1 | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

[INSERT PICTURE(S) OF PRODUCT(S)]

[INSERT PICTURE(S) OF PRODUCT(S)]

Energy Conservation Standards

Framework Document forComputer and Battery BackupSystems

July 31, 2014

Jeremy DomDepartment of EnBuilding Technolo

EERE‐2014‐BT‐ST

ComputerSystem

@ee.doe.gov
2

Welcome• Introductions (around the room)

• Role of the Facilitator• Ground Rules

– Speak one at a time.

– Say your name for the record – there will be a complete tra

this meeting.

– Be concise – share the ‘air‐time’.

– Keep the focus here – cell phones on silent; limit sidebar

conversations.

– Webinar participants turn phone on mute; “raise your hand

recognized to speak.

• Housekeeping Items• Agenda Review• Opening Remarks
3

Purpose of the Public Meeting• Present the procedural and analytical approaches to 

energy conservation standards for computer and bat

backup systems (computer systems).

• Invite comment on the energy conservation standard

framework document.

• Discuss next steps in the rulemaking.

• Invite participants to provide summary comments or

statements and raise additional issues for discussion.
4

Agenda

9:00 – 9:15 am9:15 – 9:459:45 – 11:00 am11:00 – 11:15 am11:15 – 12:00 pm12:00 – 1:00 pm

1:00 – 2:00 pm

2:00 –2:15 pm2:15 – 2:45 pm2:45 – 3:00 pm3:00 – 3:15 pm3:15 – 3:30 pm

Welcome, Introductions, Opening Statements

Rulemaking OverviewScope of RulemakingBreakTest Procedure RulemakingLunchMarket & Technology and Screening AnalysisEngineering AnalysisMarkups, Energy Use, & Life‐Cycle Cost Analyses

BreakShipments Analysis & National Impact AnalysisNext Steps and Closing Remarks
5

Listening Via the Webcast• The Department is broadcasting this meeting live ov

Internet.

• DOE is providing the webcast to accommodate stake

that are unable to attend the public meeting in perso

• The web broadcast allows stakeholders to listen in an

the slides.

• All stakeholders are encouraged to submit written co

after the public meeting.
6

Issues for DiscussionIssue box numbering corresponds to the list of issues p

at the end of the framework document, available at:www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/

.aspx/productid/81The deadline for submitting comments is October 2, 20

Issue Box: DOE welcomes comments, data, and informon all aspects of the material presented in the framewordocument for computer systems. Issues that correspond those raised in DOE’s published material will be numberaccordance with that material.Issues not raised in DOE’s published material are numbas Item A, Item B and so on. Whether invited by an issuor not, comments are welcome on any part of DOE’s an
7

Opening Remarks

Meeting participants are invited to provide opening rem

statements at this time.
8

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Rulemaking Overview2 Scope of Rulemaking3 Test Procedure Rulemaking4 Market & Technology and Screening Analyses5 Engineering Analysis6

78

Markups, Energy Use, & Life-Cycle Cost AnalysShipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Next Steps
9

Final R

Notice of

Proposed Rule

(NOPR)

Preliminary

Analysis Framework

Public

Meeting &

Comment

Period

Rulemaking Overview• Separate rulemakings are conducted for test proced

energy conservation standards

Public

Meeting &

Comment

Period

Public

Meeting &

Comment

Period
10

Framework Document• Describes overall approach that DOE is considering t

potential test procedure and standards.

• Public meeting is held and stakeholders are encourag

submit data, information, and written comments.

Final R

Notice of

Proposed Rule

(NOPR)

Preliminary

Analysis Framework
11

Preliminary Analysis• Optional step DOE may use to vet the models and to

DOE intends to use in rulemaking.

• Makes preliminary determination for candidate stan

(CSLs), which span from baseline product to most efftechnology for each product class.

Final R

Notice of

Proposed Rule

(NOPR)

Preliminary

Analysis Framework
12

Notice of Proposed Rule• Addresses comments received on preliminary analys• Presents DOE’s analysis of impacts of potential stand

consumers, manufacturers, and the nation, and DOEof these impacts.

• Proposes standard levels for public comment.

Final R

Notice of

Proposed Rule

(NOPR)

Preliminary

Analysis Framework
13

Final Rule• Addresses comments received on NOPR.

• Refines analyses, impact of any standards, DOE’s we

those impacts, and standard levels, as needed.

