U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–854 PDF 2016

DISCUSSION DRAFT OF THE EPS IMPROVEMENT 

ACT OF 2016 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 12, 2016 

Serial No. 114–109 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California7 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1 

Hon. Renee L. Ellmers, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

North Carolina, opening statement .................................................................... 2 

Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 36 

WITNESSES

Jennifer Amann, Buildings Program Director, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ........................................................................................ 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 44 

Pekka Hakkarainen, Ph.D., Vice President, Lutron Electronics, on behalf 

of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association ...................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 48 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Discussion Draft, H.R. lll, the EPS Improvement Act, submitted by Mr. 

Whitfield ............................................................................................................... 38 

Letter of January 19, 2015, from Patrick Keal, Government Affairs Director, 

Big Ass Solutions, to Mr. Upton and Mr. Pallone, submitted by Mr. 

Whitfield ............................................................................................................... 41 

(1) 

DISCUSSION DRAFT OF THE EPS 

IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2016 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Shimkus, Latta, 

Harper, McKinley, Ellmers, Flores, Mullin, Hudson, McNerney, 

Tonko, Engel, Green, Capps, Welch, Loebsack, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Also present: Representative DeGette. 

Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Associate, Energy and 

Power; Will Batson, Legislative Clerk; Leighton Brown, Press Assistant; Allison Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power; Rebecca Card, Assistant Press Secretary; Patrick Currier, Senior 

Counsel, Energy and Power; A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor; 

Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Jennifer Berenholz, Democratic 

Chief Clerk; Christine Brennan, Democratic Press Secretary; Jeff 

Carroll, Democratic Staff Director; Rick Kessler, Democratic Senior 

Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; and Alexander Ratner, Democratic Policy Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to call the hearing to order this 

morning, and today’s hearing is going to be on the EPS Improvement Act of 2016. And I will introduce our witnesses after we have 

an opportunity to make an opening statement. 

But this hearing this morning is going to be focused on our efforts to correct a little glitch in the 2005 Energy Policy Act relating 

to external power sources and solid state liquid lighting systems. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

The Obama administration Department of Energy has enacted 34 energy conservation standards since 2009. Many of these standards are not perfect and contain 

flaws that need to be corrected. We have included a few such bipartisan corrections 

in our recent energy bill, and today we address another one affecting light emitting 

diodes, or LEDs. I thank my colleagues Renee Ellmers and Diana DeGette for their 

2 

draft bill that would address this issue and benefit both the manufacturers and 

users of these products. 

By way of background, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 required DOE to set energy 

conservation standards for external power supplies, such as the ones we use to plug 

in our laptops and cell phones, but DOE also included devices that power solid state 

lighting products, also known as LEDs, for purposes of regulation. The latest standards will take effect next month. However, the statutory definition of an external 

power supply was created back in 2005, and this old language did not anticipate 

the subsequent development of LEDs. 

LED systems contain components that DOE has determined fit within the broad 

definition of an external power supply, but in reality these lighting technologies 

have several unique characteristics that make compliance with DOE’s new standard 

nearly impossible. I might add that LEDs have many advantages, so a DOE rule 

that makes it harder to produce them would be counterproductive to the statute’s 

efficiency goals. 

The EPS Improvement Act of 2016 scales back the external power supply rule in 

order to preserve the market for LED products. While keeping the efficiency standard in place for most external power supplies, it creates a specific exemption for 

LEDs. In addition, the law authorizes DOE to enact a subsequent, more appropriate 

standard targeting LEDs if the agency deems it necessary. 

Manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates agree that this change makes 

sense, and we will hear from representatives of both groups today. 

Let’s kick off 2016 by making one DOE regulation more workable for those who 

make their livelihoods from LEDS as well as those who use them. 

[The proposed legislation appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And at this time I am going to call on Renee 

Ellmers to give her opening statement. She and Diana together, it 

is their bill, and I want to give them an opportunity to talk about 

it. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RENEE L. ELLMERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, so much for this 

opportunity and for holding this hearing today, and I want to 

thank our panel for being here as well. There are many people who 

have been working on this issue trying to correct the glitch in the 

regulations, coming up and helping to draft this legislation and 

make this hearing possible. 

First, I would like to thank my colleagues, Mike Pompeo, Diana 

DeGette, Doris Matsui, and Charlie Dent, and their staff for their 

support and hard work throughout this process. Finally, but most 

importantly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee 

staff itself. You have put up a great teamwork together on this 

issue and you have been wonderful in working with my staff and 

throughout this whole process. I am truly thankful and grateful for 

their time and effort. 

The EPS Improvement Act of 2016 is a bipartisan and commonsense bill that would provide certainty to manufacturers and resolve the underlying issues of the DOE external power supply rule. 

In 2005, Congress directed the Department of Energy to develop 

energy efficiency standards for external power supplies and they 

developed a definition for EPS devices. DOE stated that the products that were intended to be covered by these standards, quote, 

convert household electric current into DC or lower power voltage 

to AC to operate consumer products such as laptop computers or 

smart phones. And that is pretty much the plan. 

3 

Years after the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, new 

technologies arose such as OLED and LED drivers were introduced 

into the marketplace. We all know how quickly technology is advancing, and innovation. While the development of this technology 

increased energy efficiency, it has also caused uncertainty in the 

manufacturing sector as DOE roped in drivers as products to also 

be covered. 

DOE is now attempting to regulate a product that was not in the 

marketplace at the time Congress initially directed the Department 

to set external power supply standards. Both manufacturers and 

the energy efficiency community agree that this was not the intent 

of Congress, as LED and OLED drivers were not in the marketplace in 2005 when Congress directed DOE to develop these standards. DOE has continued with this misguided rule despite the distinct differences in the design and use of LED drivers to that of the 

design and use of EPS. 

