[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 93 (Friday, May 14, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27170-27182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11592]
[[Page 27170]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-DET-0005]
RIN 1904-AB80
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Determination
Concerning the Potential for Energy Conservation Standards for Non-
Class A External Power Supplies
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) has
determined, based on the best information currently available, that
energy conservation standards for non-Class A external power supplies
are technologically feasible and economically justified, and would
result in significant energy savings. This determination initiates the
process of establishing, by notice and comment rulemaking, energy
conservation standards for these products.
DATES: This rule is effective June 14, 2010.
ADDRESSES: This rulemaking can be identified by docket number EERE-
2009-BT-DET-0005 and/or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904-
AB80.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, the
technical support document, or comments received go to the U.S.
Department of Energy, Resource Room of the Building Technologies
Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024,
(202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the above
telephone number for additional information about visiting the Resource
Room. You may also obtain copies of certain documents in this
proceeding from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's
Web site at 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 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 Determination
A. Background and Legal Authority
B. Scope
1. DC-DC Power Supplies
2. Basic Approaches to Regulating Wall Adapters for BCs
3. Specific Criteria for Identifying the Presence of Charge
Control
4. Size of the EPS for BC Market
II. Methodology
A. Purpose and Content
B. Test Procedures
C. Market Assessment
D. Technology Assessment
E. Engineering Analysis
F. Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
H. National Impact Analysis
III. Analysis Results
A. Engineering Analysis
B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
C. National Impact Analysis
D. Discussion
1. Significance of Energy Savings
2. Impact on Consumers
IV. Conclusion
A. Determination
B. Future Proceedings
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Determination
EPCA requires DOE to issue a final rule determining whether to
issue energy efficiency standards for non-Class A external power
supplies (EPSs). Consistent with this requirement, DOE has analyzed
multiple candidate standard levels for non-Class A EPSs. These analyses
indicate that it is technologically feasible to manufacture EPSs at
some of these levels in large part because EPSs that meet these levels
are already commercially available. DOE further determined that
standards for all non-Class A EPSs that DOE analyzed could be set that
would reduce the life-cycle cost (LCC) of ownership for the typical
consumer. That is, any increase in equipment cost resulting from a
standard would be more than offset by energy cost savings.
DOE's analyses also indicate that energy conservation standards
would also likely be cost-effective from a national perspective. The
national net present value (NPV) of energy conservation standards for
non-Class A EPSs could be as much as $512 million in 2008$, assuming an
annual discount rate of 3 percent. As a result, these analyses indicate
that both individual consumers and the Nation as a whole would likely
benefit economically from the imposition of energy conservation
standards for non-Class A EPSs. Accordingly, DOE has positively
determined that such standards are technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings.
DOE notes that its forecast of projected savings and national NPV
considers only the direct financial costs and benefits to consumers of
standards, specifically, the increased equipment costs of EPSs
purchased from 2013 to 2032 and the associated energy cost savings over
the lifetimes of those products. In its determination analysis, DOE did
not monetize or otherwise characterize any other potential costs and
benefits of standards such as manufacturer impacts or power plant
emission reductions. Such impacts will be examined in a future analysis
of the economic feasibility of particular standard levels in the
context of a standards rulemaking.
DOE's analysis also indicates that standards would result in
significant energy savings--as much as 0.14 quads of energy over 30
years (2013 to 2042). This is equivalent to the annual electricity
needs of 1.1 million U.S. homes.
Further documentation supporting the analyses described in today's
final rule is contained in the notice of proposed determination,
published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2009, (74 FR 56928)
and the accompanying technical support document (TSD), available from
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at
[[Page 27171]]
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
The nature of this document results from the specific statutory
requirements that DOE issue this notice as a rule. In accordance with
this requirement, DOE issued its November 2009 notice prior to today's
final rule notice. In addition, DOE combined as appropriate the
analysis required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA 2007), Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007), with the analysis that
DOE had already performed as a result of requirements added previously
by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Public Law 109-58 (Aug.
8, 2005). EPACT 2005 required DOE to issue a determination analysis to
address battery chargers and external power supplies; EISA 2007
subsequently amended this provision by focusing the analysis solely on
external power supplies.
A. Background and Legal Authority
Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309)
provides for the ``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products
Other Than Automobiles.'' EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to require DOE to
issue a final rule determining whether to issue efficiency standards
for battery chargers (BCs) and EPSs. DOE initiated this determination
analysis rulemaking in 2006, which included a scoping workshop on
January 24, 2007, at DOE headquarters in Washington, DC. The
determination was underway and on schedule for issuance by August 8,
2008, as originally required by EPACT 2005.
However, EISA 2007 also amended EPCA by setting efficiency
standards for certain types of EPSs (Class A) and modifying the
statutory provision that directed DOE to perform the determination
analysis (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I), as amended). EISA 2007 removed
BCs from the determination, leaving only EPSs, and changed the allotted
time to complete the determination.
In addition to the existing general definition of EPS, EISA 2007
amended EPCA to define a ``Class A external power supply'' (42 U.S.C.
6291(36)(C)) and set efficiency standards for those products (42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(3)). As amended by EISA 2007, the statute further directs DOE
to publish a final rule by July 1, 2011 to evaluate whether the
standards set for Class A EPSs should be amended and, if so, to include
any amended standards as part of that final rule. (42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(3)(D)(i)) The statute further directs DOE to publish a second
final rule by July 1, 2015, to again determine whether the standards in
effect should be amended and to include any amended standards as part
of that final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii))
Because Congress has already set standards for Class A EPSs and
separately required DOE through a separate statutory provision to
perform two rounds of rulemakings to consider amending efficiency
standards for Class A EPSs, see 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3), the determination
analysis under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) excluded these products
from this analysis. Accordingly, the present determination concerns
only EPSs falling outside of the Class A definition, i.e., ``non-Class
A EPSs.''
EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA also require DOE to issue a final rule
prescribing energy conservation standards for BCs, if technologically
feasible and economically justified, by July 1, 2011 (42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(II)). The BC rulemaking has been bundled with the
rulemaking for Class A EPSs, given the related nature of such products
and the fact that these provisions share the same statutory deadline.
DOE initiated the energy conservation standards rulemaking for BCs and
Class A EPSs by publishing a framework document on June 4, 2009, and
holding a public meeting at DOE headquarters on July 16, 2009. DOE is
now developing its preliminary analysis of standards for BCs and Class
A EPSs. With today's positive determination that standards are
warranted for non-Class A EPSs, standards for these products also will
be considered within the ongoing standards rulemaking.