• Establishes mandatory minimum efficiency standard 

by which manufacturers must comply with any stand

Final R

Notice of

Proposed Rule

(NOPR)

Preliminary

Analysis Framework
14

EPCA Factors

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) directs DOE to consider seven faconsidering energy conservation standards:

EPCA Factors DOE Analys

1. Economic impact on consumers and 

manufacturers

Life-Cycle Cost AnalysisManufacturer Impact Ana

2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared 

to increased cost for the product

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

3. Total projected energy savings National Impact Analysis 4. Impact on utility or performance Engineering Analysis

Screening Analysis

5. Impact of any lessening of competition Manufacturer Impact Ana6. Need for national energy conservation National Impact Analysis7. Other factors the Secretary considers 

relevant

Environmental AssessmeUtility Impact AnalysisEmployment Impact Ana
15

Standards Rulemaking Options• Stakeholders may pursue an alternative rulemaking o

lieu of the traditional approach

• Options include:

– Negotiated Rulemaking (with DOE participation)

– Consensus Agreement (submitted jointly by interested pers

fairly representative of relevant points of view)

– Non‐Regulatory Agreement
16

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Rulemaking Overview2 Scope of Rulemaking3 Test Procedure Rulemaking4 Market & Technology and Screening Analyses5 Engineering Analysis6

78

Markups, Energy Use, & Life-Cycle Cost AnalysShipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Next Steps
17

Computer and Battery Backup Systems• DOE proposed the following definition for computer 

the February 2014 notice of proposed determination

• Computers, computer servers, and uninterruptible p

supplies (UPSs) are examples of products considered 

scope of computer systems’ definition.

A consumer product whose primary function

is to perform logical operations and process

data, or equipment whose primary function is

to maintain continuity of load power for such

products in case of input power failure.
18

Test Procedure and Standards Rulemaking Sco

Computer

Systems

Computers Computer Servers

Additional

Scope

Criteria

U
19

Computers Definition under Consideration

DOE Definition under Consideration

Computer means

a consumer product powered

by mains power with the primary function of

performing logical operations and processing

data. At

a minimum,

a computer is composed of

the following:(1)

A central processing unit (CPU) to perform

operations, or the ability to function as

a client

gateway to

a server that acts as

a computational

CPU;(2) User input devices such as

a keyboard,

mouse or touchpad; and

(3) An integrated display and/or the ability to

support an external display screen to output

information.This definition excludes products that may

perform similar operations but have different

primary functions, including but not limited to:

playing video games, displaying television

signals, making phone calls, taking pictures, or

outputting audio signals.

• Based on ENERGYSTAR V

but:

– Includes mains pow

function to distingu

electronic products 

perform logical ope

as its primary funct

– Excludes examples 

product types.

– Includes additional 

explicitly exclude sp

ENERGYSTAR V. 6.0 D

A device which performs logical o

processes data. For this specificat

include both stationary and porta

desktops, etc. Although compute

using input devices and displays, 

required to be included with the 

shipment.
20

Issues for Discussion

Item 3-1: DOE requests comment on the definition of a computer or alternate approaches that should be considSpecifically, DOE requests suggestions of characteristicmay be used in the definition to distinguish general conselectronics from computers. 
21

ENERGYSTAR V. 2.0 D

A computer that provides services 

networked resources for client devserver is sold through enterprise c

data centers and office/corporate computer server is primarily access

connections ... Additionally, a comp

meeting the following criteria:

• Provide support for ECC and/

• Is designed such that all proc

shared system memory...

• Is designed for and listed as 

more computer server OS an

• Is packaged and sold with on

DC‐DC power supplies.

Computer Servers Definition under Considerat

DOE Definition under Consideration

A computer that provides services and manages

networked resources for client devices ... A

computer server is primarily accessed via

network connections ... Additionally, a computer

server must meeting the following criteria:• Provide support for ECC and/or buffered

memory.

• Is designed such that all processors have

access to shared system memory....

• Based on ENERGYSTAR V. 2.0 definition, but excludes:

– Sales channels because servers are not always sold through enterprise channe

sold for use in multiple environments. Further, under EPCA, the fact that a serv

primarily to commercial/industrial customers does not, alone, make it a comm

– OS requirements because it may be difficult to create a quantitative distinction 

computer OS and a server OS.

