for battery chargers for floor care appliances and DIY
power tools. (Data for floor care products from ``31st Annual Portrait
of the U.S. Appliance Industry,'' Appliance Magazine, September 2008.
Data for power tools courtesy of the Power Tool Institute.)
4. Distribution Channels and Markups
In the LCC, payback period (PBP), and national impacts analyses,
DOE compared the energy cost savings from standards with changes in
purchase price due to increases in initial cost resulting from
standards. DOE estimated the incremental consumer cost associated with
setting a standard at CSLs 1-4.
To obtain end-user (consumer) product prices, DOE started by
estimating the efficiency-related materials cost (ERMC) for each CSL.
See section II.B.5 for a discussion of this cost. DOE marked up these
costs to obtain factory price or manufacturer selling price (MSP)
estimates, and then studied the distribution value chain for EPSs
moving from manufacturer to end-user. From that analysis, which
included volume estimates and typical markups applied by actors in the
distribution chain, DOE calculated a manufacturer-to-retail markup to
convert MSP estimates to retail price estimates. DOE then applied a
sales tax estimate to the retail price estimates to arrive at end-user
product prices.
Consumer product manufacturers, or original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs), initiate the manufacture of most non-Class A EPSs. An OEM
contracts with an EPS manufacturer to supply an EPS that meets the
requirements of the OEM's consumer product. The EPS manufacturer then
designs and assembles the device from component parts (e.g.,
transformers, diodes, capacitors, semiconductors) made by various
component manufacturers. The completed EPS is then sent to the OEM to
be packaged and sold. While this process may be initially more
expensive than using stock, off-the-shelf EPSs, OEMs prefer it since
the EPS will then exactly fit the requirements of the intended
application and the up-front design costs can be amortized over a large
volume of sales. (Collon Lee. Personal Communication. Astec Power,
Carlsbad, CA. February 16, 2006.) In addition, due to the special
requirements of battery chargers and the design and registration
process for medical devices, stock EPSs are not always available to
meet the power requirements of these applications.
Table II.12 shows total markups for each type of non-Class A EPS.
The total markup is the ratio of the after-tax consumer price to the
ERMC or after-tax consumer price as a multiple of ERMC. The specific
distribution channels and individual markups DOE used in its analysis
for each type of non-Class A
[[Page 56940]]
EPS are discussed in section 1.2 of the TSD.
Table II.12--Markups for Non-Class A External Power Supplies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total dollar markup
(after-tax consumer
Type of EPS price as a multiple of
ERMC) $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for MFDs................. 3.18
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for Xbox 360............. 3.15
High-Power EPSs................................ 1.80
Medical EPSs................................... 3.60
Wall Adapters for Certain Battery Chargers: 3.69
Floor Care Appliances.........................
Wall Adapters for Certain Battery Chargers: DIY 4.14
Power Tools...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Interested Parties
DOE has identified several organizations--mainly trade associations
and energy efficiency advocates--that may have an interest in this
determination. Energy efficiency advocacy organizations with a
demonstrated interest in DOE's rulemakings on BCs and EPSs include the
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, the American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy, Earthjustice, Ecos Consulting, the Natural
Resources Defense Council, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, among
others. Several trade associations with member companies manufacture
non-Class A EPSs or the consumer products they power. Section 1.3 of
the TSD lists some of these associations. Table 1.5 of the TSD
identifies the types of non-Class A EPSs in which each group is likely
to have an interest. Table 1.6 gives examples of each association's
member companies.
6. Existing Energy Efficiency Programs
DOE has identified both voluntary and regulatory energy efficiency
programs that may affect the efficiency of non-Class A EPSs sold in the
United States. The five most important programs, summarized in Table
II.13, include three domestic programs and two foreign programs. The
three domestic programs are the Federal mandatory standard for Class A
EPSs, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's voluntary ENERGY STAR
standard for EPSs, and California's mandatory standard for so-called
``State Regulated EPSs.'' Among the many foreign programs, two from the
European Union are particularly noteworthy--the ``Eco-design of Energy-
using Products Initiative, Directive 2005/32/EC'' and the ``Code of
Conduct on Efficiency of External Power Supplies, EU Standby
Initiative.'' See section 1.4 of the TSD for a discussion of these
programs.
Table II.13--Selected Energy Efficiency Programs for External Power Supplies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country/region Authority Program/institution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States........................... Mandatory.................. Federal standard for Class A EPSs.
United States........................... Voluntary.................. ENERGY STAR for EPSs.
California.............................. Mandatory.................. State standard for ``State Regulated
EPSs''.
European Union.......................... Mandatory.................. Eco-design of Energy-using Products (EuP)
Initiative, Directive 2005/32/EC.
European Union.......................... Voluntary.................. Code of Conduct on Efficiency of External
Power Supplies, EU Standby Initiative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Technology Assessment
1. Introduction
This technology assessment examines the technology behind the
design of non-Class A EPSs and focuses on the components and subsystems
that have the biggest impact on energy efficiency. (Note that the term
``technology assessment'' is different from ``technical support
document.'' The TSD is the supporting document for this notice on a
proposed determination for non-Class A EPSs. The technology assessment
is a section within both this notice and the supporting TSD.)
a. Definitions
DOE is conducting a determination analysis for non-Class A external
power supplies defined by EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005. EPCA defines
an external power supply as ``an external power supply circuit that is
used to convert household electric current into DC current or lower-
voltage AC current to operate a consumer product'' (42 U.S.C.
6291(36)(A)) but section 301 of EISA 2007 further amended this
definition by creating a subset of EPSs called Class A External Power
Supplies. EISA 2007 defined this subset as those external power
supplies that, in addition to meeting several other requirements common
to all external power supplies, are ``able to convert to only 1 AC or
DC output voltage at a time'' and that have ``nameplate output power
that is less than or equal to 250 watts.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i))
EPCA excludes an EPS from Class A if it ``requires Federal Food and
Drug Administration listing and approval as a medical device'' or if it
``powers the charger of a detachable battery pack or charges the
battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated.'' (42
U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(ii)) This determination analysis only considers non-
Class A external power supplies.
b. The Role of Power Converters
EPSs are power converters that support consumer products; hence,
their operation and design is primarily governed by the consumer
products they support (Figure II.1). Generally, an EPS supplies power
at a constant output voltage and is interchangeable among consumer
products with similar power requirements.
[[Page 56941]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.000
c. Functionality and Modes of Operation
The technology assessment begins by analyzing the modes in which
EPSs operate and their functionality. Of these modes, active mode has
the largest effect on the power converter's size and efficiency because
the maximum amount of power passes through the EPS in active mode. In
no-load mode the power converter is disconnected from the load;
however, no-load power consumption is indicative of power consumption
at low load. In each operational mode, the EPS is designed to provide
certain functionality to the consumer product.
d. EPS Circuit Design
This section discusses how EPSs are designed, with specific
consideration to the functionality requirements of the consumer
applications that they power.
e. Efficiency Metrics
This section discusses the metrics used to measure and compare EPS
efficiency.
f. Product Classes
This section discusses how DOE groups products into ``product
classes'' for different energy-efficiency standards when a product's
characteristics constrain its energy efficiency.
g. Technology Options for Efficiency Improvement
The final section of the technology assessment evaluates technology
options for improving energy efficiency. DOE analyzed the components in
the power converter that consume significant power, such as
transformers, or influence power consumption of other components, such
as integrated circuits (ICs). By identifying sources of power loss and
possible methods for improvement, the technology assessment discusses
technology options that would allow a manufacturer to design a power
converter with similar design characteristics to have the same
functionality but with improved efficiency.
h. Overlapping Terminology
The technology assessment discusses external power supplies with
terminology that occasionally overlaps. This is because EPSs are used
with a broad array of products with use in many different applications.
In particular, ``class'' is discussed in this document in four
different contexts:
``Class A'' and ``non-Class A.'' EPCA defines a subset of
external power supplies as ``Class A'' based on criteria discussed in
section II.B.1.a. External power supplies outside of the definition of
Class A, are termed ``non-Class A.''
``Product class.'' DOE uses ``product class'' as a term of
art in conducting energy efficiency rulemakings to delineate groups of
products (discussed further in section II.B.4).
``Class I'' and ``Class II.'' Safety rating agencies use
Class I and II to differentiate among products with and without a
connection to ground, respectively. This issue particularly affects
medical EPSs, discussed in the TSD.
``Class B digital devices.'' The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) regulates products for electromagnetic interference
based on whether the product is used for non-residential or residential
purposes, designated as Class A or Class B, respectively. (For
information regarding the FCC definitions of Class A and Class B
digital devices, see http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/part15.html#Definitions.) Electromagnetic interference particularly
affects high-power EPSs, discussed in the TSD.
2. Modes of Operation
a. Active Mode
For the determination analysis, DOE used the definition of active
mode codified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z: ``Active mode
is the mode of operation when the external power supply is connected to
the main electricity supply and the output is connected to a load.''
In this mode, EPS efficiency is the conversion efficiency when the
load draws some or all of the maximum rated output power of the EPS. In
addition to providing that output power, the EPS also consumes power
due to internal losses as well as overhead circuitry. The amount of
power the EPS consumes varies with the power demands of the load;
together, those two parameters define the EPS's efficiency at a
particular loading point:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.001
Where [eta]EPS is the EPS efficiency,
PEPS--consumption is the power consumed by the external
power supply itself,
Pin is the power from mains into the external power
supply, and
Pout is the power out of the external power supply to the
consumer product.
EPS active mode efficiency varies with the amount of output power
(Figure II.2). Typically, EPSs are inefficient at low load (0 percent
to 20 percent of maximum rated output power of the EPS) and more
efficient at larger loads (between 20 and 100 percent of maximum rated
output power), which occurs when the consumer product is fully
functional and demanding more power. The lower efficiency at lower
output current is due to the proportionally larger power consumption of
internal EPS components relative to output power. At higher power, EPS
losses are
[[Page 56942]]
proportionally not as great and therefore have less impact on EPS
efficiency. The EPS test procedure evaluates active mode conversion
efficiency at four loading points: 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent,
and 100 percent of maximum rated output power, which captures a general
picture of EPS efficiency. Figure II.2 shows an example of a typical
efficiency curve for an EPS in active mode.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.002
b. No-Load Mode
For the determination analysis, DOE used the definition of no-load
mode codified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z: ``No load mode
means the mode of operation when the external power supply is connected
to the main electricity supply and the output is not connected to a
load.''
EPS consumption in no-load is a measure of EPS internal power
consumption, since the EPS is not connected to the load. However, the
EPS might provide functionality. For example, certain consumer products
may require the EPS to deliver output power within moments of being
connected. Thus, the EPS may consume power to provide the useful
function of reduced start-up time. Nonetheless, EPS power consumption
can still be low (less than 1 watt) in no-load mode for non-Class A
EPSs.
c. Standby and Off Modes
As directed by EISA 2007, DOE amended its test procedures for
battery chargers and external power supplies to address standby and off
modes on March 27, 2009. (74 FR 13318) In those test procedures, DOE
defines standby mode and off mode. Standby mode is the condition in
which the EPS is in no-load mode and, with products equipped with
manual on-off switches, all such switches are turned on. Off mode is
also only applicable to those EPSs that have a manual on-off switch,
and is defined as the time when the EPS is (1) connected to the main
electricity supply; (2) the output is not connected to any load; and
(3) all manual on-off switches are turned off.
3. Functionality and Circuit Designs of Non-Class A EPSs
Non-Class A EPSs are designed to provide certain types of
functionality, for which they have particular circuit designs. The TSD
discusses these aspects of non-Class A EPSs in detail.
4. Product Classes
DOE divides covered products into classes by the type of energy
used, the capacity of the product, and any other performance-related
feature that justifies different standard levels, such as features
affecting consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) For example, when
compared with a standard device, a device with additional functionality
that provides extra utility to the consumer would be grouped in a
separate product class if the additional functionality affects its
efficiency. DOE then conducts its analysis and considers establishing
or amending standards to provide separate standard levels for each
product class. Because output power and output voltage have the largest
impact on achievable EPS efficiency, DOE considered both criteria when
developing EPS product classes for the determination analysis.
a. Product Class Distinctions for Multiple-Voltage EPSs
There is a small market for multiple-voltage EPSs, which are
primarily used in printing and video game console applications.
Accordingly, DOE is considering dividing multiple-voltage EPSs into two
product classes, listed in
[[Page 56943]]
Table II.14, to account for these separate applications.
Table II.14--Product Classes for Multiple-Voltage EPSs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nameplate output power
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 100 watts >=100 watts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class......................... Multiple-Voltage Product Class 1....................... Multiple-Voltage Product Class 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple-Voltage Product Class 1 relates to multiple-voltage EPSs
for printing applications. These EPSs tend to have an even distribution
of power between the outputs. Multiple-Voltage Product Class 2 relates
to multiple-voltage EPSs for video game applications. These EPSs tend
to have an uneven distribution of power between the outputs, where one
output accounts for most of the output power. These product classes
also have different nameplate output power ratings. Multiple-Voltage
Product Class 1 is representative of units that are less than 100
watts. Multiple-Voltage Product Class 2 is representative of units that
are greater than or equal to 100 watts.
b. Product Class Distinctions for High-Power EPSs
There is a small market for high-power EPSs which have one primary
application: ham radios. There are few technical differences among
these EPSs that affect efficiency, none of which are significant for
the current analysis. Therefore, DOE is considering placing high-power
EPSs into one product class, listed in Table II.15.