The Department began the analysis for this determination by
conducting testing and teardowns on commercially available non-Class A
EPSs and by collecting information from manufacturers of non-Class A
EPSs and original equipment manufacturers that use non-Class A EPSs.
The Department shared its preliminary findings regarding efficiency
improvements in its November 2009 notice of proposed determination
(NOPD). 74 FR 56928. This notice was accompanied by a technical support
document (TSD), which was published on the EERE Web site. Subsequently,
the Department received written comments on the notice and TSD from the
Power Tool Institute, Inc. (PTI); the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM); Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E); a joint
comment from the California Energy Commission (CEC), PG&E, San Diego
Gas and Electric Company, Appliance Standards Awareness Project,
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (hereafter referred to as the
CEC comment); and the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA). (PTI, No.
5; AHAM, No. 6; PG&E, No. 7; CEC et al., No. 8; and CEA, No. 9).
For more information about DOE rulemakings concerning BCs and EPSs,
see the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
B. Scope
As explained in the NOPD, the scope of this determination covers
all EPSs falling outside of Class A, which DOE identifies in this
notice as non-Class A EPSs. EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005, defines an
EPS as ``an external power supply circuit that is used to convert
household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC current
to operate a consumer product.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) EISA 2007
amended EPCA by, among other things, defining in 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)
a subset of external power supplies (i.e. a Class A EPS).
The analysis underlying DOE's NOPD focused on four EPS types: (1)
Multiple-voltage EPSs--EPSs that can provide multiple output voltages
simultaneously; (2) high power EPSs--EPSs with nameplate output power
greater than 250 watts; (3) medical EPSs--EPSs that power medical
devices and EPSs that are themselves medical devices; and (4) EPSs for
battery chargers (EPSs for BCs)--EPSs that power the chargers of
detachable battery packs or charge the batteries of products that are
fully or primarily motor operated. 74 FR 56930.
1. DC-DC Power Supplies
CEA asked DOE to clarify whether DC-DC power supplies are outside
the scope of the EPS definition. (CEA, No. 9 at p. 2) The statutory
definition of an EPS is ``an external power supply circuit that is used
to convert household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage
AC current to operate a consumer product.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A))
Household electric current is nominally 120 volts AC. Thus, under the
statutory definition set by Congress, wall adapters with DC input power
are not EPSs.
[[Page 27172]]
2. Basic Approaches to Regulating Wall Adapters for BCs
DOE has identified four possible approaches to regulating wall
adapters for BCs. These four approaches, referred to as approaches A,
B, C, and D, are explained in the framework document referred to in the
notice of document availability DOE published in the Federal Register
on June 4, 2009.\1\ 74 FR 26816. Under Approach A, a wall adapter would
be considered an EPS only if it lacked charge control (i.e., a method
to control the charge flowing to the battery). In addition, the EPS
could be subject to both EPS and BC standards if it were also a part of
a battery charging system. Under Approach B a wall adapter would not be
considered an EPS as long as it powered a battery charger (the presence
or absence of charge control being irrelevant). Approach C is similar
to Approach A in that a wall adapter would be considered an EPS only if
it lacked charge control; however, under Approach C the EPS would only
be subject to EPS standards and not BC standards, even if it were also
part of a battery charging system. Under Approach D a wall adapter that
powers a battery charging system would always be considered an EPS
regardless of the presence of charge control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These approaches are explained in section 3.2.3.3 of DOE's
framework document for the BC and EPS energy conservation standards
rulemaking (available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external_std_2008.html).
The approaches also address the related question of whether the wall
adapter should be considered part of the BC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received comments related to EPSs for BCs in response to the
NOPD. Many of these comments revolved around two closely related
questions: (1) When is a wall adapter an EPS and (2) When is an EPS
considered part of a BC? Comments on this issue were submitted by
parties representing a variety of interests, including industry and
energy efficiency advocates. The following two paragraphs describe the
comments DOE received related to these questions, while the third and
fourth paragraphs that follow provide DOE's responses to those
comments.
The first set of comments concerned the question of when a wall
adapter should be categorized as an EPS. PG&E urged DOE to adopt
Approach A as it is described in the framework document, claiming that
this approach ensures a technically accurate, common sense approach to
defining EPSs and battery chargers. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 6) PG&E's
comment echoed its earlier comment and those of several others,
including FRIWO, PTI, Ecos Consulting, and Motorola, who stated their
support for Approach A in written comments on the framework document
and at the associated public meeting on July 16, 2009. (FRIWO, EERE-
2008-BT-STD-0005 No. 21 at p. 1; Pub. Mtg. Tr., EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005
No. 14 at pp. 62, 116; Motorola, EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 No. 25 at p. 1;
PG&E et al., EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 No. 20 at p. 3) PTI reiterated its
preference for Approach B and noted that if Approach B were not
available, Approach A would be the next best option. (PTI, No. 5 at p.
2) AHAM urged DOE to accept a slight modification of Approach B and
agreed with PTI that of the remaining approaches, Approach A would be
the next best option. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 4) The modification to
Approach B that AHAM requested would also exclude from the set of EPSs
all high power wall adapters that are used to charge batteries and all
wall adapters that are used to charge batteries for medical devices.
DOE indicated in its framework document that Approach B would be
inconsistent when applied to the Class A EPS statutory definition,
because DOE cannot limit the scope of the EPS definition by adding
another exclusion to those already created by Congress. AHAM also asked
DOE to address more fully its reasons for not selecting Approach B when
applying it to non-Class A EPSs. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 3)
The second set of comments concerned the closely related question
of when an EPS should be considered part of a BC. AHAM and PTI
expressed their opposition to overlapping standards, i.e., requiring an
EPS to comply with an EPS standard and the BC of which it is part to
comply with a BC standard. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 1; AHAM, No. 6 at p. 2)
Approaches A and D could potentially lead to the overlap that AHAM and
PTI oppose. PTI reiterated its contention that ``the proper way to deal
with the efficiency of BCs is through a comprehensive standard that
treats the charger as [a] whole, including the wall adapter (if one is
part of the system).'' (PTI, No. 5 at p. 1) AHAM agreed, stating that
``we do not believe it is appropriate conceptually or technically to
separate the testing of any parts of the battery recharging circuit in
a test procedure for battery chargers.'' (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 2) AHAM
proposed that DOE create a separate class of BCs called ``appliance
battery chargers'' that would encompass both wall adapter-based and
cord-connect-based appliance battery chargers and further noted that
testing a wall adapter first as an EPS and then as a part of a battery
charger system ``would be an extreme burden on all manufacturers, but
particularly on the small and medium sized enterprises and provide no
benefit to consumers.'' (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 3)
DOE used Approach A to define the scope of its determination
analysis. This is the approach that DOE identified in the framework
document as its preferred approach to determining which wall adapters
are EPSs. DOE also explained in the framework document that it
considers Approach B legally unacceptable for Class A EPSs because it
would create additional exclusions of products that would otherwise
satisfy the statutory definition of a Class A EPS. Since Congress
already established specific exclusions to the Class A EPS definition,
DOE has tentatively taken the position that it does not retain the
authority to create exclusions beyond that which Congress has
established. See the Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework
Document for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies, at 32.