– Power supply requirement because inclusion of a power supply does not prov

distinction between computer and server.
22

Issues for Discussion

Item 3-2: DOE requests feedback and information on additional factors and criteria that could be used to distinclearly between computer servers and client computers, than those based on point-of-sale or end-use.
23

UPS Definition under Consideration

DOE Definition under Consideration

A combination of convertors, switches

and energy storage devices (such as

batteries) constituting a power system

for maintaining continuity of load

power in case of primary input power

failure.

• Same definition a

specified in ENERUPS V. 1.0 and IECstandard 62040‐3 

2.0.

Item A: DOE requests comment on the UPS definition. 
24

Scope Includes Consumer Products Only

Any article of a type that consumes or is designe

consume energy, and, to any significant extent, 

distributed in commerce for personal use or

consumption by individuals without regard to

whether such article of such type is in fact

distributed in commerce for personal use or

consumption by an individual. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1

• The scope of this rulemaking includes only consum

which is defined as follows by EPCA:
25

• At this initial stage, DOE considers all computers to m

definition of a consumer product

• DOE is considering whether certain computer produ

be included in the scope.

DOE is considering

including:

• Desktops• Integrated Desktops• Notebooks• Thin Clients

DOE is evaluating 

impact of includin

• Workstations• Small‐scale Servers

• Tablets

Computers Scope
26

Methods for Specifying Computers Scope• DOE is considering two methods for specifying scope 

computers.

1. Include/exclude a list of products by their definition

– Desktops, notebooks, integrated desktops, etc.

2. Use general product features and characteristics.

– Product weight, screen size, power source, hardware, etc.
27

Issues for Discussion

Item 3-3: DOE requests comment on using ENERGY SComputers V. 6.0 and ENERGY STAR Computers Final V. 6.1 as the basis for computer product definitions. DOE requests comment on any additional computer product definitions that should be included.Item 3-5: DOE requests comment on the types of compthat should be excluded from scope.Item 3-6: DOE requests comment on using computer pcharacteristics to narrow the scope of coverage or more accurately define products. In particular, what design characteristics would best be used to separate out table
28

Criteria to Distinguish Consumer Computer Se

Hardware Characteristics

• Number of process

sockets

• Amount of memor

supported

• Performance

Infrastructura

Requirement

• Ability to operate using

residential power

• Form Factor

• Several questions have been raised about what type

computer servers would be considered consumer pr

• DOE is considering including characteristics to clarify 

of computer servers would be in scope.
29

Issues for Discussion

Item 3-7: Based on DOE’s definition of a consumer prodDOE requests comment on additional methods (besides to operate on a residential circuit) to identify computer sthat are consumer products. Are there alternative strategthat can be used to create a scope of coverage which distinguishes consumer computer servers from those thexclusively used in commercial/data-center environmen
30

Criteria to Distinguish Consumer UPSs• DOE is considering different methods for clarifying th

distinction between commercial and consumer UPSs

Criteria being considered

• Ability to operate using

residential power

• Product specifications,

such as overall capacity

(VA)

Criteria not bein

considered

• Product architectu

(such as VFD, VI, V

unless it is associat

with customer util

not offered otherw
31

Item 3-8: DOE requests feedback on the proposed scoUPSs. In particular, are there any UPS types that should included or excluded from scope that have not previouslidentified.Item 3-9: DOE requests feedback on using product specifications, such as rated power, to narrow the scope coverage. DOE further requests feedback on whether rapower is a proper differentiator between consumer and commercial UPSs and what, if any, constitutes a proper rated power level. 

Issues for Discussion
32

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Rulemaking Overview2 Scope of Rulemaking3 Test Procedure Rulemaking4 Market & Technology and Screening Analyses5 Engineering Analysis6

78

Markups, Energy Use, & Life-Cycle Cost AnalysShipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Next Steps
33

Final Ru

Notice of

Proposed Rule

(NOPR)

Public

Meeting

Public

Meeting

Test Procedure Rulemaking Process• DOE is considering hosting separate public meetings 

the three proposed test procedures for computers, c

servers, and UPSs.

Public

Meeting
34

Test Procedure Objectives• Repeatable• Reproducible• Representative• Not overly burdensome

• Anticipates technology changes

• Discourages circumvention• Unambiguous• Harmonizes with related test procedures

• Consistent with the statute
35

Test Procedure: Computer Products• Most industry standards for computers follow the te

procedure outlined in IEC 62623 Ed. 1.0.

– US ENERGY STAR, EU & Australia use IEC 62623 as the basis 

regulatory/voluntary efficiency programs for computers.