Table II.15--Product Classes for High-Power EPSs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nameplate output power
-----------------------------
> 250 watts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class............................. High Power Product Class 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Power Product Class 1 relates to high-power EPSs for ham
radios, which all have nameplate output voltage at 13.8 volts. Unlike
higher-power Class A EPSs, High-Power Product Class 1 EPSs typically
require more overhead circuitry. These EPSs often include two
integrated circuits; Class A EPSs often have one. The second IC
generally becomes necessary for EPSs around 170 watts.
c. Product Class Distinctions for Medical EPSs
Both medical and Class A EPSs have diverse markets with many end-
use applications. The primary difference is that medical EPSs have
additional safety requirements that result in higher costs. However,
those requirements have a negligible effect on their efficiency.
Therefore, DOE is considering placing medical EPSs in the same product
classes as Class A EPSs, listed in Table II.16.
Table II.16--Product Classes for Medical EPSs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nameplate output power
Nameplate output voltage ---------------------------------------------------------------
<4 watts 4-60 watts >60 watts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=12 volts...................................... Medical Product Medical Product Medical Product
Class 1. Class 2. Class 3.
>12 volts....................................... Medical Product Medical Product Medical Product
Class 4. Class 5. Class 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two variables in combination define A product class for medical
EPSs: nameplate output voltage and nameplate output power. There are
two variations on nameplate output voltage and three variations on
nameplate output power, which results in six total product classes
(Table III.16).
DOE is considering criteria for product classes for medical EPSs.
Output power and output voltage are the leading criteria, as with Class
A EPSs. Additional criteria are specific to medical EPSs, including the
number of output voltages and output cable length. DOE is aware of very
few medical EPSs with multiple-voltage outputs (section II.B.5) and is
not considering a separate product class for these EPSs at this time.
Medical device EPSs used with liquids may require long output cables
for safety reasons, which will constrain EPS efficiency because longer
cables have higher resistance and are therefore less efficient.
d. Product Class Distinctions for EPSs for BCs
EPSs for BCs and Class A EPSs also have diverse markets with many
end-use applications. The primary difference is that EPSs for BCs are
specifically used with battery-charging applications. However, under
Approach A, EPSs for BCs are viewed as electrically equivalent to Class
A EPSs. Therefore, DOE is considering dividing EPSs for BCs into the
same product classes as Class A EPSs, listed in Table II.17.
Table II.17--Product Classes for EPSs for BCs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nameplate output power
Nameplate output voltage ---------------------------------------------------------------
<4 watts 4-60 watts >60 watts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=12 volts...................................... EPS for BC Product EPS for BC Product EPS for BC Product
Class 1. Class 2. Class 3.
>12 volts....................................... EPS for BC Product EPS for BC Product EPS for BC Product
Class 4. Class 5. Class 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56944]]
Similar to medical EPSs, two variables in combination define six
product classes for EPSs for BCs: Nameplate output voltage and
nameplate output power.
5. Technology Options for Improving Energy Efficiency
DOE considered several technology options that may improve the
efficiency of Class A and non-Class A EPSs (discussed in further detail
in the TSD):
Improved Transformers. In line-frequency EPSs, the transformer has
the largest effect on efficiency. Transformer efficiency can be
improved by using cores and windings with lower-loss material, such as
lower electrical resistance, or by adding extra material.
Switched-Mode Power Supply. Line-frequency EPSs often use linear
regulators to maintain a constant output voltage. By using a switched-
mode circuit architecture, a designer can limit both losses associated
with the transformer and the regulator. The differences between the two
EPS types are discussed in the TSD.
Low-Power Integrated Circuits. The efficiency of the EPS can be
further improved by substituting low-power IC controllers to drive the
switching transistor, which can switch more efficiently in active mode
and reduce power consumption in no-load mode. For instance, the IC can
turn off its start-up current (sourced from the primary side of the
power supply) once the output voltage is stable. This increases
conversion efficiency and decreases no-load power consumption. In
addition, when in no-load mode, the IC can turn off the switching
transistor for extended periods of time (termed ``cycle-skipping'').
Multi-Mode Integrated Circuits. These ICs combine current limiting,
temperature limiting, over-voltage, and under-voltage functions, which
allow the controller to adjust to a wide range of loads. At full loads,
the IC works in a high frequency pulse-width modulation mode. As the
load decreases, the IC can shift into a variable frequency mode and at
no load the IC can use a fixed peak current, multi-cycle modulation
scheme.
Schottky Diodes and Synchronous Rectification. Both line-frequency
and switched-mode EPSs use diodes to rectify output voltage. Schottky
diodes and synchronous rectification can also replace standard diodes
to reduce rectification losses, which are increasingly significant at
low output voltage. Schottky diodes have a lower voltage drop than
standard diodes and thus result in less power loss. Synchronous
rectification replaces the diodes with a transistor for even less power
loss.
Low-Loss Transistors. The switching transistor dissipates energy
due to its drain-to-source resistance (RDS--ON) when the
current flows through the transistor to the transformer. Using
transistors with low RDS--ON can reduce this loss.
Resonant Switching. In addition to reducing the RDS--ON
of the transistor, power consumption can be lowered further by the IC
controller decreasing switching voltage transients (the sharp changes
in voltage that come from opening or closing the circuit with a
transistor) through zero-voltage or zero-current switching. The power
consumption of the transistor (as it switches from on to off or vice
versa) is influenced by the product of the transitional voltage across
the RDS--ON and the transitional current flowing through it.
An IC can control the timing of switching to minimize the presence of
significant current and voltage at the same time, although some
components are typically needed in addition to the IC to achieve the
desired resonance or quasi resonance.
Resonant (``Lossless'') Snubbers. In switched-mode EPSs, a common
snubber protects the switching transistor from the high voltage spike
that occurs after the transistor turns off by dissipating that power as
heat. A resonant or lossless snubber recycles that energy rather than
dissipating it.
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Introduction
The purpose of this engineering analysis is to determine the
relationship between a non-Class A EPS's efficiency and its ERMC. (The
efficiency-related materials cost includes all of the efficiency-
related raw materials listed in the bill of materials but not the
direct labor and overhead needed to create the final product. The
materials cost forms the basis for the price consumers eventually pay.)
This relationship serves as the basis for the underlying costs and
benefits to individual consumers (section II.B) and the Nation (life-
cycle cost analysis and national impacts analysis). The output of the
engineering analysis provides the ERMC at selected, discrete levels of
efficiency for six EPSs ``representative'' of non-Class A EPSs. This
section details the development of this analysis and includes
descriptions of the analysis structure, inputs, and outputs with
supporting material in the TSD. DOE welcomes comments from interested
parties on all aspects of this analysis.
To develop this analysis, DOE gathered data by interviewing
manufacturers, conducting independent testing and research, and
commissioning EPS teardowns. Through interviews, manufacturers provided
information on the relative popularity of EPS models and the cost of
increasing their efficiency. To validate the information provided by
manufacturers, DOE performed its own market research and testing. To
independently establish the cost of some of the tested units, DOE
contracted iSuppli Corp., an industry leader in the field of
electronics cost estimation. For a detailed discussion of these data
sources, see section II.C.2.
In section II.C.3, DOE presents representative product classes and
representative units, which allows DOE to focus its analysis on a few
specific power converters and subsequently transfer the results to all
units. DOE began the engineering analysis by identifying the
representative product classes and selecting one representative unit
for analysis from each of the representative product classes. The
representative product classes are a subset of the product classes
identified in section II.B. The representative units, in turn, are
theoretical idealized models of popular or typical devices within the
representative product classes.
Although the efficiency of power converters in the market forms an
almost continuous spectrum, DOE focused its analysis at select CSLs
(section II.C.4). In the engineering analysis, DOE examined the cost of
meeting each CSL for each representative unit. The resulting
relationship was termed an ``engineering curve'' or ``cost-efficiency
curve.'' The outputs of this analysis are the cost-efficiency points
that define those curves and are presented in section II.C.6.
2. Data Sources
a. Manufacturer Interviews
In 2008, on behalf of DOE, Navigant Consulting, Inc. (Navigant
Consulting) interviewed nine manufacturers to obtain data on what makes
non-Class A EPSs unique in terms of market and technical requirements
as well as their possible efficiencies and resultant costs. At the
request of some manufacturers, Navigant Consulting entered into non-
disclosure agreements whereby it can present to DOE general information
about the non-Class A EPS market and technology, but no confidential
data specific to any individual manufacturer. These interviews enabled
Navigant Consulting to obtain general information about the non-Class A
EPS market and
[[Page 56945]]
technology to conduct the analysis but without attributing any
particular data to an individual manufacturer. The interviews were
generally structured to elicit information similar to the information
DOE presents in the TSD. DOE continues to seek input from interested
parties regarding all aspects of the rulemaking, cost and efficiency
data in particular.
Because of the limited markets for multiple-voltage EPSs, Navigant
Consulting identified two manufacturers in addition to Microsoft that
produce EPSs for the Xbox 360, but they had limited availability for
interviews. Although Microsoft speculated on two discrete steps to
improve the efficiency of multiple-voltage EPSs and their costs, none
of the manufacturers provided detailed cost-efficiency points for a
wide range of efficiencies. For the other application of multiple-
voltage EPSs, multiple-function devices, both an OEM and its EPS
supplier provided market and cost-efficiency data.
For high-power EPSs, DOE identified 10 manufacturers of EPSs for
ham radios. Of these, LHV Power and Diamond Antenna agreed to be
interviewed; the other manufacturers of high-power EPSs are based in
Asia, and their U.S.-based sales staff declined to participate in the
interviews. The manufacturers that did participate provided discrete
cost-efficiency points, but did not provide comprehensive data for the
high-power EPS CSLs presented in section II.C.4.
The market for medical EPSs has various manufacturers and of these,
four agreed to be interviewed, while other companies were contacted but
were not responsive to requests for an interview. The interviews
focused on the different technical and legal requirements for medical
EPSs, in contrast to Class A EPSs. Although none of the manufacturers
provided a complete cost-efficiency curve, some were able to cite the
differences in technology options and costs for EPSs that did and did
not meet EISA 2007 standards (section II.C.6.c). The other
manufacturers discussed the technical requirements for medical EPSs,
but did not provide cost information.
DOE is analyzing EPSs for BCs that are wall adapters without charge
control that are used with certain battery charging applications, as
explained in section I.B and discussed in the TSD. Navigant Consulting
has not yet identified and interviewed manufacturers of EPSs for BCs,
relying instead on teardowns of Class A EPSs.
DOE welcomes additional data from interested parties on any non-
Class A EPSs.
b. Independent Testing and Research
DOE reviewed online distributor catalogs to independently assess
the market for non-Class A EPSs. DOE used this information in choosing
representative product classes, presented in section II.C.3.
To independently verify efficiency data, DOE obtained and measured
the efficiency of 18 non-Class A EPSs (Table II.18). All EPSs were
bought online through distributors' Web sites, except one multiple-
voltage EPS that a manufacturer loaned to DOE contractors for testing.
For comparison, DOE also examined 16 Class A EPSs with characteristics
similar to the medical EPSs and EPSs for BCs under consideration. EPSs
with a single output voltage were subjected to the DOE test procedure
for EPSs. (10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix Z) EPSs with multiple output
voltages were subjected to the test procedure that DOE had previously
proposed (but has not yet adopted) for multiple-voltage EPSs. (73 FR
48079-83)
Table II.18--Non-Class A EPSs Tested for Efficiency by DOE, Sorted by Type and Efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Efficiency-related materials
Nameplate Nameplate active-mode No-load cost
Index Type Topology output power output efficiency power W -----------------------------
W voltage V (percent) $ Source
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
218........................... Multiple Voltage. Switched-mode.... 40 16, 32 84 0.26 $2.77 DOE.
217........................... Multiple Voltage. Switched-mode.... 40 16, 32 86 0.27 2.99 DOE.
216........................... Multiple Voltage. Switched-mode.... 203 5, 12 81 5.16
213........................... Multiple Voltage. Switched-mode.... 203 5, 12 82 12.33 6.45 iSuppli.
214........................... Multiple Voltage. Switched-mode.... 203 5, 12 85 0.40
203........................... Multiple Voltage. Switched-mode.... 203 5, 12 86 3.29 9.08 iSuppli.
404........................... High Power....... Linear regulated. 345 13.8 51 12.60
401........................... High Power....... Linear regulated. 345 13.8 62 15.43 115.32 iSuppli.
402........................... High Power....... Switched-mode.... 345 13.8 81 6.01 33.64 iSuppli.
403........................... High Power....... Switched-mode.... 345 13.8 84 6.65
301........................... Medical.......... Switched-mode.... 18 12 78 0.33 2.23 iSuppli.
302........................... Medical.......... Switched-mode.... 20 12 80 0.29 2.27 iSuppli.
130........................... Class A.......... Linear regulated. 14.4 12 64 0.56 1.49 DOE.
117........................... Class A.......... Switched-mode.... 18 12 78 0.65 2.00 iSuppli.
120........................... Class A.......... Switched-mode.... 18 12 78 0.56 2.22 iSuppli.
118........................... Class A.......... Switched-mode.... 18 12 81 0.27 1.96 iSuppli.
106........................... Class A.......... Switched-mode.... 2.5 5 63 0.13 1.13 iSuppli.
105........................... Class A.......... Switched-mode.... 2.5 5 67 0.13 0.75 iSuppli.
103........................... Class A.......... Switched-mode.... 1.75 5 74 0.12 0.77 iSuppli.
17............................ Class A.......... Line-frequency, 5 5 36 1.85 1.16 DOE.
linear regulated.
27............................ Class A.......... Line-frequency, 5 5 49 1.42 1.54 DOE.
switched-mode
regulated.
22............................ Class A.......... Switched-mode.... 5 5 59 0.42 1.29 DOE.
25............................ Class A.......... Switched-mode.... 5 5 66 0.64 1.45 DOE.