However, DOE did not rule out applying Approach B for non-Class A
EPSs, an approach both AHAM and Wahl Clipper have requested DOE
consider. (AHAM, EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 No. 16 at pp. 2-3; Wahl Clipper,
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 No. 23 at p. 1) When viewed in light of these and
similar comments received earlier during the rulemaking process for
these products, AHAM and PTI's objections to overlapping standards
appear to focus on non-Class A EPSs, not Class A EPSs. If Approach A
were used for Class A EPSs and Approach B were used for non-Class A
EPSs, wall adapters that power the chargers of detachable battery packs
or charge the batteries of products that are fully or primarily motor
operated would not be subject to EPS standards while those wall
adapters that power other battery charged applications (Class A EPSs)
would be subject to EPS standards. Nevertheless, DOE is concerned that
using Approach A for Class A EPSs and Approach B for non-Class A EPSs
would create two distinct definitions of an EPS that would prevent one
from readily identifying a particular wall adapter as being an EPS
until it is known whether it powers the charger of a detachable battery
pack or charges the battery of a product that is fully or primarily
motor operated. DOE intends to make a decision on this issue as part of
the standards rulemaking.
DOE acknowledges that if it applied Approach B to non-Class A EPSs,
the total energy savings potential from non-Class A EPS standards would
be less than under Approach A, as EPSs for BCs would not be covered.
However, the reduction in savings would be small, as
[[Page 27173]]
EPSs for BCs account for less than 2 percent of the savings estimated
in the present analysis. Furthermore, DOE believes that these savings
would be captured by BC standards that would cover the devices of which
the wall adapters were a part.
3. Specific Criteria for Identifying the Presence of Charge Control
PG&E and AHAM commented on the criteria for determining whether
charge control is present in a wall adapter. PG&E strongly urged DOE to
remain consistent with the criteria identified in the framework
document that focus on electrical equivalency and battery charger
functions. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 3) PG&E cautioned against using a vague
and undefined ``constant voltage'' criterion for identifying EPSs,
citing research conducted by Ecos Consulting that examined the
electrical characteristics of wall adapters that power the chargers of
detachable battery packs or charge the batteries of products that are
fully or primarily motor operated. This research found at least one
wall adapter that was electrically equivalent to Class A EPSs that did
not produce constant voltage output and at least one wall adapter that
was not electrically equivalent to Class A EPSs that produced constant
voltage output. (PG&E, No. 7 at pp. 4-5) As a result, PG&E recommended
that DOE ``rely on physical indications of charge control circuitry or
functionality, such as a battery-charge indicator or chemistry-type
selector switch'' rather than ``constant voltage'' for determining
whether charge control is present in a wall adapter. (PG&E, No. 7 at p.
7) AHAM asked that DOE state clearly the criteria that will be used to
determine whether charge control is present in a wall adapter. (AHAM,
No. 6 at p. 4) AHAM further urged DOE to accept the criteria for charge
control that were discussed at the framework document public meeting on
July 16, 2009, as doing so would lead to ``the vast majority of AHAM
battery chargers using wall adapters being treated as complete battery
chargers.'' (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 6)
DOE has not yet established final criteria for determining which
wall adapters are EPSs. In the framework document, DOE sought
stakeholder comment on four possible criteria for identifying charge
control in a wall adapter--short-circuit operation, voltage regulation,
no-load voltage, and no-battery operation, but did not indicate which
criteria it would use going forward. In the NOPD and today's notice,
DOE used constant voltage output as a preliminary criterion for
establishing the absence of charge control and thereby identifying
EPSs. Comments submitted in response to the NOPD questioned whether
constant voltage output would be an appropriate test when determining
whether a particular product lacks charge control, and DOE is
reconsidering this approach. The protocol for determining which wall
adapters are EPSs will be finalized within the standards rulemaking.
4. Size of the EPS for BC Market
DOE received several comments on the size of the market for EPSs
for BCs. Interested parties disagreed on the size of the market due to
a difference of opinion as to what proportion of wall adapters for the
BCs under consideration were EPSs. AHAM agreed with DOE's estimate that
no more than 5 percent of wall adapters for cordless rechargeable floor
care appliances provide constant voltage, adding that if this estimate
is used as the basis for the determination, the same criteria used to
arrive at this estimate must be used in the standards NOPR and Final
Rule as well. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) AHAM also agreed with DOE that wall
adapters for rechargeable personal care appliances use charge control
and, therefore, are not EPSs. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 4) PTI agreed with
DOE's estimate that approximately 5 percent of all wall adapters for
powers tool BCs are true EPSs, adding that if the charge control
criteria were significantly altered in the future, the validity of the
determination could be eroded. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 2)
PG&E, however, commented that DOE greatly underestimated the number
of EPSs for BCs. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 7) CEC concurred and urged DOE to
reconsider its methodology for calculating energy savings potential
from EPSs for BCs, citing PG&E research that suggests the potential
savings from this group of products is 20 times higher than DOE
suggested. (CEC et al., No. 8 at p. 1)
Until the protocol for determining which wall adapters are EPSs is
finalized, the number of EPSs for BCs cannot be accurately estimated.
In light of the absence of this protocol, DOE conservatively estimated
the size of the market for EPSs for BCs in the determination analysis.
A larger market would only serve to increase the potential energy
savings from standards for these products, which would serve as
additional support for the positive determination that DOE has already
reached using its more conservative approach.
II. Methodology
A. Purpose and Content
The Department analyzed the feasibility of achieving significant
energy savings from energy conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs.