– DOE is also considering this standard.

– DOE is considering including additional guidance provided 

STAR Computers V. 6.0.

Item 4-1: DOE requests comment on the use of IEC 62Ed. 1.0 as the basis for the computers test procedure.

Item 4-2: DOE requests comment on including additionguidance provided in ENERGY STAR Computers V. 6.0. Specifically, DOE requests comment on the luminance vspecified in ENERGY STAR Computers V. 6.0 for integradesktops and notebooks. Are these values sufficient or dthe luminance need to be higher for integrated displays?
36

ENERGY STAR Computers Output Metric• The output metric of ENERGY STAR Computers V. 6.0 

annual energy consumption (AEC) calculation.

– The output value is calculated from a weighted average of 

with weights derived from ECMA‐383:

Mode Desktops/Other % Notebooks %

Off 45 25

Sleep 5 35

Long Idle 15 10

Short Idle 35 30

ൌ ࡯ࡱ࡭

࢖ࢋࢋ࢒࢙ࢀ ൈ ࢖ࢋࢋ࢒࢙ࡼ ൅ ࢋ࢒ࢊ࢏	ܜܚܗܐ܁ࢀ ൈ ࢋ࢒ࢊ࢏	ܜܚܗܐܛࡼ ൅ ࢋ࢒ࢊࡵ	܏ܖܗܔࢀ ൈ ࢋ࢒ࢊ࢏	܏ܖܗܔࡼ ൈ ૛૝ ൈ૜૟૞ 

૚૙૙૙

Item 4-3: DOE requests comment on the inclusion of ENERGY STAR Computers V. 6.0 mode weightings.
37

ENERGY STAR Computers Network Proxy• Network proxy allows a computer to remain connect

network while in a low power state.

– It may increase the time spent in sleep mode.

• ENERGY STAR Computers V. 6.0 recognizes this funct

altering the usage profile of computers with network 

Mode Weights for Desktop/Other Computers with Network Pr

Mode Conventional % Base Capability % Remote Wake % Service/Nam

Discovery % 

Off 45 40 30 25 

Sleep 5 15 28 36 

Long Idle 15 12 10 8 

Short Idle 35 33 32 31 
38

Network Proxy Options for DOE Rulemaking• Although ENERGY STAR includes definitions for netw

functions, DOE believes this functionality is not easy 

– Functionality is difficult to identify solely based on menus a

settings.

– Implementation of network proxy varies by manufacturer.

• Other options for simplifying network proxying inclu

– Two levels of weighting – with or without network proxy

– No usage profile adjustments for network proxying
39

Issues for Discussion

Item 4-5: DOE requests comment on a standardized anobjective method to identify the level of proxy functionalicomputers. Specifically, DOE welcomes information on sthat can objectively determine the proxy level on differenoperating systems.Item 4-6: DOE requests comment on the best approach address network proxying: (a) using four levels of weightfor proxy functionality as specified in ENERGY STAR Computers V. 6.0 in addition to the conventional weightin(b) using two levels of weightings, one for no network prfunctionality and the other for network proxy functionality(c) using a single weighting for all computers.
40

Test Procedure: Computer Server Products• DOE is considering ENERGY STAR Computer Servers V

basis for the test procedure for computer servers, w

includes idle and active state tests.

Idle State Test

• Determines a computer

server’s power consumption

while operating in an inactive

state.

Active State T

• Measures a compu

server’s power con

while it performs a 

tasks that are repre

of typical compute

applications.
41

Comparison of Idle State Test and Active State 

Idle State Test Active 

Compatible with All

Computer Servers? Yes 

Efficiency/Energy

Metric Simple Com

Modes of Operation

Represented One M
42

Test Procedure: Computer Server Products• DOE is considering using the idle state power measu

test, but not the active state power measurement te

– Computer servers spend a lot of time in an inactive state*.

– The amount of energy observed by an idle state test repres

portion of the total energy consumption of a computer ser

• DOE has preliminarily determined that it is not feasib

servers in standby or off mode.

– A server would rarely be in standby mode because it would 

of responding immediately to requests.

– A server would be considered off if it has been powered of

power on via a switch or button on the server. Many server

this capability.