One example of the differences is that EPS use single stage 

power conversion while LED drivers use a two stage power conversion. Thankfully, this legislation resolves the problem by excluding 

SSL drivers for this technology and prevents it from being included 

in other broad rulemaking. This regulation will not only stifle innovation but inject uncertainty into the manufacturing sector while 

creating less energy-efficient products and higher energy prices for 

consumers. 

Without congressional action by February 10th of this year, this 

rule could unintentionally threaten thousands of jobs. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and with that, Mr. Chairman, 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Mrs. Ellmers, very much. We 

appreciate that. And at this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are here 

today to hold the legislative hearing on the External Power Supply, 

or EPS, Improvement Act, which addresses an important issue for 

LED innovation, manufacturers and future investments in this exciting industry. The EPS Improvement Act would exempt electrical 

drivers that power solid state lighting products from the Department of Energy’s energy conservation standard for external power 

supplies. 

This targeted bill sponsored by my colleagues Renee Ellmers and 

Diana DeGette would amend the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act to exclude LED drivers from standards that go into effect on 

February 10th of this year. Energy efficiency standards are important as they save consumers money on their energy bills and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

It is estimated that the national appliance and equipment efficiency standards have saved, believe it or not, 5.4 quadrillion BTUs 

of energy in 2014 alone. The standards enacted to date will save 

consumers and businesses more than $1.1 trillion through 2035— 

I see heads nodding here—and the technology innovation spurred 

4 

by these standards is critical. We need to support innovation to address climate change with energy efficiency and renewable technology. 

My Grid Innovation Caucus co-chairwoman, Congresswoman 

Ellmers, and I believe that we must promote technologies that help 

us adopt to our growing energy needs and provide additional options for consumers, businesses and the economy. And we must use 

the energy standards in a manner that does not confuse the market. At the time the Energy Policy and Conservation Act was 

amended, LED drivers were an emerging technology but they still 

fell under the broad definition of an external power supply. LED 

drivers represent the next wave of lighting technology and capabilities enabling smart buildings, industry facilities and homes and reduce their costs and enhance their performance. 

Investments in LED driver technology are robust and ongoing; 

new standards at this time could slow down additional investments. Leaving LED drivers in the EPS final rule could hinder the 

transition to more energy-efficient lighting in the marketplace and 

increase energy use and the cost for consumers. 

This legislation, however, does not grant the Department of Energy the authority to prescribe energy conservation standards down 

the road, or it does grant—excuse me—the DOE the authority to 

prescribe energy conservation standards down the road so that it 

can implement more appropriate standards for the LED industry 

when the time is appropriate. 

I support this EPS Improvement Act because it clarifies congressional intent by clarifying the statutory definition of external power 

supplies to exclude LED drivers. This measure was developed in 

consultation with the DOE and is supported by industry stakeholders. We should provide LED manufacturers market stability so 

they are able to improve technology that has already been demonstrated in its ability to increase energy efficiency in consumer 

and commercial applications. 

I thank our witnesses for joining us today and look forward to 

hearing your testimony. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. McNerney. Mr. 

Upton is not here this morning. Is there anyone else on our side 

of the aisle that would like to make a comment about this hearing, 

the subject matter of this hearing? If not, then I will recognize the 

gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and the ranking member of the subcommittee for holding today’s 

legislative hearing on the EPS Improvement Act of 2010. This bill 

authored by Representatives Ellmers and DeGette would exempt 

LED consumer light bulbs from new mandatory efficiency standards for external power supplies. And the development of LED 

light bulbs has been an energy efficiency success story and I am 

concerned about any action no matter how well intentioned that 

might interfere with that success. 

5 

More than a decade ago, Congress amended the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act to set efficiency standards for external power 

supplies. An external power supply, or EPS, is typically used to 

convert household electric current to help operate consumer products. For most Americans that means the big plugs that are associated with laptop computers, home cordless phones, answering machines and the like. As part of this regulation, the DOE has moved 

forward on a plan to include power drivers for solid state lighting 

which are an integral part of highly efficient LED replacement 

light bulbs. In its comments with stakeholders it is clear that DOE 

needs statutory authority to alter the law’s definitions. 

Meanwhile, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association 

argued that Congress didn’t intend to cover consumer LED light 

bulbs when it enacted EPACT 2005, or when it amended the law 

in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. I am inclined 

to agree that Congress did not intend to capture LED light bulbs 

in the 2014 rule. The regulation of EPSs has been discussed at 

length both in this committee and within the stakeholder community. Never once had LED light bulbs been contemplated; instead, 

the discussion was focused on television sets, computers and stereo 

equipment. 

So it is clear to me, however, that Congress’ multiple efforts to 

legislate in this area over a short time frame has added confusion 

rather than clarity to the statute who explicitly carved out some 

things like medical devices from the definition of an EPS, but we 

did not carve out LED light bulbs. I think that had we known more 

about the workings of LED light bulbs at the time we would have 

exempted them specifically from mandatory efficiency standards 

from the start. 

So right now, a modern LED light bulb that replaces the kind 

of 60-watt light bulb we used in the last century will only consume 

nine watts of power to produce the same amount of light, last for 

a decade, and sells for as little as $3.99. That is a great deal for 

any consumer and I see no benefit to the consumer, the environment or the economy from regulating the efficiency of these light 

bulbs at this time. 

I am encouraged by today’s legislative hearing to put this issue 

in perspective and I am hopeful we can work together to expeditiously move this bill forward. And I would just like now to yield 

the balance of my time to the lead sponsor of the legislation, the 

gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. DeGette. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

I want to thank the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee for holding 

today’s legislative hearing on the EPS Improvement Act of 2016. This bill, authored 

by Reps. Ellmers and DeGette, would exempt LED consumer light bulbs from new 

mandatory efficiency standards for external power supplies. The development of 

LED light bulbs has been an energy efficiency success story and I’m concerned about 

any action, no matter how well-intentioned, that might interfere with that success. 