The NOPD presented the results of this analysis. As part of the
subsequent standards rulemaking, DOE will perform more robust analyses.
These analyses will involve more precise and detailed information that
the Department will develop and receive during the standards rulemaking
process, and will detail the potential effects of proposed energy
conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs.
To address EPCA requirements that DOE determine whether energy
conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs would be technologically
feasible and economically justified and result in significant energy
savings, the Department's analysis consisted of six separate analyses:
(1) A market assessment to better understand where and how non-Class A
EPSs are used, (2) a technology assessment to better understand the
technology options that can increase efficiency, (3) an engineering
analysis to estimate how different design options affect efficiency and
cost, (4) an energy use and end-use load characterization that
describes how much energy non-Class A EPSs consume and for how long
they operate, (5) an LCC analysis to estimate the costs and benefits to
users from increased efficiency of non-Class A EPSs, and (6) a national
impact analysis to estimate the potential energy savings and the
economic costs and benefits on a national scale that would result from
improving the energy efficiency of non-Class A EPSs. These separate
analyses are briefly addressed later below.
B. Test Procedures
The test procedure for measuring the energy consumption of single-
voltage EPSs, which applies to high power EPSs, medical EPSs, and EPSs
for BCs, is codified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z,
``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of External
Power Supplies.'' DOE modified this test procedure, pursuant to EISA
2007, to include standby and off modes.
DOE first proposed a test procedure for measuring the energy
consumption of multiple-voltage EPSs in a NOPR published in the Federal
Register on August 15, 2008. 73 FR 48054. PG&E suggested that DOE use
an internal power supply test procedure, such as
[[Page 27174]]
the PG&E test procedure for computers,\2\ to test multiple-voltage
EPSs. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 2) DOE recently proposed another test
procedure for multiple-voltage EPSs on April 2, 2010. 75 FR 16958. The
proposed test procedure, like its predecessor, is based, in part, on
test procedures for internal power supplies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Proposed Test Protocol for Calculating the Energy
Efficiency of Internal Ac-Dc Power Supplies,'' Revision 6.2,
California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research
Program, November 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Market Assessment
To understand the present and future market for non-Class A EPSs,
DOE gathered data on these EPSs and their associated applications. DOE
also examined the industry composition, distribution channels, and
regulatory and voluntary programs for non-Class A EPSs. The market
assessment provides important inputs to the LCC analysis and national
impact analysis. DOE published the details of its market assessment in
the NOPD and accompanying TSD.
PG&E and CEC both commented that the number of high power EPSs
(those with nameplate output power greater than 250 watts) is likely to
increase in the future as applications such as game consoles, fast
chargers, and other home electronics demand increasing amounts of
power. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 2; CEC et al., No. 8 at p. 1) In its
determination analysis, DOE assumed the high power EPS market would not
change in size. While DOE recognizes that the market for high power
EPSs may grow in the future, a no-growth assumption is sufficient to
form a basis for the determination since growth in high power EPSs
would only lend further support in favor of a positive determination.
Nevertheless, DOE will continue to monitor the market and take such
trends into account in the standards rulemaking.
AHAM requested more information on how the markups from efficiency-
related materials cost to end-user product prices were calculated
(AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) Section 1.2 of the TSD indicates that the sources
for the markups were interviews with EPS manufacturers, gross margin
data for OEMs and retailers/distributors, and sales tax data. For each
representative unit, DOE provides a figure that shows how the products
get to market and a table listing the corresponding markups. DOE will
explain its markup calculations in greater detail in the standards
rulemaking.
In the NOPD, DOE stated that it was not aware of any non-motor
operated applications with an EPS that powers the charger of a
detachable battery pack and invited interested parties to provide
information about any such applications. 74 FR 56933. CEA, however,
identified what it believed were three such applications: bar code
scanners, mobile computers, and wireless headphones. (CEA, No. 9 at p.
2) A bar code scanner is not a consumer product as defined by EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6291(1)) The mobile computers that CEA is referring to may be
consumer products, while wireless headphones very likely are consumer
products. DOE will research these two potential EPS applications in the
standards rulemaking.
D. Technology Assessment
The technology assessment examines the technology behind the design
of non-Class A EPSs and focuses on the components and subsystems that
have the biggest impact on energy efficiency. The technology
assessment's key output is a list of technology options for
consideration in the engineering analysis. DOE published the details of
its technology assessment in the NOPD and accompanying TSD.
PG&E believed that cost-effective efficiency improvements already
broadly implemented in the Class-A EPS marketplace can be easily
incorporated into all non-Class A EPSs, particularly high-efficiency
switched-mode power supply topologies and circuit designs that enable
low power consumption in no-load mode. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 1)
Specifically, PG&E can find no technical justification for treating
non-Class A EPSs sold with BCs differently than Class A EPSs sold with
non-BC products. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 4) In the NOPD, DOE described
technology options applicable to Class A EPSs that were also applicable
to non-Class A EPSs. DOE continues to believe that those technology
options are applicable to non-Class A EPSs.
PG&E commented that U.S. Food and Drug Administration safety
requirements are compatible with efficient EPS technology. (PG&E, No. 7
at p. 2) As indicated in the NOPD, DOE continues to believe that
medical EPSs have the same potential for efficiency improvements as do
Class A EPSs.
E. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to determine the
relationship between a non-Class A EPS's efficiency and its efficiency-
related materials cost (ERMC). (The ERMC includes all of the
efficiency-related raw materials listed in the bill of materials but
not the direct labor and overhead needed to create the final product.
The materials cost forms the basis for the price consumers eventually
pay.) This relationship serves as the basis for the underlying costs
and benefits to individual consumers and the Nation (life-cycle cost
analysis and national impacts analysis). The output of the engineering
analysis provides the ERMC at selected, discrete levels of efficiency
for six non-Class A EPS ``representative units''. The engineering
analysis methodology section in the NOPD details the development of the
analysis and includes descriptions of the analysis structure, inputs,
and outputs. Related supporting materials are also found in the TSD.
To develop this analysis, DOE gathered data by interviewing
manufacturers, conducting independent testing and research, and
commissioning EPS teardowns. Through interviews, manufacturers provided
information on the relative popularity of EPS models and the cost of
increasing their efficiency. To validate the information provided by
manufacturers, DOE performed its own market research and testing. To
independently establish the cost of some of the tested units, DOE
contracted iSuppli Corporation (iSuppli), an industry leader in the
field of electronics cost estimation.
