1

1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

2 Framework Public Meeting for Computer & Battery 

3 Backup Systems

4

5

6

7 United States Department of Energy

8

9 1000 Independence Avenue Southwest

10 Room 8E-089

11 Washington, DC 20585

12

13 9:11 to 2:43 p.m.

14 Thursday, July 31, 2014

15

16

17

18

19 

20 

21 

22 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
2

1 Speakers:

2 DOUG BROOKMAN, Public Solutions

3 JOHN CYMBALSKY, Department of Energy

4 JEREMY DOMMU, Department of Energy

5 CELIA SHER, Department of Energy

6 BACH TSAN, Southern California Edison

7 ROBERT WHITE, Dell

8 JAY TAYLOR, Schneider Electric

9 MATT MALINOWSKI, ICF

10 SHAHID SHEIKH, Intel

11 MARK SHARP, Panasonic

12 DOUG JOHNSON, Consumer Electronics Association

13 ERICA LOGAN, Information Technology Industry 

14 Council

15 SAMEER KWATRA, ACEEE

16 ANTHONY FRYER, ASAP

17 JOSEPH ANDERSEN, TIA

18 LOUIS-BENOIT DESROCHES, Lawrence Berkley Lab

19 ALLEN TSAO, Navigant Consulting

20 MANSI THAKKAR, Navigant Consulting

21 ALEX BOESENBERG, NEMA

22 CHUCK FOSTER, EEI

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
3

1 MONICA DEAN, APPA

2 Speakers continued:

3 DON BRUNDAGE, Southern Company

4 JIM SPITAELS, Schneider Electric

5 TIM BALLO, Earth Justice

6 CRAIG STEPHENS, LG

7 MARK HOLLENBECK, Hewlett Packard

8 DONNA SADOWY, AMD

9 

10 

11

12 

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
4

1

2 P R O C E E D I N G S

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's begin. We're still 

4 awaiting the web to be fully --

5 COURT REPORTER: We've got it.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: We got it?

7 COURT REPORTER: We're just going to test 

8 it. Yes.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let's begin. Good 

10 morning, everyone. Welcome. This is the U.S. 

11 Department of Energy's Framework Public Meeting 

12 for Computer and Battery Backup Systems. 

13 Today is Thursday, July 31st, 2014, here 

14 in the Forrestal Building in Washington, D.C. My 

15 name is Doug Brookman from Public Solutions of 

16 Baltimore. 

17 So nice to see you this morning. 

18 Apologies for a very brief delay at the outset 

19 here this morning. We're going to start with 

20 welcoming remarks from Jeremy Dommu.

21 MR. DOMMU: Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. 

22 I'm Jeremy Dommu. I am the project manager in 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
5

1 the U.S. Department of Energy's Appliance 

2 Standards Program. I'm responsible for 

3 overseeing the rule making activities as we begin 

4 the process to consider test procedures and 

5 conservation standards for computers and battery 

6 backup systems.

7 I thank you all very much for coming 

8 today, for your interest in this proceeding, and 

9 for your continued feedback and participation as 

10 we advance through this process. So I will leave 

11 it at that for now, but you will be hearing much 

12 more from me as today's meeting proceeds.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Let's start 

14 with introductions as we typically do. To my 

15 immediate left, your name and organization 

16 affiliation. You can get used to turning these 

17 microphones both on and off, please.

18 MR. ANDERSEN: Joseph Andersen with the 

19 the Telecommunications Industry Association.

20 MR. FRYER: Anthony Fryer with the 

21 Appliance Standards Awareness Project.

22 MR. KWATRA: Sameer Kwatra with the 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
6

1 American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.

2 MS. LOGAN: Good morning. Erica Logan 

3 with the Information Technology Industry Council.

4 MR. JOHNSON: I'm Doug Johnson with the 

5 Consumer Electronics Association.

6 MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern 

7 Company.

8 MR. SHARP: Mark Sharp with Panasonic.

9 MR. SHEIKH: Shahid Sheikh, Intel 

10 Corporation.

11 MR. MALINOWSKI: Matt Malinowski with ICF 

12 International representing EPA ENERGY STAR.

13 MR. TAYLOR: Jay Taylor with Schneider 

14 Electric.

15 MR. WHITE: Robert White with Dell.

16 MR. TSAN: Bach Tsan Southern California 

17 Edison representing the California Investor Owned 

18 Utilities.

19 MS. SHER: Celia Sher, Department of 

20 Energy, General Counsel's Office.

21 MR. DOMMU: Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department 

22 of Energy.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
7

1 MR. TSAO: Allen Tsao, Navigant 

2 Consulting.

3 MS. THAKKAR: Mansi Thakkar with Navigant 

4 Consulting.

5 MR. DESROCHES: Louis Desroches, Lawrence 

6 Berkeley Lab.

7 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earth Justice.

8 COURT REPORTER: I didn't hear that. I 

9 need you by a mic. 

10 MR. BALLO: (Inaudible.)**2.52.1

11 MR. BROOKMAN: We’ll get your business 

12 card, so we just stand up and speak, that will be 

13 sufficient.

14 MR. BOESENGBERG: Alex Boesenberg, 

15 National Electrical Manufacturer's Association, 

16 NEMA. 

17 MR. FOSTER: Chuck Foster representing 

18 Edison Electric Institute.

19 MS. DEAN: Monica Dean, the American 

20 Public Power Association.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thanks to all 

22 of you. Glad to see you this morning. All of 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
8

1 you received a packet of information when you 

2 came in this morning. I'm going to do a very 

3 brief agenda review. 

4 Immediately following these items, the 

5 agenda review, ground rules, and a few 

6 preliminary slides, there's an opportunity for 

7 anybody that wishes to, to make opening remarks. 

8 Brief summary statements about issues that are 

9 important to you. Please feel free to engage in 

10 that segment. 

11 Immediately following that we're going to 

12 have a brief rule making overview description. 

13 Moving on from there a scope of rule making 

14 description. Throughout you will -- there's an 

15 opportunity to comment on all the slides that are 

16 in this packet.

17 We'll take a break midmorning, around 

18 about 11:00 or so. Following the midmorning 

19 break, test procedure rule making. We'll take 

20 lunch around about noon, whenever we get there. 

21 Following lunch, market and technology 

22 and screening analysis and then engineering 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
9

1 analysis and the markups, energy use, and life 

2 cycle cost analysis. We'll take a break mid3 afternoon and then following the mid-afternoon 

4 break or whenever we arrive at that point, 

5 shipments analysis and national impact analysis, 

6 next steps, and closing remarks.

7 Questions and comments about the agenda? 

8 Seeing none I'd ask for your 

9 consideration on the first page of your packet, 

10 you can see some suggested ground rules there. 

11 Please, if you would, speak one at a time and if 

12 you would say your name for the record each time 

13 you speak you can -- it's your choice whether you 

14 want to say your organization affiliation or not. 

15 There will be a complete transcript of 

16 this meeting. If you could try to be concise, 

17 share the airtime, there's a lot to be said, 

18 there's a lot of content here. Keep the focus 

19 here. If your cell phones are not on silent at 

20 this point please put them on silent and limit 

21 sidebar conversations. All of you have gotten 

22 used to turning these microphones on and off at 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
10

1 this point.

2 Webinar participants, we welcome you. 

3 The Department of Energy is trying hard to make 

4 these meetings totally accessible via the web. 

5 If you'd keep your telephones on mute, and you 

6 can raise your hand in the software provided to 

7 be recognized to speak. And typically that 

8 works. We can hear you in the room. So we will 

9 have you join the conversation once I recognize 

10 you.

11 I'll cover the housekeeping items as we 

12 need to, as we're going along during the day. 

13 And we have a few more preliminary slides. 

14 Jeremy Dommu.

15 MR. DOMMU: Okay. Great. So --

16 COURT REPORTER: Mic.

17 MR. DOMMU: Great. So this is Jeremy. 

18 So the purpose of today's public meeting, on July 

19 17th we put out a notice that was published in 

20 the Federal Register that announced today's 

21 meeting and also announced the availability of 

22 the framework document for computer and battery 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
11

1 backup systems.

2 Essentially the framework document 

3 describes the procedural and the analytical 

4 approaches that we anticipate using as we 

5 evaluate potential new energy conservation 

6 standards and test procedures for computer and 

7 battery backup systems.

8 We introduce a number of initial 

9 considerations and things that DOE is considering 

10 related to this rule making, including 

11 definitions and scope, and test procedures that 

12 we welcome comment on at today's public meeting, 

13 and during the forthcoming comment period.

14 I definitely make the point that today's 

15 meeting and the framework document really is a 

16 starting point for evaluating conservation 

17 standards for computer and battery backup 

18 systems. It's not a definite statement at all of 

19 any issue that has yet to be determined in the 

20 rule making.

21 We really are just bringing up issues so 

22 we could begin the conversation as we initialize 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
12

1 and initiate the rulemaking activity for these 

2 products. 

3 So, that is pretty much the purpose. We 

4 will go through a lot of material today that 

5 describes some of the areas that we're seeking 

6 comment on, and we will spend a good deal of time 

7 as well as talking about all the analysis and the 

8 analytical approach that we intend to follow as 

9 we consider conservation standards and test 

10 procures for these products.

11 That's pretty much the purpose. We have 

12 the agenda here, which we've already gone 

13 through. Do you need to go over any of the 

14 webcast details?

15 MR. BROOKMAN: There's one small detail. 

16 It's not a small detail; in fact it's an 

17 important detail. All stakeholders are 

18 encouraged to submit written comments, including 

19 those that are joining us via the web. I want to 

20 make sure that they submit comments to the 

21 Department as well.

22 MR. DOMMU: Right. Originally written 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
13

1 comments were to have been due by September 2nd;

2 however DOE has recently received and has granted 

3 a request to extend the comment deadline for this 

4 rulemaking. We issued that notice just a few 

5 days ago. It will likely publish in the Federal 

6 Register next week. But essentially it announces 

7 that we are granting an additional 30 days. 

8 Comments will now be due through October 2nd. So 

9 there's still about two more months before 

10 comments are due on this framework document.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: The Department is 

12 accommodating peoples' desire to take a vacation. 

13 In part, perhaps. 

14 Okay. That is the bulk of the 

15 preliminary stuff. One more thing that I would 

16 call your attention to, which is on slide 6 of 

17 your packet, you will see throughout this 

18 presentation of material, these issue boxes. 

19 These issue boxes are intended to elicit 

20 specific comment on the issues that are included 

21 in the box. And you can also see the docket, the 

22 docket listing there at the bottom of slide 6.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
14

1 So then back to Jeremy Dommu.

2 MR. DOMMU: Do we want to do opening 

3 remarks at this time --

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

5 MR. DOMMU: -- before I begin with the 

6 rulemaking overview?

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Yeah. So now, as 

8 we said, opening remarks here at the outset.

9 Alex Boesenberg.

10 MR. BOESENGBERG: I'm Alex Boesenberg, 

11 speaking on behalf of NEMA and manufacturers of 

12 my power electronics sections who provide 

13 uninterruptable power supplies, which have been 

14 proposed as part of the scope of this rulemaking. 

15 First we, as always, thank the DOE for 

16 holding this meeting today and offering everyone 

17 the opportunity to collaborate and comment.

18 We would like to also recognize and thank 

19 the DOE for its consideration of our comments to 

20 the notice of proposed determination, which we 

21 can see reflected in the framework, particularly

22 as pertains to using the IEC test procedure for 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
15

1 UPS efficiency calculations, and also the 

2 consideration the DOE showed in using the 

3 National Electrical Code and other facets of 

4 design to help clarify what is a consumer UPS, 

5 things like 120 volt operation, three-prong plug, 

6 and a power consumption consistent with the 

7 standard wall plug one would find in a home.

8 We also, in that vein, want to point out 

9 today and we'll also point out in our comments, 

10 the continuing need for clarity regarding a 

11 consumer UPS with respect to the fact that as we 

12 have interpreted the battery chargers rulemaking, 

13 these consumer UPSs are also in scope of that 

14 rule.

15 So we assume the DOE will not have one 

16 product and two different regulations, so there 

17 is a need in this rule, considering this is the 

18 one that happens to be moving at the time, to 

19 draw a distinction between the consumer UPSs and 

20 the computer systems rule, and any other UPS that 

21 are part of the battery chargers rulemaking 

22 scope. Thank you.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
16

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, your 

2 name, please? 

3 MR. FRYER: Anthony Fryer with the 

4 Appliance Standards Awareness Project. I would 

5 just like join Alex in thanking DOE for hosting 

6 this meeting. We support DOE's initiation of 

7 this process. We think the consumption of 

8 computer systems as laid out in the DOE framework 

9 document is significant and contains what seems 

10 to be a lot of variation in energy consumption 

11 between products.

12 While the computer market is changing and 

13 will continue to change in the coming years, we 

14 believe that desktops and laptops will certainly 

15 continue to consume significant amounts of energy 

16 for the foreseeable future.

17 We do have a handful of key concerns that 

18 we want to raise today in terms of their product 

19 definitions. We think they're using ENERGY STAR

20 as part of the -- using the ENERGY STAR

21 definitions is a good starting point, but we 

22 think we need to look at these definitions more 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
17

1 from a regulatory lens and I'll be more specific 

2 about that when definitions come up in the 

3 agenda.

4 In terms of the product categories, we 

5 believe that these need to be as broad and 

6 inclusive as possible to help ensure the 

7 longevity and relevance of any standards that 

8 come out of this rulemaking, especially given the 

9 five year implementation time.

10 And then finally in terms of the 

11 technology analysis we'll have some additional 

12 suggestions to add to DOE's list that was in the 

13 framework document and we'll raise these again at 

14 the appropriate time in the agenda and in the 

15 written comments. 

16 So just to conclude we look forward to 

17 working with DOE and stakeholders throughout this 

18 process in the hopes that we can develop an 

19 effective and meaningful standards for this 

20 product category.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

22 comments here at the outset, Don Brundage.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
18

1 MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern 

2 Company. First thing is procedural. The notice 

3 of this meeting came out barely 14 days ago, 

4 which was not time to get advantageous airfare 

5 into Washington if you're not in the D.C. area. 

6 This has been a persistent pattern on recent 

7 rulemakings where there is insufficient notice 

8 given and it really serves to limit participation 

9 for those stakeholders who are not in the D.C. 

10 area.

11 You don't have to have the full 

12 documentation, but I am sure you knew that this 

13 room was being scheduled for this more than 

14 before the 17th of July. And if some sort of 

15 notice, there is the existing e-mail system of 

16 future rulemakings, et cetera. Please do a 

17 better job in the future of notifying us of when 

18 dates are going to -- when hearings are going to 

19 occur.

20 More general comment is looking at your 

21 regulatory authority; DOE has authority to 

22 regulate it if it chooses. The regulatory 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
19

1 language is all, "Has authority. May regulate. 

2 Not required."

3 And I feel that this is somewhat 

4 regulatory overreach using rather optimistic 

5 assumptions as far as energy use, and then 

6 putting some functionally very different products 

7 mixed in with the computer equipment, such as 

8 battery backup uninterruptable power supplies, 

9 which have some difficult overlaps with some 

10 other rulemakings.

11 The big thing to me is you have limited 

12 resources and it seems like every year there is 

13 another mandated rule making required of you. I 

14 would rather, with your limited resources, you 

15 put the energy into doing a better job on the 

16 products that you are required to issue rule 

17 makings on. You have very little discretion on 

18 that because of the consent decree with the 

19 energy efficiency advocates and other issues.

20 But there is some real issues on some of 

21 the other rulemakings. In particular there is 

22 assumptions on energy use that have never really 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
20

1 been tested on some consumer products, and I 

2 would rather -- at a minimum I would like to see 

3 this rulemaking limited to a specific product 

4 under a test procedure that can get 150 kilowatt 

5 hours per year.

6 If you start talking about batteries and 

7 these -- I just don't see that that is the same 

8 product for the 150 kilowatt hours rule as a 

9 computer. Thank you.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Doug.

11 MR. JOHNSON: Doug Johnson with CEA. 

12 This is more of a suggestion than an opening 

13 statement or comment, but it's process related 

14 like the previous speakers.

15 I've been to a few of these public 

16 meetings, as some in the room have as well, and I 

17 wonder if the best time for an all day public 

18 meeting such as this is after stakeholders have 

19 filed comments. And the reason I say that is 

20 because at that time stakeholders obviously have 

21 a concrete idea of what they've said and what 

22 they've argued and presented in those comments, 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
21

1 and could even elaborate upon those comments in a 

2 public meeting.

3 However, at this stage, other than 

4 clarifying the DOE's process and the issues for 

5 which it's seeking comment, I imagine that 

6 there's not much to be said or offered by many at 

7 this stage as opposed to later, after we make our 

8 filings. So just a suggestion in terms of timing 

9 and positioning. Perhaps today's overview could 

10 be an hour of clarifying questions and then the 

11 in-depth contribution and two-way discussion 

12 could be better had later.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

14 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Doug. Erica?

16 MS. LOGAN: Yes. Good morning. Erica 

17 Logan with ITI. I too would like to thank the 

18 DOE for having this meeting and would like to 

19 echo Doug's recommendation from a process 

20 standpoint. And I'll limit my comments to three 

21 very short summary statements.

22 But first as a quick introduction, ITI 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
22

1 represents the leading global innovators of 

2 information and communications technology, and 

3 industry committed to developing energy efficient 

4 solutions, meeting customer demands, while also 

5 driving sustainable economic growth and energy 

6 independence across our nation's economy.

7 Three brief statements. Personal 

8 computers, servers, and battery backup systems 

9 provide very different functions, have very 

10 different intended uses, and are not 

11 interchangeable in the marketplace. 

12 Consequently, we believe it is not appropriate to 

13 group these products together as, quote, 

14 "Computer systems."

15 Second, servers and UPSs are 

16 institutional commercial products that are not 

17 present in commerce to any significant extent for 

18 personal use or consumption, and average energy 

19 consumption per household, per year, is well 

20 below 100 kilowatt hours.

21 And third, the value of DOE regulating 

22 personal computers under current statute is 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
23

1 highly questionable. Particularly given the 

2 market transformative success of voluntary 

3 programs such as ENERGY STAR. But nevertheless 

4 industry welcomes the opportunity to work with 

5 the DOE and other stakeholders on other 

6 opportunities for advancing sound national energy 

7 policy. Thank you.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

9 opening remarks? Yes, please, Joseph.

10 MR. ANDERSEN: Yeah. Joseph Andersen 

11 with TIA. 

12 First of I wanted to thank the DOE for 

13 holding this meeting. And then also their 

14 efforts within the framework document to signal 

15 what products are actually covered under the 

16 rulemaking. We represent a range of companies 

17 from, you know, consumer to commercial companies 

18 that are selling products to service providers. 

19 And the initial proposed scope was so 

20 impossibly broad we would have had to fill this 

21 room with 200, 300 different manufacturers. And 

22 so we appreciate the effort to narrow the scope. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
24

1 We still have concerns about scope and 

2 definitions and we'll be providing those in our 

3 written comments. But that's all for now.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Any 

5 additional comments here at this point?

6 Okay, then, we're going to move to the 

7 presentation material. I see Jeremy is at the 

8 podium and I also invite anybody joining us via 

9 the web that wishes to make a brief opening 

10 statement to do so.

11 Nothing. Okay. Jeremy.

12 MR. DOMMU: Okay. Great. Thank you all 

13 very much for those opening comments. We are 

14 going to begin this next section of the meeting 

15 with an overview of the rulemaking process that 

16 we will intend to follow as we begin this 

17 rulemaking to consider test procedures and 

18 conservation standards for these product types.

19 This first slide that I have here shows

20 the different stages of a rulemaking. In a 

21 traditional DOE rulemaking there are a number of 

22 documents, publications, that are put out for 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
25

1 public comment where each -- after each one there 

2 is an opportunity for interested stakeholders to 

3 attend a public meeting to make all statements on 

4 the record, and a written comment period to 

5 submit written comments to the docket.

6 So the rulemaking process beings with a 

7 framework document, which is what is the subject 

8 of today's meeting and was put out earlier this 

9 month. And then moves on to another stage, the 

10 preliminary analysis. And I will get into all of 

11 these stages in more detail. 

12 In the preliminary analysis we would 

13 respond to all comments from the framework. 

14 After our preliminary analysis we would have a 

15 notice of proposed rule where we actually propose 

16 a test procedure or a conservation standard. I 

17 would note that we would have a separate notice 

18 of proposed rulemaking proposing a test procedure 

19 and then another notice of proposed rulemaking 

20 that would propose the conservation standard. So 

21 at that point we would separate the rulemaking 

22 into proposing a test procedure for computer and 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
26

1 battery backup systems. And then later on in the 

2 rulemaking process we would have a notice of 

3 proposed rulemaking that actually would propose 

4 the conservation standards for the products that 

5 were in the scope.

6 Finally, after receiving comments on the 

7 notice of proposed rule we would move on to a 

8 final rule, which is the last stage in the 

9 rulemaking process where we adopt what is 

10 ultimately proposed, we respond to comments, and 

11 we may make any necessary changes or updates to 

12 the analysis that supports the proposed levels.

13 So the framework document is what kicks 

14 it off as we've already discussed what the 

15 purpose is, is to really describe the overall 

16 approach that DOE is considering as we develop 

17 potential test procedures and conservation 

18 standards. 

19 We hold the public meeting, like we're 

20 doing today, and we really encourage stakeholders 

21 to submit data information and written comments. 

22 There's overall this rulemaking process really 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
27

1 works the best when we have as much active 

2 participation, when stakeholders really cooperate 

3 by providing us with relevant data and 

4 information and written comments. That really is 

5 the driving force behind designing and 

6 considering regulation in this area.

7 So the next step in the rulemaking is 

8 actually optional. We may not do this for all 

9 rulemakings. In some cases we go from a 

10 framework directly to a notice of proposed 

11 rulemaking. In other cases before we do a notice 

12 of proposed rulemaking we do what is called a 

13 preliminary analysis where we actually use it to 

14 vet some of the models and tools that we would 

15 intend to use. 

16 This really relates more to the 

17 conservation standard side of the rulemaking 

18 where we would make available some of the 

19 analysis that supports and analyzes different 

20 standard levels that we're considering. So we 

21 may consider multiple different standards for all 

22 of the different types of products that would be 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
28

1 covered in a rulemaking. And in the preliminary 

2 analysis we would release that analysis that 

3 shows some of the engineering and economic 

4 analysis for each of the candidate standard 

5 levels that we are considering. It does not 

6 propose what standard level is, but it really 

7 just puts out some of our data.

8 If we don't do this step, if we go 

9 directly to -- we may directly do a notice of 

10 proposed rule. Occasionally we have used other 

11 techniques as well. We could do a notice of data 

12 availability which may not be as comprehensive as 

13 a preliminary analysis, but it may put out some 

14 of the data that supports our rule and allows 

15 written comment on them. 

16 So again, that's the preliminary analysis 

17 stage. 

18 We would then move on to a notice of 

19 proposed rulemaking stage which addresses the 

20 comments that were received on the preliminary 

21 analysis and we actually then would propose the 

22 test procedure or the conservation standard and 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
29

1 present all the analysis as it relates to 

2 consumers and manufacturers and nations and what 

3 the impact of the conservation standard would be, 

4 or what the actual test procedure would be. 

5 Again, those standards are up for public comment.

6 Once we review all the comments that are 

7 received from the NOPR we often could move on to 

8 the final rule which addresses all of those 

9 comments from the NOPR. There are occasions 

10 where instead of moving directly from a NOPR to a 

11 final rule the written comments compel DOE to 

12 provide a new opportunity to provide comments if 

13 DOE wishes to make substantial changes to the 

14 original proposal, we could issue what is called 

15 a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, or 

16 an SNOPR that has a new proposal, and with that 

17 would come a new comment opportunity for 

18 stakeholders to provide new comments.

19 But whether there is an SNOPR or not, at 

20 some point we would move on to the final rule 

21 stage of the rulemaking which finalizes and 

22 establishes mandatory minimum efficiency 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
30

1 standards, the compliance date, or if it was a 

2 final rule for a test procedure would adopt the 

3 test procedure which would be then used when 

4 making representations of the energy efficiency 

5 or energy consumption of the products that are 

6 within scope of that test procedure.

7 So on the standards side, EPCA, which is 

8 the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, directs 

9 DOE to consider several factors when considering 

10 energy conservation standards.

11 We consider these factors because DOE, 

12 when prescribing conservation standards for 

13 consumer products, those standards must be 

14 designed to achieve the maximum improvement in 

15 energy efficiency that is technologically 

16 feasible and economically justified and results 

17 in significant conservation of energy.

18 So when making the determination if a 

19 conservation standard is in fact economically 

20 justified we use these seven factors. And these 

21 seven factors are the economic impact on 

22 consumers and manufacturers, the comparison of 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
31

1 lifetime operating cost savings versus any 

2 increased cost to the product. We look at the 

3 total projected energy savings, the impact on 

4 utility or performance of the products that are 

5 being regulated, the impact of any lessening of 

6 competition, the need for national energy 

7 conservation, and then finally any other factors 

8 that the secretary considers relevant.

9 In order to consider these factors we 

10 have many different types of analysis that we do. 

11 And as the day proceeds today we will cover these 

12 analyses and what we do to consider these seven 

13 factors that EPCA directs DOE to consider in the 

14 rulemaking process.

15 So what I just described to you is what 

16 we call the standard rulemaking process. It's 

17 sometimes referred to as notice and comment, 

18 where we put out a notice and we receive comment, 

19 we hold these public meetings and we move 

20 forward. 

21 There are other rulemaking options that 

22 stakeholders may pursue as an alternative to this 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
32

1 traditional approach. 

2 So these options would be a negotiated 

3 rulemaking. And what a negotiated rulemaking is 

4 would be a series of meetings that would occur 

5 with a select group of stakeholders that fairly 

6 represent the relevant points of view. These 

7 parties, together with DOE would have many 

8 different public meetings that would ultimately 

9 result, hopefully in a consensus of what the 

10 proposed rule should be. So these negotiated 

11 meetings would be likely similar to this where we 

12 could get together in a public forum, negotiate 

13 what a rule would be, and then if we have 

14 consensus then we would continue on with the 

15 rulemaking process, beginning with a notice of 

16 proposed rulemaking.

17 So if there is interest from stakeholders 

18 to do a negotiation as opposed to DOE doing the 

19 NOPR on our own, that is something that we 

20 certainly would be open to considering if 

21 stakeholders want to get more involved in the 

22 process. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
33

1 If we do a negotiation we would still do 

2 a notice of proposed rulemaking, that would 

3 include all the analysis that EPCA directs us to 

4 do and the rulemaking would proceed from then on. 