37............................ Class A.......... Switched-mode.... 5 5 66 0.66 1.50 DOE.
18............................ Class A.......... Switched-mode.... 5 5 70 0.54 1.46 DOE.
21............................ Class A.......... Switched-mode.... 5.2 5.2 71 0.10 1.63 DOE.
24............................ Class A.......... Switched-mode.... 5 5 72 0.11 1.34 DOE.
8............................. Class A.......... Switched-mode.... 5 5 73 0.11 1.06 DOE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56946]]
c. Teardown Cost Estimates
DOE contracted iSuppli Corp. to tear down and estimate the
materials cost for select units. For this analysis, DOE only considered
the materials cost of components related to efficiency: the ERMC.
Direct labor and overhead as well as non-production costs are accounted
for in the markup from ERMC to efficiency-related manufacturer's
selling price (MSP), as in Figure II.3. These cost estimates also
account for the typical number of units produced by the manufacturer as
well as the manufacturer's location (and associated labor rates). Table
II.18 shows the results of the cost estimates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.003
iSuppli provided DOE with a complete list of components, referred
to as the ``bill of materials,'' for each product. DOE grouped
components into three categories based on their impact on cost and
efficiency: directly related, secondarily related, or not related to
efficiency (Table II.19). For example, components such as transistors
and capacitors are considered to have a direct effect on efficiency.
DOE grouped enclosures and printed circuit boards (PCBs) as secondary
since they tend to vary with efficiency, but do not directly affect it.
Components such as labels and screws that have no relation to
efficiency were considered not related. DOE used costs for components
with a direct relation to efficiency to generate cost estimates (listed
in Table II.18). Secondary components are not included in the
efficiency-related cost estimate because DOE does not believe that they
should be included in the cost of materials affecting efficiency. In
developing the cost-efficiency curves in section II.C.3, DOE only
considered the efficiency-related costs.
DOE seeks input on which of the components listed in Table II.19
should be included in the efficiency-related cost estimates, in
particular the secondary components.
Table II.19--Component Categorization for Bill of Materials Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component family Component type Efficiency grouping Efficiency impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Batteries............................ Disposable............. Battery pack........... Not related.
Batteries............................ Other.................. Battery pack........... Not related.
Batteries............................ Rechargeable........... Battery pack........... Secondary.
Discrete Semiconductor............... Other.................. Electronics............ Direct.
Discrete Semiconductor............... Rectifier.............. Electronics............ Direct.
Discrete Semiconductor............... Thyristor.............. Electronics............ Direct.
Discrete Semiconductor............... Diode.................. Electronics............ Direct.
Discrete Semiconductor............... Diode--Schottky........ Electronics............ Direct.
Discrete Semiconductor............... Transistor............. Electronics............ Direct.
Display.............................. Color LCD.............. Other.................. Not related.
Display.............................. Monochrome LCD......... Other.................. Not related.
Display.............................. Color OLED............. Other.................. Not related.
Display.............................. Monochrome OLED........ Other.................. Not related.
Display.............................. Other.................. Other.................. Not related.
Electro-Mechanical................... Antenna................ Other.................. Not related.
Electro-Mechanical................... Connector.............. Other.................. Not related.
Electro-Mechanical................... Connector (output cord Output cord--Secondary. Secondary.
only).
Electro-Mechanical................... Other.................. Other.................. Not related.
Electro-Mechanical................... PCB.................... PCB--Secondary......... Secondary.
Electro-Mechanical................... Relay.................. Other.................. Not related.
Electro-Mechanical................... Switch................. Other.................. Not related.
Mechanical........................... Plastics & Elastomers-- Other.................. Not related.
consumer product parts.
Mechanical........................... Plastics & Elastomers-- Case--Secondary........ Secondary.
wall adapter case only.
Mechanical........................... Metal.................. Other.................. Not related.
Mechanical........................... Metal--case only....... Case--Secondary........ Secondary.
Mechanical........................... Metal--heatsinks only.. Heatsinks.............. Direct.
Mechanical........................... Other.................. Other.................. Not related.
Integrated Circuit................... Analog................. Electronics--IC........ Direct.
Integrated Circuit................... Logic.................. Electronics--IC........ Direct.
Integrated Circuit................... Memory................. Electronics--IC........ Direct.
Integrated Circuit................... Multi-Chip IC.......... Electronics--IC........ Direct.
Integrated Circuit................... Other.................. Electronics--IC........ Direct.
Optical Semiconductor................ LEDs................... Electronics............ Direct.
Passive.............................. Capacitor.............. Electronics............ Direct.
[[Page 56947]]
Passive.............................. Coupler/Balun.......... Electronics............ Direct.
Passive.............................. Crystal................ Electronics............ Direct.
Passive.............................. Filter................. Electronics............ Direct.
Passive.............................. Isolators/Circulator... Electronics............ Direct.
Passive.............................. Magnetic............... Electronics............ Direct.
Passive.............................. Magnetic (transformer Electronics--Transforme Direct.
only). r.
Passive.............................. Oscillator............. Electronics............ Direct.
Passive.............................. Piezoelectric Component Electronics............ Direct.
Passive.............................. Resistor............... Electronics............ Direct.
Passive.............................. Resonator.............. Electronics............ Direct.
Passive.............................. Sensor................. Electronics............ Direct.
Passive.............................. Tuner.................. Electronics............ Direct.
Passive.............................. Other.................. Electronics............ Direct.
Miscellaneous........................ Box Packaging, Printed Other.................. Not related.
Matter.
Miscellaneous........................ Other.................. Other.................. Not related.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the units that iSuppli tore down, DOE purchased and
created estimated ERMCs for two 40-watt multiple-voltage EPSs, one
14.4-watt Class A EPSs, and nine approximately 5-watt Class A EPSs
(Table II.18). Rather than have iSuppli tear down these units, DOE
chose to perform its own teardowns due to budget and time constraints.
To create the ERMCs, DOE subject matter experts cataloged the
efficiency-related components to create a bill of materials. DOE used
the bill of materials and resources on component prices such as parts
catalogs and iSuppli component prices to develop the ERMCs (section
II.C.5.a and chapter 4 of the TSD. Lastly, DOE scaled the ERMCs from
the test unit values to representative unit values using techniques
presented in section II.C.5.d
3. Representative Product Classes and Representative Units
Based on the product classes for each type of non-Class A EPS, DOE
selected representative product classes and representative units. DOE
focused on representative product classes in its analysis. Results from
representative product classes can be scaled to other product classes
not analyzed. Representative units are theoretical versions of EPSs
where all of an EPS's characteristics are defined, except efficiency
and cost. By varying the efficiency of the representative units, DOE
can evaluate the resultant costs to determine the cost-efficiency
relationship.
Table II.20 lists the application, nameplate output power,
nameplate output voltage(s), and production volume that specify non-
Class A representative units. Output power affects both efficiency and
cost. At higher powers, fixed losses in the EPS are proportionally
smaller, making it cheaper for manufacturers to build EPSs with higher
efficiencies. However, larger components that are necessary at higher
powers result in higher costs. Output voltage affects efficiency but
not cost, because EPSs with higher output voltage have consequently
lower output current and associated losses. Production volume is the
number of units a manufacturer annually produces for an EPS design.
Higher production volumes allow manufacturers to leverage greater
economies of scale, resulting in lower per-component and overall costs
for the EPS. See chapter 4 of the TSD for a detailed discussion of each
representative unit and its characteristics.
Table II.20--List of Non-Class A Representative Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production
Type of non-Class A EPS Application Output power W Output voltage Second output volume units/
V voltage V year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple Voltage............. Multi-Function 40 16 32 1,000,000
Device.
Multiple Voltage............. Video Game..... 203 5 12 4,000,000
High Power................... Ham Radio...... 345 13.8 .............. 1,000
Medical...................... Nebulizer *.... 18 12 .............. 10,000
EPSs for BCs................. Vacuum......... 1.8 6 .............. 1,000,000
EPSs for BCs................. DIY Power Tool. 4.8 24 .............. 1,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``A nebulizer is a device used to administer medication to people in the form of a mist inhaled into the
lungs. It is commonly used in treating cystic fibrosis, asthma, and other respiratory diseases.'' Wikipedia.
``Nebulizer.'' 2008. (Last accessed December 17, 2008.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebulizer
4. Selection of Candidate Standard Levels
Selection of CSLs followed the identification of representative
product classes and representative units. Although the ERMC of a unit
appears in the aggregate as a continuous function of efficiency, for
analysis purposes, DOE focused on discrete CSLs. Note that the term
``CSL'' implies an eventual standard, although standard setting is
beyond the scope of this determination analysis. DOE uses the term
``candidate standard level'' because it is a term of art for these
discrete levels and because the CSLs may eventually lead to a specific
standard level. DOE developed CSLs based on the data sources discussed
in section II.C.2.
For each of the six representative units, DOE created four CSLs,
although it may create more levels in future analysis or in response to
comments from interested parties. These CSLs are intended to reflect
the efficiencies in the market, although they do not necessarily
include the highest efficiencies. The CSLs in this analysis are
sufficient to demonstrate whether DOE should
[[Page 56948]]
conduct a standards rulemaking because they allow DOE to show the
possibility of savings at a CSL above the baseline, which is the key
criterion of the determination analysis. In future analysis, DOE may
include a max-tech CSL to reflect the highest achievable efficiency.
Specifically in this analysis, CSLs are based on (1) EPSs that have
been tested and torn down, (2) data points provided in manufacturer
interviews, and (3) the International Efficiency Marking Protocol for
External Power Supplies. (Energy Star. ``International Efficiency
Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies.'' 2008. (Last accessed
November 18, 2008.) http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/International_Efficiency_Marking_Protocol.pdf) In choosing the basis for CSLs, DOE gave the highest
priority to units that were torn down and tested because DOE had
complete data for efficiency and cost. If test and teardown data were
not available, then DOE used data points from manufacturers. If no data
were directly available, DOE referred to the International Marking
Protocol. DOE presents a detailed discussion of the CSLs in chapter 3
of the TSD.
5. Methodology and Data Implementation
As mentioned previously, DOE purchased, tested, and tore down EPS
units to obtain data to identify the cost-efficiency relationship for
non-Class A EPSs. DOE subject matter experts measured the efficiency of
all units using the appropriate DOE test procedure and a Yokogawa WT210
power meter. DOE contracted iSuppli Corporation to determine the ERMC
for most of the tested units. Due to budgetary and time constraints,
DOE developed a methodology to estimate the ERMC for other tested
units, as discussed in section II.C.5.a.
In some cases, after DOE obtained cost and efficiency data for the
test units, the data did not always directly apply because of
differences between the test unit and the representative unit. DOE
attempted to purchase units for testing and teardown that have all the
characteristics of the representative units. Nonetheless, this was not
always possible due to limited product availability in the market and
changes to the representative units' characteristics. As a result, the
costs and efficiencies of certain test units are not directly
applicable to the representative units. DOE developed a methodology to
scale cost and efficiency data for test units to estimate what those
values would be if the test units had the characteristics of the
representative units.
Nameplate output power, nameplate output voltage, and production
volume all influence the cost and efficiency of an EPS in various
degrees. For example, manufacturers often offer EPSs that share a
common design and have the same nameplate output power, but differ in
voltage. These differences in voltage will result in differences in
achievable efficiency, but will not affect cost. Table II.21 outlines
the impacts of changes to the three characteristics on cost and
efficiency and the models that were developed to account for them.
Table II.21--Impact of EPS Characteristics on Cost and Efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Output Voltage.............. No impact........... Efficiency increases
with voltage; see
model in section
II.C.5.c.
Output Power................ Cost increases with Efficiency increases
power but decreases with power; see
with volume; see model in section
combined model in II.C.5.b.
section II.C.5.d.
Production Volume........... Cost increases with No impact.
power but decreases
with volume; see
combined model in
section II.C.5.d.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. DOE Method for Estimating Efficiency-Related Materials Cost
DOE contracted with iSuppli to tear down and obtain high-volume
production-cost estimates for 12 EPSs when developing non-Class A cost-
efficiency curves. To obtain further cost-efficiency points, DOE tore
down additional EPSs and estimated their high-volume materials costs.
DOE used results from its cost estimates to develop portions of the
cost-efficiency curves for the 18-watt medical EPS, the 40-watt
multiple-voltage EPS, and the 1.8-watt and 4.8-watt EPSs for BCs
representative units.
To estimate the cost of an EPS, DOE first created a bill of
materials for the EPS's efficiency-related components and estimated the
prices of the components at volumes consistent with the iSuppli
teardown prices. DOE used two sources of information to develop its
cost estimates: (1) High-volume component prices from iSuppli bills of
materials, and (2) low-volume component prices from distributor
catalogs. iSuppli provided DOE with a spreadsheet containing high-
volume cost estimates for almost 1,000 individual components. To
supplement that data, DOE also reviewed online catalog prices for
components at volumes of 500 units. Depending on the information
available, DOE used one of four methods to determine the price for each
component (Table II.22). These methods allowed DOE to estimate with
reasonable accuracy the high-volume materials costs for a larger number
of units than would have been possible using the iSuppli teardowns
alone. See chapter 5 of the TSD for more detailed information on these
methods.
Table II.22--Illustration of Low-Volume to High-Volume Component Cost Scaling Methods Used in the Non-Class A Engineering Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost estimate for specific
component Variation of Category- Ratio of
Component type Method used ------------------------------------ iSuppli cost average for averages: Basis for cost
High-volume Low-volume across component iSuppli cost iSuppli cost to estimate
iSuppli catalog category catalog cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0603 Capacitor................ 1 Available....... Available....... Direct iSuppli
cost.
Optocoupler................... 2 Not Available... Available....... Acceptable...... Calculated...... Average iSuppli
cost.