More than a decade ago, Congress amended the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act to set efficiency standards for external power supplies. An external power supply, or EPS, is typically used to convert household electric currents to help operate 

consumer products. For most Americans that means the big plugs that are associated with laptop computers, home cordless phones, answering machines and the 

like. 

6 

As a part of its regulations the DOE has moved forward on a plan to include 

power drivers for solid state lighting, which are an integral part of highly efficient 

LED replacement light bulbs. In its comments with stakeholders, it’s clear that 

DOE needs statutory authority to alter the law’s definitions. Meanwhile, the National Electrical Manufacturer’s Association argued that Congress didn’t intend to 

cover consumer LED light bulbs when it enacted EPACT 2005 or when it amended 

the law in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. 

I’m inclined to agree that Congress did not intend to capture LED light bulbs in 

that 2014 rule. The regulation of EPSs had been discussed at length both in this 

committee and within the stakeholder community. Never once had LED light bulbs 

been contemplated. Instead, the discussion was focused on television sets, computers, and stereo equipment. 

It’s clear to me, however, that Congress’ multiple efforts to legislate in this area 

over a short time frame has added confusion, rather than clarity, to the statute. We 

explicitly carved out some things like medical devices from the definition of an EPS, 

but we did not carve out LED light bulbs. I think that had we known more about 

the workings of LED light bulbs at the time, we would have exempted them specifically from mandatory efficiency standards from the start. 

Right now, a modern LED light bulb that replaces the kind of 60 watt light bulb 

we used in the last century, will only consume 9 watts of power to produce the same 

amount of light, last for a decade and sells for as little as $3.99. That’s a great deal 

for any consumer and I see no benefit to the consumer, the environment or the economy from regulating the efficiency of these light bulbs at this time. 

I am encouraged by today’s legislative hearing to put this issue into perspective 

and I’m hopeful we can work together to expeditiously move this bill forward. 

Thank you, and I yield the balance of my time to the lead Democratic sponsor 

of the legislation, the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much for yielding to me, Ranking 

Member Pallone. I am really proud to be leading this bill with Representative Ellmers, truly working across the aisle, literally, today. 

And as has been said, this bill will allow the Department of Energy 

to provide, to prescribe a separate energy conservation standard for 

LED drivers. 

As we have been discussing, when this committee wrote the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2005 it directed the Department of Energy to develop a conservation standard for various external power supply products. That term was meant to cover products that convert household electric current in order to operate a 

consumer product like a laptop computer or a smart phone. 

At that time in 2005, LED lighting was in its very early stages. 

And as much we try and often succeed, we didn’t have a crystal 

ball to see into the future of LED lighting. So since that time because of the broad definition we created for external power supplies, emergent LED drivers were swept up into a conservation 

standard that just doesn’t make sense. This means that, although 

LED drivers are highly energy-efficient, they can’t meet the EPS 

conservation standard and their ability to compete in the competitive lighting market is now an open question. 

Well, it seems like a technicality, but the bill is actually vitally 

important. LED drivers represent the next wave of lighting technology allowing for better and faster Internet connections, enabling 

smart buildings, industry facilities and homes to reduce their costs, 

improving consumer experiences in the retail industry and even 

leading to even faster recovery times in hospitals by controlling the 

color and timing of the lights in recovery rooms. 

It is estimated that switching to LED lighting could reduce national lighting electricity use by nearly one half by 2030. That is 

the annual equivalent to saving three quadrillion BTUs, which is 

worth $26 billion in today’s standards. So by passing the EPS ImVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:48 Apr 22, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\114X109EPSIMPROVEMENTPENDING WAYNE
7 

provement Act of 2016 will let the LED lighting revolution continue, and in turn help lower energy prices for every American 

business. 

I want to thank the panelists for coming today. I look forward 

to your testimony, and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. That concludes our opening statements. And before I introduce our panel of witnesses I do want to thank both the 

Democratic and Republican staff, certainly Diana DeGette and 

Renee Ellmers for working together on this important legislation. 

And we appreciate very much the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy helping us to craft this legislation. 

And we are delighted that we have two witnesses here today representing those organizations. First of all, we have Jennifer Amann 

who is the Buildings Program director at the American Council for 

an Energy-Efficient Economy, and then we have Dr. Pekka 

Hakkarainen who is vice president of Lutron Electronics. I think 

they are from Pennsylvania, I believe. And you are testifying on behalf of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 

So we appreciate both of you being with us this morning, and we 

look forward to your opening statement and your expertise in this 

area. And with that Ms. Amann, I will recognize you for your 5- 

minute opening statement. 

STATEMENTS OF JENNIFER AMANN, BUILDINGS PROGRAM DIRECTOR, AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY–EFFICIENT 

ECONOMY, AND PEKKA HAKKARAINEN, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT, LUTRON ELECTRONICS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER AMANN 

Ms. AMANN. My name is Jennifer Amann, and I am—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Amann, I am sorry. Be sure and turn your 

microphone on. 

Ms. AMANN. I am the Buildings Program director for the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, or ACEEE. We are 

a nonprofit organization that acts as a catalyst to advance energy 

efficiency policies, programs, technologies, investments and behavior. We were formed in 1980 by energy researchers. Personally, I 

have been involved in energy efficiency issues for the past 20 years 

with a focus on energy efficiency in buildings, appliances and 

equipment including lighting and electronics, the subjects of today’s 

hearing. 