* X. Fan, W.-D. Weber, and L.A. Barroso, “Power Provisioning for a warehouse-sized 

computer,” in Proc. of the 34th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, 

2007.
43

Issues for Discussion

Item 4-8: DOE requests comment on the use of the idle test from the ENERGY STAR Computer Servers V. 2.0 TMethod for computer servers as a base for the developmthe computer servers test procedure.
44

Test Procedure: UPS Products• DOE is evaluating the following test methods for the 

procedure:

– IEC 62040‐3 Ed 2.0; and

– ENERGY STAR UPS V.1.0

• ENERGY STAR UPS V. 1.0 builds on IEC 62040‐3 Ed 2.0 

minor differences that DOE will assess.

Item 4-9: DOE requests feedback on its adoption of the 62040-3 Ed.2.0 standard as a basis for the development UPS test method, while considering additional guidance provided in ENERGY STAR UPS V. 1.0.
45

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Rulemaking Overview2 Scope of Rulemaking3 Test Procedure Rulemaking4 Market & Technology and Screening Analyses5 Engineering Analysis6

78

Markups, Energy Use, & Life-Cycle Cost AnalysShipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Next Steps
46

Overview of Analyses
47

Purpose of MTA and Screening Analysis• Market and Technology Assessment (MTA)

– Determine product classes, and

– Identify technology options to improve efficiency.

• Screening Analysis

– Screen out technology options that DOE will not consider i

engineering analysis based on:

• Technological feasibility;

• Practicability to manufacture, install, and service;

• Adverse impacts on utility to consumers or availability; and

• Adverse impacts on health or safety.
48

Issues for Comment

Item 6-1: DOE requests information that would contributhe market assessment for computers, computer serversUPSs that would be covered in this rulemaking. DOE particularly seeks information on shipments, trends in prfeature and efficiency, distribution channels and estimatmarket shares for the computers, computer servers, and considered in this rulemaking.
49

Product Classes• DOE divides covered products into classes by:

– The type of energy used;

– Capacity of the product; or

– Other performance‐related features that justify different st

such as features affecting consumer utility.

• DOE establishes separate energy conservation stand

each product class.
50

Product Classes: Computer Products• DOE evaluated computer product class structures in 

following regulatory and voluntary programs:

– Australian/New Zealand Standard, AS/NZS 5813:2012

– European Union (EU) No. 617/2013

– ENERGY STAR Computers V. 5.2– ENERGY STAR Computers V. 6.0

– ECMA‐383 Ed. 3: 2010‐12

• DOE is considering a computer product class structu

based on ENERGY STAR Computers V. 5.2 and 6.0.

– AS/NZS and EU standards are based on these standards.

– ECMA‐383 includes graphics allowances that are included i

STAR Computers V. 6.0.
51

ENERGY STAR Computers V. 5.2 Product Catego• ENERGY STAR Computers V. 5.2 separates desktop, in

desktop, and notebook computers into different cate

• Categories are based on number of CPU cores, mem

GPU.

• Additional allowances are provided for:

– Memory– Graphics– Storage
52

ENERGY STAR Computers V. 6.0 Product Catego• ENERGY STAR Computers V. 6.0 separates desktop, in

desktop, and notebook computers into different cate

• Categories are based on the type of GPU and a perfo

score (Performance score = (# CPU cores) × (CPU cloc

• Additional allowances are provided for:

– Memory – Storage– Graphics – Integrated display

– Energy Efficient Ethernet – Efficient power supply
53

Product Classes: Computer Products• DOE is considering using some of these features to s

efficiency standard:

– Memory – Storage

– Graphics – Integrated display

• DOE will evaluate the features incentivized in ENERG

more detail, to determine whether they warrant sep

product classes:

– Energy Efficient Ethernet – Efficient power supply
54

Issues for Comment

Item 5-2: DOE requests comment on the categorization criteria for ENERY STAR Computers V. 5.2 product cate

Item 5-3: DOE requests comment on the memory, grapand storage product category variables from ENERGY SComputers V. 5.2.
55

Issues for Comment

Item 5-5: DOE requests comment on the granularity of graphics categories specified in ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 consistent with the market of available GPUs.Item 5-6: DOE requests comment on the integrated disand enhanced performance display product category vafrom ENERGY STAR Computers V. 6.0.

Item 5-4: DOE requests comment on whether the CPU performance metric in ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 effectively classifies the performance of a CPU.
56

Product Classes: Computer Servers• DOE is considering a computer server product class s

that is based on ENERGY STAR Computer Servers V. 2

– Separates products based on form factor into different cate

– Categories are based on maximum number of installed pro

criteria for a managed server.