5 We would likely presume that if 

6 stakeholders agree to what the notice of proposed 

7 rulemaking should be before it actually is 

8 publicized and proposed, that there wouldn't need 

9 to be as much public comment. But we certainly 

10 would welcome all comment on that notice of 

11 proposed rulemaking, just like we would if there 

12 was not a negotiated rule.

13 The other option is called a consensus 

14 agreement. And this may not or does not include 

15 DOE participation. And this is submitted jointly 

16 by interested parties that fairly represent the 

17 relevant points of view. 

18 And with a consensus agreement 

19 stakeholders on their own could get together and 

20 ultimately present DOE, this is what we think the 

21 conservation standard level should be for this 

22 product, and DOE could then consider those.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
34

1 Both of those cases DOE would still do 

2 analysis to ensure that those standard levels 

3 would conform with EPCA. They'd ultimately be 

4 proposed and they would be added to the Code of 

5 Federal Regulation.

6 An option I guess with either one of them 

7 is what is called a direct final rule. A direct 

8 final rule is instead of proposing the NOPR and 

9 receiving comments and then doing a final rule. 

10 What we could do is we would propose -- we would 

11 do a notice of proposed rulemaking and a final 

12 rule would be issued at the same exact time, and 

13 the final rule would be called a Direct Final 

14 Rule and it would expedite the process in a way.

15 However, if there are comments that are 

16 received, any adverse comments that are received 

17 on the notice of proposed rulemaking, that 

18 provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the 

19 direct final rule, the DOE could withdraw that 

20 direct final rule and then we would just carry on 

21 with what we proposed as the notice of proposed 

22 rulemaking.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
35

1 As a final option we could do what we 

2 refer to as a non-regulatory agreement, which 

3 would not result in regulatory conservation 

4 standards. This could occur if manufacturers on 

5 their own agree with other relevant parties on 

6 improving the efficiency of the products and 

7 present that as an alternative option for DOE to 

8 consider in lieu of regulatory standards. 

9 We recently had success with set-top 

10 boxes in pursuit of a non-regulatory agreement 

11 that had the full support of advocates, 

12 government, and manufacturers, and service 

13 providers.

14 So those are those different options. We 

15 did a negotiated rulemaking, one just wrapping up 

16 I believe, with pumps. One was done with 

17 distributed transformers. A consensus agreement 

18 a few years ago was done with clothes washers and 

19 dishwashers and I think refrigerators, if I'm 

20 correct.

21 So those are some other alternatives that 

22 we could consider. I believe that brings us to 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
36

1 the end of the rulemaking overview slide, but I 

2 would be happy to open it up for any comment at 

3 this point, or questions at all on the rulemaking 

4 process.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Joseph.

6 MR. ANDERSEN: So just to confirm. On 

7 the preliminary analysis step that you're 

8 proposing between the framework and the NOPR, 

9 that is something at this point that you would 

10 intend to include? It's listed as optional, but 

11 you are intending on using that in this --

12 MR. DOMMU: I don't think we've reached a 

13 full decision on that at this point. It depends 

14 on -- I mean, if we pursue one of these other 

15 rulemaking options it might not -- we might not 

16 need to do that. Once we get more data that's 

17 involved we could make the decision internally 

18 whether or not that's a step in the rulemaking 

19 process that we plan on pursuing. But I wouldn't 

20 say at this time that we're definitely planning 

21 on doing it, but I wouldn't say we're not either.

22 MR. ANDERSEN: Okay. Because that was 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
37

1 just the one thing on the bullet and the 

2 presentation, it says optional step DOE may use 

3 to vet the models and tools that DOE intends to 

4 use in rulemaking.

5 MR. DOMMU: Uh-huh.

6 MR. ANDERSEN: So that's not correct, 

7 where it's saying that DOE intends to use it in 

8 the rulemaking? That's referring --

9 MR. DOMMU: Well, that's referring to the 

10 models and tools.

11 MR. ANDERSEN: Okay.

12 MR. DOMMU: So instead of proposing them 

13 in the NOPR for public comment and it's an actual 

14 proposal, we could put some of the analysis out 

15 in a preliminary analysis that does not actually 

16 have a proposal so we could get feedback on some 

17 of the analysis as we've performed before we 

18 actually propose it.

19 MR. ANDERSEN: Okay. Thanks.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please?

21 MR. KWATRA: Sameer Kwatra. Sameer 

22 Kwatra, ACEEE. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
38

1 Just so that we are in the right frame of 

2 mind for today's discussion, is there an estimate 

3 that DOE can give us based on the traditional 

4 approach and previous rulemakings, or just a 

5 timeframe we are thinking of when the final rule 

6 comes into effect? Just an estimate?

7 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, I mean, that's a good 

8 question. I mean, the rulemaking process does 

9 take some time. I think as previously mentioned 

10 in some of the opening comments there, there are 

11 no statutory deadlines for when this rule has to 

12 be completed by. Obviously we plan on pursuing 

13 it in as timely fashion as possible. But we 

14 haven't actually drawn out a schedule of what 

15 specific dates we're aiming for, for all these 

16 different steps. It really depends on the amount 

17 of time it takes to do analysis, the quality of 

18 the feedback and comments that are provided by 

19 interested stakeholders, you know, whether or not 

20 we do some of these different steps. 

21 But generally speaking from past 

22 experience with other rules, provided there is no 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
39

1 unforeseen delays, it could take a year or two to 

2 complete a lot of these analyses, go through the 

3 public comment periods, draft the notices, do the 

4 analysis. So it could be a year or two process 

5 before a final rule is issued.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Erica?

7 MS. LOGAN: Jeremy, could you also 

8 clarify that once the final rule is issued, EPCA 

9 requires a five year compliance period before it 

10 can become effective?

11 MS. SHER: And this is Celia Sher. I can 

12 answer that question.

13 We're currently looking into the 

14 compliance date right now. And so if you submit 

15 your comment we should be able to respond to that 

16 and have a better idea at the next stage of the 

17 rulemaking. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

19 questions on the timeframes here? Erica?

20 MS. LOGAN: one more. Could a negotiated 

21 rule be faster than a traditional rulemaking 

22 process?

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
40

1 MR. DOMMU: I mean, it depends on how 

2 long the negotiation takes. But certainly you 

3 could, you know, skip some of these steps. But 

4 you know, it ultimately, a negotiated rule would 

5 either -- could result in doing a notice of 

6 proposed rulemaking that is subject to comment, 

7 and then a final rule.

8 So I don't know if the process at all is 

9 longer or shorter. It very well could be. It 

10 might be longer. It really depends on how long 

11 those negotiations take.

12 MS. LOGAN: And as a follow-up, you know, 

13 Celia, is it subject to the same five year lag in 

14 terms of when it could become effective?

15 MS. SHER: And that's what we're also 

16 working to figure out right now.

17 MS. LOGAN: Great. Thank you.

18 MS. SHER: Uh-huh.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: I can say from my recent 

20 experience with the commercial and industrial 

21 pumps negotiated rulemaking that there was some 

22 time to set that up, there was some time to 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
41

1 select the members of the working group. But the 

2 actual negotiation was for about six months. 

3 Yeah.

4 And DOE and their analytic team had to 

5 really go into overdrive to accommodate all the 

6 work that was done. But they were very 

7 successful at doing that and that negotiated 

8 rulemaking resulted in a unanimous agreement 

9 among all the parties. 

10 MS. LOGAN: Thank you for that.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Joseph?

12 MR. ANDERSEN: And just as to the process 

13 of this. So we have three different categories. 

14 I mean, the industrial pumps is an example of 

15 like a single function. You know, that wouldn't 

16 be as complex to work through. Here we have 

17 computers, servers, which are the technological

18 equivalent to some degree of a set-top box, and 

19 UPSs, a lot of which are commercial.

20 And so I guess what I'm wondering with 

21 these other, you know, non-rulemaking options or 

22 alternatives, how would that proceed? Like would 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
42

1 the DOE -- I mean, have we thought through that 

2 yet in terms of like, would you want them all to 

3 move forward together, because I'm not sure --

4 we're not sure on the rulemaking level how to 

5 move those three forward together at this point. 

6 And so I'm curious the thought on that with a 

7 consensus agreement. If that was what that would 

8 consist of. Because the set-top box agreement, 

9 it was mostly set-top box companies. But this 

10 you'd be bringing in all the computer companies, 

11 you'd be bringing in all the server companies, 

12 you'd be bringing in all the UPS companies, and 

13 trying to get them to agree on something all 

14 together. 

15 MR. DOMMU: Uh-huh.

16 MR. ANDERSEN: It's strange. It's just, 

17 it's a difficult way to move forward, I guess is 

18 what I'm saying.

19 MS. LOGAN: Or, Joseph, just the computer 

20 companies if we --

21 MR. ANDERSEN: Just the computer 

22 companies.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
43

1 MS. LOGAN: That's always appropriate.

2 MR. ANDERSEN: So I guess that's what I'm 

3 thinking in terms of process. Like, I appreciate 

4 the example of like a single function device, but 

5 when you have these very different type of 

6 products, moving those forward together, we're 

7 still struggling to see how they move forward in 

8 this rulemaking process. And so in that type of 

9 process it might be more difficult.

10 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. I mean, I would say 

11 those other options really are more stakeholder 

12 driven processes where it really takes the desire 

13 of stakeholders to pursue one of those 

14 alternatives. If there is the desire there I 

15 think the nice thing about a negotiation or a 

16 consensus or whatever the case may be is, is 

17 there is a lot of wiggle room for negotiation. 

18 You know, there could be discussion of what's in 

19 or out of the scope. Just like we'd be wrestling 

20 with if we moved forward with our traditional 

21 rulemaking process.

22 So, you know, we'll present what some of 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
44

1 our thoughts are on scope and definitions as we 

2 proceed here today. But I would presume that 

3 those same conversations could also be part of a 

4 negotiation as well.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Doug Johnson.

6 MR. JOHNSON: With regard to scope and 

7 definitions what deference does the Department 

8 give typically to established approaches in the 

9 ENERGY STAR program for that product category?

10 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. No, absolutely. And 

11 as you read through the framework and we go 

12 through today's presentation we've started pretty 

13 much everywhere with what's already been 

14 established in ENERGY STAR. And, you know, have 

15 made some tweaks to some definitions as it 

16 compares to what we're currently considering 

17 versus what's in ENERGY STAR. But as you'll see 

18 pretty much everything under consideration is the 

19 established definitions that have already been 

20 vetted through the ENERGY STAR process by 

21 interested stakeholders.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments here? 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
45

1 So, thank you to Jeremy for inviting that 

2 and to all of you. I thought that was useful 

3 exchange right there. 

4 So now we're going to proceed with the 

5 slides in the packet. 

6 MR. DOMMU: Okay. So we are now getting 

7 into the very relevant and timely conversation of 

8 scope, which we've already begun to touch on in 

9 some ways.

10 So in February 2014 DOE issued a notice 

11 of proposed determination. That proposed the 

12 following definition for computer and battery 

13 backup systems.

14 And I'll just note for ease of language 

15 without having to say computer and battery backup 

16 systems, we'll often refer to that in the 

17 shorthand as just computer systems to reference 

18 computer and battery backup systems.

19 So the definition that we had proposed in 

20 that February 2014 notice for computer systems 

21 was a consumer product whose primary function is 

22 to perform logical operations and process data, 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
46

1 or equipment whose primary function is to 

2 maintain continuality of load power for such 

3 products in case of input power failure.

4 So we recognize that this definition may 

5 be broad and includes several different products, 

6 but as discussed in the February 2014 proposed 

7 determination, we do intend to narrow the scope 

8 of this rulemaking.

9 DOE is currently considering consumer 

10 products such as computers, computer servers, and 

11 uninterruptable power supplies as examples of the 

12 type of products that would be considered in 

13 scope of the computer systems definition.

14 So how are we preparing to do that? So 

15 the initial thought that we have is we are 

16 considering including definitions for computers, 

17 computer servers, and uninterruptable power 

18 supplies. And then having a scope of coverage 

19 for computer systems, both the test procedure and 

20 standards rulemaking to apply only to those 

21 products that meet the definition of a computer, 

22 of a computer server, of an uninterruptable power 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
47

1 supply. 

2 So those proposed definitions would be 

3 the type of consumer products that would be the 

4 starting point to establishing that scope. But 

5 we would additionally consider any other 

6 additional scope criteria. 

7 So we could then have a scope criteria 

8 for computers or a scope criteria for computer 

9 servers or scope for uninterruptable power 

10 supplies to further limit the types of products 

11 that are within scope to any of these additional 

12 scoping criteria. And we'll go through those in 

13 more detail as I proceed with the presentation. 

14 But one of the primary additional scope criterias 

15 that we'd be considering would be ways to limit

16 the scope to only those computers, computer 

17 servers, or uninterruptable power supplies which 

18 would be considered a consumer product.

19 So, Doug Johnson just asked the question 

20 of what definitions we're considering the next 

21 couple of slides here. I'll present what our 

22 beginning considerations are for definitions for 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
48

1 computers first, and then for servers and then 

2 uninterruptable power supplies. 

3 So for computers you'll see here on the 

4 screen, the definition here on the left-hand side 

5 that we are considering for computers for the 

6 regulatory standard. It is very much largely 

7 adopted from the ENERGY STAR definition.

8 You'll see the ENERGY STAR definition and 

9 then an abridged version which is simplified on 

10 the right-hand side. That's not the full ENERGY 

11 STAR definition of the computers but we are 

12 showing just part of it.

13 And in bold here on the slides are some 

14 of the slight tweaks that we are currently 

15 considering. So what we're considering for the 

16 definition of computers, we added -- we're 

17 considering adding the term means a consumer 

18 product so we could only get consumer products 

19 that are powered by mains power, with a primary 

20 function. So that part we're adding.

21 And the reason we're adding mains power 

22 and primary function is to distinguish computers 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
49

1 from other electronic products that may perform 

2 logical operations but not as its primary 

3 function. So the DOE proposed definition 

4 specifies that products that have different 

5 primary functions are excluded. 

6 So on the definition under consideration 

7 here, we added this very last paragraph that 

8 specifically calls out products that may perform 

9 similar operations of performing logical 

10 operations and processing data but have different 

11 primary functions. 

12 So if the primary function is playing a 

13 video game, displaying a television signal, 

14 making a phone call, taking pictures, or 

15 outputting audio signals we would not consider 

16 those to be within scope, even if they are able 

17 to perform logical operations and process data, 

18 but not as that device's primary function. So 

19 that's one change that we're suggesting that we 

20 make.

21 Additionally in the ENERGY STAR

22 definition there is language that lists out 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
50

1 specific examples of the type of computers which 

2 are included, and we're not proposing to do that 

3 as part of the definition. We'd rather do that 

4 as part of an additional scoping statement. So 

5 we would still define computers and then we could 

6 have a scope underneath which further clarifies 

7 what the scope of the computers is without making 

8 that scope part of the definition itself.

9 So that is what we're currently 

10 considering. Again, this is very much a starting 

11 point and we're open to feedback on what we 

12 should use as the definition of computers.

13 So at this time I will open it up to 

14 comments on what the definition we're considering 

15 are, is for computers, suggestions on the 

16 characteristics that may be used, and the 

17 definition to distinguish computers from other 

18 types of consumer electronics.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Anthony.

20 MR. FRYER: Anthony Fryer, ASAP. Just 

21 going back to what I mentioned in the opening 

22 statement about looking at these definitions more 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
51

1 through a regulatory lens than with ENERGY STAR, 

2 I think the emphasis shifts from a voluntary 

3 program to one that's out there to regulate a 

4 particular product category.

5 So when I look at the definition that you 

6 have there for computers and you see at a minimum 

7 a computer is composed of one, two, three, number 

8 two, user input devices such as keyboard, mouse, 

9 and touchpad, if a manufacturer were to ship 

10 those devices separately would that product still 

11 be a computer, is a question that sprang to mind 

12 as I was reading it.

13 And so a possible suggestion to tweak 

14 that a little bit would be to change it to 

15 similar to number three where it's, where a 

16 computer would support input devices such as 

17 keyboard, mouse, touchpad. Just to clarify that.

18 MR. DOMMU: That's a good suggestion. 

19 Thank you.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Don 

21 Brundage.

22 MR. BRUNDAGE: I'm having a hard time 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
52

1 looking at that definition and understanding 

2 where the boundaries are in real life. You have 

3 a classic desktop or laptop computer, you have 

4 netbooks, you have all sorts of different 

5 tablets. If you went by what most people use 

6 tablets for, other than those that are in 

7 commercial dedicated applications, iPads or 

8 Android tablets spend a lot more time playing 

9 video games than they do productive work. I just 

10 don't understand how -- this doesn't seem to be 

11 regulatory quality; something where you can say, 

12 this is included and this isn't.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: And so with these comments 

14 it would be helpful if you can describe what the 

15 fix would be as well. Mark, I saw you next.

16 MR. SHARP: Mark Sharp for Panasonic. I 

17 was wondering if the DOE could provide a little 

18 additional clarity on the definition of consumer 

19 product. I see you take a little stab at it 

20 under the server definition on the next page 

21 where you talk about a server that is sold only 

22 or primarily to commercial and industrial 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
53

1 customers does not alone make it a commercial 

2 product. 

3 MR. DOMMU: Uh-huh.

4 MR. SHARP: So it seems like you've tried 

5 to clarify the definition for servers, but I 

6 don't really see that clarity for computers. I'm 

7 wondering if you could --

8 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, we're getting in to 

9 that, so maybe the slide, the order of the slides 

10 is not laid out well, but we have several slides 

11 that are coming up very soon where we're talking 

12 about how we're going to narrow the scope. So, 

13 like on this slide there's additional scoping 

14 criteria. We are intending to use additional 

15 scoping criteria to limit the scope of computers, 

16 computer servers, and uninterruptable power 

17 supplies to only certain types of computers or 

18 computer servers and uninterruptable power 

19 supplies that are consumer products.

20 So what I'm first presenting here is the 

21 definition, but what we'll get into shortly is 

22 what the scope for the rulemaking will be. So we 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
54

1 will further narrow the scope. So the other 

2 question that had just come up is, we could also 

3 narrow the scope of computers to only desktops or 

4 notebooks or other types of computers through a 

5 scoping statement. And we're going to get into 

6 that momentarily. So this is just a definition 

7 of what a computer is, but that doesn't mean that 

8 everything that meets that definition would be 

9 considered within scope. We will discuss 

10 additional scoping criteria shortly.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: And if we could, for right 

12 now, get additional comments on the computer 

13 definition as directed by this comment box, 31, 

14 that would be helpful. Jay?

15 MR. TAYLOR: Thanks. This is Jay Taylor 

16 with Schneider Electric. I would remind the DOE 

17 and the rest of the folks here, it was a 

18 substantial investment of industry time and 

19 effort creating the ENERGY STAR program.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Uh-huh.

21 MR. TAYLOR: And the definitions that go 

22 into that program. A lot of us spent a lot of 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
55

1 long hours with the ENERGY STAR program, writing 

2 this stuff and rewriting them over and over 

3 again. 

4 While I understand that they were not 

5 really targeted at a regulatory environment, they 

6 were targeted to provide good definitions in this 

7 product category. 

8 So that would be my first comment. The 

9 second thing is, is I'm assuming later on you're 

10 going to provide me what mains power really 

11 means?

12 MR. DOMMU: Sure. Yeah. I mean, we're 

13 going to --

14 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

15 MR. DOMMU: We'll talk about that and we 

16 certainly welcome comment, though, on what that 

17 means.

18 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. That's just -- that 

19 was it.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Jay, let me ask a follow 

21 on question.

22 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
56

1 MR. BROOKMAN: You said you spent a lot 

2 of time working on it. Now that it has been 

3 worked on are you suggesting that these 

4 definitions are seeming sufficient and --

5 MR. TAYLOR: Well, I would say like 

6 standards activity, we’re never really done. But 

7 I would point out that changing -- so there was a 

8 lot of effort that went in to define the 

9 categories under computer systems. I was a part 

10 of that. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Uh-huh.

12 MR. TAYLOR: There was a lot of effort 

13 put in to defining the categories for UPS systems 

14 in not only the IEC language but also within the 

15 ENERGY STAR program.

16 I would be really reluctant to go off and 

17 change those categorizations that we've gone off 

18 and defined, unless there was a significantly 

19 appropriate reason, like there was a whole lot of 

20 energy to go be saved. 

21 And I do acknowledge that these things 

22 were targeted at high end -- or at efficiency in 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
57

1 a voluntary program. I do acknowledge that. But 

2 I also think that the way we went about defining 

3 it and the fact that the ENERGY STAR regulations 

4 have been adopted by a number of other 

5 international jurisdictions tends to lead you to 

6 a conclusion that the definition effort by the 

7 ENERGY STAR program was well thought out and 

8 easily adopted.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

10 MR. TAYLOR: So I would say that it's 

11 actually pretty good and I'd be really reluctant 

12 to go change those categories.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So now if we can 

14 get additional comments on the definition here on 

15 page 19 of your slides. Joseph.

16 MR. ANDERSEN: Joseph Andersen with TIA. 

17 I have more a question than a comment.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please.

19 MR. ANDERSEN: So the primary function, 

20 what's DOE thinking at this point on how to 

21 define what the primary function of a device is? 

22 I mean, I think this raises the point that was 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
58

1 made earlier, is that based on consumer use? Is 

2 that based on what the manufacturer sells it as? 

3 You know, it's a huge question because there are 

4 a lot of devices that could potentially fall 

5 under the definition. Even a Smartphone, for 

6 example, where it's difficult to define what the 

7 primary function is. 

8 So does the DOE have some initial thought 

9 on what that means?

10 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. No, I think that 

11 that's a good point. I think you know, using the 

12 term primary function certainly does leave it 

13 open-ended in some ways to what that primary 

14 function actually is. I mean, we attempted to 

15 specifically exclude other primary functions that 

16 would commonly be considered, you know, other 

17 devices playing video games and trying to get at 

18 excluding game consoles, displaying television 

19 signals, excluding TVs, making phone calls, 

20 excluding phones, presumably smart phones. But I 

21 mean, if this is not clear, if you know, if 

22 there's other suggestions of how this definition 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
59

1 should be worded, taking into account, you know, 

2 the ENERGY STAR definition, which you know, is 

3 very much our starting point here, we welcome 

4 them. But I think you know, I think this 

5 definition covers or is intended to cover what we 

6 all think in our mind when we talk about a 

7 computer such as a desktop computer, a notebook 

8 computer. 

9 MR. ANDERSEN: Joseph Andersen again with 

10 TIA. Just a quick follow-up question because I 

11 guess what I'm worried about in terms of the 

12 regulatory framework is if it's based on, you 

13 know, you have this basic ENERGY STAR definition 

14 and then excluding by primary function certain 

15 projects, a lot of these products are changing 

16 functionality, and a lot of them are doing it 

17 like every two or three years. 

18 And so that's the question is, could 

19 something potentially using this exclusion 

20 process, not be covered by the rulemaking and 

21 then all of a sudden it is, even though they 

22 didn't intend to be?

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
60

1 MR. DOMMU: Uh-huh.

2 MR. ANDERSEN: That would be the concern.

3 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. No, that's a good 

4 consideration and certainly if you have 

5 suggestions of how we could cover the products 

6 that are commonly considered a computer, you 

7 know, that would be great if you could, you know, 

8 provide ideas either now or in comments.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments here 

10 before we move on to computer servers? Okay.

11 MR. DOMMU: Okay. So now we'll talk 

12 about the definition for computer servers. 

13 So we have the definition here. Again, 

14 this is abridged. On the left, the definition 

15 under consideration is a couple dot, dot, dots 

16 that indicate that we're not -- we didn't put out 

17 the full language on this slide. The full 

18 language is, of the definition we are considering 

19 is in the framework document itself. 

20 The first thing I would note, though, is 

21 that we begin the definition just like ENERGY 

22 STAR, saying a computer. So that would presume 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
61

1 that a computer server would first have to meet 

2 the definition of what a computer is, and then 

3 furthermore meet these additional considerations 

4 to be considered a computer server. 

5 So really what we're trying to do here is 

6 create a method to distinguish between a consumer 

7 product, which is a computer, versus one that is 

8 also a computer server. And that's what we're 

9 intending to do with this desk -- with this 

10 definition. 

11 So one of the things we're not 

12 considering adopting, though, is the sentence in 

13 the ENERGY STAR definition that restricts servers 

14 to only those servers that are sold through 

15 enterprise channels because there are many 

16 servers that are sold for use in multiple 

17 environments, both to be used in a data center or 

18 office environment, as well as being of a type 

19 which are used by individuals or households as 

20 consumer products.

21 Under EPCA the fact that a computer is 

22 sold to commercial and industrial customers does 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
62

1 not alone mean it's not a consumer product. 

2 We'll get into a little bit more about the 

3 consumer product issue later, but because of that 

4 we are not currently considering adopting the 

5 sentence which is in ENERGY STAR that states a 

6 computer server is sold through enterprise 

7 channels for use in data centers and office and 

8 corporate environments.

9 We're also not including the requirement 

10 from ENERGY STAR, computer servers version 2.0, 

11 and that a computer server is designed for and 

12 listed as supporting one or more computer server 

13 operating systems and hypervisors. That is 

14 because it may be difficult to create a 

15 quantitative distinction between what is a 

16 computer operating system and a computer server 

17 operating system. 

18 Point being we are trying to have a 

19 definition here where it is clear what is a 

20 computer server versus a device which is a 

21 computer -- which is not a computer server. And 

22 we felt that that additional bullet that's in the 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
63

1 ENERGY STAR definition would not help distinguish 

2 between something that's a computer server versus 

3 something that's a computer that is not a 

4 computer server.

5 And for that same reason we are also not 

6 considering the bullet in the ENERGY STAR

7 definition that a computer server is packaged and 

8 sold with one or more AC/DC or DC/DC power 

9 supplies, and again that is because we would 

10 expect many computers and computer servers to be 

11 packaged and sold with one or more AC/DC or DC/DC 

12 power supplies. And therefore that does not help 

13 provide a meaningful distinction between a 

14 computer and a computer server.

15 So, again, that is what we are currently 

16 considering. It is our starting point. And 

17 that's why we're here, to get your comments on 

18 it. So at this point I will certainly open it up 

19 for feedback and information, any additional 

20 factors or criteria that we could consider using 

21 as we consider what the definition for a computer 

22 server should be. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
64

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Don Brundage.

2 MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern 

3 Company. I think the key under EPCA is not the 

4 distribution channel. It's whether it exists in 

5 a normal home, because this is similar to the 

6 cable set-top boxes. The consumer doesn't 

7 directly purchase those through a store but they 

8 are in use in a home so they're covered under 

9 EPCA. 

10 So whatever definition you come up with 

11 needs to distinguish between the products that 

12 are normally used within a home, regardless of 

13 who purchases them under the normal contractual 

14 arrangements, and those that are used normally in 

15 business applications. 