National appliance and equipment efficiency standards are a 

proven energy saving policy. The first standards were established 

in 1987 and signed into law by President Reagan. ACEEE estimates that efficiency standards saved 5.4 quadrillion BTUs, or 

quads, of energy in 2014 alone. That is roughly five percent of total 

U.S. energy use in that year. Standards enacted to date will save 

consumers and businesses more than $1.1 trillion through 2035. 

External power supplies, or EPS, are also known as power adapters, the small boxes on the cord of many small or portable electronic devices such as laptop computers, modems, cordless and cell 

8 

phones. According to DOE, annual shipments of these products 

number about 345 million units. 

In the 1990s, with the emergence of low-cost chips and portable 

electronics, new EPS technologies were developed to significantly 

reduce the size of the products while offering better performance 

and improved energy efficiency. A standard for EPS would capture 

savings from new power supply technologies across all of the broad 

spectrum of products that utilize external power supplies much 

more effectively than establishing separate standards for each of 

the types of products, individual classes of products that use them. 

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 established 

the first standard for external power supplies which took effect in 

2008, and it also instructed DOE to complete future rulemakings 

to revise the standard as warranted. DOE estimates the standard, 

the initial standard, will save approximately 3.8 quads—that is 

equivalent to the total energy consumption of the State of Pennsylvania—and yield $42.4 billion in energy savings for products 

shipped from 2008 to 2032. 

In February of 2014, DOE published a final rule revising the efficiency requirements for external power supplies, and these new 

standards take effect this February and they will reduce EPS energy use by 30 to 85 percent depending on the type of device. The 

new standard will yield consumer energy bill savings of approximately $3.8 billion. So the EPS standard has been very effective in 

achieving the intended objectives of the rule. 

But at the time that EISA was enacted, solid state lighting was 

very much in its infancy for general service lighting applications. 

There were few products on the market other than for niche applications. Today, a wide variety of solid state lighting products are 

available, market share is growing rapidly, and the efficiency of the 

technology now surpasses that of other light sources making it a 

very important contributor to reducing national electricity use. 

Solid state lighting products use power supplies, or SSL drivers, 

to power LED lighting. The broad definition of EPS in EISA captures, or in the Energy Policy Act captures the power supplies used 

with solid state lighting, but the products are somewhat different 

from other products using EPS. And of particular note, these products do not perform and cannot be tested when disconnected from 

a power using load, so they can’t be shown to comply with some 

portions of the standard, and as a result the required efficiency requirements. 

The bill under consideration would exempt those external power 

supplies that are used to power these lighting products from the 

existing EPS standards while ensuring that DOE retains the authority to set standards for these products in the future. If it is determined that there are wasteful LED power supplies on the market, DOE can then develop an appropriate test method and standard for these specific products. 

The provision in the bill explicitly granting DOE authority to set 

future standards on these products is critical to ACEEE support for 

the bill. Absent passage of this technical correction, manufacturers 

would be at risk of selling LED lighting products that cannot be 

shown to meet the standard. ACEEE is satisfied with the outcome 

in this bill because it removes a potential obstacle to the continued 

9 

growth of a leading energy efficiency technology while preserving 

DOE’s ability to develop a standard on power supplies for these 

products in the future, if warranted. 

This concludes my testimony and I thank you for the opportunity 

to present these views. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Amann follows:] 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you very much. And Dr. 

Hakkarainen, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PEKKA HAKKARAINEN 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. Good morning, Chairman Whitfield and Congressman McNerney and members of the committee. My name is 

Pekka Hakkarainen. I am vice president at Lutron. I have been 

employed there for 25 years. 

I want to first thank the committee for giving me the opportunity 

to testify on the EPS Improvement Act. The bill before you fixes 

a needed technical issue with the Department of Energy’s February 

2014 EPS energy conservation standard that goes into effect on 

February 10th of this year. I am here today testifying on behalf of 

Lutron Electronics and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 

A number of NEMA’s members who manufacture and distribute 

solid state LED lighting products are impacted by the DOE external power supply standard. My company Lutron Electronics is a 

privately held manufacturer founded in 1961 and is headquartered 

in Coopersburg, Pennsylvania. Our products range from consumer 

dimmers to motorized window shades to lighting management systems for both residential and commercial buildings, and they also 

include LED drivers. And we estimate that in the U.S. alone, our 

products save about $1 billion a year in consumer electricity bills. 

In 2005, Congress amended the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act to define and direct the Department of Energy to set standards 

for external power supplies, such as this device that I am holding 

here. An external power supply was defined as a device, a circuit 

that is used to convert household electric current into DC current 

or low voltage AC current to operate a consumer product. It can be 

readily seen that the definition of an external power supply uses 

the words ‘‘external,’’ ‘‘power,’’ and ‘‘supply,’’ but as technology has 

advanced this definition has created significant confusion in the 

lighting industry. 

According to the Department of Energy, the EPS products that 

were meant to be covered are those that as it says convert household electric current to operate a consumer product such as a 

laptop computer or a smart phone or an answering machine, et 

cetera. However, given the broad definition in EPACT 2005, additional products were brought into the definition of a covered product via the DOE rulemaking process. 

In 2014, DOE issued a final rule for the latest round of standards for external power supplies. Despite Lutron and other companies asking in writing and in public meetings for the Department 

to clearly identify what types of products impacting lighting technologies might be covered as external power supplies, no clear answer was provided until the final rule was issued. The final rule 

includes as regulated EPS certain drivers for solid state lighting 

products, such as perhaps this one, which industry and the efficiency community agree were never intended by Congress to be 

considered external power supplies. 

The EPS Improvement Act resolves this unintended consequence 

by amending and clarifying the statutory definition of external 

power supply to exclude solid state lighting drivers that are deVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:48 Apr 22, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\114X109EPSIMPROVEMENTPENDING WAYNE
16 

signed to be connected to and power light-emitting diodes, LEDs, 

or organic light-emitting diodes, OLEDs that provide illumination. 