– Adjusts energy qualification levels based on number/amou

• Power supplies • Hard drives

• Buffered DDR channels • Memory

• Input/output devices

• Alternately, DOE may consider establishing product c

based on:

– Hardware features such as number of processors, storage 

– Score similar to ENERGY STAR V6.0 Computers performanc
57

Issues for Discussion

Item 5-8: DOE requests comment on possible strategies computer server product classes. DOE requests commepossible advantages and shortcomings of using the ENESTAR Computer Servers V. 2.0 classification criteria for purpose of this rulemaking.
58

Product Classes: UPS Products• DOE is considering a UPS product class structure tha

on ENERGY STAR UPS V. 1.0, which uses following cri

– Topology (VFD, VI & VFI)

– Output power (P ≤ 1500W, 1500W< P≤10,000W, P>10,000W

– Output type (AC vs. DC)

– Additional features (Metering, communication, etc.)

• DOE is considering using ENERGY STAR UPS V. 1.0 as 

for its own definition of UPS product classes.

Item 5-9: DOE requests comment on possible advantageshortcomings of using the ENERGY STAR UPS V. 1.0 prclassification criteria for the purpose of this rulemaking. 
59

Technology Assessment• DOE uses information about commercially available

technologies and prototypes as input in identifying t

used to decrease energy consumption or increase ef

• DOE has identified the following technology options

Computers

•Switchable graphics

•Suspend to Flash

•More efficient

components

•Energy‐efficient Ethernet

•CPU power management

Computer Servers

•More efficient

components

•CPU power management•Variable fan speeds

•Semicon

improve

•Digital s

and spa

modulat

•Transfor

topolog

• Screening Analysis will exclude technology options ba

– Technological feasibility;

– Practicability to manufacture, install, and service;

– Adverse impacts on utility to consumers or availability; and

– Adverse impacts on health or safety.
60

Issues for Discussion

Item 6-3: DOE welcomes comments on the preliminary technology options for computer systems identified in thsection and whether there are other technology options should consider. In commenting on technology options, discuss their impacts, if any, on safety, performance, and utility, as well as cost of the technology options.Item 7-1: Are there any technologies that DOE should nconsider because of any of the four screening criteria? Iwhich screening criteria apply to the cited technology or technologies.
61

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Rulemaking Overview2 Scope of Rulemaking3 Test Procedure Rulemaking4 Market & Technology and Screening Analyses5 Engineering Analysis6

78

Markups, Energy Use, & Life-Cycle Cost AnalysShipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Next Steps
62

Overview of Analyses
63

Engineering Analysis – Methodology

Choose representative product classes and comput

to be analyzed in the engineering and life‐cycle cos

Define characteristics of baseline models in each re

product class.Select more efficient units for each baseline model 

options.Develop efficiency levels (ELs) that range from the 

maximum technologically feasible.

Scale results to product classes not analyzed.

Choose

Representative

Product Classes

Define Baseline

Models

Identify

Replacements

Develop Efficiency

Levels

Scale to Product

Classes Not

Analyzed
64

Representative Product Classes

• DOE chooses representative product c

concentrate its analytical effort.

• DOE selects representative product cla

primarily based on their high market v

Choose

Representative

Product Classes

Define Baseline

Models

Identify

Replacements

Develop Efficiency

Levels

Scale to Product

Classes Not

Analyzed
65

Baseline Models

• DOE selects baseline models in each

representative product class.

• For products that do not have existing 

DOE selects the most common, least e

product sold.

Choose

Representative

Product Classes

Define Baseline

Models

Identify

Replacements

Develop Efficiency

Levels

Scale to Product

Classes Not

Analyzed
66

Higher‐Efficiency Replacements

• DOE selects more efficient computer s

for each baseline model by considerintechnologies not eliminated in the screanalysis.

Choose

Representative

Product Classes

Define Baseline

Models

Identify

Replacements

Develop Efficiency

Levels

Scale to Product

Classes Not

Analyzed
67

Efficiency Levels

• DOE plans to develop ELs based on tw

– Design options associated with specific 

types being studied;

– Maximum technologically feasible (ma

efficiency level.

Choose

Representative

Product Classes

Define Baseline

Models

Identify

Replacements

Develop Efficiency

Levels

Scale to Product

Classes Not

Analyzed
68

Scaling to Products Not Analyzed

• Standards for non‐representative prod

classes are determined by scaling stanfrom product classes that were directl

analyzed.