16 And I'm not sure right now how you would 

17 do that, but the sort of servers to me that would 

18 be used in a home would be both the servers you 

19 might buy at Best Buy, and the ones that are used 

20 by the -- a lot of times the modems are an 

21 integrated router for the cable -- for the 

22 internet provider, where you buy it with the --

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
65

1 where it's part of the package with the service 

2 provider. 

3 MR. DOMMU: Right. Yeah. And again, you 

4 know, we're going to add scope. This is a 

5 definition for computer servers. It's not 

6 necessarily a definition for computer servers 

7 which are consumer products. We will discuss 

8 shortly what scope we should use, so the scope of 

9 the rulemaking relates only to computer servers 

10 which are considered consumer products.

11 MR. SHEIKH: Just a comment. Shahid from 

12 Intel. ENERGY STAR, when they're looking at the 

13 definition, when they say criteria, they are 

14 combining it all, you know, and not listing AC/DC 

15 or DC/DC power supply. This is based on all the 

16 factors combined to make up the criteria. So 

17 when you're looking at in isolation, it makes 

18 sense what you are saying, but that's not what 

19 ENERGY STAR does, looking in isolation but 

20 looking at as a whole.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: It says, in addition 

22 computer server must, meeting the following 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
66

1 criteria.

2 MR. SHEIKH: Yes. Yeah, correct.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Must.

4 MR. SHEIKH: All.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

6 MR. SHEIKH: Yeah.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

8 MR. SHEIKH: Yeah.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: That's good clarification. 

10 Okay. 

11 Additional comments on computer servers 

12 definition? 

13 And of course the Department really 

14 welcomes you giving this a considerable amount of 

15 thought in your written comments. 

16 Yes?

17 MS. LOGAN: Just briefly on --

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Erica.

19 MS. LOGAN: Erica with ITI. We will 

20 provide more details but I think we need to 

21 corroborate third-party data sources because our 

22 data indicates that servers are not sold to any 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
67

1 significant extent at all in commerce.

2 MR. DOMMU: Okay.

3 MS. LOGAN: So, as well as energy 

4 consumption levels.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: That's helpful. Thank 

6 you. Yeah. Okay. Are we ready to move on now? 

7 I think so.

8 MR. DOMMU: Okay. So now UPSs. So here 

9 is the definition that is currently under 

10 consideration for uninterruptable power supplies. 

11 It is a combination of converters, switches, and 

12 energy storage devices such as batteries 

13 constituting a power system for maintaining 

14 continuality of load power in case of primary 

15 input power failure.

16 This is the same definition that is 

17 already specified in ENERGY STAR UPS Version 1.0 

18 and IEC standard 62040-3 Edition 2. 

19 So there it is. We are not considering 

20 any changes to the definition of a UPS that 

21 already exists in those other programs. 

22 So I could now open it up to any comments 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
68

1 as it relates to the definition of a UPS.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. No comments.

3 MR. DOMMU: Okay. So now moving on. 

4 We've already gotten many questions on this, but 

5 as I've stated we are only considering computer 

6 systems which are consumer products as defined by 

7 EPCA to be in scope of this rulemaking.

8 So the definition of a consumer product 

9 as shown here is an article of a type which to 

10 any significant extent is distributed in commerce 

11 for personal use or consumption by individuals.

12 So essentially what this definition is 

13 doing is it's trying to distinguish between 

14 consumer products and products which are not 

15 consumer products, so that any given product 

16 under this definition would be considered either 

17 a consumer product or not a consumer product, 

18 regardless of whether such article is in fact 

19 distributed in commerce for personal use or 

20 consumption by an individual.

21 So as long as that product to any 

22 significant extent is of a type which is 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
69

1 distributed through commerce for personal use or 

2 consumption by individuals, then under our 

3 definition it would be considered a consumer 

4 product. 

5 So if you, for example, if you have a 

6 desktop computer which is distributed into 

7 commerce as a consumer product to be used by 

8 households or individuals, and that same desktop 

9 computer or a desktop computer of the same type 

10 could also be distributed into commerce for use 

11 by offices or commercial environments. It may 

12 still be considered a consumer product under the 

13 definition of EPCA if it is distributed to any 

14 significant extent into commerce for personal use 

15 or consumption by individuals.

16 So that's the definition of what a 

17 consumer product is under EPCA. And now the goal 

18 of the rulemaking is to use this definition of 

19 what EPCA considers to be a consumer product, and 

20 apply it to the products that could be within 

21 scope of this rulemaking, computers, computer 

22 servers, and UPSs. So we could scope out any 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
70

1 such products which would not be considered a 

2 consumer product. 

3 And trying to figure out what criteria or 

4 method we could use is something that we put out 

5 there to request comment on in the notice of 

6 proposed determination. We did get a number of 

7 very good comments in response to that and now 

8 we've detailed some of these scoping conditions 

9 that we are considering using in the framework 

10 document to get some more insight. 

11 So, now I'm going to move on to how we 

12 intend, or what we're considering and open up the 

13 floor for comments of how we could limit the 

14 scope of the rulemaking to only those computer 

15 systems which are considered consumer products, 

16 and also discuss some additional criteria we'll 

17 be using.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: May I interrupt? Pardon 

19 me for doing so.

20 MR. DOMMU: Sure. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: We have a comment from an 

22 individual who has joined us online related to 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
71

1 computer servers.

2 MR. DOMMU: Okay.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: So I thought I'd add that 

4 here.

5 Craig Stephens says, "A computer server 

6 is usually classified by the FCC as a Class A 

7 device (commercial) only specific units designed 

8 for home use would be classified as consumer 

9 product."

10 MR. DOMMU: Okay.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Craig.

12 MR. DOMMU: All right. Thank you.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Pardon me for 

14 interrupting.

15 MR. DOMMU: No, no, thank you for doing 

16 that. I --

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Doug Johnson.

18 MR. JOHNSON: Jeremy, could you go back 

19 one? That is the EPCA slide there. 

20 MR. DOMMU: This is the definition of a 

21 consumer product by EPCA.

22 MR. JOHNSON: Perhaps this is a question 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
72

1 for your legal counsel, Celia. What does the 

2 Department today think is significant with 

3 respect to that definition there on that slide to 

4 any significant extent?

5 MS. SHER: Oh, okay. Sorry. I 

6 misunderstood your comment. 

7 MR. JOHNSON: Not a philosophical 

8 question but --

9 MS. SHER: In terms of consumer products 

10 in the home?

11 MR. JOHNSON: Let me focus it to this 

12 slide in particular.

13 MS. SHER: Okay. So, I think that that 

14 is something that would be better answered if you 

15 put it in your comments, our interpretation of 

16 the statute. I don't think -- you know, it's a 

17 complicated -- obviously it's not so 

18 straightforward. We're asking for your input on 

19 the, you know, types of things to make a 

20 distinction between consumer and commercial 

21 products. You know, I think that that's 

22 something we could get into more detail, but 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
73

1 would appreciate it in the comments.

2 MR. JOHNSON: For example, one or two 

3 percent, is that significant? Three, four, five, 

4 10? I'm just trying to get a sense of scale 

5 here.

6 MR. SHEIKH: This should be a settled 

7 issue, right? What the test of significance is?

8 MS. SHER: Yeah. And I think, again, 

9 that's something that I would appreciate, you 

10 know -- we would appreciate in the comments. If 

11 you could submit that, I can't speak on the 

12 percentage for significance.

13 MR. JOHNSON: I understand. I guess 

14 perhaps based on previous interpretations and 

15 earlier rulemakings, was there -- did you 

16 consider something significant in a different 

17 product category at a certain level? Anything 

18 helpful along those lines that you could --

19 MS. SHER: And I think that's a great 

20 question. I think that that's something that 

21 we'd have to look into.

22 MR. JOHNSON: Okay.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
74

1 MS. SHER: I really couldn't answer that 

2 right now. It's a little more complicated than a 

3 simple answer.

4 MR. JOHNSON: Fair enough. Thank you.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Alex Boesenberg.

6 MR. BOESENGBERG: Alex Boesenberg for 

7 NEMA. I'll restate Doug's question because we 

8 share this concern. 

9 The EPCA definition is extremely broad 

10 and the challenge that is presented because the 

11 Department has chosen to approach this in 

12 individual rulemakings and not offer a little bit 

13 more specific assistance in clarifying this 

14 coverage is, as we get into a rulemaking, due to 

15 the nature of the comment then response, comment 

16 and response, and sometimes years between 

17 milestone documents, we get a very different 

18 opinion, forced to figure it out for ourselves we 

19 can arrive at a very different conclusion than 

20 the Department does. Especially the enforcement 

21 side of the Department.

22 And we write a test procedure with, oh, 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
75

1 it wouldn't possibly include this product in 

2 scope. And we end up with a test procedure that 

3 doesn't fairly test the product. And then a 

4 standard comes along that sets a performance 

5 level that a product or a product class cannot 

6 meet because we didn't think it was in scope. 

7 And this is an ongoing problem and we'd 

8 request, beg, challenge the Department to offer 

9 more concrete guidance as to what is a consumer 

10 product and offer that in general so that we can 

11 apply it to anything going on. And I recognize 

12 that's a challenge.

13 But then also, you know, this framework 

14 point is a time where we need to have the scope 

15 distinctly clear before we can proceed with test 

16 procedures, and certainly before a standard can 

17 be set. Thank you.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Alex. Okay. 

19 Celia?

20 MS. SHER: And I was just going to point 

21 you, and you may already be aware of this, but 

22 just on something that you can take a look at 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
76

1 now, we do have a guidance document that you all 

2 might be aware of that discusses the distinction 

3 between a consumer product and a commercial 

4 product, and with regard to refrigerators, that 

5 might be useful to take a look at.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Alex?

7 MR. BOESENGBERG: And this is Alex from 

8 NEMA. 

9 Yes, we've read that.

10 MS. SHER: Okay.

11 MR. BOESENGBERG: And I have to tell you, 

12 it doesn't do the job.

13 MS. SHER: Okay. Well, thank you.

14 MR. BOESENGBERG: All right. 

15 MS. SHER: Appreciate the comment.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Jay?

17 MR. TAYLOR: I guess -- Jay Taylor with 

18 Schneider Electric. I guess I would point out 

19 that in many cases it's not just a matter of 

20 products that we build, because we build products 

21 and we will target them at specific market 

22 places, consumer/commercial. But if a competitor 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
77

1 or somebody else comes into the marketplace and 

2 we're not watching very carefully, and they do 

3 market a product that is similar to ours but in a 

4 consumer way, we get rolled up in it as well. 

5 We, meaning other manufacturers who don't offer a 

6 product for that particular feature set because 

7 if you look at it, it's generally architectural 

8 that goes between consumer and business, is 

9 generally some form of architecture that 

10 differentiates the two.

11 So we may get rolled up into that in an 

12 enforcement action, not knowing. So that's one 

13 of the reasons that we continue to ask for 

14 additional clarity is because we don't like to 

15 blindside our business units with an enforcement 

16 action. 

17 But at the same time this is very broad. 

18 I realize that it was provided by the legislation 

19 that defined it. But without more clarity what 

20 happens is we will tend to overcompensate and 

21 include products that shouldn't be, into the 

22 limit, simply because they could be interpreted 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
78

1 to be in the limit. It costs us a lot of money 

2 to do it, but we do it anyway because we don't 

3 want to be caught in violation. And some of us 

4 have been because somebody entered the 

5 marketplace that we weren't aware of, offered 

6 their product, and it looked similar enough to 

7 ours that we get an enforcement letter.

8 So I'm simply pointing out that that's 

9 the reason that a lot of us tend to push for a 

10 lot more clarity about the differences between 

11 consumer and commercial products. 

12 MS. SHER: Yeah.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Don Brundage.

14 MR. BRUNDAGE: I've been dealing with 

15 efficiency standards here longer than I would 

16 like to admit on a lot of different rulemakings. 

17 And for most other products it's not really a big 

18 issue. I mean, the rule is you're a residential 

19 product if you're less than 120 gallons, above 

20 120 gallons on a water heater you end up with all 

21 these boiler code things that drastically 

22 increase the cost. If you're less than five and 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
79

1 quarter tons on an air conditioning unit. 

2 But this sort of equipment is different 

3 in that it sort of mixes between commercial and 

4 industrial. But in the end it's not going to be 

5 a philosophical question about significant 

6 extent. It's driving a stake in the ground with 

7 a razor sharp definition where you can tell that 

8 this product is a consumer product. This product 

9 is not a consumer product. And if you find 

10 there's a problem with that you can change it at 

11 a later rulemaking.

12 There's been some efforts out there with 

13 water heaters to change the definition of 

14 included product to eliminate gaps and loopholes. 

15 Over there you can just raise the burner size on 

16 a gas water heater enough and it's for 

17 residential and it falls under the commercial 

18 standard if you make the burner too big.

19 What I think you need in the end, and I'm 

20 not an expert on how to set these definitions, 

21 you need to have something very sharp, very 

22 clear, even if it's not perfect, that says this 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
80

1 is a consumer product, this is not. The 

2 manufacturers deserve that and not something 

3 where they're going to get hauled back in later 

4 and said, this is not a consumer product. Thank 

5 you.

6 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. Let me make a point 

7 there. So, we're putting this definition out. 

8 This is what EPCA gives us as a definition for 

9 what is a consumer product. And now we're trying 

10 to take this definition, we're trying to get your 

11 feedback on how we should apply it so we can make 

12 that distinguishment for each of these product 

13 groups we're considering, computers, computer 

14 servers, and UPSs. So we could have that clear 

15 differentiation between what type of computer, 

16 what type of computer server, what type of UPS is 

17 a consumer product versus what's not a consumer 

18 product.

19 So like in the water heater example that 

20 you just gave, we want to say, okay, well, if 

21 we're trying to get at only those water heaters 

22 that are consumer products and you want to make 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
81

1 that clear distinguishment between the capacity 

2 and gallons, that's the type of distinguishment 

3 we're looking for right now. So we could say all 

4 such water heaters under 120 gallons are a 

5 consumer product because they meet this 

6 definition.

7 So we're trying to come up with what we 

8 could use, what we could distinguish those 

9 computer systems, which are consumer products, 

10 versus ones that are not consumer products, based 

11 on this definition which EPCA gives us. 

12 So we don't want to have any ambiguity. 

13 You know, the definition, you know, says it's

14 without regard to whether such article is of a 

15 type which is distributed into commerce for 

16 personal use or consumption by an individual. So 

17 if it meets this definition of what is a consumer 

18 product, and we want to get your feedback so we 

19 could properly scope what is a consumer product

20 versus what isn't, then we could create that 

21 clear way to distinguish them. Even if that 

22 product is sold -- if we consider it a consumer 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
82

1 product and it meets all these scope and criteria 

2 that we preside, that we put out there to be what 

3 is considered a consumer product, even if that 

4 product is then sold to be used in an office 

5 setting it would still be within the scope. 

6 That's what the definition here is saying.

7 So we're looking at ways to make that 

8 distinguishment between the type of computer 

9 systems which are distributed into commerce to 

10 any significant extent for use by individuals, 

11 and when we want to try to figure how we define 

12 what that scope is so we could properly make sure 

13 that all such products are within the scope. And 

14 there's no confusion, there's no interpretation

15 that manufacturers have to make. We have a very 

16 clear scoping statement of what is a consumer 

17 product as it relates to computer systems.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments. 

19 Okay. 

20 MR. DOMMU: Okay. So now we'll talk 

21 about what we currently considering to be in 

22 scope as a consumer product and then some 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
83

1 additional criteria. First desktop computers.

2 So the method that DOE is considering to 

3 determine what type of computers -- and I'll say 

4 this, when I say computers in this instance I am 

5 talking about computers which meet the definition 

6 of a computer but don't meet the additional 

7 definition of a consumer -- of a computer server. 

8 All right? These are just those computers I'm 

9 talking about now, which personal computers, 

10 which meet the definition of computers but don't 

11 meet the additional requirements to be a computer 

12 server.

13 So of those type of computers, based on 

14 comments received from the notice of proposed 

15 determination, DOE has the understanding that the 

16 basic design and characteristics of personal 

17 computers is similar between devices sold for 

18 commercial customers and devices sold to 

19 consumers. 

20 So accordingly, at this initial stage or 

21 initial determination is that we're not aware of 

22 any computers that would be considered commercial 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
84

1 industrial equipment only; meaning they are not 

2 of a type which are distributed into commerce to 

3 any significant extent for use by households and 

4 individuals. So therefore, at this stage, DOE is 

5 considering including all personal computers to 

6 be consumer products.

7 However, even though it is our current 

8 belief -- we welcome your feedback -- that DOE is 

9 considering all computers to be consumer 

10 products, we are considering whether we should 

11 use other factors to limit the scope of the 

12 computer rulemaking. 

13 At this point we are considering 

14 including desktops and integrated desktops, 

15 notebooks and thin clients to be in scope of the 

16 rulemaking. But we are still evaluating the 

17 impact of including other types of personal 

18 computers such as work stations or small-scale

19 servers or tablet computers to be in the scope of 

20 the rulemaking.

21 So we're intending to do that in a couple 

22 of different ways. So first we are considering 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
85

1 including further definitions for desktops or 

2 notebooks or integrated desktops or any other 

3 product. We'd likely look at the ENERGY STAR

4 definition for those products first, and then we 

5 would include a list of those products that are 

6 considered within the scope of computers. 

7 So it might not be anything that meets 

8 that definition of computers. We may limit it to 

9 only certain types of personal computers. And we 

10 could include definitions to do so. 

11 So we could say the scope of the 

12 rulemaking applies only to desktops, notebooks, 

13 integrated desktops, and then have definitions 

14 for what is a desktop or a notebook or an 

15 integrated desktop. 

16 Another consideration that we are doing 

17 is using product features and characteristics to 

18 further define the scope. So we could use 

19 something like product weight or screen size or 

20 power source or hardware characteristics, or 

21 anything else that you guys could think of or 

22 want to propose to also limit the scope. We 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
86

1 could either use this first option or we could 

2 use the second option, or we could use both 

3 options. And that is how we could further 

4 consider limiting the scope.

5 So that's basically where we are right 

6 now. One quick example is with screen size. We 

7 recently finalized a test procedure for 

8 televisions and we said that this television test 

9 procedure only applies to televisions that are 

10 over 15 inches in size. So if it was under 15 

11 inches that television would be out of scope. So 

12 that's how we did that. 

13 So again, the general initial stage 

14 determination is that we're considering that all 

15 computers meet the definition of a consumer 

16 product, but we are considering alternative ways 

17 and methods to limit the scope to only certain 

18 types of computers.

19 So we have a number of different items

20 here that essentially request feedback on all of 

21 that information that I just put out there.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: And perhaps we could start 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
87

1 with 25 because the Department at this point 

2 would really benefit from your comments. 

3 Especially about these items, all the items 

4 bulleted there, but particularly the ones on the 

5 right-hand side, evaluating the impact of 

6 including workstations, small scale servers, and 

7 tablets. Your thoughts on that. Shahid?

8 MR. SHEIKH: No, I was commenting more on 

9 the following page.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Please. Go ahead.

11 MR. SHEIKH: Okay. When you mentioned 

12 that you could also use general product features 

13 and characteristics, is there a criteria that's 

14 driven by significance of those products; those 

15 same terms, right? Or energy, or some other way 

16 to judge how you determine which product features 

17 are to be included or not?

18 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, at this point we 

19 haven't made any determination of what product 

20 features or characteristics we would look at and 

21 what the criteria would be.

22 MR. SHEIKH: Sure.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
88

1 MR. DOMMU: That's really what we're 

2 looking for comment on. So, obviously you know, 

3 if you have any thoughts now, sure. But 

4 obviously this is something that would take, I'm 

5 sure, some thought.

6 MR. SHEIKH: But you would use some 

7 criteria?

8 MR. DOMMU: But we could use criteria, 

9 absolutely.

10 MR. SHEIKH: Not just arbitrarily decide, 

11 right?

12 MR. DOMMU: Oh, I see what you're saying. 

13 So what criteria would we use?

14 MR. SHEIKH: Right.

15 MR. DOMMU: I think the criteria we would 

16 use would be comments from stakeholders to help 

17 us determine what should be or should not be in 

18 scope.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert.

20 MR. WHITE: Yes. It's Robert White with 

21 Dell. 

22 So I would like to use the tablets as an 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
89

1 example. The new efficiency level 6 for external 

2 power supplies would go into effect, you know, 

3 early 2016. California adopted your battery 

4 charger spec for the most part, so to me devices 

5 like this and even some of the notebooks the 

6 annualized power consumption of these devices is 

7 extremely low.

8 MR. DOMMU: Uh-huh.

9 MR. WHITE: So are you considering 

10 setting a threshold that devices that are above a 

11 certain percentage would fall within scope? Or 

12 are you going to require all these super 

13 efficient devices, notebooks included here, and 

14 thin clients where the energy consumption is 

15 already so low it doesn't really make a lot of 

16 sense to pull them in and have them go through 

17 the same rigor of products that, I guess that 

18 would consume more power?

19 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. I mean, I think you 

20 make a number of good points. I think what we're 

21 saying here is we could do -- have a couple 

22 different options. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
90

1 We could say that only desktops and 

2 notebooks and integrated desktops are included, 

3 but say for example all tablets are excluded. If 

4 we do that, right, then no tablets are included. 

5 We could say that, well, tablets are included but 

6 only tablets that are a certain screen size. So 

7 there's a number of different ways that we could 

8 do that. We haven't determined what method that 

9 we are planning on taking is at this point yet. 

10 But I mean, I think to your point earlier 

11 on in the presentation I talked about the EPCA 

12 factors that we consider when we do conservation 

13 standards. We're looking to achieve the maximum 

14 improvement in energy efficiency that is 

15 technologically feasible and economically 

16 justified and results in a significant 

17 conservation of energy. 

18 If, you know, if there is not going to be 

19 a significant conservation of energy, you know, 

20 that certainly, you know, would be interesting 

21 comments to provide to the docket explaining why 

22 you feel regulating this type of computer may not 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
91

1 make sense because the energy savings are not 

2 significant.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Sameer.

4 MR. KWATRA: Sameer Kwatra with ACEEE.

5 In line with the opening remarks by ASAP 

6 that in order to have longevity of the rulemaking 

7 we should have broad categories, we should think 

8 about what's going to happen substantially in the 

9 future and not right now.

10 And why at a product level we are seeing 

11 that, you know, though smaller products are 

12 efficient, tablets, smart phones. But we have 

13 also seen trends are that these are 

14 proliferating. So as a category on aggregate 

15 they consume huge amount of energy and will 

16 continue to as far as one can foresee into the 

17 future.

18 So the point I'm trying to make here is 

19 if we are too narrowly defining the categories 

20 like separating tablets, there are product 

21 already in the market that are two-in-one, 

22 laptops and tablets, Microsoft Surface. I 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
92

1 believe every manufacturer has one. So it's easy 

2 for those to be excluded from the conservation 

3 standards. 

4 So I would recommend the group to think 

5 of the future and converging categories, and 

6 therefore be more inclusive. 

7 Similarly another trend is large 

8 workforces telecommuting, and there are more than 

9 one computer per household even now. There are 

10 probably going to be more computing devices per 

11 household in the future. And therefore computer 

12 servers for personal use are -- we can debate 

13 what is the percentage and if it is significant 

14 now. But that's certainly going to increase and 

15 therefore we should keep that in mind. But this 

16 rulemaking is not for today. Thank you.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Joseph?

18 MR. ANDERSEN: Just a quick question on 

19 that. And this is something that gets to this 

20 question of how significant -- how much energy 

21 can be saved by a conservation standard here.

22 So my question is, I've heard about like 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
93

1 the aggregate consumption of the devices, and 

2 that's in the rulemaking. What I'd like to be 

3 pointed to is, and I think the DOE must have some 

4 thoughts on this too, is if you look at computers 

5 they've been almost doubling in efficiency every 

6 couple years. Like, it almost follows Moore's 

7 Law. There are a lot of studies out on it where 

8 there's all this progress being made there.

9 And so what I'm wondering is, is what is 

10 the DOE, what are they trying to get through the 

11 rulemaking process, I guess in terms of energy 

12 conservation? What can manufacturers -- what do 

13 they want manufacturers to do that they're not 

14 already doing, because you look at like, 

15 especially like tablets and laptops, they have 

16 such a strong market reason because nobody wants 

17 their devices to die, you know, so they're trying 

18 to get those batteries to squeeze out as long as 

19 they can.

20 So I'm curious on those in particular. 

21 Like, what does the DOE see there up front where 

22 they think manufacturers could be doing more than 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
94

1 they already are?

2 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. I mean, I think to 

3 attempt to answer that, I mean, as I've said EPCA 

4 directs DOE to adopt conservation standards which 

5 achieve the maximum improvement of energy 

6 efficiency which is technologically feasible and 

7 economically justified. So that's the goal of 

8 this process.

9 In the framework there's a first chapter 

10 that's out there that we looked at some of the 

11 ranges and some of the data that's available on 

12 the market, you know, that showed that not all 

13 computers are created equal and there is some 

14 discrepancy between the efficiency of different 

15 types of computers. So that is certainly helping 

16 drive our decision to begin this process by 

17 looking at that data that indicates that there is 

18 opportunity to achieve a maximum improvement in 

19 energy efficiency.

20 MS. SHER: And I think we're exploring 

21 that. You know, we have a proposed determination 

22 to make computer systems a covered product. So 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
95

1 we haven't made a determination yet. That's what 

2 we're trying to explore now, if it is 

3 significant.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: So, thank you, Celia. 

5 Yes. Shahid.

6 MR. SHEIKH: Yeah. So over time as the 

7 form factors have all been in some of the -- form 

8 factors listed on the left-hand side become more 

9 efficient, a lot more efficient, like similar to 

10 what you see on the right, then you have a 

11 mechanism to move them to the right over time as 

12 part of the regulation? Or they're destined to 

13 be in scope?

14 Notebooks are evolving, right, and 

15 becoming more energy efficient over time than 

16 today's notebooks. And similarly, you know, your 

17 desktops.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: You can graduate them out 

19 or something.

20 MR. SHEIKH: Yeah. So what's the 

21 mechanism to keep them in scope when it's no 

22 longer meeting that -- it's below the threshold 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
96

1 that you may have determined to be in scope in 

2 the first place?

3 MR. DOMMU: I mean, the first thing I 

4 would say is that, if as you're saying, the 

5 technology becomes more and more efficient over 

6 time then presumably it would meet and continue 

7 to exceed any potential conservation standard for 

8 that product, so that may not be an issue to 

9 begin with if the technology becomes more 

10 efficient as a result of the standard or as a 

11 result of other market forces.

