**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY **PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS AND EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES**  U.S. Department of Energy Room 1E-245 1000 Independence Avenue, Southwest Washington, D.C. Friday, September 12, 2008 9:00 a.m. Participants DOUG BROOKMAN, Facilitator VICTOR PETROLATI Department of Energy LARRY ALBERT Black & Decker CHRIS CALWELL ECOS Consulting MARK VISBAL Security Industry Association MICHAEL HINDUS Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP KEN SALAETS Information Technology Industry Council LANE WESLEY BURT Natural Resources Defense Council DOUGLAS JOHNSON Consumer Electronics Association JIM HAYNES Uniden Engineering Services FRANCINE PINTO Department of Energy MICHAEL VLADIMER Navigant Consulting**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 Participants : (Continued) TIM CALLAND CAROLINE CURTIN Microsoft Corporation WAYNE MORRIS Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers JENNIFER AMANN American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy MATEUSZ MALINOWSKI Navigant Consulting GARY FERNSTROM Pacific Gas and Electric RICK HABBEN Wahl Clipper Corporation WAYNE ANDERSON Motorola DR. MICHAEL MADIGAN Texas Instruments Incorporated ROBIN CLARK ICF International JOEL WATKINS ECOS Consulting WAYNE DIETERLE CONAIR Corporation DON UMBDENSTOCK Tyco Fire and Safety Products ARI REEVES D&R International TIMOTHY BALLO Earth Justice STEVEN COSTON Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 Participants : (Continued) DONALD ERICKSON Security Industry Association RICHARD FRASSIER Power Integrations LOUIS FIORE Alarm industry Communications Committee STEVEN HALME Sony Electronics Inc. ANDREW JOHNSON CUI, Inc TOBIAS SWOPE MATHEW JONES D & R International KENNETH MARKOWITZ Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld JAMES RABA U. S. Department of Energy MARK SHARP Panasonic Matsushita Electric Corp. JACOB TALBOT American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy MONA TANDON VanNess Feldman, Attoneys at Law**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 A G E N D A AGENDA ITEM : PAGE : Welcome 6 Victor Petrolati Opening Remarks, Introductions and Agenda Review 7 Doug Brookman Stakeholder Opening Statements Larry Albert 12 Power Tool Institute Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers Chris Calwell 17 Pacific Gas and Electric Mark Visbal 19 Security Industry Association Michael Hindus 22 ADT Security Services Sensormatic Electronics Corporation Tyco Safety Products Canada Tim Calland 27 Microsoft Corporation Ken Salaets 33 Information Technology Industry Council Wes Burt 40 Natural Resources Defense Council Douglas Johnson 41 Consumer Electronics Association Jim Haynes 42 Uniden Engineering Services Introduction, Background and Legal Authority 43 Vic Petrolati**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 A G E N D A AGENDA ITEM : PAGE : Battery Chargers Test Procedure: Definitions 67 Michael Vladimer Battery Chargers Test Procedure: Test Measurement 91 Michael Vladimer External Power Supply Test Procedure: Scope and 106 Definitions Mateusz Malinowski Afternoon Session External Power Supply Test Procedure: Test 153 Apparatus and General Instructions Mateusz Malinowski External Power Supply Test Procedure: Test 156 Measurement - Single-Voltage EPSs Mateusz Malinowski External Power Supply Test Procedure: Test 165 Measurement - Multiple-Voltage EPSs Michael Vladimer Reporting Requirements 193 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 222 Adjourn**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9:06 a.m. Welcome Victor Petrolati MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Good morning. My name is Vic Petrolati. I am the project leader for the Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies products under the Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards Program. I'd like to welcome you here to Washington, D.C. on a Friday. I want to apologize. It's very unusual that we have meetings on a Friday. It's just we got stuck this particular time with meeting dates and getting everything arranged. I understand most of you are getting ready to start your weekend as quickly as possible, so we're going to try to get you out of here as soon as possible as well. We hope we can finish this up by 3 o'clock. We're certainly here to answer as many questions as possible concerning our notice of proposed rulemaking. That is our purpose, and we certainly hope we're going to have a good exchange. Thank you again, everybody, for coming. Let me turn it over to Doug to get this kicked off officially. Thank you.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 Opening Remarks, Introductions, and Agenda Review 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Doug Brookman MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Doug Brookman, Public Solutions in Baltimore. This is the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Workshop, Proposed Test Procedures for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies. Thank you for being here on time. We have a full most of a day ahead of us, and we'll try and go through this efficiently today as we go. I want to provide an opportunity for everybody here at the outset to introduce him- or herself. I'm going to start here and move my way around the room, if you would, please. Name and organizational affiliation, please. (Introductions.) MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So, thanks to all of you for being here on time and giving us an early and fresh start on the day here. In just a moment I'm going to do an agenda review, but I would ask simply for your consideration in the conduct of the meeting today. Please speak one at a time. Say your name for the record. I'm going to be doing everything I can to recognize you by name. You don't need to say your name and organizational**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 affiliation every single time, but we do want you to say your name every single time so we've got who's speaking. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Please listen as an ally. Use short and succinct statements. Speak to the point. If you have a sidebar conversation you really need to have with someone, it'll distract from what's going on in the room. Please take it out of the room. We'll understand if you need to do that. Keep the focus on the issues here. If you would take the time now to turn your cell phones onto "silent" mode so that we're not disrupting the flow of the meeting today, that would be helpful. There are a variety of housekeeping issues. The main one is, if you're walking around here in the Forrestal Building you need to have your security badge, your visitor's badge, displayed. We'll go oversome of the other details as we approach the midmorning coffee break. There are restrooms, men's and women's restrooms, at both ends of the hall, and they are stacked, so you can go up and down a floor or two if they're busy. Do you want to talk about the webcast? MR. PETROLATI: I certainly do. Okay. We**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 are actually webcasting this public meeting. This is the first time we've done this. It's not going to be interactive. The people on the webcast will not be allowed to ask questions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We're basically providing this to accommodate stakeholders that are unable to attend the public meeting. We certainly understand that these products, external power supplies and battery chargers, are made all over the world and we wanted to accommodate as many people as possible. The web broadcast allows stakeholders to listen in and view the slides and the presentations. The stakeholders will be unable to submit comments or questions via the web broadcast. Only stakeholders physically in attendance may provide questions or comments during the public meeting. That's obviously the people in this room. Good enough, Doug. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And so I think all of you have a rather substantial packet of information. If you'll look, you'll note on page 3 -- 4 in fact, the agenda is listed on page 4 and 5. I'm going to run through that real briefly. Following these welcoming remarks and opening remarks there's an opportunity for individuals,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stakeholders, representatives of organizations to make brief summary remarks. So we're going to provide an opportunity to do that. I've got a listing of six individuals that have requested time to make those brief summary remarks. Following that we're going to hear a presentation on Introduction and Background and Legal Authority for this workshop. The general format for this workshop, for those of you that are new to this, is there's a lot of content provided in these colorful slides. Typically, there are a number of slides, three, four, five, six, as many as 10 slides, and then an opportunity for question and comment. That's how we generally like to keep the pace up and the content focused. So that's the general way we like to proceed with this. Following the Introduction, Background, and Legal Authority, then there is the Definitions for Battery Charger Test Procedure. We will take a coffee break mid-morning, round about 10:45 or so, and then, continuing on, test measurement issues surrounding battery chargers. Following that, External Power Supply Test Procedure, the Scope and Definitions. Following that, the Test Procedure, Test Apparatus, and General Instructions.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We will take a break for lunch round about 12:15, 12:20, 12:30, in there somewhere. Everybody is on their own for lunch. We will get to the details when we arrive there. After lunch, Test Measurement once again for External Power Supply, and Reporting Requirements, and then, as Vic said, we hope to conclude today by round about 3 o'clock. That's the plan. Questions or comments here at the outset? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: We do hope that this is an opportunity for those of you in the room that have things to say, that you get it said. That's the Department's desire here. Get your comments. This is your opportunity to make those comments on the record with everybody present. So then, having said that, let's do brief opening remarks, summary comments from those in the room. Vic supplied the names of six individuals, or actually, six organizations that requested to make comments here at the outset. The first one I have is AHAM and PTI. Please. Your name for the record.