[[Page 56949]]
Field-Effect Transistor....... 3 Not Available... Available....... Excessive....... Calculated...... Scaled low-
volume cost.
Unidentified Integrated 4 Not Available... Not Available... Excessive....... Calculated...... Average iSuppli
Circuit. cost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this example, DOE had a component cost for the 0603 capacitor
directly from the iSuppli database. The 0603 capacitor is a surface-
mount capacitor often found on printed circuit boards. DOE used Method
1 (direct substitution) to estimate the component's cost. This method
is the simplest and most accurate because it relies on a one-to-one
match between components in the two bills of materials.
DOE did not have iSuppli component costs for direct substitution
for the optocoupler in Table II.22, but did have iSuppli cost data for
similar components. To account for this situation, DOE used Method 2,
which estimated the cost of the optocoupler as the average iSuppli
costs of similar components. In this method, DOE grouped the components
from the high-volume iSuppli bills of materials into categories by
component family, type, subtype, and any other relevant categories, and
calculated an average materials cost for each category. To ensure that
the averages were valid, DOE only used this approach if there were more
than five cost estimates and a standard deviation less than $0.02. In
this case, DOE substituted the category-average high-volume cost for
the optocoupler.
DOE also did not have direct iSuppli component costs for direct
substitution for the field effect transistor (FET). Further, the
average iSuppli component cost did not meet DOE's criteria for validity
(sufficient number of data points and low variation). As a result, DOE
did not estimate the true cost using the category-average cost because
might not have been accurate. However, DOE was able to estimate the
low-volume cost of the FET using catalogs. Although the high-volume
cost estimate varied excessively, the ratios of high-volume to low-
volume cost estimates did not. DOE averaged these ratios and then
scaled the low-volume cost estimate for the FET. Using this method, DOE
was able to obtain a more accurate high-volume cost estimate than would
have been possible through direct substitution of category-average
costs.
In the final example of an ``unidentified integrated circuit,'' DOE
did not have direct cost information from iSuppli or component
catalogs. In this case, DOE substituted the category-average costs
directly from the high-volume iSuppli bill of materials. Although this
method had the potential to decrease the accuracy of the EPS cost
estimates, it was used only for a limited set of components and only
for the 40-watt multiple-voltage EPS. Chapter 4 of the TSD contains
detailed information on all of these costing methods.
b. Efficiency Scaling by Output Power
The practically achievable efficiency of an EPS depends on its
nameplate output power, with lower-power EPSs tending to exhibit lower
active-mode efficiencies than their higher-power counterparts. (Changes
in output power do not affect the no-load power consumption.) However,
some of the EPSs that DOE analyzed for the non-Class A engineering
analysis differ in output power from the representative units for their
product class. This led DOE to develop a model for estimating the
change in active mode efficiency when the output power of an EPS shifts
to that of the representative unit.
DOE used market information to develop its model. By examining the
distribution of Class A EPS efficiencies in the market, DOE was able to
observe that achievable efficiency increases with power and that there
is a wider range of efficiency at lower output powers. Any shift of a
manufacturer's unit to the representative unit output power should take
into account both effects, preserving a unit's relative standing in
terms of efficiency among other units in the market.
A unit's relative standing could be calculated by comparing its
efficiency to the level specified in the ENERGY STAR EPS Guidelines
Version 1.1 (2005), as well as the best-in-market level, defined as the
curve-fit of the highest-efficiency units in the ENERGY STAR qualifying
products database for Class A EPSs. Because of the fundamental
similarities in the design of Class A and non-Class A EPSs, DOE
extended these same relationships and datasets to model the impacts on
non-Class A EPS efficiency.
The model DOE used in the non-Class A engineering analysis reflects
the above market dynamics by keeping constant the ratios among a unit's
efficiency, the ENERGY STAR level, and the best-in-market level as the
unit's output power is shifted to the level of the representative unit.
Because the ratios are kept constant while the ENERGY STAR and best-in-
market levels change with output power, the unit efficiency must also
change. This updated unit efficiency is further adjusted to account for
any differences in output voltage between the EPS and the
representative unit, as explained in the following sections. (See
chapter 5 of the TSD for further details on the mechanics of the
model.)
c. Efficiency Scaling by Output Voltage
Together with the nameplate output power, the nameplate output
voltage constrains a power supply's achievable efficiency. Given two
EPSs with an identical design but different output voltages, the lower-
voltage unit will be less efficient, primarily due to two factors:
Resistive losses: Outputting the same power at a lower
voltage requires higher output current, increasing the resistive
losses, which are proportional to the square of the current.
Rectifier losses: The voltage drop across the output
rectifier increases with higher current, so that at a lower voltage
more power (the amount of current multiplied by the voltage drop across
the rectifier) will be dissipated, decreasing the efficiency of the
power supply.
In addition to these losses, the EPS also experiences fixed losses
that do not depend on the output voltage. These losses are associated
with, for example,
[[Page 56950]]
the quiescent current of the controller IC for switched-mode designs or
the core magnetization losses for line-frequency designs and are equal
to the no-load power consumption of the power supply. Figure II.4
summarizes the loss mechanisms described above.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.004
When scaling the efficiency of a power supply with voltage, DOE
first calculated the typical losses according to the model presented in
Figure II.4. Because the characteristics of each component in the loss
model were fixed, the losses calculated using the model depended only
on the output current and voltage, not the design specifics of the EPS.
In short, the model returned the same losses for any two EPSs with the
same output characteristics, regardless of their designs.
However, because each EPS has its own specific design, the actual
losses of the power supply differ from those calculated according to
this generic model. This difference between the modeled and actual
losses does not depend on the output power or voltage, but is
correlated with the active mode efficiency and no-load power of the
EPS. Thus, the actual losses of an EPS can be said to be the sum of two
components: (1) Generic losses, dependent on output power and voltage
and modeled as described above; and (2) additional losses, dependent on
the design of the EPS. Because the additional losses reflect the EPS
design and the purpose of scaling was to estimate the losses of a
particular design at the representative-unit output power and voltage,
the additional losses were held constant between the original EPS and
the representative unit to which it was being scaled.
Having obtained the generic losses for the original EPS using the
model and its technology-dependent additional losses, DOE calculated
the generic losses for the representative unit. DOE added the generic
losses to the technology-dependent additional losses, resulting in an
estimate of the total losses of the EPS design at the output power and
voltage of the representative unit. The efficiency of the
representative unit was finally calculated as the ratio of output power
to the sum of the output power and the estimated losses.
d. Efficiency-Related Materials Cost Scaling by Nameplate Output Power
and Sales Volume
To compare costs and efficiencies in order to develop cost-
efficiency curves, DOE had to account for variations in nameplate
output power and sales volume across the EPSs it analyzed. To do this,
DOE developed a scaling model to determine what the ERMC of a tested
EPS would be if it were produced in the same sales volume and had the
same nameplate output power as the representative unit in its product
class. DOE began the model development by assessing two datasets. The
first dataset consisted of confidential production cost data for EPSs
with nameplate output powers from 5 to 65 watts at a sales volume of
5,000 units, provided to Navigant Consulting. From this information,
DOE observed a linear statistical relationship between EPS output power
and EPS production cost in the dataset. The second dataset was public
manufacturer data submitted to the California Energy Commission (CEC)
in support of CEC's 2006 appliance standards rulemaking (available at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/archive/2006rulemaking2/documents/comments/NRDC.PDF; last accessed March 2, 2009). This dataset contained
EPS production cost vs. sales volume for 2-watt and 5-watt EPSs. The
relationship between production cost and sales volume appeared to be
nonlinear.
Based on observed relationships in the datasets, DOE determined
that the ERMC of an EPS is roughly a linear function of output power
and a nonlinear function of sales volume. DOE used these observations
to develop a statistical model that relates output powers, ERMCs, and
sales volumes of tested EPSs with the output power and sales volume of
a representative unit in a product class. The model estimates the
scaled ERMC of the tested unit using the test unit ERMC, sales volume,
and output power, as well as the representative unit sales volume and
output power as inputs. See chapter 4 of the TSD for further
information.
6. Relationships Between Cost and Efficiency
Based on the data sources discussed in section II.C.2, DOE
developed cost-efficiency curves for each representative unit by
estimating the cost to reach each CSL. The primary data source for
these curves comes from DOE measuring the efficiencies of 20 units and
iSuppli tearing down and estimating costs for 13 of those units (Table
II.18).
a. The Cost-Efficiency Relationships for Multiple-Voltage EPSs
DOE developed cost-efficiency data for the 40-watt multiple-voltage
representative unit primarily based on manufacturer data. To verify and
scale manufacturer interview data, DOE also tore down two multiple-
voltage EPSs for multiple-function devices. These EPSs were at the same
output power (40 watts) and sales volume (1,000,000 units per year) as
the representative unit. Their output voltages (16 volts and 32 volts)
were also the same as the output voltages of the representative unit,
which made scaling unnecessary. Table II.23 shows the characteristics
of the torn-down EPSs.
[[Page 56951]]
Table II.23--Characteristics of Torn-Down Multiple-Voltage EPSs for Multiple-Function Devices
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Maximum no-
ID Topology Maximum Output active-mode load power ERMC Sales volume
output power voltages efficiency consumption units/year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.......................... W V % W 2008$ units/year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
217..................................... Switch Mode............... 40 16, 32 86 0.27 2.99 1,000,000
218..................................... Switch Mode............... 40 16, 32 84 0.26 2.77 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In interviews, manufacturers provided data for 12 cost-efficiency
points. One manufacturer described specific changes that would be
necessary to improve active-mode efficiency from 80 to 90 percent and
no-load power consumption from 0.5 watts to 0.2 watts. These components
included different transistors and IC controllers, Schottky output
diodes, different common-mode chokes, and transformers with lower
losses. Their usage increased the cost of the EPSs up to 38 percent
over the 80-percent efficient EPS.
The manufacturers stated costs relative to a baseline value of
1.00X for the 80-percent efficient EPS up to 90 percent efficiency at
relative costs of 1.38X. DOE used the ERMCs from the test and teardown
results for the two EPSs in Table II.23 to determine the absolute cost
of the manufacturer data. Specifically, DOE averaged the results for
the EPSs to determine an average efficiency (85 percent) and ERMC
($2.88). In the manufacturer data, an 85-percent efficient EPS had a
relative cost of 1.10X, which DOE set equal to $2.88. DOE was then able
to calculate ERMCs for all 12 cost-efficiency points obtained in
manufacturer interviews.
One manufacturer provided matched pairs of efficiency and no-load
power consumption, which DOE used as the basis of the four CSLs. See
section II.C.4 for further information. The corresponding ERMCs for
these active-mode efficiencies are shown in Table II.24. These costs
range from $2.66 at 81-percent efficiency to $3.67 at 91-percent
efficiency. Figure II.5 shows the cost-efficiency curve for a multiple-
voltage EPS for multiple-function devices along with the two torn-down
EPSs.
Table II.24--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 40-Watt Multiple-Voltage EPS for a Multiple-Function Device
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency-
Reference point for Minimum Maximum no- related
Level level active-mode load power materials Basis
efficiency consumption cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...................... % W 2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.................................. Less Than EISA 2007... 81 0.5 2.66 Manufacturer interview data.
1.................................. Current Market........ 86 0.45 2.98 Manufacturer interview data.
2.................................. High Level............ 90 0.31 3.54 Manufacturer interview data.
3.................................. Higher Level.......... 91 0.2 3.67 Manufacturer interview data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.005
[[Page 56952]]
In addition to the 40-watt multiple-voltage EPS, DOE also estimated
costs for a 203-watt multiple-voltage EPS for a video game console. DOE
based the cost-efficiency points on test data for four EPSs, teardown
data for two EPSs, and two data points from manufacturer interviews.
The torn-down EPSs had the same output voltages (5 volts and 12 volts)
and output power (203 watts) as the representative unit. However, both
EPSs had a different sales volume than the representative unit
(4,000,000 units per year). Thus, DOE scaled the ERMC of these EPSs
based on the scaling model in section II.C.5.d. The characteristics of
the torn-down EPSs before and after scaling are shown in Table II.25
and Table II.26, respectively. Scaled characteristics are highlighted
in gray.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.006
For CSL 0 and CSL 1, DOE used the efficiencies and scaled ERMCs of
EPSs 213 and 203, respectively. DOE selected an
active-mode efficiency of 86 percent for CSL 2 but required a lower no-
load power consumption of 0.3 watts. The reduction in no-load power
consumption can be achieved by reducing iron losses in the transformer,
changing the switching frequency, and optimizing other elements of the
circuitry at a cost increase of $0.13 over the CSL 1 EPS.
DOE chose an active-mode efficiency of 89 percent for CSL 3. This
efficiency could be achieved using MOSFETs with reduced
RDS--ON and replacing a particular Schottky diode with a
synchronous circuit at a cost of $3.11 over the CSL 2 EPS. See section
II.C.4 for further information on how DOE chose the CSLs.
Table II.27 shows the cost-efficiency points for the 203-watt
multiple-voltage EPS for a video game console based on the cost of
making the improvements described previously. Figure II.6 shows the
corresponding cost-efficiency curve along with the two torn-down units.
There is a vertical portion of the cost-efficiency curve between CSL 1
and CSL 2. This corresponds to the decrease in no-load power
consumption from 0.4 watts to 0.3 watts while the conversion efficiency
remains constant at 86 percent between the two CSLs. The two dashed
vertical lines mark the efficiencies of the torn-down EPSs.
Table II.27--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 203-Watt Multiple-Voltage EPS for a Video Game Console
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency-
Reference point for Minimum Maximum no- related
Level level active-mode load power materials Basis
efficiency consumption cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...................... % W 2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.................................. Generic Replacement... 82 12.33 6.06 Test and teardown data.