12 In terms of having something that's in 

13 scope that suddenly goes out of scope, I don't 

14 know the answer to that question, so I would 

15 advise you, you know, you could put it in writing 

16 on the docket and we could consider it that way 

17 as part of the rulemaking.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: One of the individuals 

19 online has a comment. Jim Spitaels. Jim, if you 

20 unmute your phone and speak we hope to hear you 

21 here in the room.

22 MR. SPITAELS: Hi. Can you hear me?

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
97

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, we hear you well. 

2 Keep going.

3 MR. SPITAELS: Okay. So I'm Jim Spitaels 

4 from Schneider Electric and I also understand 

5 that for a product to be regulated there's a rule 

6 that relates to its consumption has to be over 

7 100 kilowatt hours per year. Can you clarify 

8 that?

9 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. So that's part of the 

10 proposed determination rulemaking that Celia just 

11 mentioned. I don't have the language in front of 

12 me but it's true that in order to be considered a 

13 covered product DOE needs to ensure that it meets 

14 certain thresholds. Those thresholds relate to 

15 the average household efficiency of that product, 

16 not the actual efficiency or consumption of that 

17 product. It's the per household level. So we 

18 look at the total energy consumption of all 

19 products that are within the scope and divide it 

20 by the number of such households that use that 

21 product and that is how we determine what the 

22 average per household energy consumption is.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
98

1 MS. SHER: Right. And so we would have 

2 to meet that threshold. 

3 MR. DOMMU: And we'd have to meet that 

4 threshold, absolutely.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. That was Celia. 

6 Now, Alex?

7 MR. BOESENGBERG: Alex Boesenberg of 

8 NEMA. Could you clarify, Celia or Jeremy, your 

9 current thinking? I know you haven't made a 

10 determination yet, I guess, but your current 

11 thinking on speaking of aggregate energies and 

12 per household energy use. What is your current 

13 thought towards approaching the system versus the 

14 specific product? You can buy just a server, you 

15 can buy just a computer, you can buy just a UPS, 

16 so then is this 150 watt kilowatt hours a year 

17 only when they're all three sold together, or at 

18 the individual level? Since you keep saying 

19 product, a system is not really a product. It's 

20 a bunch of products joined together. So where 

21 are those lines drawn or do you have some 

22 thoughts on that yet?

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
99

1 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. I mean, what the 

2 statute requires to be a proposed determination 

3 is the covered products. So in this case the 

4 covered product would include computer and 

5 battery backup systems. So that is what we would 

6 look at when we make that determination of 

7 whether it meets those threshold requirements to 

8 be considered a covered product or not.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Shahid.

10 MR. SHEIKH: Yeah. So to determine that 

11 is it based on what you've classified in this 

12 proposal, products that are on the left-hand side 

13 that will be part of the determination? Or all 

14 seven listed here?

15 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, it would be what is 

16 considered in scope of the -- what's in scope of 

17 the proposed determination.

18 MR. SHEIKH: Okay.

19 MR. DOMMU: So the covered product 

20 determination is a separate rulemaking, 

21 obviously. That determines that this computer 

22 and battery backup systems is a covered product. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
100

1 That rulemaking is, you know -- we've had the 

2 proposed determination out, we've accepted 

3 comments on it, we're looking at all those 

4 comments, and at such time we finalize a proposed 

5 coverage determination we will respond to all the 

6 comments.

7 Right now what we're really focusing on 

8 is within the actual rulemaking that we're 

9 initiating as we consider conservation standards 

10 and test procedures for the covered products, 

11 what the scope of that is going to be.

12 MR. SHEIKH: No, I think maybe I didn't 

13 ask the question right. Is that once the 

14 determination of 100 kilowatt hours on average --

15 MR. DOMMU: Uh-huh.

16 MR. SHEIKH: -- does that include tablets 

17 as an example, to be part of that equation? Or 

18 is it just looking at desktops, integrated 

19 desktops, notebooks, and 

20 (indiscernible)**1:34:19.2?

21 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, it's going to be -- I 

22 mean, it's a separate rulemaking to determine 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
101

1 what the covered product is. So it would be 

2 what's in scope of that rulemaking, the computer 

3 and battery backup systems proposed 

4 determination. What we clarify to be in scope of 

5 that is different than what we're actually having 

6 in scope of as we consider efficiency standards 

7 for those products.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Doug Johnson.

9 MR. JOHNSON: I don't mean to be coy, but 

10 why wouldn't the Department finish its proposed 

11 determination rulemaking before deciding to 

12 invest resources in this rulemaking?

13 MS. SHER: And I don't think we've made 

14 any determination on how we're going to proceed 

15 in what type of type of timeline at this point, 

16 at this preliminary stage. So we are not sure at 

17 this point how we're going to continue and we 

18 would appreciate your suggestions on that.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: That was Celia. Doug, any 

20 additional? No? Nothing more. Okay. Jay.

21 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So, I just want to 

22 make sure I understand this properly. We're 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
102

1 going to combine battery backup systems with 

2 computers. Well, timeout just a bit.

3 So we're going to combine battery backup 

4 systems with computers and we're going to 

5 apportion energy savings because we don't make 

6 computers. We make battery backup systems 

7 because they fall under the definition of UPS 

8 systems, but in order to do that you're going to 

9 have to apportion -- somebody gets part of the 

10 efficiency, the other guy gets part of the 

11 efficiency, and how are you going to, for 

12 instance, differentiate between who gets what 

13 levels of efficiency in that product category 

14 that you defined as a system? Or maybe I didn't 

15 understand the characterization.

16 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, I mean, I think using 

17 the word systems for what the proposed covered 

18 product is, is throwing some people off.

19 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

20 MR. DOMMU: The idea here is that the 

21 proposed coverage determination will cover what 

22 is in scope of the proposed definition that we 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
103

1 put out in the proposed rulemaking for a computer 

2 and backup system. 

3 As we move forward with this rulemaking, 

4 and we'll get to this later today, we will divide 

5 those products based on utility and other factors 

6 into what we call product classes. 

7 Each product class will be analyzed

8 separately, and we would consider different 

9 conservation standards for each product class. 

10 And we'll get into and we'll solicit comment on 

11 how we plan on dividing up computer and battery 

12 backup systems into different product classes.

13 Those all will be analyzed separately and 

14 we could consider proposing different 

15 conservation standards for different products 

16 based on what product class they'll fall into.

17 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Don Brundage.

19 MR. SHEIKH: So 100 kilowatt hour applies 

20 to computer systems or individual computer system 

21 categories?

22 MR. DOMMU: It applies to their proposed

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
104

1 coverage covered product, which is computer and 

2 battery backup systems. And then there could be 

3 different standards.

4 MR. SHEIKH: It's the computer system 

5 that the whole 100 kilowatt hour applies as an 

6 average, right?

7 MR. DOMMU: Right.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: That was Shahid, now on to

9 Don. 

10 MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern 

11 Company.

12 I just have a problem with the problem 

13 with approach you're doing here compared to the 

14 way you do other rulemakings, because if you look 

15 at something like room air conditioners or 

16 refrigerators they have dozens of product classes 

17 based on what you have, on refrigerators, ice 

18 makers, or frost-free, or all these other sorts 

19 of things, or even size differences.

20 But the difference is the product there 

21 is all something that can basically go under the 

22 same test procedure and be evaluated the same 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
105

1 way. I feel like here you're taking products 

2 that there's going to be no way you're going to 

3 be able to all fit them under one, two, or even 

4 five test procedures, and you're calling them the 

5 same product, even though they're totally 

6 different functions as far as the 100 kilowatt 

7 hour determination. 

8 If computers, as people classically 

9 consider computers, is 100 kilowatt hours, that's 

10 fine. You can regulate that. But battery backup 

11 systems, there's no way you're going to get 100 

12 kilowatt hours and it's going to have a totally 

13 different test procedure than -- I just don't see 

14 how you call that the same product for the 100 

15 kilowatt hour determination. Thank you.

16 MS. LOGAN: If I could just -- this is 

17 Erica with ITI. If I could just add on to that 

18 comment?

19 You made a practical comment. I have a 

20 legal comment for Celia, which is that EPCA 

21 allows for the grouping of products into a 

22 product class for the establishment of energy 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
106

1 conservation standards, only if those products 

2 have similar functions or intended uses.

3 So we would say that clearly battery 

4 backup systems and computers do not have similar 

5 functions or intended uses. But, for your 

6 consideration.

7 MS. SHER: Okay. Thank you. We'll 

8 consider that.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Joseph.

10 MR. ANDERSEN: And just a follow on 

11 question to that. Is there a precedent for DOE 

12 grouping things like this together before like in 

13 any previous rulemaking, because I was looking 

14 through the different rulemakings and I was 

15 trying to look at -- find any precedent for DOE 

16 taking different products, grouping them in 

17 something, calling them a system, when they 

18 clearly all have separate functions.

19 MS. SHER: And again, that's a more 

20 complicated question I can't answer at this point 

21 off the top of my head, but if you submit it, 

22 we'll look into it. Thank you.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
107

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Celia. 

2 MR. DOMMU: And again, there is a 

3 different rulemaking. You know, we're getting a 

4 lot of questions about what the threshold 

5 criteria ought to be considered a covered product 

6 and we appreciate them, and I think it's great 

7 that people are commenting on them at this time. 

8 The proposed determination, rulemaking, 

9 is to determine whether this covered product that 

10 we're proposing meets those criteria.

11 What we're really focusing on today, and 

12 I don't want to confuse the two, is as we're 

13 kicking off the rulemaking to consider test 

14 procedures and efficiency standards for the 

15 covered product, you know, here is everything 

16 that we're looking at.

17 So, I mean, obviously we're talking about 

18 the same product here. I understand that we have 

19 questions. I think that's great. But really I'm 

20 trying to focus the attention as we move forward 

21 with this process, how we should go about our 

22 regulatory considerations.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
108

1 So, you know, if you have objections to 

2 the way -- to the proposed determination, by all 

3 means, you know, you had an opportunity to submit 

4 them in written comments. You know, and you 

5 continue to ask us to consider any new 

6 information that you may have. But really what 

7 we're getting at here today is as we're moving 

8 forward with what this rulemaking includes, let's 

9 focus now on how we plan on going about the 

10 rulemaking, even if you have issues or objections 

11 to the covered product determination.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo.

13 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earth Justice. 

14 Just on the issue of precedent. One 

15 thing that came to mind, walk-in coolers and 

16 freezers, the covered product there is the walk17 in cooler and freezer, the sort of system. But 

18 there are individual standards that apply both to 

19 the refrigeration components, and also to the 

20 envelope components of the walk-in box. So that 

21 sort of go together to make that covered product 

22 as a system.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
109

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I'm going to 

2 propose we move on.

3 MR. DOMMU: Great.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: So to make sure that we 

5 get to this content. So, Jeremy, let's proceed.

6 MR. DOMMU: Okay. Great. So now I'll 

7 talk about the criteria that we plan on using to 

8 distinguish computer servers as consumer product. 

9 So we did get many questions that were raised and 

10 suggestions on what type of consumer computer 

11 servers would be considered the consumer product.

12 So, as I've stated many times, we are 

13 only considering consumer -- computer servers 

14 that are consumer products to be within the scope

15 of this rulemaking. And we are considering 

16 several different methods to use to clarify what 

17 type of computer servers are consumer products, 

18 and therefore within the scope of this 

19 rulemaking.

20 So based on stakeholder feedback we are 

21 considering several infrastructure requirements 

22 and hardware characteristics to be used to limit 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
110

1 the scope of the rulemaking to only those type of 

2 computer servers which are considered consumer 

3 product under the EPCA definition. 

4 So one of those methods that we are 

5 currently considering is limiting the scope to 

6 those servers based on their ability to be 

7 powered by residential power, using 120 volts 

8 input in a standard wall plug receptacle. So we 

9 got that comment from many different 

10 stakeholders. I think it's a very good one. We 

11 thank you for it and that is one of the 

12 considerations we're considering to distinguish 

13 what type of computer servers would be consumer 

14 products.

15 We are also considering several other 

16 methods. One is to consider form factor. So we 

17 could consider the form factor of a server and I 

18 know that that form factor is something that 

19 stakeholders have spent a lot of time in ENERGY 

20 STAR defining what the form factor is. We could 

21 use those form factors as a way to include or 

22 exclude a server from scope to determine whether 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
111

1 it is of a form factor which would be considered 

2 a consumer product.

3 We're also investigating other 

4 alternative strategies that focus on a computer 

5 server's quantitative -- I'm sorry, quantifiable 

6 characteristics, such as the number of processor 

7 sockets, the amount of memory in the memory 

8 capacity, or the maximum theoretical performance. 

9 So we could use several of those, we could one of 

10 them, we could use multiple of those 

11 infrastructure requirements or hardware 

12 characteristics to limit the scope to only those 

13 computer servers which would meet the definition 

14 of a consumer product. 

15 So we would define what those 

16 characteristics are of a consumer product based 

17 on how we define them. If the computer server 

18 was within that definition, within that scope, it 

19 would be part of the scope of the rulemaking. 

20 And if it does not meet those requirements then 

21 it would be out of scope. 

22 So those are some of the methods that we 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
112

1 are currently considering based on the feedback 

2 that we have already received. So I will open it 

3 up to questions at this time on how we could 

4 limit the scope of the rulemaking for computer 

5 servers to only those computer servers which are 

6 consumer products.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Are there additions to 

8 this list? Are some of the items on this list 

9 not appropriate? 

10 (No audible response.) 

11 I guess it's too early to comment. Let's 

12 move on to the next one.

13 MR. DOMMU: Okay. So, same situation now 

14 with consumer uninterruptable power supplies. So 

15 we are considering methods to clarify the 

16 distinction between consumer UPSs and UPSs which 

17 are not consumer products or commercial products. 

18 So we received several input from 

19 stakeholders suggesting different methods that we 

20 could use to distinguish those consumer product 

21 UPSs versus UPSs which are not consumer products. 

22 Some stakeholders suggested a method to apply 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
113

1 standards only to UPSs that can operate on a 

2 standard two or three plug power cord or system 

3 or operate using standard U.S. household voltage 

4 of 120 volts AC, or based on the form factor of 

5 the UPS. So we are considering those methods to 

6 limit the scope to only consumer product UPSs.

7 We're also considering other methods such 

8 as the overall capacity in volt amperes to limit 

9 the scope of coverage as well. In order to give 

10 manufacturers freedom to deploy any technology 

11 necessary when meeting the standards DOE is not 

12 currently considering using product architecture 

13 to distinguish between consumer and commercial 

14 UPSs, unless such architecture provides some type 

15 of consumer utility that's not otherwise offered.

16 So those are some of the considerations 

17 that we are additionally currently making for 

18 classifying UPSs as consumer products. And we 

19 welcome your feedback on those things that we're 

20 considering or any other ideas that you may have 

21 so that we could limit the scope of the 

22 rulemaking to apply to only uninterruptable power 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
114

1 supplies which meet the definition of a consumer 

2 product.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Jim Spitaels has a 

4 question or comment. Jim, unmute your phone. 

5 Let's hear from you.

6 MR. SPITAELS: Could you go back to slide 

7 30, please? We would suggest at Schneider 

8 Electric that you also consider form factor as a 

9 consideration here.

10 MR. DOMMU: Yes.

11 MR. SPITAELS: And as somebody mentioned 

12 earlier, the emissions class, the conducted 

13 emissions and radiated emissions class of the 

14 device is clearly an indication by us, which 

15 market we intend the product to be used in. So 

16 if it's a Class B product we design it for 

17 consumer and residential use. If it's a Class A 

18 product we design it to be commercial or 

19 industrial. So that's clearly something that's 

20 easily distinguished about a product and should 

21 be considered as a criteria.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Jim. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
115

1 Those are helpful comments. Additional 

2 comments --

3 MR. SPITAELS: Also --

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. Keep going.

5 MR. SPITAELS: Yeah, sorry. One other 

6 thing. Early on we talked about how a battery 

7 backup system, to be in scope for the regulation, 

8 has to be designed to support computer equipment. 

9 I would question how we can come up with 

10 objective criteria to distinguish UPSs that we 

11 make for other applications, like backing up AV 

12 equipment or televisions or networking equipment.

13 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, I guess you're talking 

14 about the definition that was put out for 

15 computer systems in the proposed determination. 

16 Yeah, I mean, I think what we're getting 

17 at would be potentially UPSs that maintain 

18 continuality of load power for such products, and 

19 that may include other consumer products as well. 

20 So we could get some input on that if -- I think 

21 it may be difficult to distinguish based --

22 consumer UPS based on what type of equipment it's 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
116

1 backing up, if that same UPS could be used with 

2 multiple types of equipment.

3 So if there is some input on that as 

4 well.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Jay?

6 MR. SPITAELS: So --

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Jim, keep going. 

8 MR. SPITAELS: Yeah, so one way to 

9 possibly distinguish is things like televisions 

10 and set-top boxes don't generally communicate 

11 with the UPS because they don't need to do a, you 

12 know, a safe shutdown in the event of the power 

13 failure that extends beyond the economy of the 

14 device. So maybe if a product doesn't have the 

15 ability to communicate it would be out of scope.

16 MR. DOMMU: Okay. Thank you. That's a 

17 good suggestion.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Craig 

19 Stephens has a comment online. 

20 Craig, unmute your phone. Let's hear 

21 from you.

22 MR. STEPHENS: Yes, can you hear me?

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
117

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, you sound good.

2 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, this is Craig 

3 Stephens with LG. I'm just making a comment that 

4 consumer servers are a relatively small market. 

5 There's not a large demand for servers in your

6 home. And your commercial servers are the ones 

7 who actually use the most power. So it seems 

8 like it's kind of counterproductive to be going 

9 after consumer servers when you've got the, you 

10 know, commercial servers, your big server farms.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Jay, 

12 you have a comment here?

13 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah. My original point 

14 when you listed criteria not being considered was 

15 to point out that the reason those architectures 

16 exist is because they offer different levels of 

17 feature functionality to the customer.

18 MR. DOMMU: Okay.

19 MR. TAYLOR: VFD, for instance, is the 

20 lowest level of feature functionality. And the 

21 reason we consider that a consumer product is 

22 because it basically, when the power goes away, 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
118

1 provides power back to the main circuitry. VI, 

2 VFI, all have additional functionality like 

3 automatic voltage regulation, or other things 

4 like that that may be available to the customer, 

5 which is one of the distinguishing

6 characteristics of architecture, because they're 

7 actually fulfilling different roles for consumer 

8 because they're willing to pay a certain price.

9 Businesses and commercial and industrial 

10 enterprises generally tend to demand higher 

11 feature functionality, and that's because they're 

12 looking for, for instance, half-cycle dropout or 

13 something else like that for computer servers.

14 So I would tell you that not including 

15 product architecture as a differentiator, limits 

16 your ability to impact this category because a 

17 lot of things get rolled into -- a lot of 

18 products will get rolled into it simply because 

19 of voltage. Or simply because of the circuit 

20 size.

21 And I think you might want to reconsider 

22 the product architecture again.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
119

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

2 MR. TAYLOR: I think there is a 

3 differentiation and we have -- it's the whole

4 reason we have a marketing department.

5 MR. DOMMU: Sure.

6 MR. TAYLOR: They basically look at what 

7 our customers are buying and then they determine 

8 how to best effectively deliver that product 

9 feature requirement to the marketplace.

10 MR. DOMMU: Yeah.

11 MR. TAYLOR: And that's how, when I go 

12 talk to my marketing people, that's how they 

13 distinguish those characteristics among the 

14 customers we serve.

15 MR. DOMMU: Okay. So I mean, I think 

16 that type of information more details -- details 

17 on that would be very helpful as we're 

18 considering these different criteria to use or 

19 not to use to make this distinguishment.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: That's good. Additional 

21 comments here? Yes?

22 MR. TSAO: Can I just follow up on 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
120

1 that --

2 COURT REPORTER: Mic. I can't hear you.

3 MR. TSAO: Can you hear me now? 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: You're good.

5 MR. TSAO: Okay. Just to follow up on 

6 that question. So, this comment is about 

7 distinguishing between consumer and commercial. 

8 So is your statement that VI and VFI 

9 architectures would be strictly commercial 

10 customers would be interest -- like, I get that 

11 there's different utility, but is the utility 

12 different between what a consumer would need 

13 versus what a commercial person would need?

14 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So you said the word 

15 need. 

16 MR. TSAO: Well --

17 MR. TAYLOR: And when --

18 MR. TSAO: Is that what you're -- yeah.

19 MR. TAYLOR: -- we deal with the consumer 

20 marketplace --

21 MR. TSAO: Uh-huh.

22 MR. TAYLOR: -- it is what the consumer 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
121

1 will pay for. Okay?

2 So this is not about need. Now, when we 

3 start getting into commercial industrial 

4 marketplace, you start getting into service level 

5 agreements, you start getting into tier level for 

6 data centers or backup characteristics of 

7 redundancy.

8 MR. TSAO: Right.

9 MR. TAYLOR: Right? And the availability

10 of equipment. 

11 The VI, VFI category assistance are 

12 designed to provide different utility in the area 

13 of redundancy than VFD does.

14 MR. TSAO: Sure.

15 MR. TAYLOR: Which is why consumers 

16 generally tend to buy VFD and not the other 

17 products.

18 Now, is it possible you could see one of 

19 these, yeah, in a consumer environment. But that 

20 gets back to that question then, do we really 

21 market these to consumers? Nope. We market VFDs 

22 to consumers. Why? Because that's what they'll 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
122

1 pay for.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We're due for a 

3 break. And so I'm going to suggest we take a 

4 break right here. It's five minutes after 11:00, 

5 which we'll take a 15 minute break. 

6 A few of you are fairly new to the 

7 Forrestal Building. You must wear a badge 

8 visible on you at all times in the building. 

9 There are restrooms on both ends of this hallway. 

10 There's a coffee shop on the ground floor if you 

11 want to make a dash for that, but go rapidly. 

12 Sometimes they're slow down there. But we'll 

13 resume at 20 minutes after 11:00, right here in 

14 this room. And we've had a good start on the 

15 day. We'll see you back here at 20 after.

16 (Recess from 11:05 a.m. until 11:21 a.m.)

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's resume. Please take 

18 your seats. 

19 (Waiting for people to sit down.)

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We're going to move 

21 on here. The next item on the agenda is test 

22 procedure rulemaking and we're going to hear from 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
123

1 Mansi.

2 MS. THAKKAR: Thanks, Doug. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Why don't you get close to 

4 that microphone?

5 MS. THAKKAR: Yep. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: There you go.

7 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. Good morning, 

8 everyone. I'm Mansi Thakkar from Navigant, and 

9 I'll walk you through the test procedures 

10 rulemaking section.

11 So as Jeremy mentioned earlier this 

12 morning the test procedure rulemaking process is 

13 quite similar to the standard rulemaking process, 

14 but it can be a little shorter sometimes. So the 

15 first step would be to put out a notice of 

16 proposed rulemaking, which would discuss the test 

17 procedure for computer systems. And then because 

18 of the varied interest of stakeholders, at this 

19 point DOE is considering hosting three separate 

20 public meetings for going over the computer 

21 section, the computer server section, and the UPS 

22 section of the test procedure. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
124

1 And then barring any major changes that 

2 need to be made, DOE will put out a final rule as 

3 the last step in this process. 

4 And then again, similar to the standards 

5 process if there will be major changes, DOE will 

6 put out a supplemental notice of proposed 

7 rulemaking before publishing the final rule.

8 So, when DOE establishes the test 

9 procedure it has several objectives in mind, 

10 which are as listed on this slide. We want to 

11 ensure that the test procedure is repeatable and 

12 reproducible, that it is representative, not 

13 overly burdensome; it anticipates technology 

14 changes and discourages circumvention. We want 

15 to make sure it's unambiguous, it harmonizes with 

16 related test procedures, both other federal test 

17 procedures as well as incorporating industry 

18 standards when they're available, and that it is 

19 consistent with the statutory requirements that 

20 have been set forth.

21 So to begin with for computer products, 

22 DOE has observed that most industry standards for 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
125

1 computers follow the test procedure outlined in 

2 IEC 62623, which is the standard for measuring 

3 the energy consumption of desktop and notebook 

4 computers. 

5 So regulatory programs like the European 

6 Union and the Australian standards, as well as 

7 voluntary programs like ENERGY STAR have used 

8 this as the basis for their efficiency programs.

9 So DOE is also considering this standard 

10 and then additionally the ENERGY STAR computers 

11 test method, Version 6.0, has additional guidance 

12 to supplement the IEC standard, such as setting 

13 the background image during testing or setting 

14 the luminance, the screen luminance for 

15 notebooks. That DOE is considering at this 

16 point.

17 So in these two comment boxes DOE 

18 requests comment on basing the test procedure on 

19 IEC 62623, and using the guidance provided in 

20 ENERGY STAR.

21 And specifically, with respect to the 

22 luminance values, ENERGY STAR specifies 150 nits 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
126

1 for integrated desktops and 90 nits for 

2 notebooks, and DOE wants comment on whether these 

3 values are sufficient or do they need to be 

4 higher, or should they be the same for both?

5 MR. BROOKMAN: So both general comments, 

6 and hopefully a few specific comments on that. 

7 Who wants to go first? Jay.

8 MR. TAYLOR: So all of the criteria you 

9 listed about being repeatable, reproducible, I 

10 mean, I agree with all of that. However, I want 

11 to point out that you may not be able just to 

12 randomly pick a test lab and say here, go run 

13 this test.

14 I have noted, I spent a long time with 

15 our labs over in Asia as well as some of the 

16 local labs trying to get all of the equipment 

17 lined up, the procedures lined up, and those 

18 kinds of things. And so it's not going to be

19 like a test procedure that you can just drop into 

20 some random third-party lab, regardless of the 

21 fact that they’re ISO 17025 qualified just to 

22 have them execute the tests. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
127

1 So it's going to have to be a lab that 

2 has competence in the area, as well as all of 

3 these criteria that you're looking for.

4 MS. THAKKAR: Okay.

5 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

6 MS. THAKKAR: Thank you.

7 MR. DOMMU: One point on that. So, with 

8 DOE standards the way that compliance works is 

9 the manufacturer is responsible for certifying 

10 compliance and submitting their own test results. 

11 Unlike ENERGY STAR there are no third-party 

12 verification or compliance requirements. 

13 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah, I understand. But you 

14 also do market surveillance, right?

15 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, I mean, we do have a 

16 compliance and program --

17 MR. TAYLOR: Right.

18 MR. DOMMU: -- that ensures compliance 

19 with any efficiency standards that are finalized.