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Stakeholder Opening Statements Larry Albert Power Tool Institute and Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers MR. ALBERT: My name is Larry Albert. I'm from Black & Decker. I represent the Power Tool Institute and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. I think we have some slides. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We have new microphones. I can't tell yet how well they work, but I do know this. Unless the green button is bright green they're not on. You're doing well, Larry. (PowerPoint presentation.) MR. ALBERT: Broadly, AHAM and PTI support the DOE interpretations with respect to battery chargers. We understand this was difficult to come up with, an interpretation given in places that there were seemingly conflicting directions provided in the statute. We do continue to advocate for many of the things that we've talked about all along, which are namely a universal standard across many jurisdictions. Specifically, we're looking at other test procedures: the CEC test procedure that was recently finalized I think as Version 2.0-something, and CSA test procedure,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and of course the Energy Star test procedure. MR. BROOKMAN: Is the clicker not working, Michael? Okay. MR. ALBERT: The other thing that we're concerned about is that whatever the final standard is with respect to energy measurement, that it's a standard that's comprehensive with respect to actual usage of battery chargers. We believe that if we have a standard that looks at the overall usage of a battery charger during a test cycle, even if that test cycle is something that's not actually measured during a test procedure but is computed on the basis of individual measurements that occur in the test procedure, and that is differentiated by the type of battery charger it is and its intended application, that that would provide the most meaningful results both in terms of assessing the energy usage of battery chargers and also being able to provide an indication as to what the overall savings is of energy to the public when regulations and standards are put in place. We believe that appliances represent a special case of battery chargers because in appliances battery systems and chargers are uniquely mated to each other, unlike, for example, general purpose type**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 battery chargers that charge D and C cells or automotive battery chargers that charge a wide variety of different batteries, all the same form factor in the cases of appliance batteries, in the case of detachable, or in the case of batteries specific to the chargers. In the cases of integral battery systems, they're included inside the product and therefore there's a unique match between the battery charger and the battery being charged. In the interest of having a broad standard to cover a multitude of jurisdictions we think it's probably the right time to start talking about incorporating active mode into the battery charger test procedure. This would provide a way of evaluating all different modes of application of the charger, right, and would provide a comprehensive measure of overall use in a variety of different cases. However, it's important to note that active mode can represent varying degrees of proportion in different types of test cycles depending upon how the battery charger is used and its form factor and so on. Next, Mike. Thanks. Then going back to the appendix wire requirements, with respect to the standby and off mode definition, we believe that they're pretty well on**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mark. A couple of suggestions would be that some care should be taken in the language of the standard to address standby mode with respect to how it would be implemented with integral battery products, namely cases where the battery is in the product. Then standby mode should then be the removal of the battery from the charging base, if there was one, or a wall adaptor if there was one of those. To that purpose, we are proposing inclusion of additional definitions to Appendix Y to include integral, detachable, and cradle type constructions. This is more or less consistent with the test procedure that is being advanced by the California Energy Commission. In addition, we're proposing to include active mode, and we think this could be done in a relatively painless manner by including what we're calling here E24, which is very similar to what is called out in the California Energy Commission test procedure. In E24 you basically measure the first 24 hours of operation of the battery charger with a discharged battery. So this would include all the active modes that were being considered in the statute. In addition, of course, there is some other time that is spent doing other things.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But this is how the CEC is approaching it. Again, we're looking to have a uniform type way of measuring energy usage in battery chargers, so that we think this is probably the best way to get at it. We think that the changes to Appendix Y would be relatively minor and would certainly be no worse than many of the other changes that are being proposed by the Department. So we think this is something that could be done without materially affecting your very aggressive schedule. Next slide, Michael. Currently in the test procedure this is the language with respect to inactive and active mode measurements. The active mode measurement section has been reserved. Next slide, Michael. We're proposing here to basically add language to this Section 4 of Appendix Y to measure E24 during this first 24-hour period and then withhold the calculation of energy ratio. The reason why we're proposing to withhold the calculation of energy ratio is because we would like the Department to consider through its future rulemaking alternate ways of calculating energy ratio based upon a variety of different types of test procedures. That would be based upon different categories of battery charging systems.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So basically, the recommendation here, or the proposal, would be to measure active mode as E24 consistent with the CEC method and to take out of the test procedure right now a determination of energy ratio and save that for a later rulemaking. I think that's it. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. MR. ALBERT: Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: The next person I have listed would be from ECOS. Your name, please. Remarks by Chris Calwell Pacific Gas and Electric MR. CALWELL: Good morning. I'm Chris Calwell. I direct the policy and research activities at ECOS Consulting, and I'm here on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric. I'll be brief. Pacific Gas and Electric has, for a number of years, funded standards and test procedure development activities in California in support of mandatory efficiency standards there. So much of our work on external power supplies and then on battery charging systems began in that context. The external power supply discussion here I think is largely in its late stages and is about minor refinements at the end, so I won't devote much**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 attention to that. What I did want to say a bit about is the battery charging system test procedure, as alluded to in the previous presentation. This test procedure work got underway with our team in 2004. So we're at about a four-year mark now in the development process. After a number of published drafts and stakeholder comments and response, California Energy Commission is prepared to discuss 45-day language for that test procedure next week. I know the DOE staff and consultants have been involved in that process, and so I just wanted to encourage the inclusion of active mode harmonization with California's approach and for consultants and other individuals in this room to submit comments during that California proceeding because I think it could get us to a potential juncture for consensus in a faster timetable than the one that's going here and pave the way for DOE to adopt something similarly. With that I'll conclude, and look forward to the discussions later. We'll touch on some of the legal and technical arguments later for the merits of including active mode. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. MR. CALWELL: Thanks.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: The next person I have listed is from the Security Industry Association, Mark Visbal. Remarks by Mark Visbal Security Industry Association MR. VISBAL: Good morning. I'm Mark Visbal. I'm director of research and technology for theSecurity Industry Association, also known as SIA, S-IA. We represent about 400 manufacturers, integrators, dealers, distributors, specifiers, and monitoring companies of electronic physical access control systems, video safety and surveillance systems, medical emergency monitoring systems, as well as intrusion detection and fire alarm systems. SIA members provide solutions for physical security to protect the people and property of America in their schools and hospitals, their airports and seaports, their factories and offices, and especially their buildings of government. We thank you for the opportunity to provide comments towards the Department of Energy's implementation of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. We believe that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 does not apply, nor was it meant to apply, to the products and services our member**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 companies manufacture, specify, install, and monitor. In our view, the monitoring of fire, carbon monoxide, intruder detection sensors, and access control readers and exit devices requires a constant supply of energy. The electronic -- the external power supplies used in such security and life safety systems can never be operated in a no-load mode or off mode because disconnecting them from a load destroys the intended functionality and integrity of the system. Additionally, because these are security and life safety systems, they are continuously monitoring their sensor