1.................................. Manufacturer Provided. 86 0.4 8.93 Test and teardown data.
2.................................. EU Qualified Level.... 86 0.3 9.05 Manufacturer interview data.
3.................................. Higher Level.......... 89 0.3 12.16 Manufacturer interview data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56953]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.007
b. The Cost-Efficiency Relationship for High-Power EPSs
DOE developed cost-efficiency points for the 345-watt high-power
EPS representative unit based on testing data for four units, teardown
cost data for two units, and manufacturer interviews. Table II.28 shows
the ERMCs for the torn-down units. Because they were at the same output
power (345 watts) and the same sales volume (1,000 units per year) as
the representative unit, DOE did not need to scale the ERMCs based on
output power or sales volume. DOE also did not need to scale the
efficiencies of the torn-down units because their output voltages and
powers were the same as those of the representative unit.
Table II.28--Characteristics of Torn-Down High-Power EPSs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Maximum no-
ID Topology Maximum Output active-mode load power ERMC Sales volume
output power voltage efficiency consumption
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.......................... W V % W 2008$ units/year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
401..................................... Line Frequency............ 345 14 62 15.43 115.32 1,000
402..................................... Switch Mode............... 345 14 81 6.01 33.64 1,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE developed the ERMC for CSL 0 based on the ERMC of the torn-down
line-frequency high-power EPS shown as EPS 401 in Table II.28.
The data show that this line-frequency EPS is expensive mainly due to
the materials costs for its transformer. The ERMC at CSL 1 was
developed based on the torn-down switched-mode EPS shown as EPS
402. Because high-power line-frequency transformers need more
material than high-power high-frequency transformers, the ERMC of the
switched-mode EPS used to develop CSL 1 is significantly lower than the
ERMC of the line-frequency EPS at CSL 0 ($115.32 vs. $33.64).
To develop the ERMC at CSL 2 for high-power EPSs, DOE used the ERMC
of the torn-down EPS 402 and manufacturer interview data. One
manufacturer representative stated that the efficiency and no-load
power consumption of a high-power switched-mode EPS could be improved
by 3 percent by changing the IC that controls the switching, with a
cost increase of approximately $3.00. Thus, DOE created an ERMC of
$36.64 for the EPS at CSL 2.
DOE developed the ERMC at CSL 3 for high-power EPSs by using the
EPS modeled at CSL 2 along with manufacturer interview data and EPS
test data. A manufacturer representative stated that additional
increases in average active-mode efficiency beyond CSL 2 would cause a
10- to 20-percent increase in ERMC per efficiency point due to the
usage of Schottky diodes for rectification. DOE observed that the
average active-mode efficiency of 85 percent can be achieved by
products already on the market by testing the efficiency of an
available EPS. This EPS was a percentage point higher than the EPS used
for CSL 2, and DOE created its ERMC accordingly.
The cost-efficiency points for the 345-watt high-power EPS ranged
from $115.32 for a 62-percent efficient line-frequency EPS to $42.32
for an 85-percent efficient switched-mode EPS. In the case of high-
power EPSs assessed by DOE, the more efficient switched-mode EPSs are
substantially less expensive than the least efficient line-frequency
[[Page 56954]]
EPS at CSL 0. However, cost increases with efficiency among the
switched-mode EPSs DOE assessed. The cost-efficiency data is shown in
Table II.29 and Figure II.7. The vertical lines in the figure represent
the efficiencies of the two torn-down EPSs.
Table II.29--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 345-Watt High-Power EPS for a Ham Radio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency-
Reference point for Minimum Maximum no- related
Level level active-mode load power materials Basis
efficiency consumption cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...................... % W 2008%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.................................. Line Frequency........ 62 15.43 115.32 Test and teardown data.
1.................................. Switched-Mode--Low 81 6.01 33.64 Test and teardown data.
Level.
2.................................. Switched-Mode--Mid 84 1.50 36.64 Manufacturer interview data.
Level.
3.................................. Switched-Mode--High 85 0.50 42.32 Manufacturer interview data.
Level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.008
c. The Cost-Efficiency Relationship for Medical Device EPSs
DOE developed the cost-efficiency points for the 18-watt medical
device EPS representative unit based on test and teardown data for two
medical EPSs and four Class A EPSs, along with five data points from
manufacturer interviews. DOE included Class A EPSs in this analysis
because the efficiency-related materials costs for medical device EPSs
appear to be the same as Class A EPSs. This situation became evident
during manufacturer interviews.
DOE tore down EPSs at a range of sales volumes and nameplate output
powers, all close to 18 watts. The representative unit in the medical
device EPS product class had a nameplate output power of 18 watts and a
sales volume of 10,000 units per year, so DOE needed to scale the ERMCs
of the torn-down units based on the model described in section
II.C.5.d. DOE also needed to scale the active-mode efficiencies of the
units based on the model described in section II.C.5.b. Table II.30
shows characteristics of the EPSs before scaling, and Table II.31 shows
the same EPSs with the scaled characteristics highlighted in gray. EPSs
301 and 302 are used in medical devices; the other
EPSs are Class A EPSs.
[[Page 56955]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.009
DOE used the scaled ERMC of the linear-regulated EPS 130
as the ERMC for CSL 0. This is the only linear-regulated EPS that DOE
tore down for this product class. DOE observed the market of available
EPSs and noted the wide range of efficiencies and lack of correlations
with ERMC over the efficiency range. In light of this observation, DOE
chose to average the scaled ERMCs of the switched-mode EPSs to create
the ERMCs for units at CSL 1 and CSL 2. The average active-mode
efficiencies of the units at CSL 1 and CSL 2 are 76 percent and 80
percent, respectively. These efficiencies correspond to the
international efficiency protocol levels Mark IV and Mark V (see
section II.C.4) DOE believes that ERMC does not increase between Mark
II and Mark V, but selected the efficiency range between Mark IV and
Mark V to best reflect available EPS market data.
To develop the ERMC for CSL 3, DOE interviewed a manufacturer that
described the components needed to create an EPS with an efficiency of
85 percent and a no-load power consumption of 0.15 watts. These design
options included a quasi-resonant PWM controller, a primary FET and
secondary synchronous rectifier circuit with low voltage drops, a
planar transformer, and wiring with a higher gauge. The manufacturer
estimated that these components would increase the ERMC of the EPS at
CSL 2 by approximately $2.36, although DOE currently has no testing or
teardown data to verify this point.
Table II.32 lists the cost-efficiency points for the 18-watt
medical device EPS, ranging from $2.95 for a 66-percent-efficient EPS
to $5.70 for an 85-percent-efficient EPS. See section II.C.4 for
further information on how the active-mode efficiency and no-load power
requirements for medical device EPSs were developed. Figure II.8 shows
the cost-efficiency curve for the 18-watt medical device EPS along with
data points for the medical device and Class A EPSs that DOE tore down.
Table II.32--Cost-Efficiency Points for an 18-Watt Medical Device EPS for a Nebulizer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum no- Efficiency-
Level Reference point for active-mode load power related Basis
level efficiency % consumption W materials cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..................... % W 2008$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0................. Less Than the IV Mark 66.0 0.557 2.95 Scaled ERMC of EPS
130.
[[Page 56956]]
1................. Meets the IV Mark.... 76.0 0.5 3.62 Average ERMC of
switched-mode EPSs.
2................. Meets the V Mark..... 80.3 0.3 3.62 Average ERMC of
switched-mode EPSs.
3................. Higher Level......... 85.0 0.15 5.70 Manufacturer
interview data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.010
d. The Cost-Efficiency Relationships for EPSs for BCs
DOE developed the cost-efficiency points for the 1.8-watt and 4.8-
watt EPS for BC representative units based on efficiency test data and
cost estimates for 12 Class A EPSs. EPSs for BCs appear to be able to
achieve the same range of efficiencies as Class A EPSs at the same
costs. The majority of the torn-down EPSs were produced in nameplate
output powers, output voltages, and sales volumes that differed from
those of the representative unit (1.8 watts, 6 volts, and 1,000,000
units per year, respectively). Thus, DOE scaled the ERMCs and active-
mode efficiencies of the torn-down EPSs using the models described in
section II.C.3. The original and scaled characteristics of the torn-
down EPSs and additional 5-watt EPSs are shown in Table II.33 and Table
II.34, respectively, with the scaled characteristics highlighted in
gray.
[[Page 56957]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.012
DOE used the scaled ERMC of the line-frequency EPS 17 as
the ERMC for the CSL 0. For CSLs 1 through 3, DOE chose to use the
average of the scaled ERMCs of all switched-mode units shown in Table
II.34. This is because DOE observed no clear correlation between the
average active-mode efficiencies of the switched-mode EPSs and their
ERMCs. See section II.C.4 for more information on how the active-mode
efficiency and no-load power
[[Page 56958]]
consumption requirements were chosen for these CSLs.
Table II.35 lists the cost-efficiency points for the 1.8-watt EPS
for a BC for a vacuum, ranging from $0.83 for a 24-percent-efficient
EPS to $0.95 for a 66-percent-efficient EPS.
Figure II.9 shows the cost-efficiency curve for the EPS along with
data for the Class A EPSs that DOE analyzed.
Table II.35--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 1.8-Watt EPS for BC for a Vacuum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum active- Maximum no- Efficiency-
Level Reference point for mode load power related Basis
level efficiency % consumption W materials cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..................... % W 2008$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0................. Less than the II Mark 24 1.85 $0.83 Scaled ERMC of EPS
17.
1................. Meets the II Mark.... 45 0.75 $0.95 Average of switched-
mode test data.
2................. Meets the IV Mark.... 55 0.50 $0.95 Average of switched-
mode test data.
3................. Meets the V Mark..... 66 0.30 $0.95 Average of switched-
mode test data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.013
For the 4.8-watt EPS used in a BC designed for use in a DIY power
tool, DOE developed cost-efficiency points by using the same data it
used for the 1.8-watt EPS for the BC analysis. The majority of the
torn-down EPSs were produced in nameplate output powers, output
voltages, and sales volumes different from those of the representative
unit (4.8 watts, 24 volts, and 1 million units per year, respectively).
Thus, DOE scaled the ERMCs and active-mode efficiencies of the torn-
down EPSs using the models described in section II.C.3. Table II.33
shows the original characteristics of the torn-down EPSs. Table II.36
shows the scaled characteristics of the torn-down EPSs with the scaled
characteristics highlighted in gray.
[[Page 56959]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.014
As it did for the 1.8-watt EPS, DOE used the scaled ERMC of the
line-frequency EPS 17 as the ERMC at CSL 0. For CSLs 1 through
3, DOE chose to use the average of the scaled ERMCs of all switched-
mode units shown in Table II.36 because no clear correlation could be
observed between the efficiencies of the switched-mode units and their
ERMCs. See section II.C.4 for information on how DOE chose the active-
mode efficiency and no-load power consumption requirements for these
CSLs.
Table II.37 lists the cost-efficiency points for the 4.8-watt EPS
used in a DIY power tool BC, which range from $1.04 for a 38-percent-
efficient EPS to $1.19 for a 72-percent-efficient EPS. Figure II.10
shows the cost-efficiency curve for the EPS along with data for the
Class A EPSs that DOE analyzed.
Table II.37--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 4.8-Watt EPS for BC for a DIY Power Tool
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum active- Maximum no- Efficiency-
Level Reference point for mode load power related Basis
level efficiency % consumption W materials cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..................... % W 2008$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0................. Less than the II Mark 38 1.85 1.04 Scaled EPS 17 ERMC.
1................. Meets the II Mark.... 56 0.75 1.19 Average of switched-
mode test data.
2................. Meets the IV Mark.... 64 0.50 1.19 Average of switched-
mode test data.
3................. Meets the V Mark..... 72 0.30 1.19 Average of switched-
mode test data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56960]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.015
D. Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization
1. Introduction
The purpose of the energy-use and end-use load characterization is
to identify how consumers use products and equipment, and thereby
determine the change in EPS energy consumption related to different
energy efficiency improvements. For EPSs, DOE's analysis focused on the
consumer products they power and on how end-users operate these
consumer products.
The energy-use and end-use load characterization describes the unit
energy consumption (UEC), which is an input to the LCC and national
impact analyses. UEC represents the typical annual energy consumption
of an EPS in the field. UEC for EPSs is calculated by combining (1)
usage profiles, which describe the time a device spends in each mode in
one year; (2) load, which measures the power provided by the EPS to the
consumer product in each mode; and (3) efficiency, which measures the
power an EPS must draw from mains to power a given load. Because of the
nature of EPSs, the usage profile of the device will be related to the
usage profile of the associated application. DOE assumes that usage
profiles will not change over the analysis period.
For most electric appliances, energy consumption is the energy an
application draws from mains while performing its intended function(s).
EPSs, however, are power conversion devices, and their intended
function is to deliver a portion of the energy drawn from mains to
another application. As a result, EPS energy consumption is more
appropriately characterized as that portion of the energy that the EPS
draws from mains that is not delivered to the load. That is, the energy
consumption of an EPS is the difference between the energy drawn by the
EPS from mains (EIN) and the energy supplied by the EPS to
the attached load (EOUT).
The following sections present the inputs, methodology, and outputs
of the annual unit energy consumption calculations. Section II.D.2
explains how DOE calculated EPS energy consumption by examining
separately each energy-consuming mode of the device. Section II.D.3
contains the usage profiles and load points DOE used for each type of
EPS based on its applications. Section II.D.4 presents the annual
energy consumption values DOE calculated for each representative unit
at each CSL.