DOE began the engineering analysis by identifying the
representative product classes and selecting one representative unit
for analysis from each of the representative product classes.
Representative units are theoretical models of popular or typical
devices described in terms of all characteristics, such as output power
and output voltage, except for efficiency and cost. DOE evaluates each
representative unit at different efficiency levels to determine the
associated costs. Although the efficiency of power converters in the
market ranges over an almost continuous spectrum, DOE focused its
analysis at select candidate standard levels (CSLs). In the engineering
analysis, DOE examined the cost of production at each CSL for each
representative unit. The resulting relationship was termed an
``engineering curve'' or ``cost-efficiency curve.'' The outputs of this
analysis, presented in section III. A, are the cost-efficiency points
that define those curves.
DOE received comments from AHAM and PTI regarding the cost-
efficiency relationship described by the results of the engineering
analysis. PTI asserted that it is unreasonable that cost appears to be
independent of efficiency, and AHAM questioned the validity of a cost-
efficiency curve that shows flat cost
[[Page 27175]]
with varying efficiency. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 2; AHAM, No. 6 at p. 6)
In the NOPD, DOE developed cost-efficiency curves for the six
representative units. Four of the six cost-efficiency curves have a
positive slope, indicating that an increase in efficiency is associated
with an increase in cost. (For the 345 W high-power EPS representative
unit, there is an increase in cost from CSL 1 to CSL 3, although the
baseline CSL is the most expensive.) Because DOE's analyses identify a
general link between increased efficiency and increased cost, DOE
believes that PTI and AHAM were collectively referring to the two EPS-
for-BC representative units included in the analysis. The cost-
efficiency curves for these units projected an increase in cost from
the baseline to CSL 1 but with no increase in cost from CSL 1 to CSL 3.
As explained in the NOPD, the cost-efficiency relationship for these
representative units is based on purchasing 12 EPS units, testing their
efficiency, and estimating their costs through teardowns, of which
three were performed by iSuppli and the remainder by DOE. There was no
clear relationship among the 12 units, other than that unit
17, the lowest-efficiency linear EPS unit used to characterize
the baseline cost, was cheaper than the average cost of the switched-
mode EPS units used to characterize the higher CSLs.
Among the switched-mode EPSs, DOE attempted to hold all factors
constant except for cost and efficiency. For instance, the nameplate
output power ratings of the EPS test units ranged from 1.75 W to 5.2 W
and the nameplate output voltage ratings ranged from 5 V to 5.2 V. DOE
scaled the efficiencies of the units to the representative unit values
for nameplate output power and nameplate output voltage. However, there
may have been other differences between the EPSs that affected cost and
efficiency that DOE was not able to normalize, which might affect the
underlying relationship between cost and efficiency. The available data
did not permit DOE to draw any conclusions regarding how these
differences would affect the analysis. DOE believes that examining
units already available in the market is a valid method for
characterizing the cost-efficiency relationship, that the results for
the units are accurate, and that the analysis is sufficient to support
a positive determination. In the standards rulemaking, DOE will
consider the comments from PTI and AHAM as it develops a more robust
engineering analysis.
AHAM commented on DOE's ERMC analysis and raised issues related to
the scope of coverage of EPSs for BCs and the criteria used to define
charge control. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) First, AHAM noted that the ERMC
analysis of cost is not applicable to most AHAM product wall adapters
for BCs because the analysis does not include components used in
charged control, making the CSLs not applicable to AHAM products.
Second, AHAM does not believe the cost-efficiency curve for vacuum
cleaners would be the same if applied to the 95 percent of wall
adapters with charge control. Third, AHAM asked that DOE demonstrate
how costs can be scaled using a base volume of 1,000,000 per year.
Fourth, AHAM questioned whether the high-volume EPS ERMCs are
applicable to custom designed, small quantity BCs.
DOE agrees with AHAM's first two comments that DOE's cost-
efficiency curves do not apply to wall adapters that include charge
control. Regarding AHAM's third comment, because DOE's analysis focused
on EPSs that are interchangeable and do not have charge control, DOE
evaluated their cost at high volumes that are typical of EPSs. Finally,
as to AHAM's fourth comment, low volume EPS costs are inconsistent with
the scope of EPSs for BCs as currently defined in this determination
and, consequently, were not evaluated.
F. Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization
The purpose of the energy-use and end-use load characterization is
to identify how consumers use products and equipment, and thereby
determine the change in EPS energy consumption related to different
energy efficiency improvements. For EPSs, DOE's analysis focused on the
consumer products they power and on how end-users operate these
consumer products.
The energy-use and end-use load characterization estimates unit
energy consumption (UEC), which represents the typical annual energy
consumption of an EPS in the field. The UEC for EPSs is calculated by
combining 1) usage profiles, which describe the time a device spends in
each mode in one year; 2) load, which measures the power provided by
the EPS to the consumer product in each mode; and 3) efficiency, which
measures the power an EPS must draw from mains (i.e., wall outlet) to
power a given load. Outputs from this analysis feed into the LCC
analysis and NIA.
DOE published the details of its energy use and end-use load
characterization in the NOPD and accompanying TSD. In the one comment
DOE received on this analysis, PTI agreed with the usage profiles DOE
adopted for EPSs for power tool BCs. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 2) These usage
profiles can be found in section 4.3.5 of the TSD.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
DOE performed a life-cycle cost and payback period analysis on each
of the representative units to analyze the economic impacts of possible
energy efficiency standards on individual consumers, as detailed in the
NOPD. The effects of standards on individual consumers include a change
in operating expenses (usually decreased) and a change in purchase
price (usually increased). DOE used two metrics to determine the effect
of potential standards on individual consumers:
Life-cycle cost is the total consumer expense over the
lifetime of an appliance, including the up-front cost (the total price
paid by a consumer before the appliance can be operated) and all
operating costs (including energy expenditures). DOE discounts future
operating costs to the time of purchase.
Payback period represents the number of years it would
take the customer to recover the assumed higher purchase price of more
energy efficient equipment through decreased operating expenses.
Sometimes more energy-efficient equipment can have a lower purchase
price than the less energy-efficient equipment that it replaces. In
this case, the consumer realizes an immediate financial benefit and,
thus, there is no payback period.
DOE categorized inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis as follows: (1)
Inputs for establishing the consumer purchase price of an EPS and (2)
inputs for calculating the operating cost. In this analysis, all dollar
amounts are in 2008 dollars.