circuits for problems, as well as monitoring the functionality of the control panel, the presence of line voltage, the state of charge of the backup batteries used in the event of a power failure, as well as the communication channels used to relay critical information to the responding authorities. Additionally, the definition of a Class A external power supply does not capture security and life safety industry devices. Under this definition, a Class A EPS must be connected to the end use product via removable or hard-wired male-female electrical connection, cable, cord, or other wiring. This implicates that these power supplies are standalone and constitute a complete source of power**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that is separable from the end user's device. This is not the case for security and life safety systems. The transformer connected to the line voltage AC cannot be separated from the panel where the lower voltage AC is rectified and converted to DC voltage usable by the system. Essentially, a circuit within the security and life safety panel and the transformer together constitute the entire power supply. Please let me reiterate the fact that SIA members and manufacturers believe that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was not meant to cover their products. The Security Industry Association and its members support the goals of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. However, we also believe it would be inappropriate to require test procedures for off and standby modes for products that cannot be nor were ever intended to be used in these modes. These products are always on. Complying with test procedures proposed in this NOPR would add unnecessary expense to these products without advancing the goals of the Act. Importantly, these unnecessary expenses would ultimately be passed on to the end user. That's our taxpayer dollars.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In conclusion, SIA respectfully offers the following recommendations. We believe that the simplest way to clarify this is to amend the definitions of no-load mode to clarify that this mode does not apply to power supplies used for security, surveillance, and life safety products. We believe this would be consistent with the intent of the legislation, is consistent with DOE precedent, and is good public policy that avoids unnecessary expenses while not conflicting with the goals of energy efficiency. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments today. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank you very much. The next individual that we would hear from is from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw and Pittman. Remarks by Michael Hindus ADT Security Services, Sensormatic Electronics

Corporation, and Tyco Safety Products Canada MR. HINDUS: Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. My name is Michael Hindus, and I'm a partner in the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. Today I'm representing ADT Security Services, Sensormatic Electronics Corporation, and Tyco Safety Products Canada, market leaders in the security,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 surveillance, and life safety industries. We are largely in accord with the comments that you've just heard from the Security Industry Association. Our products are never intended to be used in off mode or standby mode. Our burglary detection system, even when not armed, or a fire detection system should always be on. It should never be used in off mode or standby mode. These products typically have no switches which would even permit them to be used in an off mode or standby mode. We believe it is inappropriate to establish test procedures for off mode and standby mode for products that cannot be used in those modes and were never intended to be used in those modes. For this reason, we respectfully take the position that the power supply efficiency standards of the EISA do not and should not apply to such devices employed in security and life safety systems in off and standby mode. Moreover, complying with the test procedures proposed in this NOPR would add unnecessary expense to those products without achieving the underlying efficiency benefit that the statutes intended. If the efficiency standards are deemed to be applicable, however, the regulations proposed in the**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NOPR are not feasible to apply to security systems because such systems do not function in off mode or standby mode. Under an analysis similar to that required by this NOPR just six months ago in March in the fluorescent lamp NOPR, this Department concluded that several types of fluorescent lamps do not function in off and standby mode. The fluorescent lamp NOPR and this NOPR require analysis under the same statutory standard. This Department found that current technologies for certain types of fluorescent lamps make it infeasible to test in off mode or standby mode. Specifically, those fluorescent lamps did not meet the criteria of off mode because those types of fluorescent lamps are disconnected from its power source. The fluorescent lamps did not meet the criteria of standby mode because the lamps are single function, to emit light, and do not offer any secondary user-oriented or protective functions. Accordingly, this Department decided not to expand the test procedure to incorporate measurement modes for off mode and standby mode energy consumption for certain types of fluorescent lamps. The Department should do the same here.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As with certain types of fluorescent lamps, security systems do not employ an off mode or standby mode. Accordingly, it is not feasible -- "feasible" is the word in the statute -- to measure energy consumption of power supplies used to power security systems in these modes. First, security systems are required to be active and continuously on and therefore are not capable of meeting the off mode requirement that the product "is not providing any standby or active mode function." Second, like the fluorescent lamps, the security systems are a single-function product, that function being to detect or monitor. Accordingly, security systems do not meet the criteria in the standby mode definition that requires the product have a user or protective function. Third, security systems typically do not have a switch that would permit them to be used in an off mode or standby mode. Finally, the security systems, which are in continuous operation, meet the definition of active mode as they are connected to a main power source and are activated to detect and monitor. Accordingly, it is not feasible to measure the energy consumption in**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the standby and off modes of power supplies used to power security systems. If EISA-mandated power supply efficiency standards are deemed to apply to security and life safety systems, we believe that the simplest way to act consistently with the precedent established in the fluorescent lamp NOPR is to add the following sentence at the end of the definitions at Appendix Z.2.N: "This mode does not apply to power supplies used for security, surveillance, and life safety products, which are never used in no-load mode." In addition, we propose similar language clarifying the definitions for off mode and standby mode to make sure that those modes similarly do not apply to these devices. We believe that by making the changes to these definitions the Department of Energy would be acting within its statutory authority, would be following its own recent precedent, and would establish good public policy by not imposing unnecessary expense on products the usefulness of which is defeated if used in standby and off mode. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. We will be filing a more complete set of comments next month.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks very much. The next person is from Microsoft. Remarks by Tim Calland Microsoft Corporation (PowerPoint presentation.) MR. CALLAND: Good morning. Microsoft appreciates the opportunity to present comments regarding the Department's notice of proposed rulemaking on test procedures. We believe that energy efficiency is an important component of our country's energy strategy, and we support initiatives that sustain energy efficiency and advance continued technological and software innovation. Microsoft concurs with the intent of the proposed addition of multiple output external power supplies to the scope of products regulated under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. However, the proposed test program does not represent actual usage for at least 20 million dual voltage external power supplies now in service. To require compliance with the proposed procedure as written would increase compliance cost without adding benefit in terms of greater energy efficiency or energy cost savings to