DOE seeks comments on the usage profiles and unit energy
consumption calculations used in the determination analysis. DOE also
seeks alternative sources, databases, or methodologies for developing
its energy use estimates. See chapter 4 of the TSD for additional
information on specific calculations.
2. Modes and Application States
When evaluating usage and energy consumption for a device, it is
usually sufficient to observe only the energy-consuming modes of that
device. Because the function of the EPS is to power consumer product
applications, however, evaluating the usage and energy consumption of
the EPS also requires evaluating the usage and energy consumption of
the application itself.
To avoid confusion when describing usage and energy consumption
from the perspective of the application, DOE uses the term
``application state.'' When describing usage and energy consumption
from the perspective of the EPS, DOE uses the term ``EPS mode.''
By definition, all energy-consuming application states are part of
active mode from the perspective of the EPS. That is, since any energy-
consuming application state requires the application to be connected to
the EPS, any energy-consuming application state
[[Page 56961]]
is part of EPS active mode. These states vary by the type of
application. In the discussion of usage profile and load
characterization, DOE will provide an explanation of the application
states it considered when calculating usage and energy consumption.
An EPS can be in active mode, no-load mode, off mode, or unplugged.
Table II.38 gives a summary of these modes.
Table II.38--Summary of EPS Modes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPS on/off switch
EPS mode Status of EPS connection Status of EPS connection selection (if switch is
to mains to application present)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active........................... Connected................ Connected............... On.
No Load.......................... Connected................ Disconnected............ On.
Off.............................. Connected................ Disconnected............ Off.
Unplugged........................ Disconnected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Mode: EPCA defines active mode as the condition in which an
energy-using product (I) is connected to a main power source; (II) has
been activated; and (III) provides one or more main functions (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(i)). EPCA defines active mode for EPSs in
particular as the mode of operation when an external power supply is
connected to the main electricity supply and the output is connected to
a load (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(B)). Thus, in calculating usage profiles and
energy consumption, DOE considers active mode to include any condition
where the EPS is connected to both mains and the application.
Unless otherwise indicated, DOE assumed that while in active mode,
an application places a load of 80 percent of nameplate output power on
the EPS when it is operating, and a load of 20 percent when it is idle.
DOE further assumed that an application places a load of 5 percent of
nameplate output power on the EPS when the application is off. The
following section further discusses each application.
No-Load Mode: EPCA defines no-load mode for EPSs as the mode of
operation when an external power supply is connected to the main
electricity supply and the output is not connected to a load (42 U.S.C.
6291(36)(D)). DOE determined that for EPSs, no-load mode is equivalent
to standby, as explained in the ``Final Rule on Test Procedures for
Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies (Standby Mode and Off
Mode),'' published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2009. (74 FR
13318)
Off Mode: Off mode is a mode applicable only to an EPS with an on/
off switch in which the EPS is connected to mains, is disconnected from
the load, and the on/off switch is set to ``off.'' This definition was
promulgated in the final rule. Of the EPSs examined for the
determination analysis, only the two high power representative units
included on/off switches. In both cases, turning off the switch fully
severed the circuit, creating a situation electrically equivalent to
the EPS being unplugged from mains. To estimate energy consumption, DOE
treated the time when the EPS switch is set to off as equivalent to
unplugged time. DOE seeks information on the prevalence and usage of
on/off switches on all EPSs.
Unplugged Mode: Unplugged mode is when the EPS is disconnected from
mains power. No energy is consumed in this state.
3. Usage Profiles
For many applications, usage depends strongly on the individual
user. To account for the variety of users and their associated usage
profiles, DOE developed multiple usage profiles where appropriate. DOE
then calculated a weighted-average usage profile based on an estimated
distribution of user types. For each user type, DOE provided a
qualitative description of usage to explain the quantitative usage
profile. The following subsections describe the application states,
user types, and usage profiles for each representative unit.
a. Multiple-Voltage EPS (40-Watt Multifunction Device)
DOE identified the following application states for multifunction
devices:
Printing, photocopying, faxing (sending and receiving),
and scanning: The multifunction device is on and performing one of its
primary functions.
Idle: The multifunction device is on but not performing
any printing, photocopying, faxing, or scanning tasks.
Off: The multifunction device is off, whether by automatic
shutdown or by a user-controlled on/off switch.
For multifunction devices, DOE developed one usage profile, which
describes usage in an in-home office setting (Table II.39). This
profile was derived from a DOE report, ``U.S. Residential Information
Technology Energy Consumption in 2005 and 2010,'' prepared by TIAX LLC
in 2006. (TIAX LLC, ``U.S. Residential Information Technology Energy
Consumption in 2005 and 2010.'' Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy,
March 2006.) This usage profile is explained further in section 4.3.1
of the TSD. DOE also derived its estimates of EPS output power from
this report, except for the printing, photocopying, faxing, and
scanning application state, which DOE assumed to be 80 percent of
nameplate output power. DOE invites comments on its usage profile and
output power estimates for EPSs for multifunction devices.
Table II.39--Usage and Output Power of EPS for Multifunction Device
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
EPS mode Application state usage hours/ EPS output
year power W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active........................................ Printing, Photocopying, Faxing, 52 * 32
Scanning.
Idle.................................. 1,606 9.1
Off................................... 7,102 6.2
No Load....................................... Disconnected from EPS................. 0 0
Unplugged..................................... Disconnected from EPS................. 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE estimated EPS output power for printing, photocopying, faxing, and scanning to be 80 percent of nameplate
output power.
[[Page 56962]]
b. Multiple-Voltage EPS (203-Watt Xbox 360)
DOE identified the following application states for the Xbox 360:
Video game playing: The console is on and the user is
actively playing a video game.
Video game idle: The console is on and a video game disc
is inserted, but the user is not interacting with the game, i.e., the
game is paused, abandoned, or at the menu screen.
DVD playing: The console is on, a DVD is inserted, and the
console is actively playing a movie.
DVD idle: The console is on, a DVD is inserted, and a
movie is paused or at the menu screen.
No disc: The console is on, but no disc is inserted.
Off: The console is switched off.
DOE defined two usage profiles for the Xbox 360, one for a light
user and one for a heavy user. The usage profiles were based on in-home
usage audits of video game consoles conducted by The Nielsen Company in
2006. (The Nielsen Company, ``The State of the Console,'' Q4 2006.) DOE
assumed 80 percent of users are light users and 20 percent are heavy
users. DVD usage came from a TIAX report, ``Energy Consumption by
Consumer Electronics in U.S. Residences.'' (TIAX, ``Energy Consumption
by Consumer Electronics in U.S. Residences,'' Final Report to the
Consumer Electronics Association, January 2007.) DOE estimated that DVD
usage did not vary among user types, and that one-third of video game
consoles would be used as a DVD player. DOE estimates of EPS output
power for the various application states were derived from estimates of
EPS input power in a 2008 report from the Natural Resources Defense
Council. (NRDC, ``Lowering the Cost of Play: Improving the Energy
Efficiency of Video Game Consoles,'' November 2008.) DOE invites
comments on its usage profile and output power estimates for EPSs for
the Xbox 360, summarized in Table II.40. Section 4.3.1 of the TSD
contains additional detail.
Table II.40--Usage and Output Power of EPS for Xbox 360
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
EPS mode Application state annual EPS output
usage power * W
hours/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active........................................ Playing Video Game.................... 820 102.62
Idle Video Game....................... 560 101.50
Playing DVD........................... 90 95.02
Idle DVD.............................. 150 95.02
Idle--No Disc......................... 150 86.38
Off................................... 6,990 2.35
No Load....................................... Disconnected from EPS................. 0 0
Unplugged. 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Output power levels for all application states were derived from input power measurements reported in NRDC's
``Lowering the Cost of Play: Improving the Energy Efficiency of Video Game Consoles,'' November 2008, using
DOE's measurements of the efficiency and no-load power consumption of the EPS that ships with the Xbox 360.
c. High-Power EPS (345-Watt Amateur Radio Equipment)
DOE identified the following application states for amateur radio
equipment.
Transmitting: The radio equipment is turned on and
actively transmitting.
Receiving: The radio equipment is turned on and actively
receiving.
Idle: The radio equipment is turned on but neither
transmitting nor receiving.
DOE defined three usage profiles for amateur radio equipment based
on conversations with the Amateur Radio Relay League. The light usage
profile is intended to approximate infrequent use of a radio system.
Light users only use their equipment for limited periods on a weekly
basis or for an extended period on a monthly basis. The medium usage
profile is intended to approximate regular evening or weekend use. The
heavy usage profile is intended to reflect the usage of a repeater
system, which is a radio setup configured to relay transmissions
automatically, or a similar continuous use system. Such systems are
typically never switched off. The light, medium, and heavy usage
profiles were assumed to represent 50 percent, 25 percent, and 25
percent of users, respectively. Section 4.3.2 of the TSD discusses
these three usage profiles.
DOE assumed EPS power consumption to be 80 percent of nameplate in
the transmitting application state and 20 percent of nameplate in the
receiving and idle application states. DOE also assumed that while in
use, a radio system will be transmitting, receiving, and idle for 10
percent, 10 percent, and 80 percent of the time, respectively. DOE
seeks comments on its assumptions about the usage of high-power EPSs,
summarized in Table II.41.
Table II.41--Usage and Output Power of EPS for Amateur Radio Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
EPS mode Application state annual EPS output
usage power W *
hours/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active........................................ Transmitting.......................... 140 276
Receiving............................. 140 69
Idle.................................. 2,411 69
No Load....................................... Disconnected from EPS................. 0 0
Off or Unplugged.............................. 6,070 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE estimated output power levels at 80 percent of nameplate for transmitting and at 20 percent of nameplate
for receiving or idle.
[[Page 56963]]
d. Medical EPS (18-Watt Nebulizers and 35-Watt Sleep Therapy Devices)
DOE identified the following application states for EPSs for sleep
therapy devices and nebulizers:
On: The on/off switch is set to on and the device is in
use.
Off: The on/off switch is set to off and the device is not
in use.
DOE estimated usage for three types of nebulizer users--light,
medium, and heavy--with an even distribution among user types. DOE
based these user types around the number of sessions per day a user
employs the nebulizer. From an energy consumption perspective, a
session involves turning on the nebulizer, inhaling the aerosolized
medication, and then turning the nebulizer off. Each session is assumed
to take an average of 10 minutes. The number of sessions per day ranges
from one in the light usage profile to three in the heavy usage
profile, depending on the severity of the illness and the type of
medication. DOE also assumed that because most users require daily
administration of medication, nebulizer users are unlikely to unplug
their nebulizers (and associated EPSs) from mains.
Some nebulizers with an EPS offer a rechargeable battery pack as an
optional accessory. These EPSs lack charge control because they can
power the product directly without the battery. The usage profiles do
not represent usage under battery power. Such a profile would increase
EPS energy consumption because of the losses inherent in charging and
maintaining a battery. Hence, the nebulizer usage profiles used in the
determination are conservative estimates of EPS energy consumption.
DOE estimated that 25 percent of light users would unplug the EPS
and nebulizer from mains when not in use. DOE further assumed EPS power
consumption to be 80 percent of nameplate in the on application state
and 5 percent of nameplate in the off application state. The usage
profiles DOE developed are contained in section 4.3.3 of the TSD and
are summarized in Table II.42. DOE seeks comments on its assumptions
about the usage of medical EPSs with nebulizers.
Table II.42--Usage and Output Power of EPS for Nebulizer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
EPS mode Application state annual usage hours/ EPS output power W
year *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active................................... On......................... 121.7 14.4
Off........................ 8,638.3 0.9
No Load.................................. Disconnected from EPS...... 0 0
Unplugged................................ ........................... 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE estimated output power levels at 80 percent of nameplate when the application is on and at 20 percent of
nameplate when the application is off.
DOE developed one usage profile for sleep therapy devices that
assumes the user turns on the device when going to sleep and turns it
off after waking 8 hours later. DOE also assumed that because of the
required daily use of the device, users would likely leave their sleep
therapy devices (and associated EPSs) plugged into mains. DOE assumed
EPS power consumption to be 80 percent of nameplate in the on
application state and 10 percent of nameplate in the off application
state. Table II.43 shows this usage profile; section 4.3.3 of the TSD
provides additional detail. DOE seeks comments on its assumptions about
the use of medical EPSs with sleep therapy devices.
Table II.43--Usage and Output Power of EPS for Sleep Therapy Device
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual usage hours/
EPS mode Application state year EPS output power W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active................................... On......................... 2,920 28
Off........................ 5,840 3.5
No Load.................................. Disconnected from EPS...... 0 0
Unplugged................................ ........................... 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. EPS for Battery Charger (1.8-Watt Cordless Handheld Vacuum)
DOE identified the following application states for battery
chargers for cordless handheld vacuums:
Active charging: The battery is connected to the battery
charger and the battery is in the process of charging.
Maintenance: The battery is fully charged and connected to
the battery charger, and the battery charger remains connected to
mains.
Some cordless handheld vacuums use cradles to charge the battery.
The cradles that DOE evaluated in its teardown analysis were found to
contain no circuitry. The cradle acted as an extension of the EPS
output cord. Therefore, in representing usage, DOE treated the time
when the vacuum was detached from the cradle or EPS, and the EPS was
plugged into mains, as no-load mode.
DOE seeks comments on these issues and on the prevalence of
detachable batteries used in household appliances such as cordless
handheld vacuums. DOE also welcomes comments on differentiating between
wall adapters and cradles and on the type of circuitry cradles
typically contain.
DOE developed one usage profile for cordless handheld vacuums with
input from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and the
Power Tool Institute. This profile was used to represent the usage of
all the rechargeable floor care appliances considered in this
determination analysis. DOE assumed EPS power consumption to be 80
percent of nameplate in the active charging application state and 35
percent of nameplate in the maintenance application state. Table II.44
shows this usage profile; see section 4.3.4 of the TSD for additional
detail. DOE seeks
[[Page 56964]]
comments on its assumptions about the usage of EPSs with rechargeable
floor care appliances.