The bill then restates the conditions under which the DOE could 

undertake a rulemaking in the future for solid state drivers subject 

to current statutory requirements. Furthermore, the language also 

requires that DOE make public the testing procedure requirements 

for at least a year before any energy conservation standard for 

these technologies is prescribed. 

This necessary fix has wide support. Not only does it have bipartisan support, but it also has support from both manufacturers and 

the energy efficiency community. And the same language has already passed the House by a voice vote as an amendment to H.R. 

8, the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 

2015. 

Without action before February 10th, solid state drivers would be 

left in the EPS final rule which would be disruptive for the transition to more energy-efficient lighting in the marketplace. As has already been stated, LED drivers represent the next wave of lighting 

technology and capabilities, and significant investment in this technology is ongoing in industry. Anything that would slow this evolving and beneficial technology would threaten additional investment. 

I want to, lastly, especially thank Representatives Ellmers, Dent, 

DeGette, Pompeo, and Matsui whose leadership is very much appreciated on this issue. Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hakkarainen follows:] 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you for your testimony. We appreciate it, as I said earlier, both of you being here today, and it is 

encouraging that when you get to a technical issue that the parties 

can come together and try to move expeditiously. 

And one of the questions I would have for both of you, I have not 

had an opportunity to talk to Ms. DeGette or Mrs. Ellmers about 

it, but we do believe that we ought to pass this legislation through 

the House rather quickly, maybe even on suspension. And I was 

just curious, have you all been working on the Senate side at all 

about moving the bill over there? Whoever would like to respond 

to that. 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. Yes, we have been working on the Senate 

side. My colleagues from NEMA would be better experts on where 

exactly we stand over there. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Ms. AMANN. And I would say yes, we are just aware that there 

are efforts going on in the Senate. We haven’t been as active as we 

are supporting the manufacturers’ efforts in showing out support 

for it, but we are—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK, good. Now, Dr. Hakkarainen, if February 

the 10th rolled by and this regulation did go into effect and we 

were not able to get this legislation passed, what would be the 

practical impacts on, say, Lutron Electronics? 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. There would be uncertainty as to whether the 

EPS rule affects LED drivers and which ones. The Department of 

Energy has not provided industry sufficient guidance on that issue, 

and we are here to ask for clarity. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Would that interfere with your ability to sell the 

product? 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. Quite probably would, yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. Yes. 

Ms. AMANN. I would just say, so DOE has a process for companies to request a waiver if they are not able to follow the test procedures for a certain product, but that would be very time consuming and resource intensive for the manufacturers and for DOE 

to have to deal with those waiver applications. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to just ask you sort of a generic 

question about the American Council for Energy-Efficient Economy. 

I know you are a nonprofit group and I know you are involved in 

policy issues. But I notice that you talk about advancing energy efficiency technologies and investments. I was just curious, how do 

you all go about doing that advancing new technologies and investments? 

Ms. AMANN. Sure. So a lot of our work focuses on researching 

technologies and different mechanisms for bringing about energy 

efficiency, so on the investment side it could be financing options 

that increase the adoption of efficient technologies. So we look at, 

we keep an eye out on emerging technologies that are entering the 

market. We work closely with utilities and other efficiency program 

administrators that are spending billions of dollars a year on energy efficiency to help them identify the best opportunities, the best 

markets to spend their money in and to advance those technologies. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But do you actually help on investments, like obtaining money? 

29 

Ms. AMANN. Yes. We don’t actually do any of that type of thing, 

but we do things like we hold every year an energy efficiency finance forum where we bring together folks in the finance community to talk about different types of like new loan structures, different types of financial mechanisms for increasing investment and 

energy efficiency. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And when will that be held this—— 

Ms. AMANN. This year it will be in May or maybe early June. It 

is May or early June, and it will be in Newport, Rhode Island. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. I yield back the balance of my time and recognize Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is ironic that the 

title ‘‘External Power Supply’’ should apply to LEDs, because when 

you buy an LED at the store for your home it is all internal. You 

don’t get an external supply. Does that seem ironic to you, or am 

I missing something here? 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. So in this case we are not actually talking 

about the light bulb that has the internal driver. You are quite 

right that—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN [continuing]. Those are the consumer products, 

and they are not, in my understanding, affected by the EPS standards that the DOE has. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So we are talking about the LEDs that are inside of—— 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. But it affects products such as this, a separate driver that goes into a, more like a commercial grade luminaire lighting fixture where the LED lamps or strips are separately 

installed by the luminaire manufacturer. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Ms. Amann, are the DOE’s energy conservation standards that come into effect in February inappropriately suited for regulating LED drivers? 

Ms. AMANN. No, I don’t believe so. It was never the intention of 

the law, I mean, of the rule to do that. And it was just an oversight, because these products weren’t available in the market at 

that time. And so when I say that DOE estimates there are about 

345 million power supplies sold each year, those are the external 

power supplies like this. And that is what DOE’s analysis is based 

on and that is what the efficiency community and manufacturers 

first discussed when we made a recommendation to comment on 

standard levels—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Sure. 

Ms. AMANN [continuing]. That were passed in 2007 under the 

EISA bill. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, how does the rule disrupt the development 

of a power supply? I don’t understand how an efficiency rule would 

disrupt the development of a better power supply. 

Ms. AMANN. So in this case because the technology for the solid 

state lighting driver is very different from the technology that is 

used in a standard external power supply, so the rule doesn’t appropriately apply to this other technology. 