consumers. We would like to suggest an alternative test**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 procedure for multiple output external power supplies that will enable power supply testing that reflects actual usage and supports energy efficiency without unnecessarily increasing compliance cost. As background to our comments on the proposed test method, it's worth reviewing some basic principles about energy efficiency of power supplies. The graph of efficiency of a typical power supply while varying the load it delivers from zero to 100 percent of the design limit, is a curve that we like to call a camel hump, like the blue line shown on the slide. The power supply is most efficient when operating somewhere in the middle between no load at all and the maximum load it can deliver, the top of the hump. The system consisting of the Xbox 360 game console and its external power supply is designed to operate at the top of the hump, a range from about 42 percent -- let's see if I can hit it here. Let's see. Forty-two percent to about 75 percent of full load. The red line on the graph represents the standard we're being asked to meet. As you can see, its range far exceeds the actual, more limited operating range of the product under test. Regarding the proposed test procedure for**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 multiple-voltage external power supplies in Appendix Z of the notice of public rulemaking, we note that the test procedure is based on the Energy Star industry standard for single output power supplies, which tests efficiency with various different loads representing the kinds of products it might typically be used with. Next slide, please. Testing a general purpose power supply to a broad spectrum of loads makes sense. However, when we restrict the use of a power supply to a dedicated product, we can tailor its design to a set of known conditions rather than an infinite variation of loads it will never see. This allows the same level of performance without unnecessarily adding to compliance cost. A wide variety of external general purpose power supplies are available at retail electronics stores. You can see some on the slide above. They're provided with generic connectors. They don't come with a product to plug them into. And they power all sorts of electronic devices, from cell phones to cameras to rechargeable batteries. Because these off-the-shelf power supplies are intended to be used with such a variety of products, we agree they should be proven efficient for any and all electrical loads.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We agree that the loading described in the present test procedure for single output external power supplies represents actual use for these devices. However, in the case of a dedicated power supply, which by nature of its design can only be used for one particular product whose loads are controlled at manufacture, the proposed test procedure does not necessarily yield results comparable and representative of actual usage as mentioned in the proposal. A better representation of efficiency and actual use can be made by testing the power supply with its intended load under intended operating conditions. Such testing will result in the same level of efficiency for the end user without adding needlessly to product cost. Next slide, please. There you go. Now, remember the slide that you just saw with the cute little AC adaptors that this is a perfect regulation for. Well, this is the power supply for the Xbox 360. The power supply of the Xbox 360 game system is not sold separately from the console. You can see it has a proprietary connector -- there's a picture of it up there -- which can be only used with the console. The only kinds of loads the power supply will ever see are the loads that are delivered by the box when it goes through a relatively**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 limited number of functions. Remember the green lines on the graph. Next slide, please. Because we designed the Xbox 360 power supply endgame console as a system, because we specified the software to be used on the system, because we qualified the design and the software by test before the design is manufactured, and because we maintain control of the loads, we know what's going to be happening here. In this case, I hope you will agree that the proposed test does not yield results that are comparable or representative of actual use. If you'll recall, the proposed test procedure specifies testing at artificial loads of 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of maximum rating on the nameplate of the power supply. As I mentioned before, because the power supply can only be connected to a 360 console, the only efficiency the user can benefit can be found in a range from 42 to 75 percent of the rated full load, once again shown by the green bars on the graph. So if we test the power supply with its actual load instead, we can accomplish the same level of energy efficiency. Therefore, we recommend that as an alternative to the proposed test procedure a dedicated single-product power supply may be tested with its**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 intended load in all operational modes rather than with artificial loads. Accordingly, we have enclosed suggested changes to the test procedure described in Appendix Z of the NOPR in our comments. We estimate that building a power supply with constant efficiency from 25 percent of load to nameplate full load will add approximately $2 to $3 per Xbox 360 game console manufactured without improvement in overall efficiency and actual use. Over 20 million Xbox 360 game systems have been manufactured since the product launched in 2005. At $3 per unit, that incremental cost would have already hit $60 million. Total compliance cost will be even higher as the system continues to be sold and when including costs that will accrue to other manufacturers subject to this proposed rule. We're concerned that these additional costs are unduly burdensome and come without adding benefit in terms of greater energy efficiency or energy cost savings. We welcome the opportunity to provide the Department with additional details regarding these issues and recommendations we offer today. Thanks for allowing us to be heard. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CALLAND: Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: The last person that I have listed is from the Information Technology Industry Council. We want to provide an opportunity for other individuals that wish to speak here at the opening as well. The Information Technology Industry Council? Remarks by Ken Salaets Information Technology Industry Council MR. SALAETS: Good morning. My name is Ken Salaets, director of technology and trade policy at the Information Technology Industry Council, or ITI, which is a lot easier to say. We appreciate the opportunity to be here and offer some brief comments. We as well will provide more substantial comments next month, but we welcome the opportunity to engage in dialogue with the Department as well to consult on this issue. ITI represents some of the leading technology companies globally, and a few of them are in this room: Microsoft, Panasonic, Sony, Texas Instruments. We also cover companies in Europe and elsewhere, hopefully soon South America. We have been engaged in energy efficiency since the '92 Policy Act, working with DOE in a number of areas, as well as with EPA and the Energy Star Program. We are encouraged by the transparency of the**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 4 Department's process. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to present and to engage in further dialogue. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Our companies have reviewed the notice of proposed rulemaking and we have a number of comments, but I will just highlight a few here. In general theme, there are three things I want to focus on: declaration of conformity, harmonization, which has been referenced already, and also exceptions for unique situations. We have sort of a mantra at ITI that is something to the effect of in a standard one test applies declaration of conformity, the notion being that if you have essentially a single standard requirement and you negotiate that development in a consensus process between all stakeholders, then it reduces the cost and burden not only on manufacturers but also on the end user and in some cases even governments by adopting that standard worldwide, allowing companies to test and declare conformance with that standard and to make that information readily available when asked. One concern we have with the current proposal is the mandatory certification and data system submission requirement included in the rule. While we**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appreciate that traditionally the Department has included such a requirement for covered and regulated products, we do not believe that Congress has in effect mandated such activity in this case, and we will go through that in further detail in the written statement. Further, many manufacturers already test and sell declared conformance with corresponding EPA Energy Star efficiency requirements for the same products. As Chris referenced, the California Energy Commission is also heavily, actively, and persistently engaged in these issues. The information is then posted through the Energy Star process on their website as qualified products, a list of qualified products, and that information is accessible to all parties. We urge the Department to consider accepting such declarations as an alternative approach for satisfying the certification requirement. Again, we will go into more detail, but we point out that there is precedent for the Department doing this, referencing other agency reporting requirements and in some cases even certifications as acceptable in lieu of a single certification under DOE. Again, a high-level summary. We'll provide**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 more detail and an alternative recommendation in the written statement. On duration of test, another issue that's come up in the conversation with ITI members, in the section on the off mode test method for battery chargers, which starts on page 48061 in the Register, the Department publishes what it characterizes as a clarification of "current procedures" for measuring standby mode and battery maintenance mode energy consumption for battery chargers. The agency points out that this recommendation in the proposal is based largely on the test methodology that was published in December 2005. EPA, I believe, offered two options. One was a one-hour or a 12-hour test. In the proposed rule you're requiring, or recommending requiring a minimum of a one-hour test. We believe that a one-hour test as a minimum is unnecessary to accomplish the essential goals of the proposed rulemaking. As we have heard a theme here, it would lead to undue costs, resource requirements, and in some cases even waste energy. So what we suggest is there are commercially available power analyzers in the marketplace today which -- that give effective and reliable standby mode**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 power measurements within 10 seconds. The actual measurements are performed even faster due to a sampling rate many times per second. There's a brand name in here. I'll leave that out, but it's in the comments that I think we're submitting for the record. Essentially, what we found and experienced is that using the 10-second test versus the one-hour test, the results don't change. The efficiency doesn't improve in terms of the measurement. So what we would like to see is some flexibility added to the proposed rulemaking that when manufacturers are using technology that enables them to make more rapid and more efficient tests that produce the same result that that option