20 MR. TAYLOR: And that's really what I'm 

21 trying to get to is --

22 MR. DOMMU: Okay.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
128

1 MR. TAYLOR: -- the market surveillance 

2 side. I'm not worried about whether my lab is 

3 qualified or not, because they will be qualified 

4 by time we start providing you these results. I 

5 really get to when we start getting into the 

6 market surveillance and then I start answering 

7 queries.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Got you. Okay. Shahid.

9 MR. SHEIKH: Yeah. I think on the 

10 luminance value issue it's consistent that using 

11 ENERGY STAR as a baseline, EPA has requested 

12 recently about doing some additional measurements 

13 at a higher luminance value for notebooks. I 

14 don't know what DOE plans are for such analysis.

15 MR. DOMMU: Yeah.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeremy.

17 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, I think typically, you 

18 know, DOE would not just request information that 

19 is not used in order to follow the test 

20 procedure. So as I understand the ENERGY STAR

21 process there is some additional data that is 

22 being requested in addition to what is actually 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
129

1 used to determine the energy consumption or 

2 efficiency of the computer under test. So that 

3 typically not be something that DOE would do when 

4 it comes to regulatory test procedure.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Doug.

6 MR. JOHNSON: It's one thing to 

7 anticipate technology changes, which is very 

8 difficult in this industry. It's another thing 

9 to keep pace with them and maintain test 

10 procedures. So could you explain how DOE goes 

11 about maintaining a test procedure that relates 

12 to a high tech product that's constantly 

13 changing?

14 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, I mean, I think whether 

15 it's a regulatory standard or industry standard 

16 or an international standard, you know, the 

17 standard setting process regardless of who is 

18 doing it, you know, it definitely is a process 

19 that requires a lot of consideration and input. 

20 So we certainly work to ensure that we could --

21 that our test procedures are timely and up to 

22 date. We could reopen a test procedure at any 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
130

1 time if there is reason to do so. We also have a 

2 waivers process in place where if the test 

3 procedure is inadequate to measure the energy 

4 consumption or efficiency of a product that a 

5 manufacturer could request a waiver so they could 

6 use an alternative test method in the meantime 

7 before we get around to reopening the test 

8 procedure.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Erica?

10 MS. LOGAN: Eric Logan with ITI. 

11 A similar question. Industry very much 

12 supports the use of internationally recognized 

13 standards such as IEC62623; thrilled to see DOE

14 considering that. And the question is, are you 

15 able to reference IEC and any subsequently update 

16 to it in rulemaking, rather than having to reopen 

17 DOE process. So a process question.

18 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. I mean, in terms of 

19 process the way that we'd go, we could go about 

20 doing it is what we call an incorporation by 

21 reference where we would simply say that the 

22 regulatory test procedure for computers is follow 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
131

1 IEC62623. And --

2 MS. LOGAN: Whatever the most current 

3 version.

4 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, and in terms of 

5 updating the version that it would be -- if the 

6 international version did change we would want to 

7 put that out for public comment so we likely 

8 would do a notice of proposed rulemaking saying 

9 that we want to now reference the most up to date 

10 version of that standard.

11 MS. LOGAN: Oh, okay.

12 MR. DOMMU: So we could elicit comments 

13 on changing what the test method is.

14 MS. LOGAN: Okay. Thank you.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: We have comments from two 

16 individuals who are online. The first is from 

17 Mark Hollenbeck. Mark, unmute your phone. Let's 

18 hear from you.

19 MR. HOLLENBECK: Hi, Mark Hollenbech, 

20 Hewlett Packard. 

21 I actually Erica and the previous 

22 gentleman asked the exact question I had on test 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
132

1 procedures and the need to frequently update them 

2 to keep pace with technology. So I'm fine.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you very much.

4 Donna Sadowy. Donna, you're next.

5 MS. SADOWY: Yeah. Hi. This is Donna 

6 Sadowy with AMD. I am one of two program 

7 managers for the 62623 standard within IEC. And 

8 for your information we're initiating a revision 

9 of the 62623 standard. And one of the things 

10 we'll be looking at is updating it, and we'll be 

11 looking at the ENERGY STAR computer versions that 

12 -- specification for that purpose. 

13 So we expect that the additional guidance 

14 you're looking at may well be incorporated into 

15 the next revision of the specification.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Do you have a 

17 general timetable in mind?

18 MS. SADOWY: So let me check that to 

19 confirm that I'm giving you the right information 

20 and we can provide that to you. Off the top of 

21 my head I'm thinking, you know, perhaps by the 

22 end of 2015 we would want to have the revision 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
133

1 ready.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you for 

3 bringing that to our attention. Thank you.

4 MS. SADOWY: Sure.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Joseph.

6 MR. ANDERSEN: Yeah, Joseph Andersen, 

7 TIA. 

8 Just a quick add-on point, coming back to 

9 the waiver process was mentioned. One thing that 

10 our companies have consistently told us is that 

11 waiver process, that may work for other 

12 industries. With how quickly as Doug made the 

13 point like this industry is changing so rapidly, 

14 the waiver process isn't quick enough. Like it 

15 just won't keep up with our industry. 

16 And so anticipating that is a potential, 

17 you know, break, you know, where DOE could 

18 potentially do its own test procedure and that's 

19 okay because a waiver would work. The waivers 

20 won't work in this industry. It's just changing 

21 too fast. That's all.

22 MR. DOMMU: Okay. Thank you. So how do 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
134

1 industry test procedures, or I mean the IEC test 

2 procedure, how do manufacturers continue to use 

3 those in the face of product changes?

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Joseph? Doug. 

5 MR. JOHNSON: I'm sorry. Doug Johnson, 

6 CEA.

7 As I think somebody just explained these 

8 industry test procedures, whether domestic or 

9 international are regularly updated, there's a 

10 process there. However ENERGY STAR, which has 

11 been the operative energy efficiency policy for 

12 electronics, when it needs to come up with a new 

13 specification and there's reason to adjust its 

14 test procedure, it has the flexibility to do that

15 in the mean time, and there's interaction between 

16 the ENERGY STAR program staff and consultants, 

17 and they participate frequently in these industry 

18 standards groups as well.

19 So there's been a good symbiotic 

20 relationship there back and forth. But there is 

21 maintenance required in the private sector, of 

22 these standards, very clearly. I think the 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
135

1 fundamental concern we have and I think Joseph 

2 and others in the room have, is when DOE puts a 

3 test procedure into statute, it suddenly becomes 

4 inflexible. And it cannot be maintained as 

5 quickly as it could in the private sector. And 

6 it could be a problem for innovation.

7 And the recent example of this in our 

8 industry has been the TV test procedure. It's 

9 important to note that DOE did mandate a test 

10 procedure based substantially, although not 

11 entirely, but substantially on an industry test 

12 procedure. 

13 But over time this will be a problem and 

14 it's only a question of when. So I think our 

15 fundamental view is that maybe this isn't the 

16 best approach to standards, to mandate them, to 

17 lock them into the law like this.

18 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, and we're happy to work 

19 with you as the process continues to work 

20 together to ensure that regulatory standards are 

21 up to date as often and as frequently as changing 

22 technology demands.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
136

1 MR. JOHNSON: Doug Johnson again, CEA. I 

2 appreciate your explanation about waivers. That 

3 process does exist, but for relatively slower 

4 moving product categories in the appliance world 

5 there are dozens of waivers that are asked for. 

6 And I can't imagine what it would be in the tech 

7 world.

8 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, I mean for example, so 

9 the television test procedure that you 

10 referenced, I think, was finalized in October of 

11 2013. So there haven't been any waiver requests 

12 to date that I'm aware of. But to the extent 

13 that there would be or there are for other 

14 consumer electronics, like the computer test 

15 procedure that we're currently undertaking, 

16 certainly something that we're very keen to 

17 explore.

18 And, you know, as new standards are 

19 developed by industry or ENERGY STAR we will 

20 always be open to reopening a test procedure to 

21 propose a change or an update to the regulatory 

22 test procedure as the situation demands.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
137

1 MR. SHEIKH: So I have a question on the 

2 test procedure.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Shahid.

4 MR. SHEIKH: Yes. Shahid from Intel. 

5 So IEC62623 standard as Donna was 

6 mentioning, will go through some maintenance 

7 process. DOE is also a partner with EPA on the 

8 ENERGY STAR test procedures, and where there are 

9 changes needed that are not addressed by the 

10 standard, you know, they're made. 

11 So how is the DOE updates in the ENERGY 

12 STAR get worked into the regulations? Is that 

13 automatic or is that going to be by reference, or 

14 are there going to be two different processes to 

15 do that?

16 MR. DOMMU: So the way it would work is 

17 once there is -- once compliance would be 

18 required of a regulatory test procedure, that 

19 would be the test procedure that would be used 

20 for other programs such as voluntary programs in 

21 ENERGY STAR or any state programs. We would all 

22 be able to harmonize around the single test 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
138

1 procedure which I think has benefits in terms of 

2 reducing testing burden by manufacturers.

3 You know, DOE does have a role as a 

4 partner in the ENERGY STAR program right now in 

5 developing the ENERGY STAR test procedure for 

6 computers. I know that process is ongoing and 

7 Version 6.1 is close to being finalized there. 

8 So, you know, that is our current role

9 there. And, you know, that's our starting point 

10 as we begin to look at what a regulatory standard 

11 should look like.

12 MR. SHEIKH: So hypothetical scenario 

13 here, let's say 6.1 gets finalized, which we know 

14 is pretty soon. And then in the next few years 

15 DOE regulation test procedures for computers is 

16 set, but then Version 7 comes and then there is a 

17 change. That change then gets incorporated in 

18 the DOE regulation or would that have to wait 

19 until the next revision? 

20 MR. DOMMU: So then what would happen 

21 would be the next version of ENERGY STAR would 

22 then use the DOE regulatory test procedure as the 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
139

1 basis for certifying --

2 MR. SHEIKH: As a starting point.

3 MR. DOMMU: -- for representing the 

4 energy consumption of the computer.

5 MR. SHEIKH: Right. But should that 

6 require changes in Version 7, how would that get 

7 updated back into the DOE regulation?

8 MR. DOMMU: Then we would look at 

9 updating the regulatory standard in that case.

10 MR. SHEIKH: Okay. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments 

12 here? Doug Johnson.

13 MR. JOHNSON: Just a follow-up question, 

14 Jeremy. Is IEC -- or is DOE or any of its 

15 consultants currently participating in 62623? 

16 MR. DOMMU: Well, certainly monitoring 

17 what other industry standards are out there. 

18 That's how we began with our framework document. 

19 Speaking on myself, I'm not part of the IEC 

20 Committee, but would welcome the opportunity to 

21 become more involved in it certainly, up to date 

22 as we're learning that a new edition is being 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
140

1 being formulated, we'd love to ensure that we 

2 communicate with them and I'd like to reach out 

3 to them to make sure that there is coordination.

4 MS. LOGAN: I think DOE is represented. 

5 Ashley, possibly, but --

6 MR. DOMMU: Sure. 

7 MS. LOGAN: I could be mistaken. I 

8 thought you were represented.

9 MR. DOMMU: That possibly is out there. 

10 I'm just speaking on behalf of myself.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Erica 

12 and Jeremy, both.

13 Okay. Yes, Joseph.

14 MR. ANDERSEN: So just one quick follow15 up on the distinction between how like a 

16 voluntary standards development organization, you 

17 know, like us or others, operate versus a 

18 rulemaking process, why that works and why that 

19 ecosystem has been effective, even though the 

20 standards development takes a long time. It's an 

21 environment where any member company, usually a 

22 couple of them, can come to an SDO and say, hey, 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
141

1 we're developing this new thing. Let's develop a 

2 standard around it.

3 And so it's this very open collegial 

4 process. You know, and they can just do it as 

5 quickly as it needs to be done. You won't have 

6 that same openness in a rulemaking process. It 

7 won't be as responsive. It won't be as flexible. 

8 You're not going to have, typically, businesses 

9 coming to the DOE and saying, hey, we just made 

10 this great new product. Let's update the test 

11 procedure. It won't be as responsive. 

12 And then just in terms of the timeframes, 

13 even though industry standards do take time to 

14 develop, it's still going to be faster than going 

15 through a rulemaking proceeding. That's the 

16 concern. So.

17 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. I mean, we talked 

18 about some of the other rulemaking options that 

19 are available to us and we're certainly open to 

20 using them, whether it relates to a test 

21 procedure or a conservation standard. So, you 

22 know, to the extent that we could all work 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
142

1 together to find a suitable method using the 

2 tools that are in our tool belt to update test 

3 procedures when necessary, we're open to 

4 discussing ways that we could do so.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Jay. Sorry.

6 MR. TAYLOR: So first of all, each of 

7 these, 62623 has an edition. And when Donna is 

8 finished with her next revision it will be a 

9 revision plus one. 

10 If the DOE test procedure calls out a 

11 specific edition you don't revise it until you 

12 come in and affect the test procedure. So, that 

13 leaves you in a dilemma, right? Do you put the 

14 edition in there, or do you put the test 

15 procedure in there, 62623, and without edition so 

16 that it revises when the standard revises?

17 You'll be faced with the same situation, 

18 by the way, with 62040-3, because it is currently 

19 under revision now. And there are other industry 

20 standards, and those are constantly under 

21 revision. 

22 So if you're writing the procedure you 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
143

1 need to be very careful how the procedure gets 

2 written, or you're going to be faced with 

3 continually updating the code.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: And that's why DOE has got 

5 this expert panel here in the room.

6 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: To receive that kind of 

8 input.

9 MR. TAYLOR: And the other thing I think 

10 that I'm concerned about is, is that even if 

11 ENERGY STAR changed their test procedure, if DOE 

12 lists the test procedure as 62623. whatever it 

13 is, it's that way until the DOE changes their 

14 code. 

15 I don't think ENERGY STAR can trump DOE 

16 in this case because DOE writes the procedure, 

17 correct?

18 MR. DOMMU: Right. That's correct.

19 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. You know, so whatever 

20 you do, if you want a lot of work, be really 

21 specific, in which case you're going to get a lot 

22 of work in revisions over a very short period of 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
144

1 time, like over the next few years to the test 

2 procedure. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

4 MR. TAYLOR: That would be my concern.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Anthony.

6 MR. FRYER: Just a point of 

7 clarification. I think that ENERGY STAR would 

8 have to use a regulatory standard as its base 

9 test procedure, right, if there was something 

10 that it was measuring above and beyond what the 

11 test procedure -- a regulatory test procedure 

12 would measure. ENERGY STAR is within its bounds 

13 to add additional testing. Is that correct?

14 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah. Anyone could add 

15 additions.

16 COURT REPORTER: Mic. Turn your mic on. 

17 MR. TAYLOR: Oh, sorry. I was about to 

18 say, anyone, even the industry adds additional 

19 testing from time to time when we come up with a 

20 consensus agreement, safety, EMC, EMI, RFI, any 

21 of those.

22 MR. SHEIKH: Well, the other reason is 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
145

1 that ENERGY STAR may have different bigger 

2 product scope.

3 MR. TAYLOR: Correct.

4 MR. SHEIKH: So that it will have test 

5 procedure for let's say tablets and others in the 

6 future that might be in scope or it's not in 

7 scope for the regulation. Yeah.

8 MR. TAYLOR: And that's also assuming 

9 that you agreed to the categorization that ENERGY 

10 STAR started with and don't actually collapse the 

11 categories. That would be -- I've seen that 

12 also. At least I interpreted the document that 

13 was published by the DOE collapsing the 

14 categories for computer systems. So if you 

15 collapse those categories then you may not be 

16 able to have the flexibility that you're hoping 

17 to have. 

18 MR. DOMMU: What do you mean by collapse 

19 those categories? I don't --

20 MR. TAYLOR: Fewer categories for 

21 computers.

22 MR. DOMMU: So we haven't gotten to the 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
146

1 product class consideration.

2 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

3 MR. DOMMU: But what we're proposing to 

4 do is to divide the covered product of computer 

5 and battery back-up systems into many different 

6 product classes and each product class would have 

7 a different conservation standard associated with 

8 it. So that very well could reflect some of the 

9 categorization, the categorization used within 

10 the ENERGY STAR program.

11 MR. TAYLOR: Right. And hopefully what 

12 you would do is you would categorize -- you would 

13 make the categories identical to the ENERGY STAR

14 program and not modify them.

15 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, that --

16 MR. TAYLOR: That's what I'm saying.

17 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, there are some ways 

18 that we could consider doing that and we'll get 

19 into it.

20 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

21 MR. DOMMU: And if you believe and you 

22 want to recommend to us that we adopt as closely 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
147

1 as possible the categorization scheme within 

2 ENERGY STAR, provided they meet the EPCA 

3 requirements to be considered a separate product 

4 class, then we could go ahead and consider doing 

5 that.

6 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. So this is well and 

7 truly a matter of complexity. And when it gets 

8 down to what I have to provide to the marketplace 

9 to ensure I am compliant with rules in the U.S., 

10 rules in the E.U., and rules in other places, if 

11 you change the rules enough that it makes it more 

12 complex for me to test and deliver that product 

13 to the industry, what happens is, is the cost 

14 goes up every time. My test labs never charge me 

15 less. They always seem to charge me more. 

16 But the fact of the matter is, is that as 

17 that cost rises it means there are fewer products 

18 offered to the consumer. That's what my concern 

19 is.

20 MR. DOMMU: Okay. Well, certainly any --

21 you know, through appliance standards program we 

22 certainly look at consumer utility and choice 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
148

1 within the consideration. So if there's any way 

2 that we could continue with our consideration of 

3 conservation standards that you would 

4 specifically recommend so we don't reduce 

5 consumer choice or consumer utility, those are 

6 very much important things that we consider in 

7 the rulemaking process.

8 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. We simply propose a 

9 process that's, test once, ship anywhere. I 

10 complete test category, whether it's for ENERGY 

11 STAR or DOE, I complete the test, and then I 

12 could certify my compliance, however I do that, 

13 right? That's the industry preferred methodology 

14 for global shipments. 

15 And most of the industry are global 

16 players.

17 MR. DOMMU: Uh-huh.

18 MR. TAYLOR: So that's what we would be 

19 looking for, and that's why I keep cautioning 

20 about increasing the complexity of the test 

21 procedure, or changing the basic rules that use 

22 to run these test procedures. And I just want to 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
149

1 put that caution out there because it's a concern 

2 of mine. 

3 MR. DOMMU: Okay.

4 MR. TAYLOR: And I will reflect it in my 

5 written comment.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

7 MR. DOMMU: Thank you. And I mean, is 

8 anything that we're considering that we're 

9 putting out here in terms of, you know, at least 

10 in the computer example, you know, using the most 

11 up to date and current version of IEC and 

12 considering the additional guidance provided in 

13 ENERGY STAR spec? Is that at all complicating 

14 it? I mean, isn't that what's already happening?

15 MR. SHEIKH: No. I think this is good. 

16 It's just that he's probably looking into the 

17 future.

18 MR. DOMMU: Uh-huh.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah.

20 MR. SHEIKH: That ENERGY STAR is going to 

21 evolve, okay, and test procedure is going to 

22 evolve. And for the same product class that's in 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
150

1 scope in ENERGY STAR and DOE's regulation, should 

2 there be a regulation, that the test procedures 

3 should sync up.

4 MR. DOMMU: And they will.

5 MR. SHEIKH: Because if they don't, then 

6 manufacturers will have to design and test 

7 products in different test procedures, which is 

8 not good.

9 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. And as we stated, if 

10 we do have a regulatory test procedure that would 

11 become the test that is used both for compliance 

12 with any potential regulatory standard, as well 

13 as compliance with the -- or certification to the 

14 ENERGY STAR program.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: So that was Shahid, and 

16 followed by Jeremy. And Don is next in the cue 

17 and then I'm coming back to you, Robert.

18 MR. BRUNDAGE: Just a clarification. 

19 There's a lot of test procedures that ENERGY STAR

20 has that are not regulatory test procedures. And 

21 DOE helps ENERGY STAR write them; basically 

22 writes them for them. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
151

1 They don't have the force of law, but 

2 there are a lot of test procedures because ENERGY 

3 STAR regulates a lot of things that that are not 

4 under a minimum appliance standards rules. So, 

5 but they don't conflict in any way, they're just 

6 different products or different things that are 

7 not covered under the regulatory rulemaking.

8 So there's a lot of test procedures out 

9 there under ENERGY STAR besides the ones that are 

10 DOE official.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert, Jim Spitael got in 

12 the cue before you. Jim, you're next in the cue.

13 MR. SPITAELS: Thank you. It would be 

14 helpful to industry, not only for you to follow 

15 established test procedures, either from ENERGY

16 STAR or IEC as appropriate, but also that as 

17 those other documents and test procedures evolve, 

18 if DOE had the flexibility to allow test data 

19 under either the old or the new version of a 

20 standard for some period of time so that industry 

21 doesn't have to test twice, that would be very 

22 helpful to us.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
152

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. That's 

2 useful. Robert.

3 MR. WHITE: This is Robert with Dell. 

4 Similar to the comment that Jay made earlier, you 

5 may refrain from specifying specific revisions of 

6 ENERGY STAR as well, because usually on each 

7 revision you'll have typically a scope expansion 

8 to cover the technology improvements or new 

9 categories or features or things that we do like 

10 that. So I just wanted to say, you may reference 

11 the latest version of ENERGY STAR and that way 

12 you're not in the full-time job of updating these 

13 documents each time as something changes in the 

14 industry.

15 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. I mean, I'll 

16 reemphasize that if we have a regulatory test 

17 procedure then that is the test procedure that 

18 ENERGY STAR would use. So if -- let me give an 

19 example to make this point.

20 So if DOE decides that only desktops and 

21 notebooks are within the scope of a regulatory 

22 standard, if that is what ultimately happens 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
153

1 based on going through rulemaking process and 

2 getting all the adequate feedback, and then 

3 ENERGY STAR wants to have levels for tablets, 

4 then ENERGY STAR would still be permitted to 

5 create their own separate test because the test 

6 procedure for tablets may not be included within 

7 DOE's test procedure.

8 So if products change in such a way that 

9 there is a need for a new test procedure, and 

10 that product is not within scope of the DOE 

11 regulatory test procedure, then it still would be 

12 fine for the ENERGY STAR program or any other 

13 program for that matter, to go about establishing 

14 a new test.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo.

16 MR. BALLO: I just wanted to give sort of 

17 the other side of why DOE has to, I think, 

18 reference a specific edition of at test procedure 

19 in its regulations. And I'm not suggesting, you 

20 know, that there are any bad actors around the 

21 table here. But if DOE were to just reference 

22 that the DOE test procedure shall be the latest 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
154

1 industry established test procedure, well I can 

2 imagine in some industries the industry would 

3 then go and make up a test procedure that would

4 make it very easy for their products to qualify.

5 So I think that that sort of potential 

6 for abuse and the need for also public comment on 

7 any sort of -- any time a regulation changes 

8 means that DOE, really as a legal requirement, 

9 can only reference a specific edition.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

11 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. Thank you for that, I 

12 think that's helpful context to provide.

13 We also do have, you know, statutory 

14 obligations to ensure that any test procedure 

15 that becomes a -- that's proposed as a regular 

16 test procedure meets the certain requirements

17 within EPCA for what must be included within that 

18 test procedure. So we need to consider that as 

19 well.

20 I mean, having said that, the process 

21 isn't that arduous to open up a rulemaking to 

22 update a test procedure. There could be a notice 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
155

1 of proposed rulemaking, let's use Version 2 or 3 

2 or whatever the industry standard is, there's a 

3 comment period, we respond to the comments, and 

4 we finalize it. And that's a process that we 

5 would certainly be happy to go through as 

6 industry or international test procedures are 

7 updated. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: And just to be clear, DOE 

9 does that a lot, adopting by reference after due 

10 consideration. 

11 Doug.

12 MR. JOHNSON: I know its history, but 

13 it's important and the previous test procedure 

14 DOE had for televisions stayed on the books from 

15 the 1970s to just a few years ago.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. We're 

17 going to move on now.

18 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. So ENERGY STAR has 

19 an output metric for computers which is an annual 

20 energy consumption metric. And the way that's 

21 calculated is that it's a weighted average for 

22 the power consumption in the different modes of 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
156

1 operation. 

2 So on this slide in the table is only one 

3 of the possible weightings, without any network 

4 proxy functionality that ENERGY STAR uses for 

5 desktops and other computers, as well as for 

6 notebooks.

7 So in Item 4-3 we're requesting comment 

8 on including these mode weightings that are 

9 specified in ENERGY STAR Version 6.0. 

10 MR. SHEIKH: Comment.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Shahid.

12 MR. SHEIKH: Where ENERGY STAR has some 

13 exclusions for products that do not have discreet 

14 sleep, are you planning to incorporate some of 

15 those changes?

16 MR. DOMMU: Certainly consider it for 

17 sure.

18 MR. SHEIKH: Okay.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: I guess in this comment 

20 box would hope to receive some sort of yay or nay 

21 on the values that are listed here.

22 Shahid?

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
157

1 MR. SHEIKH: Yeah. I think these values 

2 are fine as a default. But we have a lot of 

3 products in the market that would -- are evolving 

4 that, for example, may not have one of the mode 

5 powers weight, you know? So those mode powers 

6 may not apply.

7 So the type of treatment they get and 

8 prescribe in ENERGY STAR, I just want to make 

9 sure that generally that DOE is okay to follow 

10 that. And if that's the case then I don't have 

11 any concerns.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments in response 

13 to this slide? 

14 Yes, Don Brundage.

15 MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern 

16 Company. 

17 I'm just a little puzzled by this 

18 calculation because based on these calculations 

19 you never actually use a computer 100 percent of 

20 the time it is in off, sleep, long idle, or short 

21 idle. There's no percentage of active operation. 

22 Can somebody explain that to me?

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
158

1 MS. THAKKAR: Yes. So the active mode 

2 weighting, basically the long and short idle 

3 represent the computer usage in on mode. And 

4 this is also done in ENERGY STAR because 

5 computers spend relatively little time with 

6 significant CPU use in an active mode. So the 

7 long idle and the short idle modes are more 

8 representative and so it's set up this way.

9 MR. BRUNDAGE: Okay. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. We're 

11 going to move on.

12 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. So ENERGY STAR also 

13 has model weightings for computers that have 

14 network proxy functionality. So network proxy 

15 allows a computer to remain connected to a 

16 network while it's in a low power state or in 

17 sleep mode. And what that does is that it 

18 increases the amount of time a computer would 

19 spend in sleep mode while decreasing the amount 

20 of time it spends in other modes leading to 

21 potential energy savings.

22 ENERGY STAR recognizes this function by 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
159

1 providing different usage profiles based on the 

2 level of network proxy functionality, starting 

3 from base capability to remote wake service and 

4 name discovery and full capability.

5 And although ENERGY STAR has definitions 

6 for these network proxy functions, DOE has 

7 noticed that it's not easy to classify these. 