For instance, for these products I think one of the big points is 

part of the standard establishes what we call a ‘‘no-load,’’ a requirement for operation in no-load mode. So if you plug this into the 

30 

wall and you had your phone plugged into it, once you took your 

phone away this would still be drawing power and you could set 

it, put it on a power meter and understand how much power it 

drew. 

That is not the case with the solid state lighting drivers. They 

can’t operate in no-load mode at all. So you can’t even test them 

under the rules as it is set out in the standard, so you can’t show 

whether or not it can comply with the standard. And I would ask 

Pekka to correct me if I made any errors in my technical explanation, or if you could clarify anything. 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. No, that is fine. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So the standards, I mean it is apples and oranges. They don’t really apply to the same kind of technology. 

Ms. AMANN. That is right. 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. That is correct. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And that would really hinder the development 

because the investment would dry up and so on. So how does the 

EPS Improvement Act change that? Did I call it the right thing? 

How does the EPS Improvement Act change that? 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. It changes the situation for LED drivers because it excludes them from the definition of an external power 

supply, and then it further directs DOE in the future to develop 

separate standards for LED drivers. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So you believe that this actually removing a 

standard promotes stability and confidence in the market? 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. Correct. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. All right, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina, Mrs. Ellmers, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again thank you 

to our panelists today on this issue. This is certainly something 

that I have become educated on recently as it affects some of our 

businesses back home in District 2 of North Carolina. And again 

I thank you for your expert testimony in helping us to understand 

what it is that we are dealing with and why. Although the legislation and the actions were well intended, to direct the Department 

of Energy as again kind of a good problem as technology has advanced so quickly we are finding ourselves in this situation where 

we now have to modify the path going forward. 

So Dr. Hakkarainen, will you please take a moment to, and you 

did explain in your testimony the difference between the design 

and use of a typical EPS device compared to that of an OLED or 

LED driver or converter. Could you just expand on that a little bit 

more now? 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. Certainly. An external power supply such as 

this device here—— 

Mrs. ELLMERS. This is the example that I have been given as 

well, so—— 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. It takes household electric current, 120 volts 

powered from a 120-volt supply, and converts it typically to a DC 

voltage, to five volts, nine volts, something like that. And there is 

a single stage of power conversion in that process. In an LED drivVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:48 Apr 22, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\114X109EPSIMPROVEMENTPENDING WAYNE
31 

er there are two stages of power conversion. First, we convert from 

the AC power supply, which could be 120 volts but it is often actually 277 volts in commercial buildings, and converts that to a relatively high voltage DC power bus, as we say, inside the driver. 

And that is then further modulated to operate the LED lighting 

properly, to essentially to drive the LED lighting. So there are two 

stages of power conversion. 

In addition, these modern LED drivers have other features as 

well, such as being connected to the external world, to the building 

infrastructure, to the Internet, for example. So there are additional 

features here that external power supplies typically don’t have. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. So again, and I have got mine as well. So this 

driver, basically, and we said converter, driver, actually does more 

than that. And so basically it is stationary. It is in the ceiling providing the power supply for the lights themselves, the LED lights. 

And so I just want to touch on the issue of the commercial component to this, because to me one of the big issues here is the uncertainty that our manufacturers are experiencing, but then you 

can see how it impacts any commercial development and the cost 

as well. I mean, I could see that this could be very, very costly. Am 

I correct in that? 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. It would certainly be costly. I am not even 

certain that it would be possible. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Possible. And I did want to touch on that as well. 

I know Ms. Amann had discussed this, but basically as it is right 

now the way that the EPS rule stands there really isn’t a way to 

have a standard test procedure; is that correct? And this will dramatically affect technology moving forward. 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. Correct. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Correct. And Dr. Hakkarainen, is it fair to say 

that by encompassing LED and OLED drivers into the final EPS 

rule that it could potentially, I mean, we are basically saying that 

this is going to be counterproductive to the whole process, correct? 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. Yes, that is correct, because if LED and 

OLED drivers are not available then the energy efficiency on buildings decreases. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Decreases. Well, I just, Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back. And again I thank the panel so much for their input and 

their testimony and your expert ability to help explain a very difficult technical process so that we can create better legislation and 

be working with our business communities. Thank you so much. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mrs. Ellmers yields back, so at this time I would 

like to recognize Ms. Capps for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, 

and I am going to thank our witnesses for your testimonies. 

Investing in and implementing technologies that embrace and 

improve upon energy efficiency is critical. It is clear that this is not 

a simple task. Improvements must be made in every sector of our 

lives from every day consumer products to industrial applications. 

This is exactly why Congress first enacted legislation on improving 

energy efficiency and established much needed conservation measures. 

And one of the most important questions when it comes to energy efficiency is how we can provide ample energy-efficient and 

32 

cost-effective lighting for people all across the world. Our societies 

are built around an infrastructure that supports sufficient, affordable and reliable light. 

Just as it is across the world, the pursuit of innovations and efficient lighting has been and continues to be important to my congressional district. In fact, the community in my district where I 

live, Santa Barbara, has been instrumental in the development of 

LED technology, as you both know. Shuji Nakamura is a professor 

in the materials science department at UC Santa Barbara, has 

spent decades working on LED technology including developing a 

process for producing the bright blue LED. And the blue LED in 

turn allowed for the development of the white LED, an incredibly 

efficient form of lighting that is changing the landscape of consumer and industrial lighting as we know it. 

Recognizing the importance of this research, Professor Nakamura 

was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 2014 along with two 

other researchers. And my campus, the UC Santa Barbara, continues to lead the way in research into LED technologies. 

Santa Barbara is also the home of the research lab for CREE, 

which is one of the market leading innovators of consumer LED 

technology. CREE was responsible for the production of the first 

LED that was appropriate for general consumer lighting and continues to lead the way in innovation production of energy-efficient 

LEDs. 