be provided. Perhaps one way to do that is including language along the lines of allowing for averaging over a longer period. But again, the written comments will reinforce the same idea. We do note that certain tests would probably save more than 95 percent of the energy otherwise consumed in the one hour. Just an aside. And then in terms of detailed comments, single-product power supplies, Tim just referenced this relative to the Microsoft product. Since the real benchmark here is results comparable and representative of actual usage, we've heard from the other gentleman**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in the security area that they also have concerns along this regard. While we appreciate again that there is some semblance of harmonization in terms of what the Department is proposing relative to testing at multiple loads that in the cases where that is really not a realistic usage experience of the end user that we would suggest that there be an exception allowed in that case. We would probably support the other comments as well. I think they're consistent with our position. So again, ultimately we will recommend that you consider modifications that allow exceptions. I'm not certain if you would want to go as specifically as citing situations because there may be additional exceptions that are considered or aren't contemplated before the rule is published and the accelerated timeline here, but again they'll be in the written comments. Some additional areas of concern that we will also highlight. One is to recommend amending the definition for battery chargers to ensure that it only covers equipment specifically marketed and intended to charge batteries. In other words, to ensure that AC adaptors, for example, are not labeled as battery chargers. We will offer some suggestions in that**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 regard. We also recommend that the Energy Star-listed external power supplies that -- that EPA or Energy Star-listed power supplies be deemed compliant with the statutory requirements and therefore not require additional testing. Finally, we would also, or will also recommend that the Department consider not addressing multi-output AC adaptors not specifically referenced in the statute at this time but rather conduct some additional, further analysis and somewhere down the road, after conducting that analysis, determine if that's an appropriate reason for creating a standard. Some products aren't specifically referenced in the legislation, so in that respect we believe that there is still some flexibility. So that concludes the comments. Again, we would welcome the opportunity to engage in the interim between the final rulemaking and look forward to public comments. Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. We wanted to provide an opportunity for anyone else that wishes to make brief summary remarks at this time before we proceed with a lot of detailed content. Remarks by Wes Burt**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Natural Resources Defense Council MR. BURT: Yes. Good morning. My name is Wes Burt with the Natural Resources Defense Council. We're a national environmental nonprofit with 1.2 million members and have been involved in the standards program of the Department since its inception. I wanted to speak up and second the comments from our colleagues at ECOS Consulting and weigh in on two issues. One is the need for the Department to create test methods that are consistent with international test methods, and the second being the need for the battery chargers test method to cover active mode. We feel that the Department should take a look and measure the energy use of the primary function of a device. Should they not do that, then they will be ignoring a primary energy consumption mode. Further, it sets a dangerous precedent for the Department to promulgate a preemptive federal standard that has such an obvious hole in scope. Thanks. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, please. Your

name.

Remarks by Doug Johnson Consumer Electronics Association**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. My name is Doug Johnson with the Consumer Electronics Association. I just wanted to echo a couple of points and others that were brought up by ITI and Microsoft. One, we certainly urge the Department to harmonize with existing test procedures, as was also mentioned in the AHAM proposal this morning, or the AHAM presentation this morning. Also, with regard to one of the points or one of the questions brought forth for public comment, we would oppose the notion of collecting compliance data for compliant external power supplies and battery chargers as was suggested in the DOE's notice. This would be an extreme burden for both government and industry. It's certainly not the way that the topic has been handled to date. There are better ways formanufacturers to show compliance through selfdeclaration, self-certification. We, like other associations, will be filing comments for the public record as well. Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Others, please. Yes. Your name.

Remarks by Jim Haynes Uniden Engineering Services**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HAYNES: My name is Jim Haynes and I'm with Uniden Corporation. Basically, I think I'm also speaking for the telephony manufacturers. I just wanted to go on record that we certainly endorse the comments made by the security folks because telephones that our industry makes that use the external power supply are actually never in a no-load situation as well. Telephones are unique, especially cordless telephones that have batteries. They're a battery charger. They're also an operating power supply, and the fact that the device is never in a no-load situation. Contrary to what a lot of people think, they think that a telephone just sitting is doing nothing, but in essence a cordless telephone that is sitting is actually communicating back and forth between the base unit and the handset constantly to find out if in fact a call is to be placed. Of course, it has to be in the on position so that if a call does come in it can be transmitted to the handset or whatever. So what I'm really getting at is the fact that on behalf of the telephony manufacturers, most of which are already on record with CEA and other organizations to bring this out, that no-load situation**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or the no-load condition is never prevalent with telephony products. Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Others? Other summary comments? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Then let me add my voice to Vic's in welcoming anybody that might be listening in on the webcast. We hope this is a useful day for you, a useful way of engaging in this content. Thanks for joining us. So then let's proceed with the program. Introduction, Background, and Legal Authority Vic Petrolati (PowerPoint presentation.) MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Again, Vic Petrolati, the project leader for battery chargers and external power supplies. I'm going to be giving you a quick introduction on battery chargers and external power supplies, explaining the purpose of our meeting today and how you can be an active stakeholder in terms of providing your comments. All right. There are numerous examples, obviously, of products that use both battery chargers and external power supplies. We are just putting up a few examples for you. We have seen already a couple of**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 examples here today. We have cameras, power tools, cell phones, MP3 players, laptops, monitors, and many, many other products. All right. Just quickly, conceptually, differences between external power supplies and battery chargers. This is a real primer, and I'm going to also go into some helpful information in terms of explaining the rule. Major differences, of course. An external power supply continually converts power from mains and delivers it directly to the load. With a battery charger, mains first deliver power to the battery. Then the battery delivers energy to the load. Again, these are just quick schematics. These aren't legal definitions. We will get into the legal definitions fairly soon. All right. The purpose of the Test Procedure Public Meeting. I'd like to summarize the purpose. It's to present stakeholders with an overview of the statute and all of our departmental actions concerning battery chargers and external power supplies. We're certainly here to fulfill the Energy Independence and Security Act requirements, to establish definitions and amend existing test procedures for battery chargers and external power supplies, to measure standby and off mode, and to have that test procedure finalized by**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 December 2008. We are going to present the Department's proposed test procedures for incorporating standby mode and off mode into the EPS and BC test procedures. We are also going to present, as was initially discussed here, our multi-voltage test procedure for EPSs. We are going to discuss the Department's reporting requirements for Class A EPSs. We are going to seek, obviously, oral comments from all stakeholders. We hope to discuss and respond to specific issues or questions related to our proposal here today. All right. This is an issue box. We're going to put it up a number of times during the meeting. This is where we would like to specifically get stakeholder input on a number of issues that we think that we need further information. By no means does this limit you in terms of providing comments on any aspect of what we've got on the notice of proposed rulemaking. This is more or less our emphasis of where we think we need some further information. Okay. Feedback is requested. That's the reason we're having a public meeting. That's why we've got such a formal process for all of this, is to try to get as much feedback as possible to allow us to make**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the best decisions possible. I've provided you here the information for providing that feedback. Let me just summarize again. Comments concerning our current NOPR are due by October 29th, 2008. You can submit those comments electronically or in writing. We've given you all the information you need here in terms of submitting comments. Okay. Before I go into the background