8 The functionality is difficult to identify just 

9 by looking at the menus or the settings options 

10 in a computer, and often the implementation also 

11 varies by manufacturer. So DOE is also 

12 considering two other options.

13 One is to provide two levels of 

14 weightings. One would be for computers that do 

15 not have any network proxy functionality, and 

16 another weighting would be for computers that 

17 have network proxy functionality. 

18 And then the second option is that you do 

19 not do any usage profile adjustments and use a 

20 single weighting for all computers. 

21 So what we're interested to hear from you 

22 is, is there a standardized and objective way to 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
160

1 determine the level of network proxy 

2 functionality for a computer? That's in Item 4-

3 5. And then in Item 4-6 we want to request 

4 comment on the best approach to address network 

5 proxy functionality. Should we use all four 

6 weightings, do two levels of weightings, or just 

7 do a single weighting for all products?

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Shahid?

9 MR. SHEIKH: Yeah. Just to -- has DOE, 

10 working with ENERGY STAR, done any analysis to 

11 look at, of the four types of weightings, what's 

12 predominantly used? You know, has that been some 

13 assessment?

14 MS. THAKKAR: So looking at the qualified 

15 product list it's predominantly conventional, 

16 which is no --

17 MR. SHEIKH: Right.

18 MS. THAKKAR: -- network proxy 

19 functionality. But the other four -- I'm not 

20 entirely sure which one it is that's the most --

21 MR. SHEIKH: I mean, that would be one 

22 source of data to see what's out there. And then 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
161

1 looking at the product trends to see, based on 

2 the new products that are coming, what's the 

3 trend in terms of the four, which would be 

4 predominant or which one is -- it could be 

5 trending one less today, but it could be more in 

6 the future. So I think that maybe more some data 

7 needed before you determine whether to eliminate 

8 some or not.

9 MR. DOMMU: Okay. Thank you. That's 

10 helpful. If you have any data or suggestions of 

11 the type of research that we could do, we'd 

12 certainly encourage you to submit that data or 

13 suggestions in the written comments.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And Mansi, 

15 would you restate Item 4-6?

16 MS. THAKKAR: Sure. So in Item 4-6 we're 

17 looking for comments on the best approach to 

18 address network proxy functionality. So should 

19 we use the four levels that are specified in 

20 ENERGY STAR, or use two levels with or without 

21 proxy, or just use one level that would be the 

22 same for all computers?

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
162

1 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments 

2 here? 

3 (No audible response.) 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

5 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. Thank you. So the 

6 next is the test procedure for computer servers. 

7 So DOE is considering the test procedure that's 

8 specified in ENERGY STAR Computer Servers, 

9 Version 2.0. 

10 The ENERGY STAR Computer Servers test 

11 method has two tests, an idle state test and an 

12 active state test.

13 The idle state test determines the power 

14 consumption while a server is operating in an 

15 inactive state, and the active state test 

16 measures the power consumption while the server 

17 performs a variety of tasks. 

18 The active state test has been developed 

19 by SPEC, and it's a benchmarking software called 

20 SERT, or Server Efficiency Rating Tool. And at 

21 this point it's only a reporting requirement in 

22 ENERGY STAR.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
163

1 And I'll also note that the idle state 

2 and the active state tests both of them are the 

3 on mode or the active mode for a server.

4 So comparing these two tests further, the 

5 idle state test is compatible with all computer 

6 servers. But for the active state test SPEC 

7 states certain minimum requirements that a server 

8 has to meet for the SERT test to be applicable.

9 Also the efficiency or the energy metric 

10 for the idle state test, it's straightforward. 

11 It's a power consumption value, but for the 

12 active state tests you have multiple outputs. 

13 And it's unclear how these different outputs can 

14 be combined to double up a single efficiency 

15 metric.

16 And the active state test also represents 

17 multiple modes. So for these reasons DOE is 

18 considering only the idle state test for computer 

19 servers. Research has shown that servers spend a 

20 lot of time in the idle state and that the energy 

21 consumed in idle state represents a large portion 

22 of the total energy consumed by a server.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
164

1 Then, in addition to the active state or 

2 the active mode, EPCA also requires DOE to set 

3 standby and off mode tests if they're technically 

4 feasible. And DOE has preliminarily determined 

5 that it is not feasible to test a server in 

6 standby or off mode. This is because DOE 

7 believes a server would rarely be in standby mode 

8 because once it is in that mode it would not be 

9 capable of responding immediately to service 

10 requests. And for off mode, many servers do not 

11 come with a switch that would be required to 

12 power off a server.

13 So in Item 4-8 DOE is requesting comment 

14 on using the idle state test from ENERGY STAR

15 Computer Servers Version 2.0 for server products.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Sameer.

17 MR. KWATRA: Is the proposal here not to 

18 use the active state test at all, and just use 

19 the idle state test, or use a different test for 

20 active state?

21 MR. DOMMU: This is Jeremy. So just to 

22 clarify, we're not proposing anything here. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
165

1 We're just considering. But yes, the current 

2 consideration is that we're just going to use the 

3 idle mode test and not the SERT active mode test.

4 MR. KWATRA: So not have any test for 

5 active mode in the servers?

6 MR. DOMMU: Well, the idle mode test 

7 would be like the one mode test, essentially.

8 MS. THAKKAR: So both the idle states and 

9 the active states together are the on mode for a 

10 server. And we're saying to only measure the 

11 power -- not saying, but we're considering to 

12 only measure the power consumption in idle state 

13 because of the difficulties that there are with 

14 the active state tests.

15 MR. KWATRA: But ENERGY STAR 2.0 is 

16 including an active state with mode functionality 

17 with a higher energy consumption. So is the 

18 consideration to drop that and not use that 

19 higher functionality? Is that what you're 

20 saying?

21 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, that is the current 

22 consideration of what we're kind of throwing out 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
166

1 here as an initial idea. But again, this is a 

2 framework part. It's just an idea that we're 

3 throwing out there to get some feedback on it. 

4 That doesn't mean we're not going to adopt the 

5 active mode test, but that's just what we're 

6 currently considering and we're welcoming comment 

7 on whether people agree with that or we should 

8 consider the other test as well. So that's what 

9 we're putting out there.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Jay.

11 MR. TAYLOR: The challenge for the active 

12 mode test is that not all processors can operate 

13 the SERT tool. All processors used in servers. 

14 So what it would mean is, if you chose to head 

15 down that path, some servers would be excluded 

16 simply because they can't run the SERT test. 

17 MR. SHEIKH: So would this consideration 

18 mean DOE and ENERGY STAR may be out of sync for 

19 the next version? In terms of ENERGY STAR

20 adopting SERT for the next version and DOE may 

21 not choose to consider that?

22 MR. BROOKMAN: That was Shahid. Now, to 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
167

1 Jeremy.

2 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. This is Jeremy. So I 

3 mean, if we had only the idle mode test as part 

4 of our regulatory test procedure then ENERGY STAR

5 could certainly do their own test for other modes 

6 of operation that would not be covered by the 

7 regulatory test procedure. 

8 MR. SHEIKH: Okay. Thank you.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on the 

10 use, what's being proposed here? Actually, in 

11 this initial consideration using the idle state 

12 power measurement test but not the active state 

13 power measurement test. Additional comments? 

14 Yes, Robert.

15 MR. WHITE: This is Robert with Dell. 

16 From any regulation standpoint, you know, 

17 being in the IT industry and what we're involved 

18 with and what we're developing and creating, you 

19 know, I prefer not to have single modal limits 

20 applied to a product. You know, it took years of 

21 us working with ENERGY STAR, many of us here at 

22 the table, to move from modal limits to an 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
168

1 annualized kilowatt hour. And by following those 

2 guidelines, that allows us to do what we do best, 

3 and that's innovate. And that's creating

4 efficiencies and tradeoffs and other modes of 

5 operation to make the product more efficient to 

6 meet those criteria.

7 So on the basis of a single modal limit, 

8 and with just the complexity in servers with the 

9 broad stroke, I believe, that was painted 

10 earlier, that all servers would fall under this 

11 regulation, I would oppose using a single metric 

12 to define efficiency for a server product.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. What would you 

14 suggest as an alternative?

15 MR. WHITE: As referenced earlier, I need 

16 additional time --

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Yea.

18 MR. WHITE: -- to look into this. But 

19 that will be in our written comments.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

21 MR. WHITE: Thank you.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Final comments 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
169

1 here? 

2 (No audible response.) 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

4 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. So finally for UPS 

5 products, DOE is evaluating the test methods for 

6 UPSs that are specified in IEC62040-3, Edition 

7 2.0, which is the method of specifying 

8 performance of UPSs. And additionally ENERGY 

9 STAR for UPSs, Version 1.0, specifies additional 

10 guidance that DOE is also considering. 

11 While ENERGY STAR builds on the IEC 

12 standard, it also has some minor differences, and 

13 DOE will evaluate these differences and determine 

14 the best path forward, but also welcomes any 

15 comments or inputs that stakeholders may have.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Jay.

17 MR. TAYLOR: Jay Taylor with Schneider 

18 Electric.

19 The answer is we worked with ENERGY STAR

20 and on those differences, those are being 

21 considered in the next revision of the 62040-3, 

22 which is currently being debated right now.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
170

1 MS. THAKKAR: Okay.

2 MR. TAYLOR: So, you know, I don't -- I 

3 anticipate that within another year you're going 

4 to see another version of this, and it will more 

5 be more closely aligned to what the ENERGY STAR

6 folks came up with.

7 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. And do you have a 

8 timeline for when that may be finalized by? The 

9 next revision.

10 MR. TAYLOR: Yeah, the next revision, it 

11 should be about another year, maybe as long as 18 

12 months. 

13 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. Thank you.

14 MR. TAYLOR: Because it's currently in 

15 revision now, that we're editing and providing 

16 feedback now. And it's through TC 22. 

17 MS. THAKKAR: Okay. Thank you.

18 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments here?

20 (No audible response.) 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: So, we're due to break for 

22 lunch - oh, yes, please. Anthony.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
171

1 MR. FRYER: Sorry. Not to stand between 

2 the room and lunch. Just a question that's 

3 probably more apt to earlier, just to clarify for 

4 laptops and battery charging that is outside of 

5 the scope of this particular rulemaking. Is that 

6 being considered by DOE and battery chargers, 

7 rulemaking separately or is that part of this?

8 MR. DOMMU: Right. No, the battery 

9 charger rulemaking considers the battery charging 

10 functionality of products. That would not be 

11 considered within the scope here. 

12 MR. FRYER: Okay. Thanks.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So let's go to 

14 lunch. It's now 10 minutes after 12:00. It 

15 takes just about a full hour to eat lunch around 

16 here. If you don't leave campus do not leave the 

17 building. 

18 We'll resume at 10 minutes after 1:00. 

19 Does anybody not know where the big cafeteria is? 

20 A few do not.

21 So, first of all, please wear your badge, 

22 and if you go to the big cafeteria you'll need to 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
172

1 pass through a security portal and you'll need an 

2 ID to get back in. This room, however, will be 

3 secured. You can leave your stuff here. 

4 You go down to the ground floor or you go 

5 about 100 yards in that direction, maybe only 70. 

6 And then you go up two escalators and there's a 

7 big cafeteria there. And right below us, also on 

8 the ground floor there's a Subway shop if you 

9 want something simple; just a sub.

10 So, anyway, we've covered a lot of ground 

11 already this morning and we'll see you back here 

12 at 10 minutes after 1:00. And there will be a 

13 whole bunch of people heading in that direction. 

14 You can just follow the crowd.

15 (Lunch recess from 12:10 p.m. until 1:20 

16 p.m.)

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's resume, shall we? 

18 We're going to proceed and we're going to pick up 

19 where we just left off and we're going to hear 

20 from Allen, Market and Technology and Screening 

21 Analyses.

22 Allen.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
173

1 MR. TSAO: All right. Thanks. 

2 So the rest of the presentation is really 

3 going to cover all the analyses that DOE is going 

4 to perform for setting the minimum efficiency 

5 standards. So I'll start with the market and 

6 technology and screening analysis. 

7 This flow diagram sort of shows how all 

8 of the analysis flows together, and you'll see 

9 these as we progress through each one. And we're 

10 starting with the market and tech assessment and 

11 screening analysis here.

12 So the purpose of the market and tech 

13 assessment is to first of all determine product 

14 classes, which I'll get into a lot more detail 

15 what that involves in the subsequent slides. And 

16 it's also used to identify technology options 

17 that could improve the efficiency of the product 

18 in question here. 

19 The screening analysis occurs after, and 

20 once -- after all the technologies have been 

21 identified, that could improve efficiency. 

22 Certain ones are screened out based on options 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
174

1 that either they're not technologically feasible, 

2 they're not practical to manufacture, install, 

3 and service to scale, they would have adverse 

4 impacts on utility to consumers or availability, 

5 or adverse impacts on health and safety. 

6 So, next slide. This is to note -- I 

7 don't know if anyone has any clarification on 

8 this comment. But in the framework we're just 

9 emphasizing we're requesting information that

10 would contribute to the market assessment for 

11 this product. Things like shipments, trends in 

12 product features and efficiency, how the 

13 distribution channels, estimates in market share 

14 would all be very helpful for DOE to perform 

15 their market and tech assessment. 

16 Like, I'll pause for comment. I know 

17 none of you will have this data in front of you 

18 right now, but if there's any questions on what 

19 DOE is looking for here?

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Doug Johnson.

21 MR. JOHNSON: CEA was pleased to provide 

22 a copy for the docket of its latest energy study. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
175

1 And I believe that's online and available now. 

2 It certainly is in our website, but we've 

3 supplied a copy to the Department of Energy and 

4 other interested stakeholders. And it does 

5 contain a section on computers and assessing 

6 energy trends and technology trends that are 

7 relevant to this.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Does it also 

9 consider backup devices and uninterruptable power 

10 supplies?

11 MR. JOHNSON: No, because we took a look 

12 at consumer electronics.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Oh, okay. Thank you. I 

14 was wondering if that other data is available 

15 from some of the other members here in the room.

16 Jay? Hey, Jay, will you turn the neck of 

17 that microphone up a little bit? Excellent. 

18 MR. TAYLOR: Okay. We have only recently 

19 completed our first year under the ENERGY STAR

20 program for UPS.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Uh-huh.

22 MR. TAYLOR: So I will say that the 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
176

1 ENERGY STAR program just received from NEMA and 

2 from other manufacturers who participate in that 

3 program, the market data. So they might be --

4 there would be certain confidentiality 

5 requirements before I could disclose any of that 

6 information from Schneider Electric.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

8 MR. TAYLOR: So I would recommend 

9 strongly, talking to the ENERGY STAR program to 

10 get that data for UPS systems.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good.

12 MR. TAYLOR: Okay.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please.

14 MR. TSAN: This is Bach Tsan for Southern 

15 California Edison.

16 We submitted a case study or a 

17 (indiscernible)**4:12.3 study to the CEC last 

18 year on July 29th, that has a market analysis and 

19 economic studies that we could share with the 

20 DOE.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And would you say 

22 again who you're with?

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
177

1 MR. TSAN: I'm with Southern California 

2 Edison, the California investor owned utilities.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. 

4 Other data sources that DOE might mine? Noting 

5 that they're very good at doing the 

6 confidentiality part when they are asked to do 

7 that.

8 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. We do have processes 

9 in place where if there is confidential 

10 information that any stakeholder wishes to share 

11 that there are ways that that information could 

12 be provided.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Nothing additional? 

14 Okay. 

15 MR. TSAO: Okay. So DOE will divide 

16 products into different product classes. And 

17 some of the criteria they would use is the type 

18 of energy used, the capacity of the product or 

19 other performance related features that justify 

20 different standard levels, such as features 

21 effecting consumer utility.

22 It's probably that last third point that 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
178

1 are most applicable to these products, although 

2 you know, I'll consider the other ones as well. 

3 And the point is to establish product classes so 

4 that products with different features or 

5 functionality that would warrant a different 

6 standard can get a different level, instead of 

7 just -- it's not just a single blanket standard 

8 that applies to everything. They're divided into 

9 product categories and so that different 

10 standards can apply when justified.

11 So we'll start off with the computer 

12 products that are non server related. These 

13 product classes DOE evaluated by looking at a lot 

14 of different programs including ENERGY STAR as 

15 well as various international programs on how 

16 they categorize computer systems.

17 For the most part it's generally 

18 harmonized either between ENERGY STAR Version 5.2 

19 or Version 6.0, depending on kind of how old the 

20 program has been running. So for the most part, 

21 you know, they generally have agree, and they use 

22 the category systems done by ENERGY STAR. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
179

1 So I'm going to talk a little bit about 

2 the two different -- how ENERGY STAR Version 5.2 

3 does their product categorization. They separate 

4 computers into desktop, integrated desktop, and 

5 notebook bins. And then within those there are 

6 separate categories that are based on the number 

7 of CPU cores, amount of memory, and GPU. 

8 In additional there is TEC allowances 

9 based on the amount of memory and the graphics 

10 performance and the amount of hard drive storage 

11 space that a computer has.

12 In Version 6.0 it's very similar. They 

13 still separate it into a desktop, integrated 

14 desktop, and notebook computers. But categories 

15 are split slightly differently. It's based on 

16 the type of GPU as well as the performance score 

17 of the computer, which is the number of CPU cores 

18 times the CPU clock speed.

19 Again, there are additional TEC 

20 allowances for the amount of memory, amount of 

21 hard drive storage, the graphics, as well as the 

22 presence of enhanced displays, presence of Energy 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
180

1 Efficient Ethernet and presence of an efficient 

2 power supply.

3 So for the most part DOE is considering 

4 using some of these features to scale, the 

5 efficiency standard to give different efficiency 

6 standards to different computer products based on 

7 memory, graphics, storage, and integrated 

8 display, as well as CPU.

9 Some features that are in the ENERGY STAR

10 program that are used as incentives to encourage 

11 technology adoption, such as Energy Efficient 

12 Ethernet or more efficient power supplies, that 

13 DOE is still evaluating whether or not those 

14 would warrant actual separate product classes 

15 for.

16 So the next two comments I'll just sort 

17 of -- they're both comments basically on the use 

18 of ENERGY STAR for the product categories. This 

19 one is going to talk about the use of either 

20 using Version 5.2 and then the following items 

21 are requesting information about using Version 

22 6.0 for the product classes. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
181

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Shahid.

2 MR. SHEIKH: Yeah. A couple comments. I 

3 think product categories, you know, better 

4 aligned with the ENERGY STAR Version 6, because 

5 that's the one that has evolved over time and 

6 reflects the products in the market better than 

7 the older version.

8 Secondly on the allowances, one thing I 

9 didn't see in your consideration is enhanced 

10 performance display, on the previous slide.

11 MR. TSAO: Oh. Yeah, the integrated 

12 display, it was meant to include the enhanced 

13 performance display, but it meant to say that.

14 MR. SHEIKH: That --

15 MR. TSAO: What's that? 

16 MR. SHEIKH: It includes the 

17 enhancement --

18 MR. TSAO: Yeah. Uh-huh.

19 MR. SHEIKH: Okay. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

21 Additional comments on these differentiating 

22 factors. Yes, Robert.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
182

1 MR. WHITE: This is Robert with Dell.

2 So to make sure I understood you 

3 correctly, on page 53 the top bullet, you also 

4 said CPU. Did I hear that correctly as something 

5 to --

6 MR. TSAO: Yeah.

7 MR. WHITE: The scale the efficiency --

8 it's not listed on this paper, but you are 

9 considering the CPU as --

10 MR. TSAO: Yeah. Yeah. Sorry, I think 

11 we may have left some out on there, but yes, CPU 

12 or the -- if we to adopt the Version 6.0 the 

13 performance score.

14 MR. WHITE: Performance. Right.

15 MR. TSAO: Right.

16 MR. WHITE: Thank you.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments before 

18 we move on? 

19 (No audible response.) 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

21 MR. TSAO: So for computer servers, again 

22 DOE is considering a product class structure 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
183

1 that's based on the ENERGY STAR program. ENERGY 

2 STAR separates products based on form factor, 

3 also the maximum number of installed processors 

4 and some criteria for manage servers. It also 

5 adjusts the qualification levels based on the 

6 number or amount of power supplies, hard drives, 

7 amount of memory, number of buffered DDR 

8 channels, input/output devices. I don't know if 

9 it's a complete list, but there's several that it 

10 includes.

11 In addition to those DOE may consider 

12 setting product classes based on other hardware 

13 features that are considered important to adjust 

14 the standard for. And also perhaps a performance 

15 score similar to the computer's program. So 

16 servers doesn't do the number of cores times CPU 

17 clock speed, but maybe that could be folded into 

18 the product class systems for servers as well.

19 So, DOE requests comment on strategies 

20 for the computer server product classes, the use 

21 of the ENERGY STAR Version 2.0 program. Are 

22 there any other features that should be 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
184

1 considered?

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert.

3 MR. WHITE: Yes. There are many many 

4 many other features that would be provided in our 

5 written comments. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

7 MR. WHITE: I just wanted to get that out 

8 there.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Will you tie them back to 

10 the ENERGY STAR work? Just, that as a reference 

11 point I think would be useful for DOE.

12 MR. WHITE: Yes. Yes, I will.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

14 MR. WHITE: Yeah, a lot of time and 

15 effort continues to be -- and in fact, you know, 

16 I had a question.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Uh-huh.

18 MR. WHITE: DOE, Navigant, were you 

19 involved in the meetings two weeks ago here with 

20 industry and EPA where they went through the SERT 

21 and the databases in their analysis. Are you 

22 aware and engaged in that work as well, or --

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
185

1 MR. TSAO: Yeah. I know a couple of 

2 other Navigant staff who are working on the 

3 ENERGY STAR program were there, and I don't know 

4 if Jeremy, if you were there.

5 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. No, we certainly were 

6 aware of those off season workshops, I believe, 

7 that they were called. 

8 MR. TSAO: Yeah.

9 MR. DOMMU: And we will review all of 

10 that as well as we develop potential product

11 classes. To the extent there is any specific 

12 takeaways or reports that came out of that 

13 meeting that you would wish to provide to the 

14 docket, that would be great, but we will also 

15 seek them out ourselves.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Jeremy. Okay. 

17 Additional comments here. Other features that 

18 anybody wishes to call out at this time?

19 (No audible response.) 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

21 MR. TSAO: Okay. And then for the 

22 uninterruptable power supplies, again, 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
186

1 considering a product class structure it's based 

2 on ENERGY STAR and ENERGY STAR, you know, 

3 separates and gives different criteria, energy 

4 efficiency criteria based on topology, based on 

5 the output power of the UPS, based on the output 

6 type, AC versus DC, any additional features. 

7 One thing I do want to note is the ENERGY 

8 STAR program includes, you know, a wide range of 

9 UPSs, you may see some like for power over 10,000 

10 watts and such. Obviously as we talked about 

11 before we're only talking about consumer rated 

12 UPSs. I don't think that -- this is just 

13 outlining what ENERGY STAR does because they do 

14 include very high-end UPS systems.

15 But DOE is considering using the ENERGY 

16 STAR program as a guideline for its own creation 

17 of the UPS product classes.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Jay.

19 MR. TAYLOR: So the metering is only 

20 applicable to three-phase UPS or the larger --

21 greater than 10,000 watt.

22 MR. TSAO: Uh-huh.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
187

1 MR. TAYLOR: So it's not appropriate for 

2 your consumer class products. 

3 And then the communications are 

4 ubiquitous across UPS systems today, they're 

5 either USB or Ethernet interfaces. To pull it 

6 out means changing the feature functionality of 

7 the product.

8 MR. TSAO: Uh-huh.

9 MR. TAYLOR: So, that's, you know, some 

10 of the conversations we've had recently with the 

11 ENERGY STAR program. Even with the analysis that 

12 they're performing right now we don't anticipate 

13 it changing. At least for a year.

14 MR. TSAO: Okay.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: And did I hear you 

16 earlier, they're revisiting in the span of the 

17 next 12 to 18 months?

18 MR. TAYLOR: So they're looking at the 

19 market data now. We've provided the market data 

20 April, and at that point there will be a decision 

21 whether they're going to move forward and like 

22 cast UPS 2.0. Or whether they're going to wait 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
188

1 and see whether the market data represented 

2 enough of a change that they hold off for a year 

3 and evaluate next year. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Uh-huh. Okay. Shahid.

5 MR. SHEIKH: Yeah. Sorry to take you 

6 back to page 52.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: No, no, it's good. Take 

8 us back.

9 MR. SHEIKH: Yeah. Okay. I didn't hear 

10 anything about your power supply considerations. 

11 What do you have in mind for this regulation from 

12 EPS and IPS perspective?

13 MR. TSAO: In terms of whether there 

14 would be a regulation for those or --

15 MR. SHEIKH: Yeah. Obviously you're not 

16 looking at ENERGY STAR power supply 

17 considerations, right? The same for regulations. 

18 You're looking at EPS as it exists today?

19 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, there's a separate 

20 rulemaking that was recently finalized that --

21 MR. SHEIKH: Right.

22 MR. DOMMU: -- established new efficiency 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
189

1 conservation standards for --

2 MR. SHEIKH: Yes.

3 MR. DOMMU: -- the external power 

4 supplies.

5 MR. SHEIKH: And for IPS?

6 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. I mean, for internal 

7 power supplies I guess we would consider it 

8 within this rulemaking.

9 MR. SHEIKH: You will consider it. Okay. 

10 I didn't see that in this paper. That's why.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Jeremy. 

12 Okay. Jim Spitaels, you're next.

13 MR. SPITAELS: Hi. In addition to Jay's 

14 comments, as you rightly noted, the ENERGY STAR

15 program has a very wide scope in terms of UPSs. 

16 And it only has these three different power 

17 points, break points if you will, to segment the 

18 market. 

19 You may find that we're going to be 

20 concentrating for UPSs in the under 1500 watts 

21 base, so you may want to subdivide that market 

22 even further than ENERGY STAR did. And the 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
190

1 topology rate points, I think, will be very 

2 relevant still.

3 MR. TSAO: Okay.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Jay, go 

5 ahead.

6 MR. TAYLOR: We've recently had a 

7 conversation with the ENERGY STAR program about 

8 the quality of information in the database. So I 

9 would caution that there are some errors that 

10 exist in there. If you see a statistical outlier 

11 when you're doing an analysis it's probably 

12 because it's been misrepresented in the database. 

13 So we're having a challenge trying to get the 

14 right data against the right topology, as far as 

15 right efficiency data versus the right topology, 

16 in to the database and we provided that 

17 information back to the EPA about where we 

18 believe the errors are.

19 MR. TSAO: Okay.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

21 MR. TAYLOR: So just a note.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Additional comments 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
191

1 here before we move on?