Table II.44--Usage and Output Power of EPS for Cordless Vacuum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual usage
EPS mode Application state hours/year EPS output power W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active................................... Active Charging............. 416 1.44
Maintenance................. 8,292 0.63
No Load.................................. Disconnected from EPS/Cradle 52 0
Unplugged................................ ............................ 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. EPS for Battery Charger (4.8-Watt Power Tool)
DOE identified the following application states for battery
chargers for power tools:
Active charging: The battery is connected to the battery
charger and the battery is in the process of charging. For power tools,
DOE estimated a charge rate of C/3, i.e., the battery would take 3
hours to charge.
Maintenance: The battery is connected to the battery
charger and the battery has been fully charged.
No battery: The battery is not connected to the battery
charger.
DOE developed two usage profiles for power tools: One for light
usage and one for heavy usage. Each profile represents 50 percent of
users. DOE developed the heavy usage profile with input from the Power
Tool Institute. DOE developed the light usage profile based on a
scaled-back user. DOE assumed EPS power consumption to be 80 percent of
nameplate in the active charging application state, 35 percent of
nameplate in the maintenance application state, and 1 watt in the no-
battery state. See section 4.3.5 of the TSD for a discussion of these
usage profiles, which are summarized in Table II.45. DOE seeks comments
on its assumptions about the usage of EPSs with rechargeable DIY power
tools.
Table II.45--Usage and Output Power of EPS for Power Tool
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
EPS mode Application state annual usage EPS Output power W
hours/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active................................... Active Charging............. 105 3.84
Maintenance................. 2,093 1.68
No-Battery.................. 104 1
No Load.................................. Disconnected from EPS....... 104 0
Unplugged................................ ............................ 6,354 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Unit Energy Consumption
EPS power consumption is a function of three factors: the nameplate
output power of the EPS, the efficiency of the EPS, and the consumption
of the EPS when it is in no-load mode. To calculate the energy
consumption of an EPS, DOE combined the time and power consumption
values shown in the usage profiles above according to a methodology
explained in section 4.4 of the TSD. Table II.46 shows the unit energy
consumption values DOE calculated for each type of EPS at each CSL.
Table II.46--EPS Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of EPS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Candidate standard level Multiple- Multiple- EPS for
voltage EPS voltage EPS High-power EPS medical EPS for EPS for power
for MFDs for Xbox 360 devices vacuums tools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 15.8 126.0 103.3 40.2 12.0 6.9
1....................................................... 11.2 32.4 39.5 25.3 4.6 3.3
2....................................................... 7.7 31.9 28.5 19.3 3.1 2.3
3....................................................... 6.6 26.6 24.1 13.6 2.0 1.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
This section describes the methodology that DOE used to analyze the
economic impacts of possible energy efficiency standards on individual
consumers. DOE performed this analysis on the same representative units
evaluated in section II.C.3. The effects of standards on individual
consumers include a change in operating expenses (usually decreased)
and a change in purchase price (usually increased). DOE used two
metrics to determine the effect of potential standards on individual
consumers:
Life-cycle cost is the total consumer expense over the
lifetime of an appliance, including the up-front cost (the total price
paid by a consumer before the appliance can be operated) and all
operating costs (including energy expenditures). DOE discounts future
operating costs to the time of purchase.
Payback period represents the number of years it would
take the customer to recover the assumed higher purchase price of more
energy efficient equipment through decreased operating
[[Page 56965]]
expenses.\1\ Sometimes more energy efficient equipment can have a lower
purchase price than the less energy efficient equipment that it
substitutes. In this case, the consumer realizes an immediate financial
benefit and thus there is no payback period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOE computes a ``simple PBP,'' which uses only the first
year of operating costs. Thus, operating costs are not discounted.
See section II.E for further information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPSs are unique appliances because they are always used in
conjunction with other products of interest. Most EPSs are packaged
with particular products, so consumers usually do not buy EPSs
directly. For example, consumers obtain EPSs for video game systems
when buying the video game systems themselves. Thus, although the LCC
and PBP analyses use the consumer purchase prices of EPSs, in reality,
those prices are a hidden portion of the prices that consumers pay for
the product.
The energy consumption and technologies of the non-Class A EPSs DOE
analyzed is assessed in further detail in section II.B. Chapter 5 of
the TSD contains a description of how DOE used technology options,
energy consumption, and other input data to determine life-cycle cost
and payback period.
F. National Impact Analysis
In its determination analysis, DOE estimated the potential for
national energy savings from energy conservation standards for non-
Class A EPSs, as well as the net present value of such standards.
Figure II.11 depicts these analyses, referred to collectively as the
national impact analysis. A brief description of the national impact
analysis follows.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.016
Unit energy savings (UES) is the difference between the unit energy
consumption (UEC) in the standard case and the UEC in the base case.
Thus, the UES represents the reduced energy consumption of a single
unit due to the higher efficiency generated by a standard. Once
calculated, the UES is then multiplied by the national inventory of
units to calculate national energy savings. For each type of EPS, DOE
calculated the shipment-weighted average UEC of products in that class
sold in a given year. DOE performed these calculations for each year in
the evaluation period in both the standards case and the base case. DOE
then calculated UES by taking the difference between the two cases.
Using the calculated national inventory and UES for each year of the
analysis, DOE calculated national energy savings by multiplying the two
inputs together.
The national net present value of energy conservation standards is
the difference between electricity cost savings and equipment cost
increases. DOE calculated electricity cost savings for each year by
multiplying energy savings by forecasted electricity prices. DOE
assumed that all of the energy cost savings would accrue to consumers
paying residential electricity rates. DOE calculated equipment cost
increases for each year by taking the incremental price increase per
unit between a base-case and a standards-case scenario and multiplying
the difference by the national inventory. For each year, DOE took the
difference between the savings and cost to calculate the net savings
(if positive) or net cost (if negative). After calculating the net
savings and costs, DOE discounted these annual values to the present
time using discount rates of
[[Page 56966]]
3 percent and 7 percent and summed them to obtain the national net
present value. See chapter 6 of the TSD for additional details.
III. Results
A. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
The tables and figures below present key results of the LCC and PBP
analyses for all six of the EPS representative units in the residential
sector. All LCC and PBP results were generated using the AEO2009
residential sector reference case electricity price trend, a start year
of 2013, and a nominal EPS usage pattern. LCC and PBP inputs are
discussed in section II.E. To assess the impact of a standard on
consumers, it is helpful to compute the LCC savings that a consumer
will experience when replacing an EPS at a particular CSL with an EPS
at a different CSL. Eq. III.1 shows how DOE calculated LCC savings:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.017
where LCCSavings k[rtarr]L is the LCC savings that a
consumer would experience when replacing an EPS at CSL k with an EPS
at CSL L,
LCCk is the life-cycle cost of an EPS at CSL k,
LCCL is the life-cycle cost of an EPS at CSL L,
k is the CSL of the EPS being replaced, and
L is the CSL of the EPS being purchased.
DOE assumes that at any given time, EPSs of a variety of
efficiencies can be found on the market for a particular product. (For
example, there are EPSs of different efficiencies for radios and video
game systems.) Different percentages of consumers in the country own
these different EPSs. For example, DOE believes that 17 percent of the
market may own an EPS at CSL 0 for a particular vacuum cleaner battery
charger, while 8 percent of the market may own an EPS at CSL 1 for that
same product. (Because DOE expects that there is a wide variety of
efficiencies in the marketplace, it condensed the efficiencies into the
four CSLs for purposes of analysis.) See Figure III.1 for an example,
where (a) shows the market distribution of efficiencies for the EPS
before standards, and (b) shows consumers with CSL 0 EPSs replacing
those EPSs with units at CSL 1 due to the imposition of a standard at
CSL 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.018
Accordingly, DOE calculated a weighted-average LCC savings based on
how much a potential standard would affect the market. In calculating
the weighted average, DOE assumed that consumers below a standard level
would move up to the standard level and not beyond it when purchasing
new products, while consumers already at the standard level or above it
would continue purchasing at the same levels. Thus, the weighted-
average LCC savings represents the LCC savings of the average consumer
affected by standards. Eq. III.2 shows how DOE calculated the weighted-
average LCC savings:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.019
[[Page 56967]]
where WeightedLCCSavingsL is the LCC savings that the
average consumer affected by a standard set at CSL L would
experience, LCCSavingsk[rarr]L is the LCC savings that a
consumer would experience when replacing an EPS at CSL k with an EPS
at CSL L, and MARKETk is the percentage of the market
already owning EPSs at CSL k.
The same analogy can be drawn for the weighted-average payback
period calculations; that is, DOE calculated a weighted-average payback
period based on how much of the market would be affected by a potential
standard. DOE also assumed that consumers below a standard level would
move up to the standard level and not beyond it when purchasing new
products, while consumers already at the standard level or above it
would continue purchasing at the same levels. Thus, the weighted-
average PBP represents the PBP of the average consumer affected by
standards. Eq. III.3 shows the equation DOE used to calculate the
weighted-average PBP.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.020
where WeightedPBPL is the PBP that the average consumer
affected by a standard set at CSL L would experience, PBPk[rarr]L is
the PBP that a consumer would experience when replacing an EPS at
CSL k with an EPS at CSL L, and MARKETk is the percentage
of the market already owning EPSs at CSL k.
a. Multiple-Voltage EPS (40-Watt Multiple-Function Device)
DOE analyzed two multiple-voltage EPSs. The first was designed for
a multiple-function device and had an output power of 40 watts. Table
III.1 and Figure III.2 present the results for this EPS. Four sets of
results are plotted in the figure:
``Weighted Average'' represents the average LCC savings
weighted by the percentage of the market already at each CSL to
indicate savings for an ``average'' affected consumer (Table III.1).
``Movement from CSL 0'' represents the LCC savings that
consumers owning the baseline EPS would achieve by purchasing EPSs at
CSLs 1, 2, and 3.
``Movement from CSL 1'' represents the LCC savings that
consumers owning the CSL 1 EPS would achieve by purchasing EPSs at CSLs
2 and 3.
``Movement from CSL 2'' represents the LCC savings that
consumers owning the CSL 2 EPS would achieve by purchasing the EPS at
CSL 3.
Table III.1--LCC and Payback Period Results for Multiple-Voltage Forty-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation before standards Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Weighted- Weighted-
Conversion No-load market Consumer Operating average life- average
Standard at CSL efficiency power already at purchase cost LCC cycle cost payback
CSL price savings period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL % W % 2008$ 2008$/year 2008$ 2008$ year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 81 0.5 25 8.45 1.86 16.44 ............ ............
1....................................... 86 0.5 50 9.49 1.32 15.15 1.29 1.9
2....................................... 90 0.3 25 11.26 0.91 15.15 0.43 3.8
3....................................... 91 0.2 0 11.67 0.78 15.01 0.47 3.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56968]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.021
For the multiple-voltage 40-watt EPS, all consumers would
experience positive LCC savings if a standard were set at CSL 1, CSL 2,
or CSL 3. The weighted-average LCC savings for a standard at CSL 2 is
approximately one-third of the weighted-average LCC savings for a
standard at CSL 1 because 50 percent of the market is at a CSL 1
baseline EPS and consumers replacing CSL 1 EPSs with CSL 2 EPSs would
experience LCC savings of about $0.01.
b. Multiple-Voltage EPS (203-Watt Video Game)
DOE also analyzed a multiple-voltage EPS with an output power of
203 watts, designed for use with a video game console. Table III.2 and
Figure III.3 present the results for this EPS.
Table III.2--LCC and Payback Period Results for Multiple-Voltage 203-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation before standards Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Weighted- Weighted-
Conversion No-load market Consumer Operating average life- average
Standard at CSL efficiency power already at purchase cost LCC cycle cost payback
CSL price savings period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL % W % 2008$ 2008$/year 2008$ 2008$ year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 82 12.3 5 19.08 14.87 82.78 ............ ............
1....................................... 86 0.4 95 28.12 3.82 44.49 38.28 0.8
2....................................... 86 0.3 0 28.49 3.76 44.62 1.79 6.1
3....................................... 89 0.3 0 38.29 3.14 51.73 -5.32 14.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56969]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.022
All consumers would experience positive LCC savings if a standard
were set at CSL 1. Consumers replacing CSL 0 EPSs with CSL 2 EPSs
realize LCC savings over 20 times greater than the weighted-average LCC
savings. DOE believes that 95 percent of the market currently consists
of multiple-voltage 203-watt EPSs at CSL 1, such that consumers
replacing a CSL 1 EPSs with an EPS at CSL 2 would realize LCC savings
of -$0.13. If a standard were set at CSL 3, only consumers replacing
CSL 0 EPSs with CSL 3 EPSs would experience positive LCC savings.
Because 95 percent of the market would experience negative LCC savings
(-$7.24) under a CSL 3 standard, however, the majority of consumers
would not recover the increased efficiency-related consumer purchase
price in reduced energy costs over the expected lifetime of the
product.
Note that the weighted-average PBP of a standard at CSL 2 is
greater than the EPS lifetime of 5 years, even though the weighted-
average LCC savings are positive. This is because 95 percent of the
market (those replacing EPSs at CSL 1 with EPSs at CSL 2) would
experience a PBP of 6.4 years if a standard were imposed at CSL 2,
while 5 percent of the market (those replacing EPSs at CSL 0 with EPSs
at CSL 2) would experience a PBP of 0.8 years.
c. High-Power EPS (345-Watt Ham Radio)
DOE analyzed a high-power EPS that is used in amateur radio
applications and has an output power of 345 watts. Table III.3 and
Figure III.4 presents the results for this EPS.