and legal authority, I think everything has been fairly simple right now. Any questions? (No response.) MR. PETROLATI: Doesn't look like it. Okay. I'm going to be covering the background and legal authority for our actions. I believe we have, basically from all the questions that I've been fielding today, a lot of people that are new to, first of all, regulations under DOE Appliance Standards Program and, in some cases, any government regulations. I'm going to spend a little more time than usual basically giving a primer on some of these concepts and how we move forward. The first thing we're going to do is compare our DOE rulemakings with the Energy Star specifications**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and explain the differences. We're going to review congressional direction and DOE reactions to what we've gotten in terms of congressional direction. Quick review of past and future DOE actions for battery chargers and external power supplies. I'm going to present you our timeline for all of our actions concerning battery chargers and external power supplies and just quickly present a summary of the content of the test procedure NOPR. Okay. Comparisons of Energy Star. Many stakeholders obviously here are familiar with the Energy Star voluntary specifications, but in some cases are new to DOE rules certainly for battery chargers and external power supplies. Okay. Obviously, both processes seek input from stakeholders in terms of developing their programs. The DOE process is much more rigorous because of the legal and economic consequences associated with mandatory standards. Okay. Let's take a look at the table. Both the Energy Star specs and the Department of Energy rules obviously incorporate test procedures and qualifying levels. Okay. In the Energy Star program -- by the way, we are certainly using the same test procedures**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 currently for battery chargers and external power supplies as what's used under the EPA Energy Star voluntary program. In terms of qualifying levels under each program, EPA generally requires levels to meet the Energy Star criteria in the top 25 percent of the most efficient products in the market. We have to do a thorough analysis to come up with the most technically and economically feasible standards. Again, the EPA program is a voluntary program. The DOE program is mandatory. That means whatever standards we will come up with as part of this program or the standards that have already been established under EISA, all products must meet that standard before they are distributed in commerce. Okay. DOE is the responsible party for implementing the Appliance Standards Program under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. That's how far back we go for some of this legislation. Okay. Our statutory authority for BC-EPS comes from Congress's amendments to EPCA. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, adding BCs and EPSs, battery chargers and external power supplies, to the Appliance Standards Program. The Energy Independence and Security Act of**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2007 further amended EPCA, resulting in the current rulemaking today that's under discussion. All right. I'm sure most of you in this room know this, but bottom line is our statutory authority for BC-EPS comes from Congress's amendments to EPCA. Congress and the president passed the public laws. The public laws are codified in the U.S. State Code. EPCA, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, is U.S. State Code. What we're currently here today doing is we have proposed rules in the Federal Register. The Department publishes its rules, both proposed and final rules, in the Federal Register and they will eventually be codified in the Federal Register. The current notice of proposed rulemaking is under 10 CFR Part 430 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The thing that is critical in terms of public laws, bottom line, is EPACT and EISA must be viewed in the context of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. In other words, you need to see the revised language in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to understand fully what the amendments under EPACT and EISA have done in terms of impacting both battery chargers and external power supplies under the Appliance Standards Program.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Just to give you an example, I get many questions coming in concerning whether or not external power supplies that are manufactured for commercial or industrial products are covered under our program. Once you have a codified version of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, including amendments, you will find that it's included under the Consumer Products. So we are not covering both commercial or industrial products that are EPSs manufactured for commercial and industrial products. Anyway, bottom line, it's the same thing with our regulations. What we are doing is amending the previous regulations for test procedures. I'm sure everybody realizes that. But you need to have a copy of the previous regulation as well as our changes to fully understand what's being proposed. Okay. Let's get into some of the details of what we're doing under our current rulemakings. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 initiated battery charger and external power supply rulemaking. The EPACT 2005 was enacted on August 8th, 2005, to do the following: provide definitions for battery chargers and external power supplies. These are included in all of the handouts. It also directed DOE to develop test procedures for battery chargers and external power**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 supplies by December 8th, 2006; hold a scoping workshop for battery chargers and external power supplies by February 8th, 2007; and conduct a determination on whether energy conservation standards should be issued for battery chargers and external power supplies by July 8th, 2008. Okay. Just to indicate what has already been accomplished. We published a NOPR in July 2006. It was called the en masse test procedures and incorporated the proposed test procedures for battery chargers and external power supplies. There was a public meeting on that in September of 2006. Final rule for test procedures on battery chargers and external power supplies was published in December of 2006. In that final rule under battery chargers we reserved a section in the Code of Federal Regulations for measurement of battery charger active mode energy consumption. Okay. We were conducting a determination analysis for both battery chargers and external power supplies prior to the changes in basically EISA. We published framework documents for that determination in December of 2006. We held a scoping workshop in 2007. And the determination was due by August 8th, 2008. Of**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 course we had some changes. Okay. The Energy Independence and Security Act further amended the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, providing definitions for standby and off mode, what we're here for today -- again, definitions are in the handouts -- provided the definition for Class A external power supplies. EISA also set energy efficiency standards for Class A EPSs, canceling the EPACT determination for EPSs. EISA also directed DOE to amend the BC-EPS test procedure to account for energy consumption in standby and off mode and to conduct a determination whether energy conservation standards should be issued for non-Class A EPSs by December 19th, 2008. It also required DOE to amend Class A EPS energy efficiency standards that were promulgated on July 1st, 2008, by July 1st, 2011, and again by July 1st, 2015, if technically and economically feasible. Okay. Quickly, you're probably all familiar with it. This is the definition for the Class A external power supply: a device that converts line voltage AC into lower voltage AC or DC, converts to only one output voltage at a time, powers a separate end use product, is contained in a separate physical**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 enclosure, is removable or permanently attached to the end use product, has a nameplate output less than or equal to 250 watts, but not a device that powers a medical device, a battery charger for a product that is fully or primarily motor operated, or a battery charger for a detachable battery pack where the battery is contained in a separate enclosure from the product, intended to be removed or disconnected from the product for recharging. That is the language that Congress provided us as to what is included in the Class A EPS standards. Okay. Just showing you quickly, these are the standards that became effective July 1st, 2008, for Class A EPSs. Most of you who produce EPSs are probably familiar with these standards since they are the same standards that California had promulgated by July 1st, 2008, as well. Okay. Our current action. We're proposing test procedures for standby and off mode. The NOPR for these test procedures was published on August 15th. That is the reason for this public meeting. It included amendments to the test procedures to incorporate standby and off mode. We are also proposing a new multi-voltage EPS test procedure. There are no standards at this time**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 established for external power supplies using multivoltage. That will be considered as part of our determination analysis. The determination analysis will look at all products that are non-Class A EPSs. In order to evaluate energy savings from certain devices such as the multi-voltage external power supplies, we need to have a test procedure in place. Okay. We are holding the public meeting today, obviously. Again, thank you for coming. We certainly have to have the final rule published by December 31st, 2008. That is an EISA requirement. We plan on making that date. Okay. Again, we are also in the process of trying to address non-Class A EPSs by conducting a determination analysis. For those who are not familiar with what a determination analysis is, we're trying to determine whether or not there are significant potential savings associated with setting standards for non-Class A EPS. Again, this determination is due by December 19th, 2009. We're also in the process, as we speak, of developing future standards for battery