2 MR. TSAO: So we'll move on to the 

3 technology assessment here, and I talked about 

4 this briefly in the beginning but what DOE does 

5 is it uses information about available 

6 technologies and possibly prototypes as the input 

7 to identifying technologies that could be used to 

8 decrease energy consumption or improve the 

9 efficiency of products. 

10 And, you know, in the framework document 

11 I think it has a full list, but DOE has 

12 identified, you know, several technology options 

13 initially for computers, servers, and UPSs that 

14 DOE could, you know, analyze further as the 

15 rulemaking progresses. 

16 For example in computers there's a few 

17 examples like switchable graphics, suspend to 

18 flash, more efficient components, et cetera. For 

19 servers, again, more efficient components, better 

20 CPU power management, variable fan speeds, and on 

21 UPSs some semiconductor improvements, space 

22 factor modulation or transformerless UPS 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
192

1 topologies.

2 And again, all of these technologies are 

3 initially identified as possible ways to improve 

4 the efficiency. They may be screened out based 

5 on the criteria I described before and I'll 

6 repeat it up here. Some may technically improve 

7 the efficiency, but they may not actually be that 

8 feasible. Some may be not feasible to deploy on 

9 a wide scale over the entire market, or some may 

10 have negative impacts on utility or health or 

11 safety. Then DOE would no longer consider those 

12 if they were screened out from the analysis. 

13 So DOE welcomes any comment on the 

14 technology options identified in this section, or 

15 whether there is any other technology option it 

16 should consider. Again, the emphasis should be 

17 the impacts if there are any, safety, 

18 performance, utility, and the cost of the 

19 technology options. And in Item 7-1 are there 

20 any technologies that DOE should not consider 

21 because of the screening criteria just outlined?

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Anthony.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
193

1 MR. FRYER: Anthony Fryer with ASAP. 

2 Just a couple of additional suggestions 

3 for DOE to consider that I think have been 

4 proposed for consideration in California that I 

5 noticed were missing from the list.

6 MR. TSAO: Okay.

7 MR. FRYER: I don't have any technical 

8 knowledge in any of these things, but I just want 

9 to raise them at this point and let you know that 

10 we'll also be including them in the written 

11 comments in more detail.

12 But they include, for desktops, internal 

13 power supply right-sizing. For notebooks and 

14 integrated desktops, display efficiency and 

15 display panel self-refresh, motherboard 

16 integration. And then for all computers, 

17 traditional power management. I don't think any 

18 of those things were listed in the framework 

19 document.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, 

21 Shahid.

22 MR. SHEIKH: On your previous slide, 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
194

1 please.

2 MR. TSAO: Uh-huh.

3 MR. SHEIKH: So, I'd like to see if you 

4 can elaborate on when you say more efficient 

5 components, because the approach has been at the 

6 system level traditionally for any voluntary or 

7 regulatory programs. I'm trying to see what is 

8 the consideration here?

9 MR. TSAO: Well, the measurement is always 

10 -- and the standard is always based on the entire 

11 product. These are specific implementations that 

12 could be used to lower the measured energy use of 

13 a computer. Right? 

14 So, are there improved memory or lower 

15 power RAM that could be used, and that would 

16 improve the efficiency of the computer or lower 

17 the TEC of the computer?

18 MR. SHEIKH: But that's the design 

19 consideration manufacturers have all the time. 

20 It's one of those things in their toolbox to 

21 figure out what's the best way to lower the 

22 system power. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
195

1 MR. TSAO: Uh-huh.

2 MR. SHEIKH: Why is that a consideration 

3 for regulation at the component level?

4 MR. TSAO: Okay. So this is part of the 

5 analysis for setting the standard. Ultimately 

6 the standard just ends up being like a level. 

7 Like your computer needs to meet this TEC.

8 MR. SHEIKH: Right.

9 MR. TSAO: This option is -- and maybe 

10 the engineering analysis will spell it out a 

11 little bit better.

12 MR. SHEIKH: Okay.

13 MR. TSAO: Is a way for DOE to -- it's 

14 identifying a path forward to achieve more 

15 efficiency. 

16 Once a standard is actually in effect a 

17 manufacturer can choose whatever variety of 

18 options they can, as long as they meet the TEC 

19 level. But DOE has to come up with a viable path 

20 to at least perform its analysis. Maybe there 

21 are better paths that manufacturers develop over 

22 time than what DOE identifies up front. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
196

1 MR. SHEIKH: This is to get to your 

2 candidate levels and --

3 MR. TSAO: Yeah, exactly. 

4 MR. SHEIKH: Okay.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional 

6 comments. There are a lot of options listed 

7 here. Comments on what's here, comments on what 

8 might be missing. Yes, Jay?

9 MR. TAYLOR: So let me point out a 

10 consideration. And that is intellectual 

11 property. And while I greatly appreciate you 

12 mentioning some advanced features of Schneider 

13 Electric UPS systems I'm not sure that those 

14 would be considered generally available in the 

15 marketplace. 

16 At least not outside of Schneider 

17 Electric. 

18 So I guess my whole point is, is that 

19 needs to be one of the other screening analysis, 

20 is the general availability of the IP.

21 MR. TSAO: Okay. 

22 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. And then that 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
197

1 certainly is one of the screening analysis that 

2 we do look at. I don't know if we listed it 

3 here, but we do take a careful look at 

4 intellectual property, and if there's a path 

5 forward that only some manufacturers could reach, 

6 we would not -- we would screen that out as a 

7 viable technology option.

8 MR. TSAO: Right.

9 MR. DOMMU: Moving forward we want to 

10 only consider those that everyone in the 

11 marketplace would have access to, that technology 

12 option to improve the efficiency of their 

13 product.

14 MR. TSAO: yes, that's right. Uh-huh.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Nothing additional here? 

16 Okay. 

17 MR. TSAO: Okay. So the next phase of 

18 the analysis is the engineering analysis, as seen 

19 here. 

20 And the purpose of the engineering 

21 analysis is ultimately to get at a relationship 

22 between the cost of the manufacturer to improve 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
198

1 efficiency. So it's really a cost versus 

2 efficiency relationship. 

3 And the reason it's, you know, output 

4 from the market and tech assessment screening 

5 analysis is the product classes feed in, and then 

6 post-screening analysis, the viable technology 

7 options that DOE has determined are viable for 

8 improving the efficiency. DOE then the 

9 engineering analysis to determine what's the cost 

10 related to make those and how much improvement 

11 would it actually make in efficiency.

12 So we'll go through each of these points 

13 in general. But in general the order is choosing 

14 a product class to analyze, defining what the 

15 baseline is that we're talking about improving 

16 efficiency beyond, identifying the replacements 

17 or the improved efficiency options, developing 

18 the efficiency levels from that baseline, and 

19 then scaling those results to the product classes 

20 that weren't analyzed. We'll go through each of 

21 these point by point.

22 So the first thing DOE does is choose a 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
199

1 representative product class to concentrate its 

2 analytical effort. DOE doesn't necessarily like 

3 analyze like every possible product class, but it 

4 does focus on representative product classes. 

5 Usually based on the market volume of them. And 

6 so that's where it will concentrate and really 

7 dig in to the analysis. 

8 What DOE then does is select a baseline

9 model, sort of what the minimum efficiency is. 

10 And since this product doesn't have existing 

11 standards, it's sort of the least efficient 

12 product that's available. So we start with the 

13 least efficient and then we look at modeling what 

14 more efficient products would like, beyond the 

15 baseline.

16 So identifying replacements is, you know,

17 selecting more efficient products or design 

18 options compared to the baseline. And only, 

19 again, considering technology options that 

20 weren’t screened out by the screening analysis.

21 The efficiency levels are next, and 

22 that's where the efficiency point and the cost 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
200

1 points are then identified. There's one thing 

2 that DOE is required to do, is look at the 

3 maximum technologically feasible efficiency 

4 level; max tech regardless of cost. I mean, 

5 we'll analyze the cost of it but we'll have to 

6 look at what is the most technologically 

7 feasible.

8 And again, subject -- only feasible based 

9 on things that weren't screened out by the 

10 screening analysis. But it will analyze that as 

11 a possible efficiency point, or efficiency level, 

12 and then as well as any number of in between 

13 efficiency levels from the baseline.

14 And then the last step is if there were 

15 any other product classes that weren't analyzed 

16 in detail that DOE tries to do a good job scaling 

17 the results from their analysis to other product 

18 classes.

19 So, this is just more of a reminder, 

20 encourages -- DOE would encourage any parties to 

21 submit data that will improve DOE's understanding 

22 of computer system performance, and the 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
201

1 associated cost to make those efficiency 

2 improvements.

3 MR. DOMMU: This is Jeremy. Is there any 

4 other questions on the engineering analysis?

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Robert.

6 MR. WHITE: This is Robert with Dell.

7 I had one question. I read the framework 

8 document and there's a lot of information that 

9 you will need from industry to make well informed 

10 decisions, cost features, functions, IP, you 

11 know, a lot of things like that. 

12 From reading the framework document and 

13 this is -- I want clarification on -- you know, 

14 in order for you to deem something confidential I 

15 submit you two different documents of the same

16 material, one blacked out and one not. But the 

17 final determination of that information remains 

18 confidential, is in the hands of the DOE and not 

19 of the manufacturer. 

20 That's how I believe I read it in that 

21 document. Was that a correct interpretation or 

22 are you able to keep manufacturer confidential 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
202

1 information confidential at our request based 

2 upon our determination of that information?

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeremy.

4 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. This is Jeremy. I 

5 think what you read in the framework document is 

6 the way to submit confidential information when 

7 you're submitting it on to the docket to request 

8 it to remain confidential in that, regardless.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Shahid.

10 MR. SHEIKH: On the item in that one 

11 here, A-1, regarding data submission, is there 

12 going to be a specific format, or are you going 

13 to have a call to submit data in a certain way 

14 except for -- ask about how the data needs to be 

15 submitted?

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeremy?

17 MR. DOMMU: I don't think we have any 

18 specific format that would request data in. I 

19 think if there's any data that would be helpful 

20 we would gladly accept it in any format that you 

21 submit it in.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Doug, with CEA. Doug 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
203

1 Johnson.

2 MR. JOHNSON: I'm looking at page 53, I 

3 think, of the -- page 52, I'm sorry, of the 

4 framework document. And I'm trying to understand 

5 the teardown analysis step.

6 MR. DOMMU: Uh-huh.

7 MR. JOHNSON: Or work that you will do. 

8 And it looks like you will be using the DOE test 

9 procedure, but not the final version, right? A 

10 working version? I'm trying to understand the 

11 sequencing of work here because if you're using a 

12 test procedure that's still in development then 

13 what meaning can you place in the results of that 

14 teardown analysis?

15 MR. TSAO: Right. So I don't know -- we 

16 don't have a slide on the exact schedule of the 

17 process but we would attempt to finalize the test 

18 procedure before -- definitely before the final 

19 rule, but in terms of the analysis for the 

20 intermediate steps that should do --

21 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. I mean, as long as --

22 this is Jeremy. So as long as we have a notice 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
204

1 of proposed rulemaking on what the test procedure 

2 is going to be we could certainly use that when 

3 we conduct the teardown analysis.

4 MR. JOHNSON: But that --

5 MR. DOMMU: if it changes then I agree, 

6 between the NOPR and the final rule, that we 

7 would have to carefully consider whether any of 

8 the changes would have impacted the way we tested 

9 the product that we tore it down.

10 MR. JOHNSON: Right.

11 MR. DOMMU: So we certainly would be well 

12 aware of those. But provided, you know, we test 

13 the product in a way that helps determine what 

14 the energy consumption is and that test procedure 

15 remains relevant throughout the rulemaking 

16 process then the data could still be valid.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Don Brundage.

18 MR. BRUNDAGE: I'm not a manufacturer but 

19 I'm a little confused, Jeremy, by your answer 

20 just now because yes, that is the way you file 

21 comments with confidential information, but if 

22 you want -- I think more typically what I've 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
205

1 heard manufacturers do in other rulemakings is 

2 they do a nondisclosure agreement with the 

3 consultant, whether Navigant or whoever, and 

4 provide the information there. And it avoids any 

5 possibility of getting under the FOIA rules, et 

6 cetera.

7 I think the norm in the other rulemakings 

8 has been to provide information to the contractor 

9 and not directly to DOE.

10 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. Thank you so much for 

11 bringing that up. I think that is a very valid 

12 point. I was answering the question from Dell 

13 about how to submit confidential data directly to 

14 DOE. But as you referenced, there are other ways

15 to submit data confidentially to consultants that 

16 DOE ourselves, we would not actually see.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Uh-huh. Jeremy, one thing 

18 that I was unclear on, despite all the years I've 

19 been doing this, is how you differentiate between 

20 data that you might send to DOE versus the stuff 

21 that you might send to the consultant team.

22 MS. SHER: Well, and it doesn't -- I 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
206

1 think that the data is aggregated, right, when we 

2 see it? So that --

3 MR. DOMMU: So if data is submitted to 

4 our contractors confidentially, and say they get 

5 data from multiple sources, we would -- they 

6 would then aggregate that data, they would remove 

7 any names of manufacturers associated with it, 

8 and then that could be the data that would become 

9 part of the rulemaking process and how we do the 

10 analysis. So we would be able to provide the 

11 data in a way directly to the consultants, that 

12 is then aggregated and names removed. So as part 

13 of the analysis that's made public. It is 

14 impossible to tell who submitted that 

15 confidential data.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes?

17 MR. TSAO: To emphasize that point just 

18 from more like -- in a lot of rulemakings 

19 Navigant will initiate, you know, interviews with 

20 manufacturers, and at that time if they indicate 

21 there's information they want to share, 

22 confidentiality, then they can say we'd like an 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
207

1 NDA before we, you know, perform this interview 

2 and answer any questions you might have about the 

3 products. And then ultimately the final analysis 

4 that DOE performs is all public. So they're 

5 talking about aggregating. Nothing specific to 

6 any one individual company would be revealed in a 

7 final analysis. And that's how it gets 

8 aggregated.

9 All right. I'll turn it over to Louis 

10 now.

11 (Mr. Tsao sits down.)

12 MR. DESROCHES: Okay. So I will discuss 

13 some of the other downstream economic analysis 

14 that DOE typically performs in support of the 

15 rulemaking process. And we'll start with the 

16 markups analysis. 

17 And again, as you see this little 

18 diagram, it's showing how all the previous

19 analyses feed into the later and later stages.

20 The engineering analysis that was just 

21 discussed is a direct input into the markups 

22 analysis. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
208

1 And the purpose of the markups analysis 

2 is to turn the engineering analysis, which has 

3 the incremental cost to the manufacturer for 

4 improved efficiency, and to convert that to a 

5 final end-user price that a consumer or a 

6 commercial customer might see.

7 And this is done by identifying all the 

8 potential distribution channels that may be 

9 applicable to any given product, product class, 

10 and identifying all the markups that apply over 

11 the course of that distribution.

12 DOE typically -- and what I'm going to 

13 describe here is the process that DOE typically 

14 performs for rulemakings. And usually the 

15 average manufacturer markup is estimated by 

16 looking at annual 10K reports, filed by 

17 publically traded manufacturers. And the 

18 retailer markup is also -- can be determined in a 

19 similar way and we also use census data to 

20 determine these markups.

21 If there are additional steps along the 

22 distribution chain DOE will perform a similar 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
209

1 analysis. And the markups take the form of a 

2 multiplier. Like it's added, or that is attached 

3 to the cost that's determined by the engineering 

4 analysis.

5 And so when you multiply all these markup 

6 factors together, you can convert the final 

7 engineering -- you can convert the engineering 

8 cost into a final end user price.

9 This will be done for both the baseline 

10 level that's analyzed, and all the higher 

11 efficiency levels, the incrementals. DOE 

12 typically develops both the baseline markup and 

13 an incremental markup, which may or may not be 

14 the same. And again, it depends on the 

15 particulars of the distribution channels and the 

16 products that are analyzed.

17 But in many products there is a 

18 difference between incremental markup and the 

19 baseline markup.

20 And so at the end of every step it's 

21 going to be a fairly similar question box. But 

22 if there are any comments, data sources, or 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
210

1 anything to help estimate the markups, DOE will 

2 be appreciated -- appreciate those.

3 All right. Moving on. So the next step 

4 in the analysis is the energy use analysis. This 

5 is a direct input into the lifecycle cost 

6 analysis, which I will discuss next. And the 

7 main purpose of the energy use analysis is to 

8 estimate the real world in-field usage of the 

9 products that are analyzed. 

10 The test procedure comes up with a 

11 typical value, and that's necessary for the 

12 testing purposes. But in order to determine what 

13 the energy savings potential is of a particular 

14 standard level, and to determine what the 

15 potential economic impacts are, DOE will look at 

16 -- all right. DOE will look at the full range of 

17 energy use in the field, and so there's a 

18 separate energy use analysis that is performed.

19 In order to do this, all of the metrics 

20 that are used in test procedure do eventually get 

21 converted into an annual energy use metric for 

22 calculation in the energy use analysis.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
211

1 And again, the idea here is to look at 

2 the full range, the full variability of how 

3 products are used in the field. There are some 

4 consumers that may not use these products very 

5 much and some that may use it a lot. And this 

6 full range is characterized in the energy use 

7 analysis to determine what the range of economic 

8 impacts are.

9 As the last bullet point shows here, this 

10 is a key point that there are a lot of different 

11 usage patterns that are available in the field. 

12 And DOE will conduct further research and looks 

13 to all data, all field monitoring studies that 

14 are available, to help characterize this full 

15 range of energy use in the field.

16 And so again, DOE welcomes any input and 

17 data sources or references to any studies that 

18 might be helpful in characterizing this range.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comment 

20 here. Okay.

21 MR. DESROCHES: So I will talk next on 

22 the lifecycle cost and payback period analysis. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
212

1 This is one of the two main analyses that are 

2 performed to determine the economic and energy 

3 savings impacts. The other one is the National 

4 Impact Analysis, which I'll talk about next.

5 The purpose of the lifecycle cost 

6 analysis is to determine what the impacts are to 

7 the consumer over all the different proposed 

8 energy -- the efficiency levels.

9 The lifecycle cost reflects the full 

10 operating cost over the lifetime of a product and 

11 it includes multiple factors including the 

12 initial purchase price, the installation cost if 

13 it's applicable, any repair maintenance cost if 

14 they're applicable, as well as all the annual 

15 operating costs, again throughout the lifetime of 

16 the product.

17 The payback period is simply the amount 

18 of time that's required for energy savings to be 

19 recovered by a potential increase in the purchase 

20 price.

21 So as I said before, the lifecycle cost 

22 is the sum of all of these individual expenses. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
213

1 And in the lifecycle cost analysis all of those 

2 costs are discounted to a given year, which in 

3 DOE analyses is typically the first year of 

4 compliance for a standard -- a potential

5 standard. 

6 And one of the key features of the 

7 lifecycle cost analysis is that wherever possible 

8 there are a lot of inputs that go into this 

9 model, and wherever possible DOE attempts to 

10 characterize the variability and the uncertainty 

11 in those inputs with probability distributions, 

12 and then to calculate the lifecycle cost, via 

13 Monte Carlo simulation. 

14 And so the final result of the lifecycle

15 cost analysis is actually a distribution of 

16 impacts. And so this is a key aspect of the 

17 lifecycle cost. This is normally done using an 

18 Excel spreadsheet and other software tools, but 

19 typically this is run about 10,000 times to try 

20 to get a full distribution of what these impacts 

21 are.

22 And I'll talk a little bit about some of 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
214

1 the inputs that go into this lifecycle cost 

2 model. But just as an overall, the main outputs 

3 of this model include the mean lifecycle cost 

4 savings at each given efficiency level that is 

5 being considered for a product class, as well as 

6 -- and this is important, as well as the 

7 percentage of consumers that experience either 

8 net benefit or net cost or no impact at all as 

9 well as the median payback period.

10 This is a flowchart that helps to 

11 describe what all the inputs are into the 

12 lifecycle cost model, for those who may not be 

13 familiar with it. In the top left, these are, as 

14 we've discussed earlier, these are some of the 

15 inputs that come from the engineering analysis, 

16 so this includes the cost efficiency 

17 relationship, which then gets combined with some 

18 of the markups that are applied to those costs to 

19 determine a final equipment price.

20 If there's an installation cost that may 

21 be applicable to a given product, that's also 

22 folded in to get a final total installed cost.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
215

1 And then in the bottom left, the energy 

2 use analysis feeds into here and there are a lot 

3 of other inputs such as projected energy prices 

4 as well as if there are any repair or maintenance 

5 costs. And that gets folded into an annual 

6 operating cost. And that is calculated over the 

7 full lifetime of the product, and it gets 

8 discounted to, again, the compliance year, the 

9 first compliance year.

10 And there's also an energy price trend 

11 that may be applicable. 

12 And a lot of these inputs are 

13 characterized by probability distributions 

14 wherever possible. So for example, the energy 

15 use analysis again, is an attempt to characterize 

16 that full variability. 

17 The discount rate is the rate that is 

18 applicable to individual consumers, and that may 

19 be different from household to household or 

20 company to company, and so there is a 

21 distribution of discount rates that is used 

22 there.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
216

1 The lifetime is characterized, again, by 

2 a survival function, which is itself, a 

3 distribution.

4 And so many of these inputs have 

5 probability distributions. And again, an 

6 individual lifecycle calculation will draw from 

7 those probability distributions. But then this 

8 is repeated many many times, 10,000 times, so 

9 that the final lifecycle cost is itself also a 

10 distribution and is meant to characterize what 

11 the full range of impacts is on the economy.

12 This list goes over some of what I've 

13 already said, but it's just included here for 

14 completeness. And again, a lot of this detail is 

15 in the framework document, so if you would like 

16 some more detail, please see the framework 

17 document.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Shahid?

19 MR. SHEIKH: Yeah. On your previous 

20 slide on the energy use analysis, I think -- so 

21 are you still looking at energy use analysis at 

22 the unit level at this point?

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
217

1 MR. DESROCHES: At the unit level, yes.

2 MR. SHEIKH: Okay. Not at the aggregate 

3 level?

4 MR. DESROCHES: That's correct.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: So, additional comments 

6 here?

7 MR. DESROCHES: One thing I just wanted 

8 to --

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah.

10 MR. DESROCHES: -- I did not mention, but 

11 at the bottom here one of the key aspects of the 

12 LCC is that there's a considerable amount of 

13 effort in characterizing the base case; what does 

14 that look like. So this is the case in the 

15 absence of standards. So what does the market 

16 look like? There are some consumers that will be 

17 already purchasing products at a higher 

18 efficiency level. And so there is a distribution 

19 of efficiency levels in the base case.

20 And the standards case then looks at what 

21 happens if you were to implement standards on top 

22 of that.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
218

1 And so part of the analysis here is to 

2 determine what are existing market forces that 

3 may be contributing to improved efficiency in the 

4 market. That may include other programs like 

5 ENERGY STAR, any other incentive program that 

6 might exist, or just natural market trends. So 

7 that does get folded into this analysis to avoid 

8 any kind of double counting for any improvements 

9 in efficiency that may have occurred without 

10 standards anyway.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Jim Spitaels has a 

12 question or comment. Jim, you're up.

13 MR. SPITAELS: Yeah. The two most 

14 important factors in the analysis seem to be the 

15 lifetime and the energy cost. What are your data 

16 sources for product lifetimes and energy costs?

17 MR. DESROCHES: I'll tackle the energy 

18 cost first. The main source for energy costs, 

19 there's a form by the EIA, Form 861, which is the 

20 primary source for determining what the costs 

21 are. And again, this is split out by state, and 

22 so we do take into account that kind of regional 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
219

1 variability.

2 And in terms of projecting energy prices 

3 forward DOE typically uses the Annual Energy 

4 Outlook. 

5 For the lifetime --

6 MR. SPITAELS: Do you --

7 MR. DESROCHES: Sorry. Go ahead. 

8 MR. SPITAELS: On that part do you do 

9 anything to try and understand where the products 

10 are relative to the states?

11 MR. DESROCHES: Sorry. Do you mean 

12 within the states?

13 MR. SPITAELS: No, it could mean that --

14 let's say for example that Californians typically 

15 own more computers per household than Iowans --

16 MR. DESROCHES: Yes.

17 MR. SPITAELS: -- do you take that into 

18 consideration?

19 MR. DESROCHES: Yes. Yes, that is taken 

20 into consideration. As part of the lifecycle 

21 cost there's a sample in the case of products 

22 used in households; there will be a household 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
220

1 sample that gets developed, based on some data 

2 sources including the Residential Energy 

3 Consumption Survey.

4 And folded into that is information about 

5 how many computers are typically used in 

6 households in California versus households in 

7 Iowa. And so that does actually get folded into 

8 the lifecycle cost analysis.

9 MR. SPITAELS: Okay. So on the second 

10 part, the lifetime of a product.

11 MR. DESROCHES: So the lifetime of a 

12 product DOE typically uses information from a 

13 variety of sources, including any kind of 

14 industry literature. There may be consultations 

15 with technical experts, and as well there are 

16 typically comments that are submitted to the 

17 docket to say what a typical lifetime is.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

19 MR. SPITAELS: Thank you.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Sameer.

21 MR. KWATRA: In terms of the inputs that 

22 go towards determining the equipment price, are 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
221

1 those also project, for example cost of 

2 efficiency improvements? How does that change 

3 over time?

4 MR. DESROCHES: I'll talk a little bit 

5 about that during the National Impact Analysis, 

6 but there is some projection of price trends if 

7 it is applicable to a particular product and if 

8 it makes sense. That's on a product by product 

9 basis that that analysis is performed.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Don Brundage.

11 MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern 

12 Company.

13 I know I'm stating the obvious, but very 

14 few people change out air conditioners or water 

15 heaters until they break or give signs of eminent 

16 failure. Very few people retire computers 

17 because they don't work anymore. It's because 

18 they're functionally obsolete or out of fashion. 

19 So the survival functions you've used on 

20 other products will not work very well here and I 

21 think you need to be careful about thinking what 

22 sort of lifetimes you -- how you calculate that. 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
222

1 Thank you.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Don. Okay.

3 MR. DESROCHES: Just to respond on that, 

4 I think that's a very good comment. And just to 

5 clarify that the product lifetime is meant to be 

6 the use lifetime, not necessarily the technical 

7 lifetime, which there may be a difference as you 

8 pointed out.

9 So if there are any additional comments 

10 on the particular inputs, again, DOE welcomes any 

11 data sources or links to such data sources.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Doug Johnson.

13 MR. JOHNSON: Quick question. At what 

14 stage will we see the assumptions you've made in 

15 this analysis? When does that occur; at what 

16 stage in the process?