Table III.3--LCC and Payback Period Results for High Power 345-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation before standards Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Weighted- Weighted-
Conversion No-load market Consumer Operating average life- average
Standard at CSL efficiency power already at purchase cost LCC cycle cost payback
CSL price savings period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL % W % 2008$ 2008$/year 2008$ 2008$ year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 62 15.4 60 208.10 16.20 331.75 ............ ............
1....................................... 81 6.0 40 60.71 6.17 107.81 223.95 N/A
2....................................... 84 1.5 0 66.12 5.09 104.93 137.24 N/A
3....................................... 85 0.5 0 76.37 4.50 110.68 131.49 N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56970]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.023
Based on market research, DOE estimated that no consumers own high-
power EPSs at CSL 2 or CSL 3. Note also that there is no weighted-
average PBP at any CSL because consumers replacing EPSs at CSL 0 would
immediately realize savings due to the lower efficiency-related
consumer purchase prices of the EPSs at higher CSLs. DOE assumed that
consumers owning EPSs at CSL 0 are 60 percent of the market.
d. Medical EPS (18-Watt Nebulizer)
DOE analyzed a medical EPS that is used with a nebulizer and has an
output voltage of 18 watts. Table III.4 and Figure III.5 present the
results for this EPS.
Table III.4--LCC and Payback Period Results for Medical 18-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation before standards Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Weighted- Weighted-
Conversion No-load market Consumer Operating average life- average
Standard at CSL efficiency power already at purchase cost LCC cycle cost payback
CSL price savings period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL % W % 2008$ 2008$/year 2008$ 2008$ year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 66 0.6 25 10.62 4.74 40.95 ............ ............
1....................................... 76 0.5 25 13.04 2.99 32.13 8.82 1.4
2....................................... 80 0.3 50 13.04 2.28 27.60 8.94 0.5
3....................................... 85 0.2 0 20.53 1.60 30.79 1.28 7.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation before standards Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Weighted- Weighted-
Conversion No-load market Consumer Operating average life- average
Standard at CSL efficiency power already at purchase cost LCC cycle cost payback
CSL price savings period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL..................................... % W % 2008$ 2008$/year 2008$ 2008$ year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 66 0.6 25 10.62 4.74 40.95 ............ ............
1....................................... 76 0.5 25 13.04 2.99 32.13 8.82 1.4
2....................................... 80 0.3 50 13.04 2.28 27.60 8.94 0.5
3....................................... 85 0.2 0 20.53 1.60 30.79 1.28 7.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56971]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.024
All consumers purchasing medical 18-watt EPSs would experience
positive LCC savings if a standard were set at CSL 1 or CSL 2. The
least weighted-average LCC savings would be experienced under a
standard at CSL 3. This is because if a standard were set at CSL 3,
consumers replacing CSL 2 EPSs with EPSs at CSL 3 would experience
negative LCC savings of -$3.19, lowering the weighted average.
e. EPSs for BCs (1.8-Watt Vacuum)
DOE analyzed two EPSs for BCs; one of them is designed for a
rechargeable hand-vacuum and has an output power of 1.8 watts. Table
III.5 and Figure III.6 present the results for this EPS.
Table III.5--LCC and Payback Period Results for 1.8-Watt EPS for BCs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation before standards Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Weighted- Weighted-
Conversion No-load market Consumer Operating average life- average
Standard at CSL efficiency power already at purchase cost LCC cycle cost payback
CSL price savings period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL % W % 2008$ 2008$/year 2008$ 2008$ year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 24 1.9 30 3.07 2.15 12.27 ............ ............
1....................................... 45 0.8 50 3.52 0.84 7.11 5.17 0.3
2....................................... 55 0.5 20 3.52 0.55 5.89 3.15 0.1
3....................................... 66 0.3 0 3.52 0.35 5.03 3.38 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56972]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.025
Consumers would experience positive LCC savings for a 1.8-watt EPS
for BCs if a standard were set at any CSL. Consumers replacing CSL 0
EPSs would consistently experience the greatest LCC savings. For a
standard at CSL 2, the weighted-average LCC savings would be
approximately half as great as the savings experienced by consumers
replacing CSL 0 EPSs with EPSs at CSL 2. This is because the majority
of the market owns CSL 1 baseline EPSs, and consumers replacing CSL 1
EPSs with CSL 2 EPSs would experience LCC savings that are several
times lower ($1.21) than consumers replacing CSL 0 EPSs with CSL 2 EPSs
($6.38). The situation would be similar for a standard set at CSL 3.
f. EPSs for BCs (4.8-Watt DIY Power Tool)
The second EPS for BCs that DOE analyzed was designed for a
rechargeable power tool and had an output power of 4.8 watts. Table
III.6 and Figure III.7 present the results for this EPS.
Table III.6--LCC and Payback Period Results for a 4.8-Watt EPS for BCs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation before standards Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Weighted- Weighted-
Conversion No-load market Consumer Operating average life- average
Standard at CSL efficiency power already at purchase cost LCC cycle cost payback
CSL price savings period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL % W % 2008$ 2008$/year 2008$ 2008$ year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 38 1.9 25 4.32 0.81 7.81 ............ ............
1....................................... 56 0.8 50 4.94 0.39 6.61 1.19 1.5
2....................................... 64 0.5 25 4.94 0.27 6.11 0.90 0.4
3....................................... 72 0.3 0 4.94 0.19 5.75 1.03 0.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56973]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.026
All consumers would realize positive LCC savings if a standard were
set at any CSL. Consumers of 4.8-watt EPS for BCs replacing CSL 0 EPSs
would experience the greatest LCC savings. For a standard at CSL 2, the
weighted-average LCC savings would be approximately half as great
($0.90) as the savings that would be experienced by consumers replacing
CSL 0 EPSs with CSL 2 EPSs ($1.70). This is because the majority of the
market owns a baseline EPS at CSL 1, and consumers replacing CSL 1 EPSs
with EPSs at CSL 2 would experience LCC savings that are several times
lower ($0.51) than consumers replacing CSL 0 EPSs with CSL 2 EPSs. The
situation would be similar for a standard set at CSL 3.
B. National Impact Analysis
Table III.7 gives a range of values for energy savings potential
for each type of EPS at each CSL. These ranges show the sensitivity of
the simulation model to varying assumptions about the future. The lower
energy savings estimates assume that the energy efficiency of non-Class
A EPSs would improve over time due to factors other than a Federal
standard. Conversely, the higher estimates assume energy efficiency
would not improve over time. DOE also estimated the net present value
of energy savings and incremental consumer costs, assuming discount
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. These estimates of NPV are shown in
chapter 6 of the TSD.
Table III.7--National Energy Savings Potential From Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative primary energy savings potential 2013 to 2042
(trillion BTU*)
Type of EPS -----------------------------------------------------------
CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-Voltage for Multifunction Devices............. 26.21-28.2 46.3-50.4 52.8-56.9
Multi-Voltage for Xbox 360.......................... 1.8-30.8 6.0-34.7 39.9-69.5
High Power (>250 W)................................. 0.25-0.32 0.30-0.38 0.33-0.41
For Medical Devices................................. 5.3-9.7 21.4-28.7 42.6-50.6
For Battery Chargers for Floor Care Appliances...... 0.39-0.69 0.60-0.90 1.09-1.41
For Battery Chargers for Power Tools................ 0.24-0.44 0.42-0.61 0.63-0.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1 Quad = 1,000 trillion BTU.
If a CSL is selected for each type of EPS to maximize energy
savings, subject to the constraint that the NPV be non-negative, total
primary energy savings across all types of non-Class A EPS could be as
much as 141 trillion Btu or 0.14 quads over 30 years. CSL 3 yields
maximum energy savings and has a positive NPV (both at the 3-percent
and 7-percent discount rates) for all EPS types except multiple-voltage
EPSs for the Xbox 360. For multiple-voltage EPSs for the Xbox 360, CSL
2 has a positive NPV in one base case but a negative NPV in the other.
Thus, to estimate energy savings potential across all types of non-
Class A EPS, DOE selected CSL 1 for this one type of EPS. Table III.8
shows the contribution of each EPS type to total savings potential and
the NPV of a standard set at the selected CSL. Notably, most of the
energy savings comes from increasing the efficiency of
[[Page 56974]]
EPSs for medical devices and multiple-voltage EPSs for multifunction
devices.
Table III.8--Energy Savings Potential When CSLs Are Selected to Maximize Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy savings Net present value 2013 to 2042 ($
potential 2013 million)
Type of EPS CSL to 2042 -----------------------------------
(trillion BTU*) 3% discount rate 7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-Voltage for Multifunction Devices. 3 52.8-56.9 156-174 76-85
Multi-Voltage for Xbox 360.............. 1 1.8-30.8 13-189 9-101
High Output Power (>250 W).............. 3 0.33-0.41 2.4-2.9 1.2-1.5
For Medical Devices..................... 3 42.6-50.6 81-130 27-50
For Battery Chargers for Cordless 3 1.09-1.41 8.0-10.1 4.5-5.6
Handheld Vacuums.......................
For Battery Chargers for Power Tools.... 3 0.63-0.82 4.1-5.1 2.3-2.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... ................ 99-141 264-512 120-245
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1 Quad = 1,000 trillion BTU.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the
Office of Management and Budget has determined that today's regulatory
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f)(1)
of Executive Order 12866. Therefore, this action is not subject to OIRA
review under the Executive Order.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel's
Web site, http://www.gc.doe.gov.
DOE reviewed today's proposed rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003.
Today's proposed rule, if promulgated, would set no standards; it
would only positively determine that future standards may be warranted
and should be explored in an energy conservation standards rulemaking.
Economic impacts on small entities would be considered in the context
of such a rulemaking. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that
the proposed rule, if promulgated, would have no significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has
not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE
will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual
basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This rulemaking, which proposes to determine that the development
of energy efficiency standards for non-Class A EPS is warranted, will
impose no new information or record keeping requirements. Accordingly,
OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
In this notice, DOE proposes to positively determine that future
standards may be warranted and should be explored in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking. DOE has determined that review under
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.;
NEPA) is not required at this time. NEPA review can only be initiated
``as soon as environmental impacts can be meaningfully evaluated'' (10
CFR 1021.213(b)). Because this proposed rule would only determine that
future standards may be warranted, but would not itself propose to set
any standard, DOE has determined that there are no environmental
impacts to be evaluated at this time. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined today's proposed rule and
has determined that it would not preempt State law or have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the products that are the subject of today's
proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of
[[Page 56975]]
new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice
Reform'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) imposes on Federal agencies the
general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize
litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct
rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden
reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires
that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2)
clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the
relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a
rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million
or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202
of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that
estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),(b)) The UMRA also requires a
Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input
by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a
proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an
agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments before establishing any
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on
its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA (62 FR 12820)
(also available at http://www.gc.doe.gov).
Today's proposed rule, if promulgated, would not result in
expenditures of $100 million or more in a given year by the external
power supply industries affected by this rulemaking. This is because
today's proposed rule sets no standards; it only positively determines
that future standards may be warranted and should be explored in an
energy conservation standards rulemaking. The proposed rule also does
not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate. Thus, DOE is not
required by UMRA to prepare a written statement assessing the costs,
benefits, and other effects of the proposed rule on the national
economy.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not
result in any takings which might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 2001
The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44
U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations
of information to the public under guidelines established by each
agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. The OMB's
guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's
guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the
OIRA a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's regulatory action proposing to determine that development
of energy efficiency standards for non-Class A EPS is warranted would
not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy. The OIRA Administrator has also not designated this
rulemaking as a significant energy action. Therefore, DOE has
determined that this proposed rule is not a significant energy action.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664. (January 14, 2005)
The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be
peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the
Federal government, including influential scientific information
related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to
enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific
information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards
rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific information.'' The
Bulletin defines ``influential scientific information'' as ``scientific
information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does
have, a clear and substantial impact on important public
[[Page 56976]]
policies or private sector decisions.'' 70 FR 2667 (January 14, 2005).
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process
and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. The ``Energy
Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report,'' dated February
2007, has been disseminated and is available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
notice or any aspect of the rulemaking no later than the date provided
at the beginning of this notice. After the close of the comment period,
DOE will review the comments received and determine, by December 19,
2009, whether energy conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs are
warranted.
Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE's e-mail address
for this rulemaking should be provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word,
PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. Submissions should avoid the use of
special characters or any form of encryption, and wherever possible
comments should include the electronic signature of the author.
Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE by mail or hand
delivery/courier should include one signed original paper copy. No
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
According to 10 CFR part 1004.11, any person submitting information
that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from
public disclosure should submit two copies: one copy of the document
including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy
of the document with the information believed to be confidential
deleted. DOE will make its own determination as to the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known or available from public sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure; (6) a date after which such information might no
longer be considered confidential; and (7) why disclosure of the
information would be contrary to the public interest.
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments
Comments are welcome on all aspects of this rulemaking. DOE is
particularly interested in receiving comment from interested parties on
the following issues as they relate to non-Class A EPSs:
Applications not included in this determination analysis,
Product lifetimes,
Present-year shipments estimates,
Present-year efficiency distributions,
Market growth forecasts,
Usage profiles,
Technology options for increasing efficiency,
Costs related to increasing efficiency,
Unit energy consumption calculations and values,
Prevalence of on/off switches,
Prevalence of charge control in wall adapters for motor-
operated, battery-charged products,
Circuitry designs used in cradle chargers, and
Alternative sources, databases, and methodologies for the
analyses and inputs used in this determination.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 23, 2009.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. E9-26192 Filed 11-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ?>