The primary inputs for establishing the consumer purchase price
are:
ERMC in 2008 dollars, which is based on the bill of
materials cost of the efficiency-related components of the EPS; and
Markups as scaling factors applied to the manufacturer
production cost to create the final efficiency-related consumer
purchase price. The primary inputs for calculating the operating cost
are:
Unit energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/
year), which is the annual site energy use of the EPS;
Electricity prices in 2008 dollars, which are the prices
paid by consumers for electricity;
An electricity price trend, which is applied to the 2008
electricity price to forecast electricity prices into the future;
[[Page 27176]]
Start year, which is the year in which the EPS and its
associated product are purchased (for the LCC and PBP analysis, DOE
uses 2013 as the start year for all products);
Lifetime, which is the age at which the EPS and its
associated product are retired from service (lifetimes vary by
product); and
Discount rate, which is the rate at which DOE discounted
future expenditures to establish their values in the start year.
Many of the LCC analysis's inputs are developed in previous
analyses: market assessment, engineering analysis, markups, and energy
use and end-use load characterization. Note that future expenditures
are discounted for the LCC calculation and not the PBP calculation, as
DOE uses a simple PBP.
DOE published the details of its life-cycle cost and payback period
analysis in the NOPD and accompanying TSD. DOE did not receive comment
on the life-cycle cost and payback period analysis.
H. National Impact Analysis
In its determination analysis, DOE estimated the potential for
national energy savings from energy conservation standards for non-
Class A EPSs, as well as the net present value of such standards.
To estimate national energy savings potential, DOE first calculated
unit energy savings (UES), which is the difference between the UEC in
the standards case and the UEC in the base case. Thus, the UES
represents the reduced energy consumption of a single unit due to the
higher efficiency generated by a standard. Once calculated, the UES was
then multiplied by the national inventory of units to calculate
national energy savings.
The national net present value of energy conservation standards is
the difference between electricity cost savings and equipment cost
increases. DOE calculated electricity cost savings for each year by
multiplying energy savings by forecasted electricity prices. DOE
assumed that all of the energy cost savings would accrue to consumers
paying residential electricity rates. DOE calculated equipment cost
increases for each year by taking the incremental price increase per
unit between a base-case and a standards-case scenario and multiplying
the difference by the national inventory. For each year, DOE took the
difference between the savings and cost to calculate the net savings
(if positive) or net cost (if negative). After calculating the net
savings and costs, DOE discounted these annual values to the present
time using discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent and summed them to
obtain the national net present value.
Additional detail on the national impact analysis can be found in
the NOPD and accompanying TSD. DOE did not receive comment on the
methodology employed in the national impact analysis.
III. Analysis Results
A. Engineering Analysis
Based on the methodology previously discussed, DOE developed cost-
efficiency curves for each representative unit by estimating the cost
to reach each CSL. The results of the engineering analysis for each
representative unit are presented in Table III.1, Table III.2, Table
III.3, Table III.4, Table III.5, and Table III.6. Additional detail is
contained in the NOPD and accompanying TSD.
Table III.1--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 40-Watt Multiple-Voltage EPS for a Multifunction Device
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency-
Reference point for Minimum active- Maximum no- related
Level level mode load power materials cost Basis
efficiency % consumption W 2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................... Less Than EISA 2007.. 81 0.5 2.66 Manufacturer interview data.
1...................... Current Market....... 86 0.45 2.98 Manufacturer interview data.
2...................... High Level........... 90 0.31 3.54 Manufacturer interview data.
3...................... Higher Level......... 91 0.2 3.67 Manufacturer interview data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.2--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 203-Watt Multiple-Voltage EPS for a Video Game Console
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency-
Reference point for Minimum active- Maximum no- related
Level level mode load power materials cost Basis
efficiency % consumption W 2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................... Generic Replacement.. 82 12.33 6.06 Test and teardown data.
1...................... Manufacturer Provided 86 0.4 8.93 Test and teardown data.
2...................... EU Qualified Level... 86 0.3 9.05 Manufacturer interview data.
3...................... Higher Level......... 89 0.3 12.16 Manufacturer interview data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.3--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 345-Watt High-Power EPS for a Ham Radio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency-
Reference point for Minimum active- Maximum no- related
Level level mode load power materials cost Basis
efficiency % consumption W 2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................... Line Frequency....... 62 15.43 115.32 Test and teardown data.
1...................... Switched-Mode--Low 81 6.01 33.64 Test and teardown data.
Level.
2...................... Switched-Mode--Mid 84 1.50 36.64 Manufacturer interview data.
Level.
3...................... Switched-Mode--High 85 0.50 42.32 Manufacturer interview data.
Level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 27177]]
Table III.4--Cost-Efficiency Points for an 18-Watt Medical Device EPS for a Nebulizer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency-
Reference point for Minimum active- Maximum no- related
Level level mode load power materials cost Basis
efficiency % consumption W 2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................... Less Than the IV Mark 66.0 0.557 2.95 Scaled ERMC of EPS 130.
*.
1...................... Meets the IV Mark.... 76.0 0.5 3.62 Average ERMC of switched-mode EPSs.
2...................... Meets the V Mark..... 80.3 0.3 3.62 Average ERMC of switched-mode EPSs.
3...................... Higher Level......... 85.0 0.15 5.70 Manufacturer interview data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As explained in section II.C.4 of the NOPD, the marks correspond to the International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies. (Energy
Star. ``International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies.'' 2008. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/International_Efficiency_Marking_Protocol.pdf).
Table III.5--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 1.8-Watt EPS for BC for a Vacuum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency-
Reference point for Minimum active- Maximum no- related
Level level mode load power materials cost Basis
efficiency % consumption W 2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................... Less than the II Mark 24 1.85 $0.83 Scaled ERMC of EPS 17.
1...................... Meets the II Mark.... 45 0.75 0.95 Average of switched-mode test data.
2...................... Meets the IV Mark.... 55 0.50 0.95 Average of switched-mode test data.
3...................... Meets the V Mark..... 66 0.30 0.95 Average of switched-mode test data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.6--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 4.8-Watt EPS for BC for a DIY Power Tool
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency-
Reference point for Minimum active- Maximum no- related
Level level mode load power materials cost Basis
efficiency % consumption W 2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0...................... Less than the II Mark 38 1.85 1.04 Scaled EPS 17 ERMC.
1...................... Meets the II Mark.... 56 0.75 1.19 Average of switched-mode test data.