Again my district has been at the forefront of accessible lighting 

around the world. For example, the Institute for Energy Efficiency 

at UC Santa Barbara has worked with the nonprofit Unite to Light 

to provide reading lamps to people across the world which replaces 

dangerous kerosene lamps with solar charged LED reading lights. 

I have one of these in my home. They are very efficient. And these 

lights improve health and promote education by providing safe and 

reliable lighting around the world. Unite to Light has distributed 

over 50,000 lights in 64 countries to date. 

And these innovations are making a difference, and while we certainly need these innovators and entrepreneurs, we also need to 

ensure that we have a legislative landscape that supports and encourages the continued development of this and other similar technologies. 

So Ms. Amann, based on the testimony you provided, it seems 

the current rule from the DOE has the potential to significantly 

impact the continued growth and availability of LED technology. 

Can you elaborate on how the availability of LED technology would 

be impacted by the existing rule in the absence of proposed legislation? 

Ms. AMANN. In the absence of the legislation there will be a lot 

of uncertainty for manufacturers, and as I mentioned before, the 

one remedy that they have is to go through the DOE and use the 

waiver process or a hardship process. So there is a way to get 

around it, but it would be quite complicated, complex and time consuming and very inefficient use of company resources and time as 

well as DOE resources and time in the appliance standards program. 

So I think that there would be, there is a way to get around it, 

but it is not, it doesn’t make sense. And this legislative solution 

33 

really helps us ensure that there is—everybody can be focused on 

getting the efficient lighting out there, but also sets the authority 

for DOE to set standards in the future—— 

Ms. CAPPS. OK. 

Ms. AMANN [continuing]. As efficient technologies develop. 

Ms. CAPPS. I wanted to ask Dr. Hakkarainen, would the legislation that we are discussing today help to ensure that research and 

implementation of technologies to improve LED lighting will continue and, if so, how? 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. It certainly will help ensure that and to the 

how we will be able to dedicate our technical resources to that development rather than dealing with the regulatory uncertainty. We 

all have limited resources and it is the same resources that would 

be required for both. 

Ms. CAPPS. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thanks to our panel for being with us today, really appreciate it. 

Sorry we are kind of in and out. We have another committee hearing running with the same thing downstairs. 

But if I could, the lighting industry represents about 2,500 jobs 

in my home State of Ohio, and having talked with several of these 

manufacturers I have serious concerns with the external power 

supply energy conservation standard including LED and OLED 

technologies. And Dr. Hakkarainen, could you give us some examples in real-world applications of these products? 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. So in terms of real-world applications, I think 

the sort of examples I would like to give are commercial building 

projects where LED lighting is used today. So, for example, in your 

State in Ohio, Procter & Gamble headquarters and Eaton headquarters both use LED lighting today. In California there are lots 

of headquarters type projects such as Apple and salesforce.com and 

companies like that that have moved to LED lighting. Wells Fargo 

in North Carolina is another example. So they tend to be commercial buildings and industrial buildings. 

A little bit of these types of LED driver products also make their 

way to residential buildings, but in residences we tend to have 

screw-in lamps more than the higher-cost commercial grade products. Does that help? 

Mr. LATTA. Yes, thank you. And if I may, I continue with another 

question to you. Could you in regular terms explain to us again 

how these drivers are being impacted by the EPS rule? 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. They are being impacted today because the 

statutory definition of an external power supply is pretty broad and 

DOE’s general counsel has interpreted the statutory definition to 

bring in quite a large range of products. So the debate is indeed 

about which ones of these LED and OLED drivers are brought into 

the definition and there is not sufficient clarity for manufacturers 

today and that is why we are here asking you to provide that clarity. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, maybe if I could for both of you, Ms. Amann— 

am I pronouncing your name correctly? 

Ms. AMANN. Amann. 

34 

Mr. LATTA. Amann. Thank you. If you could both in summarizing 

your testimony for us here, but if there is one major thing you 

would like us to take away from here today what would that be 

from today’s hearing? 

Ms. AMANN. Beyond the specifics of this issue I think it highlights one of the reasons that we are here today and we need legislation is because DOE doesn’t have the authority to change the definition of a product if that definition is set in the statute. 

So, I mean, one thing I think we can think about is where there 

are opportunities to allow DOE a little bit more leeway to adapt 

product definitions as the market changes and as new technologies 

are introduced as innovation continues to move forward. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. Dr. Hakkarainen, would you like to comment? 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. I don’t have really anything further to add. I 

think Jennifer said it very well. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Thank you very much. And Mr. Chairman, I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Amann, I am glad 

to see efficiency advocates in industry working side by side. Does 

the DOE currently support SSL technology? 

Ms. AMANN. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. They are spending a lot 

of money under as mandated by Congress to do a lot of development in solid state lighting and have really made, really worked 

closely with industry to improve the market conditions and advance research and development on new technologies. 

Mr. GREEN. Are the SSL technologies as energy-efficient as possible or is there currently room for more improvement? 

Ms. AMANN. I think there is room for more improvement. The 

technology has been surprising everybody in terms of how fast they 

are meeting and exceeding their goals for efficiency improvements, 

and at this point it is exceeding almost all other light sources in 

terms of its efficiency. 

Mr. GREEN. Dr. Hakkarainen, do you have a sense as to why SSL 

was not included? 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. Why SSL was not—— 

Mr. GREEN. Was included in the—DOE indicates here in here in 

their original NOPR they did not intend to include SSL products. 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. So I am not sure that I can answer that question, really. My sense is that DOE did not analyze any solid state 

lighting products in the development of the external power supply 

standard. But then, because of the broad statutory definition of an 

external power supply, they after the fact concluded that they may 

very well be in the scope. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. In your testimony you make references that the 

rulemaking could threaten future investments. Would you explain 

further what costs would be associated with SSL inclusion? 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. If solid state lighting drivers are included in 

the external power supply standard, then the sort of costs, if it is 

even possible for drivers to meet the external power supply standard—that is still a question in my mind—but if we found a way 

over time to get to that point, then the driver devices would be sigVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:48 Apr 22, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\114X109EPSIMPROVEMENTPENDING WAYNE
35 

nificantly more expensive for consumers and they would take a 

long time for our technical staff to develop. 