17 MR. DOMMU: Sure. I mean, so it could be 

18 a couple different things. If we did a 

19 preliminary analysis that we would likely include 

20 a lot of all of this; the economic analysis could 

21 be included within the preliminary analysis. It 

22 certainly will be part of a notice of proposed 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
223

1 rulemaking, and depending on other rulemaking 

2 paths forward, you know, it could be part of 

3 negotiated meetings where we're putting that data 

4 forward for consideration. 

5 If there's a notice of data availability 

6 that we seek comment on, we could use that tool 

7 to put out some of the inputs and assumptions 

8 that we're planning on using to get comments. 

9 So, there's a number of different mechanisms that 

10 we could use to solicit comment on those inputs 

11 and it just depends on how the rulemaking 

12 proceeds.

13 MR. DESROCHES: So we had a break 

14 scheduled now, but should we just --

15 MR. BROOKMAN: I think we should just 

16 plug on.

17 MR. DESROCHES: Power through. Okay. 

18 So I'll next talk about the shipments 

19 analysis and the National Impact Analysis. And 

20 again this is the -- the National Impact Analysis 

21 is the second main economic analysis that's 

22 performed. And the National Impact Analysis is 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
224

1 an aggregate national-level analysis that's 

2 projected over several years. And in order to do 

3 that there needs to be a shipment analysis that's 

4 conducted first. 

5 So again, the shipment analysis, the 

6 point is to project shipments by individual 

7 product classes in order to calculate those 

8 national impacts.

9 DOE typically uses a 30 year time period 

10 when conducting the NIA, and this is the same 

11 from rulemaking to rulemaking. And so the 

12 shipments analysis will similarly be conducted 

13 for a 30 year period, starting with the first 

14 year of compliance.

15 And this is where there was a question 

16 about projecting price trends. And again, as 

17 part of this analysis, if there are price trends 

18 that are relevant for the particular product 

19 classes it gets folded in to the 30 year 

20 analysis.

21 DOE will base its shipments analysis in 

22 large part on the historical record as much as 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
225

1 possible. So the more historical data that are 

2 available on past shipments, the better it is for 

3 the DOE analysis to project future shipments.

4 There's also a lot of market research 

5 reports, market trend reports that are used in 

6 establishing the shipments projection. 

7 And again, as I've said before, the 

8 impact of existing programs, existing market 

9 trends if there are shifts from one product class 

10 to another that are happening in the absence of 

11 standards, that does get folded into the base 

12 case projection. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Sameer.

14 MR. KWATRA: So on the previous slide, I 

15 guess to clarify my previous question on 

16 projection of price trends, for payments 

17 specifically for efficiency improvements. So for 

18 example more efficient components that might cost 

19 less over a period of time. So is that 

20 predicted? Is that factored in to the analysis? 

21 Or is it just the price of the product as a 

22 computer?

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
226

1 MR. DESROCHES: Again, that analysis, 

2 both the incremental bit and the baseline, there 

3 is an analysis to look at both of those trends, 

4 including the incremental only.

5 And there will be a determination whether 

6 it's applicable to a particular product class and 

7 the particular efficiency level improvements that 

8 are under consideration.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Doug Johnson.

10 MR. JOHNSON: What sense does it make to 

11 project 30 years into the future in our industry? 

12 I mean, what rational basis would there be? I 

13 mean, how could you draw any meaning from that? 

14 Can you imagine 30 years back in the electronics 

15 industry? I just don't see how that does 

16 anything but create a false impression of the 

17 savings or growth. It doesn't have to be 30 

18 since Congress doesn't require you to use 30 

19 years. This seems to be more of a historical 

20 habit than anything grounded in the category that 

21 you're looking at. So, why?

22 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. No, I think it's a 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
227

1 good question. For that reason we have begun to

2 also do a sensitivity analysis using a shorter 

3 period of time. So we also, in addition to 30 

4 we've been looking at nine years as well. And we 

5 present that data when we come out with our 

6 proposed rules.

7 MR. SHEIKH: I think to Doug's point, if 

8 you look at the last five or six years, sort of 

9 look back to see how this has fluctuated, the 

10 whole energy efficiency and pricing, that might 

11 give you some sense that, you know, even a five 

12 year is too much or something. Right? 

13 So maybe a way is to look back at how the 

14 technology has evolved.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

16 MR. SHEIKH: Right? Because then looking 

17 forward 30 years --

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Shahid.

19 MR. SHEIKH: The other comment I have 

20 here is, establishing the base case. Are you 

21 first looking at product categories and then 

22 you're establishing a base case for each of the 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
228

1 product categories? Or are you doing it as a 

2 whole computer, UPS, or server? What is the 

3 methodology here, because you have a different 

4 energy profiles for different type of product, 

5 right? And the shipments, you know -- and that's 

6 a pretty complicated exercise because a lot of 

7 times you know, the third-party studies don't 

8 look at home versus or commercial versus 

9 consumer. 

10 So is this something that you thought 

11 through about how you want to do the product 

12 level base case analysis?

13 MR. DESROCHES: The answer to that is, 

14 it's a little bit of both. It depends largely on 

15 the data sources that are used. There are some 

16 data sources that are a bit more aggregate. You 

17 know, at a, I'd say just computers or personal 

18 computers.

19 MR. SHEIKH: Right.

20 MR. DESROCHES: And some that may 

21 actually have it at a fairly granular level. And 

22 so in performing the shipments analysis DOE will 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
229

1 look at all of these data sources. And so there 

2 will be some top-down estimates that are perhaps 

3 more broad, and some bottom-up ones that are 

4 fairly granular. And that would be combined in 

5 order to get the shipments projection at the 

6 product class level.

7 MR. SHEIKH: Typically IDC level 

8 shipments are at a very high level, right? Then 

9 on classified type of product classes like ENERGY 

10 STAR, for example, they would not know how to 

11 classify that. And the energy profile is very 

12 different depending on how you slice and dice it, 

13 right? 

14 So you could come up with wrong baseline 

15 assumptions based on how you classify the 

16 categories. So what I'm trying to understand is 

17 that, how would you project -- first you had to 

18 think about the product classes you want to 

19 consider, and then you have to think about the 

20 volume consideration under each of those product 

21 classes. You know, and home versus office

22 because the energy profile is going to be very 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
230

1 different.

2 So, ENERGY STAR itself will not give you 

3 that projection because it's only looking at a 

4 very small component of the marketplace.

5 MR. DESROCHES: I think that's a very 

6 good comment. And again, if there are estimates 

7 or assumptions or data sources that stakeholders 

8 want to provide, that would be helpful.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert.

10 MR. WHITE: This is Robert with Dell. 

11 One more comment. Through the framework document 

12 you had done some analysis on the amount of power 

13 consumed based upon the various categories using 

14 the E Star 5.2 database and projections to 6.0 

15 and some other analysis. 

16 I would just publically like to caution 

17 that the way that manufacturers qualify products 

18 to ENERGY STAR is, you know, based upon various 

19 components in there. You go between, you know, 

20 three to four, now there's multiple under 6.0 

21 categories. 

22 There's a direct correlation with higher 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
231

1 category/higher cost. And a lot of times just so 

2 that I can sell a -- if I have a customer, and it 

3 may be less than one percent, who buys that 

4 category D, just because I have that registered 

5 with ENERGY STAR, doesn't mean I'm ever going to 

6 sell any of those at all. That's just the way 

7 the compliance scheme is set up under ENERGY 

8 STAR.

9 So additional analysis would need to be, 

10 you know, to Shahid's point, is you know, we need 

11 to be able to slice and dice the data to see what 

12 truly is, you know, represented in the 

13 marketplace, because my assumption is, or my --

14 is that there are a lot of the lower-end 

15 categories. If you just see things in ENERGY 

16 STAR because the compliance scheme is set up to 

17 report products in that fashion.

18 MR. DESROCHES: That's a good point. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Mark, did you 

20 want to --

21 MR. SHARP: (Shakes head.)

22 MR. BROOKMAN: No? Okay. Additional 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
232

1 comments. 

2 (No audible response.) 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

4 MR. DESROCHES: So the last thing I'll 

5 discuss is the National Impact Analysis, which is 

6 now taking all of these inputs that have been 

7 discussed, and all of these analyses that have 

8 been discussed so far, into one final model, 

9 which is the final national level impact of 

10 potential standards.

11 The NIA and the National Impact Analysis 

12 has two main outputs. One is the total projected 

13 national energy savings as well as the net 

14 present value associated with any potential 

15 standards. 

16 And the way this is done is to develop an 

17 annual time series of all the individual energy 

18 and economic impacts. And again, using all of 

19 the inputs that have been developed and are fed 

20 into the National Impact Analysis.

21 So we use the shipments model that's been 

22 developed and again DOE has typically done this 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
233

1 over a 30 year period. And the LCC outputs, the 

2 mean LCC savings that are developed in the LCC 

3 analysis are also used as inputs in the National 

4 Impact Analysis for the total of install costs 

5 and the energy use in any given year.

6 And all of these annual impacts are 

7 aggregated for all the years of the analysis 

8 period. 

9 In terms of the national energy savings, 

10 that's typically reported both in the site 

11 savings, so that's electricity savings at the 

12 plug, as well as the full fuel cycle savings. So 

13 this includes the energy to not only generate the 

14 necessary electricity, but also the energy that 

15 is used to extract the fuel to deliver to the 

16 power plant to generate the electricity. So 

17 that's what the full fuel cycle includes, and 

18 it's the full cycle for delivering electricity to 

19 the end user.

20 The economic impacts are reported in a 

21 national net present value in cost in real 

22 dollars, and the NIA typically reports this using 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
234

1 two discount rates. There's a three percent 

2 discount rate and a seven percent discount rate. 

3 And this in accordance with guidelines set out by 

4 the Office of Management and Budget for 

5 regulatory analysis to use these two discount 

6 rates.

7 The next couple slides are just going to 

8 show kind of a graphical representation of what 

9 it looks like. And as shown here there is, for 

10 every year in the analysis period, the annual 

11 energy consumption is calculated and there is a 

12 stock model that is fed into the National Impact 

13 Analysis to determine how many units are affected

14 by a standard in any given year. 

15 Obviously the shipments analysis feeds 

16 into this as well. And then the annual energy 

17 consumption in the base case is aggregated to 

18 come up with a cumulative energy use, and 

19 similarly there's a standards case to determine 

20 what the cumulative energy use is. And then both 

21 of those are converted to full fuel cycles to get 

22 the total national energy savings.

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
235

1 And again, I've said this before, but the 

2 base case will have an energy efficiency 

3 distribution built into it so that there are some 

4 portion of the users in the base case that are 

5 already purchasing or using products at a higher 

6 efficiency level. And so they may not be 

7 impacted by a particular standard level.

8 The same thing happens with the net 

9 present value where, again, all the total 

10 equipment and operating costs are aggregated for 

11 every year in the analysis period in both the 

12 base case and the standards case, and using the 

13 three percent and seven percent discount rates, 

14 they are converted to a net present value. 

15 And those are the two main outputs of the 

16 National Impact Analysis. 

17 MR. SHEIKH: Question.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Shahid.

19 MR. SHEIKH: On this long-term analysis, 

20 which as I discussed earlier, could have issues 

21 what are the considerations for energy efficiency 

22 improvements year to year? Is this simply 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
236

1 looking at some percentage? Or looking at how 

2 the products are evolving, looking at historical 

3 trends, or you just look at a flat number to say, 

4 okay, we're going to apply three percent or five 

5 percent improvements or year over year. What is 

6 the mechanism for us to even see a meaningful 

7 outcome out of this if we really don't have a 

8 good sense in terms of where, you know, the 

9 products are going that far out?

10 MR. DESROCHES: So I can speak to some of 

11 the other analyses that have been performed for 

12 other products, where the historical trend was 

13 fairly flat. And so the National Impact Analysis 

14 had a fairly flat energy efficiency trend. 

15 For some other products the historical 

16 record in the data source has actually suggested 

17 a fairly strong upward improvement in the base 

18 case. And so the base case did actually 

19 incorporate a rising trend in energy efficiency.

20 And so with regards to this product, 

21 again, as we will be looking at --

22 MR. SHEIKH: So you got --

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
237

1 MR. DESROCHES: -- the data sources are -

2 -

3 MR. SHEIKH: So you have a base case, you 

4 have a form factor evolution, that's another 

5 variable, you have a refresh rate that may be 

6 changing depending on your, you know -- you know, 

7 some years, depending on the economic factors, 

8 the refresh rates, and all that. So is that all 

9 built into the model?

10 MR. DESROCHES: As much as we can, yes.

11 MR. SHEIKH: Okay.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Doug Johnson.

13 MR. JOHNSON: If you're doing this FFC 

14 analysis where you're looking at secondary and 

15 tertiary benefits from regulation, why wouldn't 

16 you, when it comes to IT products, look at the 

17 secondary energy savings benefits of using IT 

18 products?

19 By that I mean, for example, in a home 

20 office environment that might be the reason why 

21 you don't consume fuel to drive back and forth to 

22 the office, and that's highly quantifiable. So 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
238

1 why wouldn't you take that into account in your 

2 analysis?

3 MR. DESROCHES: Do you guys want to --

4 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. No, I think that is a 

5 valid point that, you know, we're really trying 

6 to look at the entire economic impact of 

7 standards. So to the extent that the standards 

8 that we are considering would have some type of 

9 impact in other ways that we're not considering, 

10 we certainly would invite you to present those 

11 impacts to us as part of your comments. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments here? 

13 Yes. Tim Ballo.

14 MR. BALLO: Yeah. Just on that issue, 

15 though, it's got to be an impact -- to have any 

16 meaningful use in the analysis it's got to be an 

17 impact that varies with the efficiency of the 

18 product. 

19 I don't know that -- maybe there is some 

20 way but I don't understand how someone's computer 

21 being more efficient would lead them to not use 

22 it for a telecommuting situation but instead 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
239

1 drive to work. So, yeah.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Doug Johnson.

3 MR. JOHNSON: I'll be happy to share a 

4 2008 study and the one that we're producing right 

5 now which does quantify this and shows you with 

6 some degree of, I guess comprehensiveness, how 

7 the use of these electronics at home saves energy 

8 in the area of telecommuting or e-commerce 

9 activities or the quantifiable savings and 

10 emissions types savings going on there. There 

11 have been, and it's even more than 2008. So 

12 that's why we're taking a fresh look at it.

13 So I appreciate the invitation to supply 

14 that input but I think if you're looking at 

15 these, you know, upstream sources of savings for 

16 the regulation you should be looking at the, kind 

17 of the closer to home, literally, opportunities 

18 for saving energy by using these products, right?

19 So you've set up a home office so that 

20 you don't have to commute to work. And that has 

21 a savings benefit in terms of fuel and emissions 

22 from vehicles. So, it seems to me if you're 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
240

1 taking this big analysis or FFC cycle you've got 

2 to look at it both ways.

3 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. No, I think that's a 

4 valid point. I'm just trying to focus on, you 

5 know, certainly there's many great ways that 

6 information technology products could help save 

7 energy by allowing things like telecommuting, 

8 like you just mentioned.

9 When we look at efficiency standards for 

10 them, how did those benefits translate into our 

11 consideration of what would happen in the base 

12 case in the absence of doing conservation 

13 standards, versus a scenario where we have a 

14 standard level in place. Would those savings 

15 that are generated from using information 

16 technology products translate into either one of 

17 those situations, and how so? How would any of 

18 those other savings differ if we have standards 

19 versus we don't have standards? 

20 I think on like the full fuel cycle 

21 point, was saying okay, well, you know, if you 

22 save a unit of energy in a household, how much is 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
241

1 then saved because there's one less unit of 

2 electricity that has to be generated and 

3 transmitted to that household? And what are all 

4 the upstream savings because of the downstream 

5 consequence of saving a unit of electricity?

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Jay?

7 MR. TAYLOR: So, I'm going to beg your 

8 pardon. But the public policy right now is 

9 towards pushing electronic medical records. 

10 Public policy. I'm talking about U.S. Government 

11 policy. It's towards pushing more IT 

12 productivity into the economy.

13 Why? Because it does exactly what Doug 

14 was describing. It offsets through other areas. 

15 It either improves the productivity of 

16 individuals, it offsets in distance learning, it 

17 offsets in the ability to for CDC for instance, 

18 to analyze all these electronic records from 

19 people to do a population analysis for disease 

20 and disease control. 

21 So we have public policies driving a lot 

22 of IT. They're driving a lot of IT because of 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
242

1 the productivity improvements and the offsets 

2 they get and if -- consumption of energy in the 

3 economy. 

4 So if you're going to consider the full 

5 fuel cycle cost one way, you also have to 

6 consider the impact that IT equipment has on the 

7 economy on the other side. I think that's only 

8 fair.

9 MR. SHEIKH: Well, I think just to your 

10 point, Jeremy, that you were saying, how would 

11 that change the base case versus -- I think if 

12 there's going to be more and more of what Jay was 

13 describing, you're going to probably need more 

14 such equipment, which if you just look at that in 

15 isolation means you may say, oh, it's going to 

16 mean more energy because we have more of these

17 units.

18 But if you don't take into consideration 

19 all what it's doing for the rest of the economy 

20 and have no way to credit that into the equation 

21 then you may just get the picture of, hey, this 

22 is going to increase overall energy in this 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
243

1 segment, without consideration of what the 

2 benefits are to the rest of the economy.

3 MR. TAYLOR: The economic analysis --

4 COURT REPORTER: Mic.

5 MR. TAYLOR: The economic analysis only 

6 includes the downside costs. It doesn't include 

7 the upside costs.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Okay.

9 MR. DOMMU: Well, I mean, I think these 

10 are all valid points and trying to think of ways 

11 that you would suggest these other benefits be 

12 incorporated into our analysis. If you have any 

13 ideas on how to do that I'd certainly welcome 

14 them.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Joseph.

16 MR. ANDERSEN: This is kind of a similar 

17 question. In the analysis -- and I appreciate 

18 all the rigor, you know, that DOE and the 

19 consultants go through with this process. 

20 One thing that's tough with our industry 

21 is a lot of other products that are covered by 

22 DOE don't change over 30 years. You know, so 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
244

1 like showerheads and toilets and stuff like that. 

2 Thirty years from now we can look in the future 

3 and they're still going to be doing the same 

4 thing, right?

5 If we look at like, a server, for 

6 example, or a computer, or a tablet, or a laptop, 

7 I don't think we can say the same thing five 

8 years from now. You know, it may have some of 

9 the same -- you know, it's got a user input and a 

10 screen, but there may be other functionalities 

11 that are being converged into that. 

12 And that's where the concern is, is if 

13 when you come and set an energy level, you know, 

14 with our engineers, and you hand something to 

15 them and say, this box from hence forth cannot 

16 consume any more than X amount of energy, they're 

17 going to design based on those standards. And so 

18 it's going to keep them from converging 

19 additional functionalities in the future into 

20 that device. 

21 And so what I'm wondering is, if there's 

22 a cost associated with that. Like if you look at 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
245

1 just like a smart phone, for example, in my smart 

2 phone I have, you know, 20 apps that 20 years ago 

3 would have cost me $10,000 in equipment to get, 

4 that I just can use now with my smart phone. 

5 It's not an exaggeration. 

6 There's a cost to that. And so my 

7 concern with this, specifically with the servers, 

8 moving forward servers are going to need to 

9 converge more things into them, and I'm not sure 

10 if that's taken into account through this 

11 process. This analysis is -- because you can't. 

12 I mean, how do you anticipate technology changes. 

13 And so it's a general observation/criticism of 

14 applying EPCA to IT equipment is, it's not going 

15 to be the same 10 years from now. You know, like 

16 other equipment will be.

17 And so I'm not sure how is that taken 

18 into account? Where would we -- how would we 

19 bring that to you in a way that, you know --

20 because we'd have to guess well, a server, maybe 

21 it will be combined with, you know, additional 

22 functionality. You know, I don't know. We'd 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
246

1 just be guessing. You know, but I think there's 

2 a toss there and I think it's real.

3 So it's just an observation on -- that's 

4 part of this isn't being captured in the analysis 

5 that could have real cost for consumers. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yeah, so I think 

7 the Department would be open to receiving your 

8 thoughts on how those benefits might be included.

9 Doug Johnson.

10 MR. JOHNSON: Quick question. Is that 

11 model publically available, what you referred to 

12 a few slides ago, the Excel spreadsheet? It 

13 looked like it was in the form of a --

14 MR. DESROCHES: I'm sorry, which model?

15 MR. JOHNSON: Oh, pardon me. Just for --

16 MS. LOGAN: Is it Monte Carlo --

17 MR. JOHNSON: Well, it's the National 

18 Analysis.

19 MR. DESROCHES: Yeah. The best 

20 suggestion is that the appliance standard's 

21 website has all the models that have been used 

22 for previous rulemakings. And the NIA and the 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
247

1 LCC, the structure is very similar for all the 

2 different products. So, that's all publically 

3 available on --

4 MR. JOHNSON: It is? Yeah. Okay. Thank 

5 you. 

6 MR. DESROCHES: Yeah, on the website.

7 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

8 MR. SHEIKH: Shahid from Intel.

9 Including the raw data, or --

10 MR. DESROCHES: You would have to dig 

11 into the technical support documents that 

12 describe where all the data sources -- describe 

13 all the data sources and where everything comes 

14 from.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Shahid. 

16 Okay.

17 MR. DESROCHES: So the final point I'll 

18 make before wrapping up is one of the key 

19 components in the National Impact Analysis. It's 

20 to determine exactly how the distribution of 

21 product efficiencies changes from the base case 

22 to when you consider a standards case, when the 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
248

1 standards comes into effect. How does that 

2 change the distribution of efficiencies in the 

3 market?

4 In the past DOE has used what are known 

5 as "roll-up" or "shift" scenarios, where any 

6 consumers that are below the considered standards 

7 case either just simply roll-up to the minimum 

8 case that meets the standard. Or perhaps the 

9 entire market distribution just shifts over so 

10 that the minimum is now the minimum standards 

11 case. 

12 More recent analyses have incorporated a 

13 consumer choice model, which is grounded in 

14 economic literature and there's some data sources 

15 that are used to calibrate that model. And so 

16 DOE will evaluate whether one of these approaches 

17 is a better fit for this particular product. And 

18 again, DOE welcomes any comments on which one of 

19 these may be more appropriate.

20 MR. SHEIKH: Shahid from Intel. Back to 

21 that earlier discussion, if DOE is open to sort 

22 of looking at overhauling this whole analysis by 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
249

1 looking at, like we discussed, the non-segment 

2 considerations like the rest of the economic 

3 factors and maybe work with the stakeholders to 

4 sort of establish a new methodology, a new 

5 baseline for doing this type of analysis. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeremy.

7 MR. DOMMU: Yeah. I mean, so I mean, as 

8 I explained this morning, you know, EPCA directs 

9 us to look at those seven factors of assessing --

10 MR. SHEIKH: Right.

11 MR. DOMMU: -- the economics and 

12 technology. So, you know, these are the analysis 

13 that we perform in order to do those. But if you 

14 have other suggestions of analysis that we could 

15 do in addition to them or instead of them to 

16 assess those seven factors, we certainly could 

17 consider your ideas.

18 MR. SHEIKH: Okay. Looking beyond the 

19 equipment that you have in mind, at least outside 

20 of that, you know -- today you are just focusing 

21 on the products that you have is what -- you're 

22 not looking at the benefits of those products for 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
250

1 the rest of the economy, but would that be 

2 incorporated into the model somehow?

3 MR. DOMMU: Yeah, to the extent that it 

4 meets those EPCA seven factors and allows us to 

5 assess the impact of standards in a standards 

6 case versus a no-standards case.

7 MR. SHEIKH: Okay.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: You see the comment box 

9 there, Item 13-1. Additional comments on NIA, 

10 National Impact Analysis? 

11 (No audible response.) 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Nothing additional. Okay. 

13 That's the last slide for presentation.

14 I wanted to provide an opportunity for 

15 anybody that wishes to make concluding remarks, 

16 summary statements, issues you don't think that 

17 have been adequately covered during the course of 

18 the meeting today before we describe next steps?

19 (No audible response.) 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Nothing additional at this 

21 time. So then back to Jeremy.

22 MR. DOMMU: Okay. Great. So thank you 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
251

1 all for being here. I just have a couple quick 

2 slides to go through of next steps.

3 On this slide here is how to submit 

4 written comments. So today, we've had the 

5 opportunity to hear from many of you at the 

6 meeting and now we'll have the written comment 

7 period which is closing on October 2nd. This 

8 slide just shows how to submit comments 

9 officially to the docket either via the e-mail 

10 address that is here, which is also in the notice 

11 itself. Or comments could be submitted directly 

12 via regulations.gov. There are methods to submit 

13 them via postal service or hand delivery, but I 

14 certainly would recommend you using the 

15 regulations.gov or e-mail option.

16 So again, you know, include some of the 

17 relevant information that is included in the 

18 notice and replicated on this slide to submit the 

19 written comments that you may have. 

20 Here are just a couple relevant URLs. 

21 There's links to the computer systems product 

22 page and rulemaking page on DOE's websites. You 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
252

1 will find direct links here to the public 

2 transcript for this meeting which should be 

3 available in a week or two. There are 

4 presentations that we went over today are already 

5 posted.

6 The rulemaking docket, the last link 

7 here, contains all documents associated with the 

8 rulemaking and that is where public comments, 

9 written comments will be available once they are 

10 received. So once we get comments all comments 

11 that we receive are made publically available and 

12 you'll be able to review other comments on the 

13 rulemaking docket. 

14 And then finally here is my contact 

15 information and Celia's contact information if 

16 you have any questions at all about the process, 

17 about things that we went over today, questions 

18 you may have, other things you want to discuss, 

19 here is my contact information and Celia's 

20 contact information. 

21 So thank you all again so much for being 

22 here. I think we had a very productive meeting 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
253

1 today. Thank you for coming in and I look 

2 forward to working with all of you as we proceed 

3 with this rulemaking. Thank you.

4 (Whereupon, at 2:43 p.m. the meeting was 

5 adjourned.)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: (202) 898-1108 / Baltimore: (410) 752-3376

Toll Free: (888) 445-3376
1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 

2 I, Jennifer A. Metcalf, the officer 

3 before whom the foregoing proceedings were taken 

4 in the matter of United States Department of 

s Energy, Framework Public Meeting for Computer & 

6 Battery Backup Systems, held on July 31, 2014 at 

1 9:00 a.m. at 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 

s 8E-089, Washington, DC, do hereby certify that 

9 the foregoing transcript is a true and correct 

10 record of the proceedings; that said proceedings 

11 were taken by me and thereafter reduced to 

12 typewriting under my supervision; and that I am 

13 neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by 

14 any of the parties to this case and have no 

1s interest, financial or otherwise, in its outcome. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Court Reporter