chargers and external power supplies, Class A external power supplies. We were hoping to have the framework document published at this time so we could hold one**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 meeting. The framework document is slightly delayed. We expect to have a framework document to kick off our standard-setting process for battery chargers and external power supplies in late 2008. An ANOPR and NOPR will follow. We are required, again by EISA, to have a final rule for future standards for battery chargers and external power supplies by July 1st, 2011. Okay. EISA has also required us to revisit standards for Class A external power supplies. After we establish potential rules in 2011, they ask us to go back again and, by July 1st of 2015, make those standards more stringent if technically and economically feasible. All right. I've thrown a lot at you in terms of all the actions that we're required to get completed. We get confused sometimes as well in terms of how all of these actions fit together and basically what our timelines are. This table will give you a quick timeline for all the actions we plan on getting completed. Standards for Class A EPSs, where applicable, on July 1st, 2008. We have to incorporate the standby and off mode test procedures by December 31st, 2008. We're required to complete the determination as to whether or not we should establish standards for non-**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Class A EPSs by December 19th, 2009. Energy conservation standards notice of proposed rule we believe needs to be issued approximately by October 31st, 2010. That is not an EISA date. We just have that as a planning date because if we are going to incorporate the active mode into the battery charger test procedure we need to have a final rule for that completed before our notice of proposed rulemaking for energy conservation standards for battery chargers. Again, the battery charger active mode test procedure is still under consideration by the Department, incorporating active mode. Okay. The Energy Conservation Standards Final Rule has to be issued, again, by July 1st, 2011. That's an EISA-required date. Okay. Standards will be applicable, if we establish standards for energy conservation standards for EPSs, on July 1st, 2011. Standards will become effective for EPSs on July 1st, 2013. Congress did not give us a date for when standards should become effective for battery chargers. We believe it will probably be the same date, unless there are reasons why the standard for battery chargers should be delayed. Energy Conservation Standards Final Rule,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 again, will have to be issued by July 1st, 2015, if we believe it's technically and economically feasible to issue more stringent standards. Standards, again, would be applicable by July 2017. Okay. Any questions before I get on just a quick summary of the test procedure NOPR that was in our Federal Register? MR. BROOKMAN: I see a few questions. Chris. MR. CALWELL: Yes. Vic, I did have one question about your timeline of milestones for BC -- there it is. That's the one. No, actually, let's see. I'm looking on my slides. It's Slide 29. MR. BROOKMAN: Twenty-nine is right here. MR. CALWELL: There it is. Yeah. Thank you. You're showing about nine months between the deadline for posting the battery charger active mode test procedure and the final rule being issued for the conservation standards. Is that sufficient time? MR. PETROLATI: That is the date that we would like to get the final rule completed for the test procedure for incorporating the active mode into the battery charger test procedure. Okay. So that date for us is our drop-dead date to complete the rulemaking for incorporating -- MR. CALWELL: So you could finish earlier if**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 needed and you could analyze effects of and test products much earlier than that. MR. PETROLATI: Right. Yeah. MR. CALWELL: Okay. Yeah. My sense is that that nine months there is a fairly short window relative to the whole time of the rulemaking. MR. PETROLATI: Right. Our concern is that for the notice of proposed rule for energy conservation standards for battery chargers, everybody has to understand what the test procedure is at that point in time. So we feel we have to have a finalized test procedure for battery chargers by approximately that date. That's a planning date for us right now. MR. BROOKMAN: Let's let this gentleman follow on, then I'll turn it back to you, Don. Please. You, yes. Say your name for the record. MR. HAYNES: This is Jim Haynes again. Part of the definition of a Class A external power supply -- this is back on one of your previous slides. I wanted to ask the folks basically is a cordless telephone power supply considered a Class A external power supply? I call your attention -- I don't have one with me, but if you can visualize; a cordless telephone is a device where the AC adaptor -- rather than use the**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 words "external power supply" or "battery charger," that adaptor plugs into the wall. It is connected to the base unit of a cordless telephone and operates the product that way. I mean the base unit receives power that way. Now, there's also a handset which is removable, and that handset has batteries. While that handset is in the base cradle, so to speak, it's being charged. But of course, when you use the telephone, you pick that device up, the handset, and so it's detachable. So I'm trying to find out what the definition of the AC adaptor would be. MR. PETROLATI: Jim, that's an excellent question. Unfortunately, we're not going to be able to answer that for you today. MR. HAYNES: Okay. MR. PETROLATI: That is going to be handled as part of our framework document. I will tell you that we're still struggling with this language that Congress has given us as to how we make all of those interpretations under this language. We are going to strive to incorporate something that makes sense into our framework document, which will be published later in this year, and again seek comment on it.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This is probably the first time you've seen this language as to what a Class A EPS is, unless you were involved in the drafting. This is certainly the first time we have seen it. It's not similar to any other language that has been used previously. So we're still in the process of making our interpretations as well. MR. HAYNES: Well, on behalf of my company, and I believe I speak for the rest of the cordless telephone industry, we certainly are striving to be good citizens and make products that are energy efficient, at the same time that work. But if you can understand our dilemma in trying to find out which standards are applicable to our product. Thank you. MR. PETROLATI: Right. Yeah. Sorry for that. MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Jim. Don, please. MR. UMBDENSTOCK: This is Don Umbdenstock. I have a question on Slide 26. The focus of that particular activity is power supplies outside of Class A. MR. PETROLATI: Correct. MR. UMBDENSTOCK: And earlier in the presentation you made a comment that commercial and industrial power supplies were not included. Is this**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 focused, then, on commercial and industrial power supplies? MR. PETROLATI: It is not. I'll tell you the specific reason. It's because these amendments -- MR. BROOKMAN: Make sure to get to the microphone. MR. PETROLATI: Oh, I'm sorry. It is not because the amendments that EISA provided to the Energy Policy Conservation Act were under the section for consumer products. Okay. So we've got our legal counsel here. I know of no way that we can regulate commercial or industrial external power supplies and battery chargers based on the way that was crafted. MR. UMBDENSTOCK: Thank you. MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments or questions here at the outset surrounding these definitional and statutory issues? Please. Your name for the record. MR. ANDERSON: Wayne Anderson, Motorola. I have the same kind of product category as Jim was talking about. If you have a cell phone, you have the adaptor plugged into it, and it's charging. But once you take the cell phone off, you're back to a power supply kind of situation. So we struggle as well**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 trying to figure out what piece of this we're supposed to test to. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, please. MR. DIETERLE: Wayne Dieterle of Conair. I'm wondering; we manufacture products which are used for travel, adapting from 240-volt to 120-volt, and can be used with a number of different products. Would that be classified as a Class A EPS? MR. PETROLATI: At this point I see no reason why it would not. Did you feel that those products met any of the exclusions? Did it meet the definition for Class A? And by any chance, do you feel it was covered under the exclusions? MR. DIETERLE: Well, I guess my whole issue here is that it's really used for travel outside of the U.S. Even though we sell it in the U.S., it's not really used here because it's going from 240-volt down to 120 so you can use your domestic appliances when you travel. MR. PETROLATI: Right. And can I ask, do you feel that the initial criteria for that device is met under this definition? Converts line voltage AC into lower voltage AC or DC? MR. DIETERLE: Yeah. Yes, it does. MR. PETROLATI: Okay. You know, we are going**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to be struggling with all the products that might be used with some of these universal adaptors. But the bottom line is that's what we're going to use as our criteria for making those decisions. Now, there is exclusionary criteria. I don't think that device fits any of the exclusionary criteria. MR. DIETERLE: No. MR. PETROLATI: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. MR. CALLAND: Yes. Well, that brings another question to mind. MR. BROOKMAN: This would be Tim Calland. MR. CALLAND: Tim Calland from Microsoft. Will this law be enforced when products are placed on the market or placed into service? Which is to say if I buy it here but don't use it here in the United States, am I subject to this law? Does it fall within the jurisdiction of the law? And at what date will the law go into effect for products being manufactured after that date, product being placed on the market after that date, or product being placed into service after that date? MR. PETROLATI: Francine, would you like to jump in on that one? MR. BROOKMAN: Francine Pinto.