Mr. GREEN. Is it technically feasible to meet the requirements of 

the DOE standard? 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. In my opinion at the moment, no. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I would 

call on the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have no questions. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Harper, do you have any questions? 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No questions for me either. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, that is the end of the questions of our subcommittee. And Ms. DeGette who is a co-sponsor of the bill is a 

member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. She is not a 

member of this subcommittee and I didn’t want you all to think we 

were discriminating against her, so at this time I would like to recognize Ms. DeGette for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I never think you are discriminating against me, and I really appreciate you letting me sit in on 

this hearing. This is one of these issues where in retrospect it 

seems so simple that it should have been right in the first place, 

and it wasn’t right in the first place. And now, of course, it could 

both hurt what—Ms. Amann, when I heard you talking about what 

the manufacturers would have to do to try to get a waiver I was 

just imagining Cooper Lighting which is one of my, your members 

and one of my companies in Denver, trying to petition the DOE to 

get a waiver from this standard. And it is exactly why people get 

irritated with Congress. So I am really happy that Congresswoman 

Ellmers and I have been able to come together to solve this problem. 

I just want to ask a couple of sort of broader questions. Ms. 

Amann, I wanted to ask you, in your testimony you noted that before the EPS standard was developed many external power supply 

devices still used decades-old technology. I am wondering if you 

could talk for a minute how the EPS standard has encouraged 

21st-century innovation. 

Ms. AMANN. Sure. So in the technology that had been used for 

power supplies I think we can all remember the really huge, bulky 

power supplies, and you could never even get two in your plug. 

They were hot. That is a very inefficient technology that had been 

used throughout most of the twentieth century. 

So in the ’90s when new technology was developed in response 

to low cost for chips, the emergence of portable electronics, for the 

first time people wanted to carry their electronics and their power 

supplies. We got these new innovations that made the supplies 

smaller and much more efficient—much, much more efficient. 

But into the 2000s those products, there were still a lot of cheap 

consumer products that were using the bulky, the inexpensive old 

school technology, and so that is why the manufacturers of those 

power supplies, many of them in California and other States, came 

together to agree on power supply standards so that we could get 

this new technology out there into all the different products that 

use power supplies. 

36 

Ms. DEGETTE. And Mr. Hakkarainen, do you have anything to 

add to that? Did manufacturers like you work with the efficiency 

advocates in DOE to pioneer the new technologies? 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. Yes, we typically do work with, actively work 

with the energy efficiency community and certainly collaborate 

with DOE in their rulemaking processes. Relative to the external 

power supplies themselves, I am not sure I can answer that question because we don’t actually manufacture those devices. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right, you do those. Yes. 

Dr. HAKKARAINEN. But we manufacture LED drivers. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes. And it seems to me that the EPS standard 

has been effective in sparking innovation, but then if we shoehorn 

the LEDs into that the trend could be reversed and ironically instead of supporting energy efficiency, the EPS standard could actually inhibit that. Is that correct? 

Ms. AMANN. Yes, I think so. And I would just point out, we had 

no idea how fast LEDs would develop and they weren’t a product 

that was available at the time this was written. I mean, we didn’t 

have iPhones then, smart phones. I mean, so much innovation has 

happened since the time that the standard was first adopted. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thanks. And did you want to add anything, Mr. 

Hakkarainen? 

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I hope we 

can pass this on on suspension. And then I actually thought your 

question was the most important one, is what do we do about the 

other body, because Chairman Upton and I are still trying to get 

our 21st Century Cures bill, which passed this committee unanimously, passed by the Senate. So if you figure out how to unlock 

this problem, you can get that bill through, too. Thank you. I yield 

back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We feel quite confident that the Senate will recognize that we have perfected this legislation and they will adopt 

it. 

But that does conclude today’s hearing, and I want to thank our 

two witnesses for being with us and certainly want to reiterate our 

appreciation to Mrs. Ellmers and Ms. DeGette for sort of leading 

the charge on this. And with that, the record will remain open for 

10 days, and that concludes today’s hearing. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

We take our obligation to oversee regulations under this committee’s jurisdiction 

very seriously and whenever there is a bipartisan opportunity to improve an existing rule, we take action. This is what we hope to do with the draft EPS Improvement Act of 2016, and I thank Reps. Ellmers and DeGette for their efforts on this 

bill. 

We all know that consumer electronics are rapidly advancing—so fast that the 

technology sometimes renders obsolete the laws under which they are regulated. 

That is the case with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and its provision requiring the 

Department of Energy (DOE) to set energy conservation standards for external 

power supplies, the most recent of which will take effect in February. 

In the decade since the Energy Policy Act was signed into law, light emitting diodes (LEDs) have been developed and are growing in popularity. They use a power 

supply that is very different than anything contemplated in the 2005 law yet still 

fall within the statutory definition of an external power supply. The bottom line is 

37 

that the new DOE standard for external power supplies would cover LEDs, but 

there would be no way for LEDs to meet it. 

The EPS Improvement Act of 2016 recognizes that LEDs need to be treated separately. It exempts them from the upcoming external power supply standard while 

creating a process by which DOE could set a new standard specific to LEDs. 

This targeted bill would provide relief for LED manufacturers while ensuring that 

this popular product remains available to consumers back in Michigan and across 

the country. 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

Æ