Choose

Representative

Product Classes

Define Baseline

Models

Identify

Replacements

Develop Efficiency

Levels

Scale to Product

Classes Not

Analyzed
69

Issues for Discussion

Item 8-1: DOE encourages interested parties to submit dawill improve DOE’s understanding of computer systems’ performance and associated costs. 
70

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Rulemaking Overview2 Scope of Rulemaking3 Test Procedure Rulemaking4 Market & Technology and Screening Analyses5 Engineering Analysis6

78

Markups, Energy Use, & Life-Cycle Cost AnalysShipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Next Steps
71

Overview of Analyses
72

Markups Analysis• Purpose:

– The engineering and markups analyses together provide a

the relationship between efficiency and end‐user price.

• Proposed Methodology:

– Identify distribution channels.

– Determine an average manufacturer markup by examining 

SEC 10‐K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers. De

average retailer markup from Census data and SEC reports

– Estimate the consumer prices for each product efficiency le

applying markups (consisting of distribution channel marku

tax, if applicable) to manufacturer selling price estimates.

– DOE will develop baseline and incremental markups for com

systems.
73

Issues for Discussion

Item 9-1: DOE seeks suggestions and comments concernproposed approach to developing estimates of markups.
74

Overview of Analyses
75

Energy Use Analysis• Purpose:

– To identify how products are used by consumers, and there

the energy savings potential of energy efficiency improvem

• Proposed Methodology:

– Annual energy consumption (kilowatt hours) estimated bas

weighted average of measured power consumption values 

of operation.

– For computer servers, DOE is considering an idle mode pow

converted to AEC based on assumed product utilization.

– For UPSs, DOE is considering a similar metric to ENERGY ST

– Because energy use of computer systems can vary greatly b

different usage patterns, DOE will conduct further research 

additional data to establish a range of energy use.
76

Issues for Discussion

Item 10-1: DOE seeks comments on its proposed approacspecifying typical annual energy consumption. Most imporDOE is interested in sources of data that can assist in characterizing the annual energy consumption of computesystems. Item 10-2: DOE welcomes input on data sources that it ca

characterize the variability in annual energy consumption fcomputer systems in the field. DOE is particularly interestefield monitoring studies and data.
77

Overview of Analyses
78

Life‐Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis• Purpose:

– Assess life‐cycle cost (LCC) impacts of different efficiency le

consumer. The LCC reflects the total cost of a product over 

– Assess the Payback Period (PBP), which is the amount of tim

for energy cost savings to recover any increased cost of a h

efficiency product.

• Proposed Methodology:

– LCC equals consumer price plus the sum of annual operatin

discounted to a particular base year.

– Analysis will model the uncertainty and variability of inputs 

probability distributions and Monte Carlo simulations using 

spreadsheet.

– Results for (1) mean LCC savings, (2) percentages of consum

savings, net cost, and no impact in LCC, and (3) median PBP
79

Life‐Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
80

LCC and PBP: Inputs• Energy Prices• Installation Costs

– Unless considered efficiency levels result in significantly larger 

expects that more efficient computer systems will not increase 

costs.

• Maintenance & Repair Costs

– Incremental efficiency changes typically incur little change in t

• Product Lifetimes

– DOE will characterize survival functions using Weibull distribut

• Discount Rates:

– DOE will use estimates of interest/“finance cost” to purchase 

systems in order to determine present value of lifetime operat

• Base Case Energy Efficiency

– DOE will use data on recent market trends in computer system 

and will consider the potential impacts of other programs/pol

consumer rebate programs, tax credits) that may affect deman

efficient computer systems.
81

Issues for Discussion

Item 11-1: DOE seeks comments on its proposed approacusing probability distributions and Monte Carlo simulation tconduct the LCC and PBP analysis.Item 11-4: DOE seeks comments on the merits of its propoanalytical assumption that changes in maintenance, repairinstallation costs will be negligible for more-efficient compusystems. If that assumption is incorrect, DOE is interested reasons why this is so and in specific ways to correct that assumption. Item 11-2: DOE requests data from stakeholders to characthe current mix of computer system efficiencies in the markItem 11-3: DOE seeks comments on the planned approacestimating current and forecasted energy prices.
82

Issues for Discussion

Item 11-5: DOE seeks comments on appropriate product lfor computer systems. Specifically, DOE seeks data sourcestablishing product lifetimes.Item 11-6: DOE seeks comments on its planned approach estimating discount rates for residential and commercial consumers.Item 11-7: DOE seeks comments on computer system effithe base case, historical efficiency data on computer systeprojected trends in computer system efficiency. 
83

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Rulemaking Overview2 Scope of Rulemaking3 Test Procedure Rulemaking4 Market & Technology and Screening Analyses5 Engineering Analysis6

78

Markups, Energy Use, & Life-Cycle Cost AnalysShipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Next Steps
84

Overview of Analyses
85

Shipments Analysis• Purpose:

– Project future shipments by product class to calculate natio

of adopting an energy efficiency standard.