2...................... Meets the IV Mark.... 64 0.50 1.19 Average of switched-mode test data.
3...................... Meets the V Mark..... 72 0.30 1.19 Average of switched-mode test data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
Based on the methodology previously discussed, DOE conducted LCC
and PBP analyses for all six of the EPS representative units in the
residential sector. The results of these analyses for each
representative unit are presented in Table III.7, Table III.8, Table
III.9, Table III.10, Table III.11, and Table III.12.
Table III.7.--LCC and Payback Period Results for Multiple-Voltage 40-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation before standards Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Conversion Percent of Consumer Operating average life- Weighted-
Standard at CSL CSL efficiency No-load market purchase cost 2008$/ LCC 2008$ cycle cost average
% power W already at price 2008$ year savings payback
CSL % 2008$ period year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 81 0.5 25 8.45 1.86 16.44 ............ ............
1....................................... 86 0.5 50 9.49 1.32 15.15 1.29 1.9
2....................................... 90 0.3 25 11.26 0.91 15.15 0.43 3.8
3....................................... 91 0.2 0 11.67 0.78 15.01 0.47 3.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.8--LCC and Payback Period Results for Multiple-Voltage 203-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation before standards Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Conversion Percent of Consumer Operating average life- Weighted-
Standard at CSL CSL efficiency No-load market purchase cost 2008$/ LCC 2008$ cycle cost average
% power W already at price 2008$ year savings payback
CSL % 2008$ period year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 82 12.3 5 19.08 14.87 82.78 ............ ............
1....................................... 86 0.4 95 28.12 3.82 44.49 38.28 0.8
2....................................... 86 0.3 0 28.49 3.76 44.62 1.79 6.1
[[Page 27178]]
3....................................... 89 0.3 0 38.29 3.14 51.73 -5.32 14.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.9--LCC and Payback Period Results for High Power 345-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation before standards Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Conversion Percent of Consumer Operating average life- Weighted-
Standard at CSL CSL efficiency No-load market purchase cost 2008$/ LCC 2008$ cycle cost average
% power W already at price 2008$ year savings payback
CSL % 2008$ period year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 62 15.4 60 208.10 16.20 331.75 ............ ............
1....................................... 81 6.0 40 60.71 6.17 107.81 223.95 N/A
2....................................... 84 1.5 0 66.12 5.09 104.93 137.24 N/A
3....................................... 85 0.5 0 76.37 4.50 110.68 131.49 N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.10--LCC and Payback Period Results for Medical 18-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation before standards Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Conversion Percent of Consumer Operating average life- Weighted-
Standard at CSL CSL efficiency No-load market purchase cost 2008$/ LCC 2008$ cycle cost average
% power W already at price 2008$ year savings payback
CSL % 2008$ period year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.11--LCC and Payback Period Results for 1.8-Watt EPS for BCs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation before standards Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Conversion Percent of Consumer Operating average life- Weighted-
Standard at CSL CSL efficiency No-load market purchase cost 2008$/ LCC 2008$ cycle cost average
% power W already at price 2008$ year savings payback
CSL % 2008$ period year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.12--LCC and Payback Period Results for a 4.8-Watt EPS for BCs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation before standards Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Conversion Percent of Consumer Operating average life- Weighted-
Standard at CSL CSL efficiency No-load market purchase cost 2008$/ LCC 2008$ cycle cost average
% power W already at price 2008$ year savings payback
CSL % 2008$ period year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................... 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 27179]]
C. National Impact Analysis
Based on the methodology previously discussed, DOE conducted
national impact analyses of standards for each type of non-Class A EPS.
DOE assessed two base cases, one in which the energy efficiency of non-
Class A EPSs was assumed to improve over time due to factors other than
a Federal standard and another in which energy efficiency was assumed
not to improve over time. In the first case, factors expected to drive
efficiency improvements are changing consumer preferences and spillover
effects from Class A EPS standards. These two base cases provide a
lower and upper bound, respectively, on DOE's energy savings and NPV
estimates.
If a CSL is selected for each type of EPS to maximize energy
savings, subject to the constraint that the NPV be non-negative, total
primary energy savings across all types of non-Class A EPSs could be as
much as 141 trillion Btu or 0.14 quads over 30 years. CSL 3 yields
maximum energy savings and has a positive NPV (both at 3-percent and 7-
percent discount rates) for all EPS types except for the multiple-
voltage 203 watt EPS. For the latter, CSL 2 has a positive NPV in one
base case but a negative NPV in the other. Thus, to estimate the energy
savings potential across all types of non-Class A EPS, DOE selected CSL
1 for this one type of EPS. Table III.13 shows the contribution of each
EPS type to total savings potential and the NPV of a standard set at
the selected CSL. Notably, increasing the efficiency of EPSs for
medical devices and multiple-voltage EPSs for multifunction devices
yields the greatest amount of projected energy savings.
Table III.13--Energy Savings Potential When CSLs Are Selected to Maximize Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy savings Net present Value 2013 to 2042
potential 2013 ($million)
Type of EPS CSL to 2042 -------------------------------
(trillion 3% Discount 7% Discount
BTU*) rate 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 Handheld Vacuums... 3 1.09-1.41 8.0-10.1 4.5-5.6
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.
D. Discussion
1. Significance of Energy Savings
EPCA requires the Department to determine whether to pursue energy
conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs by finding the potential
for significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I)) While
the term ``significant'' is not defined, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia, indicated that Congress intended this term to
refer to savings that were not ``genuinely trivial.'' Natural Resources
Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
(addressing the meaning of the term ``significant'' within the context
of setting energy conservation standards). Using the Department's
analysis, the estimated energy savings is as much as 0.14 quads over a
30-year period for non-Class A EPSs. This is equivalent to the annual
electricity needs of 1.1 million U.S. homes. The Department believes
that the estimated energy savings for the non-Class A EPSs are not
``genuinely trivial,'' and are, in fact, ``significant.''
2. Impact on Consumers
Using the methods and data described previously, the Department
conducted an LCC analysis to estimate the net benefits to users from
more efficient non-Class A EPSs. The Department then aggregated the
results from the LCC analysis to the national level to estimate
national energy savings and national economic impacts. Given the
resultant energy savings and economic benefits, the Department
concluded that there is also likely to be reduced emissions from
decreased electricity generation, decreased demand for the construction
of electricity power plants, and potentially net indirect employment
benefits from shifting expenditures from the capital-intensive utility
sector to consumer expenditures. While the Department did not quantify
these potential benefits, it concluded that the benefits are likely to
be positive based on the results of the Department's analyses of energy
conservation standards for similar products. The Department will
provide detailed estimates of such impacts as part of the standards
rulemaking process that will result from this determination.