• Proposed Methodology:

– DOE typically projects shipments over a 30‐year period beg

expected compliance date of the standard.

– DOE will also conduct a price trends analysis and investigat

methods for forecasting future prices.

• Approach:

– DOE plans to use an economic model to project shipments 

standards case, as compared to the base case.

• Based on observed & projected technology price trends & ad

• As part of the base case, will consider the impact of existing m

programs, such as ENERGY STAR, consumer rebate programs 

the purchase of more‐efficient computer systems, and manuf

credits that encourage their production.
86

Issues for Discussion

Item 12-1: DOE seeks historical shipments data and reporfuture market trends from stakeholders. If such data are prDOE requests market share data showing the percentage computer system shipments of different efficiencies and prclasses.Item 12-2: As part of the preliminary manufacturer impact DOE seeks input from manufacturers on the potential impanew energy conservation standards on computer system shipments. DOE also seeks input from other stakeholders matter.Item 12-3: DOE requests input on any current market-pull programs that promote the adoption of more efficient compsystems.
87

Overview of Analyses
88

National Impact Analysis (NIA)• Purpose:

– Determine the projected national energy savings (NES) and 

national net present value (NPV) associated with potential 

conservation standards for computer systems.

• Proposed Methodology:

– Develop annual series of national energy and economic im

– Utilize the shipments model to estimate stock each year.

– Utilize the LCC to develop inputs for total installed cost and 

per unit in any year.

– Aggregate the costs and energy use for all years in the anal

– Report NES in terms of site, primary, and full‐fuel‐cycle (FFC

– Report change in national consumer NPV (in constant‐year 

– Account for the time‐value of money though defined disco

3% and 7%.
89

NIA: National Energy Savings (NES)
90

NIA: National Consumer Net Present Value (NP
91

NIA: Considerations• A key component of DOE’s estimates of NES and NPV 

product energy efficiencies projected over time, for and for each of the standards cases.

• In the past, DOE has used “roll‐up” and/or “shift” sce

more recent analyses have incorporated consumer c

modeling. DOE will evaluate whether one of these a

is a better fit for the NIA analysis for computer syste

Item 13-1: DOE seeks comments on which of these approuse to project product energy efficiencies of computer syst
92

Public Meeting Slides Topics

1 Rulemaking Overview2 Scope of Rulemaking3 Test Procedure Rulemaking4 Market & Technology and Screening Analyses5 Engineering Analysis6

78

Markups, Energy Use, & Life-Cycle Cost AnalysShipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis

Next Steps
93

DOE Seeks Comment on its Framework Docum• In all correspondence, please include all of the follo

– Framework Document for Computer and Battery Backup 

– Docket Number: EERE‐2014‐BT‐STD‐0025

– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN): 1904‐AD04

• Email: ComputerSystems2014STD0025@ee.doe.g• Comment period closes: October 2, 2014.

Postal: Hand Delivery/CouriMs. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE‐2J

1000 Independence Avenue, SWWashington, DC 20585‐0121

Ms. Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Ene

Building Technologies P

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SWWashington, DC 20024

Tel: 202‐586‐2945
94

Relevant URLs• DOE Appliance Standards:

– http://energy.gov/node/773531/index.html

• Computer Systems DOE Product Website:

– http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standa

spx/productid/81

• Computer Systems Rulemaking Website:

– http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standa

g.aspx/ruleid/78

• Rulemaking Docket (EERE‐2014‐BT‐STD‐0025):

– http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0

2014‐BT‐STD‐0025
95

Contact Information

DOE Project Manager

Mr. Jeremy Dommu

Jeremy.Dommu@ee.doe.gov

(202) 586‐9870

Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE‐2J

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585‐0121

DOE General Counsel

Ms. Celia Sher

Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov

(202)‐287‐6122

Office of General Counsel, Mailstop GC‐71

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585–0121