IV. Conclusion
A. Determination
Based on its analysis of the information now available, the
Department has determined that energy conservation standards for non-
Class A EPSs appear to be technologically feasible and economically
justified, and are likely to result in significant energy savings.
Consequently, the Department will initiate the development of energy
conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs.
All design options addressed in today's determination document are
technologically feasible. The Department's test and teardown data, as
well as data provided by manufacturers during interviews, show that the
considered technologies are available to all manufacturers. The
candidate standard levels of efficiency examined in the Department's
analysis show that there is the potential for significant energy
savings of as much as 0.14 quads.
All of the scenarios evaluated would result in economic benefits to
the Nation as shown by the positive NPV. While it is still uncertain
whether further analyses will confirm these findings, the Department
believes that standards for non-Class A EPSs appear economically
justified based on a balanced consideration of the information and
analysis available to the Department at this time.
The Department has not produced detailed estimates of the potential
adverse impacts of a national standard on manufacturers or on
individual categories of users. The Department is instead relying on
the presence of currently available high-efficiency designs as an
indicator of the probable economic feasibility for manufacturers
[[Page 27180]]
to exclusively produce high-efficiency designs if required by
standards. During the course of the standards rulemaking process, the
Department will perform a detailed analysis of the possible impacts of
standards on manufacturers, as well as a more disaggregated assessment
of their possible impacts on user-subgroups.
B. Future Proceedings
The Department will begin a proceeding to consider establishment of
energy conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs. During the
standards rulemaking, the Department will review and analyze the likely
effects of industry-wide voluntary programs, such as ENERGY STAR. The
Department will collect additional information about design options,
inputs to the engineering and LCC analyses, and potential impacts on
the manufacturers and consumers of non-Class A EPSs.
CEC and PG&E both encouraged DOE to implement standards for all
four types of non-Class A EPSs. (CEC et al., No. 8 at p. 1; PG&E, No. 7
at p. 1) PG&E expressed its desire for standards for multiple-voltage
EPSs in particular to prevent potential backsliding by manufacturers in
producing more efficient products. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 2) PG&E s also
noted that if standards are not created for high-power EPSs,
manufacturers could opt to rate products higher than 250 W so that they
fit into this category and, thereby, circumvent standards. (PG&E, No. 7
at p. 2) DOE will take these comments into account as it considers
standards for all four types of non-Class A EPSs in the standards
rulemaking.
PG&E commented that medical EPSs represent a considerable energy-
saving opportunity, but acknowledged that due to the lengthy and
expensive FDA approval process they may require special treatment. PG&E
suggested two approaches that would avoid placing undue burden on
manufacturers of medical EPSs: (1) DOE could place the effective date
of standards for medical EPSs later than 2013 or 2014, or (2) DOE could
grant an exemption from standards for EPSs manufactured after the
effective date of the standard that are used with a medical device that
received FDA approval before the effective date (or were submitted for
approval before that date). (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 3)
In the standards rulemaking process, DOE will examine needs
particular to medical EPSs and methods for addressing those needs when
evaluating the potential for setting standards for these products. The
Department will also evaluate any proposed standards for medical EPSs
to determine whether they are technologically feasible and economically
justified, and are likely to result in significant energy savings in
accordance with the requirements of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) Depending
on the outcome of these analyses, as well as other factors DOE is
required to consider, the agency will determine, what, if any,
standards would be appropriate for these products.
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the
Office of Management and Budget has determined that today's regulatory
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f)(1)
of Executive Order 12866. Therefore, this action is not subject to OIRA
review under the Executive Order.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel's
Web site, http://www.gc.doe.gov.
DOE reviewed today's rule under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February
19, 2003.
Today's rule sets no standards; it only positively determines that
future standards may be warranted and should be explored in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking. Economic impacts on small entities
would be considered in the context of such a rulemaking. On the basis
of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the rule has no significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this
rulemaking. DOE will transmit this certification and supporting
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This rulemaking determines that the development of energy
efficiency standards for non-Class A EPS is warranted and will impose
no new information or record keeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB
clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
In this notice, DOE positively determines that future standards may
be warranted and should be explored in an energy conservation standards
rulemaking. DOE has determined that review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA) is not
required at this time. NEPA review can only be initiated ``as soon as
environmental impacts can be meaningfully evaluated'' (10 CFR
1021.213(b)). Because this rule only determines that future standards
may be warranted, but does not itself propose to set any standard, DOE
has determined that there are no environmental impacts to be evaluated
at this time. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined today's rule and has
determined that it does not preempt State law or have a substantial
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
[[Page 27181]]
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy
conservation for the products that are the subject of today's rule.
States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No
further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) imposes on
Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive
Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies
the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard
for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires
Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they
are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has
completed the required review and determined that, to the extent
permitted by law, this rule meets the relevant standards of Executive
Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a
rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million
or more 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 rule does not result in expenditures of $100 million or
more in a given year by the external power supply industries affected
by this rulemaking. This is because today's rule sets no standards; it
only positively determines that future standards may be warranted and
should be explored in an energy conservation standards rulemaking. The
rule also does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate. Thus,
DOE is not required by UMRA to prepare a written statement assessing
the costs, benefits, and other effects of the rule on the national
economy.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This rule does not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation does not
result in any takings which might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 2001
The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44
U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations
of information to the public under guidelines established by each
agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. The OMB's
guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's
guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the
OIRA a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's regulatory action determines that development of energy
efficiency standards for non-Class A EPS is warranted and does not have
a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The OIRA Administrator has also not designated this rulemaking
as a significant energy action. Therefore, DOE has determined that this
rule is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664. (January 14, 2005)
The Bulletin
[[Page 27182]]
establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed
by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal
government, including influential scientific information related to
agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance
the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information.
Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards rulemaking
analyses are ``influential scientific information.'' The Bulletin
defines ``influential scientific information'' as ``scientific
information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does
have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or
private sector decisions.'' 70 FR 2667 (January 14, 2005).
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process
and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. The ``Energy
Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report,'' dated February
2007, has been disseminated and is available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Assistant Secretary
The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
has approved publication of this final rule.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 7, 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010-11592 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P