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PETROLATI: I'd like to -- yeah. MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto, General Counsel. Generally, it's date of manufacture. It's definitely not date of service. And it's definitely also not where you use the product. If something is distributed in interstate commerce, then it's covered by our regulations if it meets the definitions and all that. We always have effective dates, though, of when a manufacturer has to comply with one of our regulations. There's always lead time between when we publish a rule and when you have to manufacture to the rule. MR. BROOKMAN: Chris, additional question? MR. CALWELL: Yeah. Chris Calwell from ECOS. Vic, I appreciated the clarification on commercial and industrial versus residential. I just wondered if there was any more detail you or the general counsel could provide because some of us are used to thinking about sectors the way utilities do. So commercial and industrial could just mean used on the premises of places that conduct business or manufacture things, or it might have to do with some more narrow legal definition of commercial and industrial. Can you provide any more thoughts there? MR. PETROLATI: Francine? MS. PINTO: Yeah. Francine Pinto. There's a**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 definition in EPCA that defines consumer products. I don't have it right here with me, but it's in, I believe, Section 321. Generally speaking, it's like the primary intent of the product. If you look at the language in the statute, it's the primary intent of the product to be used for consumer use. So a product can still be a consumer product even if it's used in some commercial applications. And then when you look in Part A1, which is commercial, A is consumer part, Part A1 is commercial. Again, it's the intent to be primarily used in commercial applications. But it's a little tricky because, as I said, you can have -- something can still be a consumer product even if it is used in some commercial applications. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Thank you, Francine. That is basically the same interpretation that I've given to the 150,000 people who have asked that question over the process of sending in e-mails. (Laughter.) MR. PETROLATI: So thank you for that clarification as well. All right. Are there any more questions on milestones before I get into a very quick discussion of**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 6 what's in the test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (No response.) MR. PETROLATI: Doesn't look like it. We're all still interested in breaking for the weekend. Okay. I'm going to provide a quick summary of the content of the Federal Register notice just to give you a basic understanding of how it's organized. We published the NOPR for this rulemaking on August 15th. On the first page of the Federal Register is the supplemental information, which lists the summary, provides an overview of the topics that are going to be discussed. A discussion section provides detailed explanation for the proposed changes that we are making. Then, finally in the Federal Register is the rule language section, which provides the precise proposed amendments to the current test procedure. I'm sure you're all familiar with the breakdown of how the Federal Register notice is. Okay. We also have provided, on page 48056 and -7, a summary of all the proposed modifications that are being made as part of our notice of proposed rulemaking. Okay. The preamble ends and the rule**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 language section begins on page 48079. Just a quick, again, primer. The preamble explains our actions in everyday language, what we're trying to accomplish. The rule language is the specific rule requirements, the exact proposed changes to the existing regulation from December 2006. You see the use of the stars denotes no changes to the previous text. Today DOE will present and explain these proposed amendments. Okay. All materials, basically all the handouts, everything else that is part of this rulemaking, is on our website. So if you need any documents or you need to refer others to documents, this is the web address. Okay. Before we start on the battery charger test procedure, any other, additional questions? (No response.) MR. PETROLATI: Very good. Thank you for your time. Battery Chargers Test Procedure: Definitions Michael Vladimer (PowerPoint presentation.) MR. VLADIMER: Good morning. I'm Michael Vladimer from Navigant Consulting. Navigant Consulting, along with our colleagues at D&R International, support the Department of Energy in this**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rulemaking. I'm here to present the battery charger test procedure proposed changes. We're going to start off looking at how the test procedure works, get into standby and off mode and the definitional changes, and then talk about some test measurement changes. As Vic mentioned previously, everything that we're proposing here is in reference to the 2006 final rule. So I'd encourage you to look in the packets that you picked up in the front and the final rule is right there. It looks kind of like this. So if you see anything here that might not make sense, this is the context for it. So when you look at the final rule for the battery charger test procedure, you'll see that there's four clearly marked sections: Scope, Definitions, Test Apparatus, and then finally Test Measurement. The Scope talks about how does the test procedure apply and to which products. The definitions, what are the exact meanings of the terms that we're using. Test Apparatus, how is the test lab supposed to be set up. Then, finally, how do we take the test measurement itself. So, as I said, we're going to talk about the definitions and then we're going to talk about test**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 measurement changes to address standby mode and active mode, which, as Vic mentioned, are required by EISA. Either in the middle of that or at the end of that we'll take a coffee break. I'll start with the definitions. When EISA directed the Department of Energy to come up with test procedures for standby mode and off mode, it did provide definitions for those terms. It also specified that DOE can amend those definitions, with the caveat that it needs to take into consideration IEC 62301 and IEC 62087. Today, the Department is proposing alternative definitions for those two modes, and one of the primary issues regarding those definitions are on/off switches, which aren't addressed either by EISA or the IEC standards. So the EISA definition itself reads, “the condition in which an energy-using product is connected to main power source; offers one or more of the following user-oriented or protective functions: to facilitate the activation or deactivation of other functions, including remote switch, internal sensor, or timer;” and then it talks about continuous function such as status displays and sensor-based functions. So I'm going to talk about -- that definition**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is good in the broad sense, but when we apply it specifically to battery chargers we think that there is some need for clarification. So one issue is how do you apply the terms "user-oriented function" and status display when talking about a battery indicator light. Some battery chargers might have an indicator light, some might not. Some might have one that comes on when the battery is removed, some might not. So here we present the example of if you have a battery charger, the battery has been removed from the charger, and the on/off switch, if there is an on/off switch, is set to on, one might have a light, one might not. According to the EISA definitions, one would be in standby mode and one would be in off mode. We believe that those would be two -- even though there's only a light that's different, we think that those two modes would be comparable and we want to compare them. So because of that, the Department of Energy is proposing a consistent definition for standby mode. Similarly, the Department evaluated the IEC definition in IEC 62301. 62301 sets the definition based on the lowest power consumption mode. Again, it doesn't address on/off switches. By specifying the**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lowest power consumption mode, it doesn't provide the option if a product is not consuming any power at all. MR. BROOKMAN: Michael, I think this is complicated enough that we'll entertain some questions as we're going along. MR. VLADIMER: Sure. MR. BROOKMAN: If that's okay with you. Tim Calland. MR. CALLAND: Just a quick point of information. Michael, I think you and I discussed this briefly on the phone. As we speak, a final implementing measure has been drafted and will be turned into law at the end of this year for LOT 6 and the European Union that deals with very specific definitions of standby and off mode power. In the interest of international harmonization, I would like to encourage this group to do everything they can to make their requirements in harmony with that which has already become law in the European Union. MR. VLADIMER: Excellent. Anyone else? (No response.) MR. VLADIMER: Sure. Thank you, Doug. And thank you, Tim. So I was discussing how the EISA definition applies to battery chargers. We looked at that. Now,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because EISA says if the Department were to change the definitions it should also consider IEC, I want to talk about how the Department did look at the IEC definition for standby mode. In the IEC definition, there it really focused on the lowest power consumption mode. Again there is a possibility for confusion that the Department wants to clarify. So if you had two battery chargers, both with on/off switches, and the switches were set to "off," depending upon where the manufacturer chose to put that switch there's a chance that one could consume power while plugged in and the other one might not. Again, the Department believes that these are comparable modes that should be measured in the same way and meet the same criteria in the test procedure. The Department's proposed definitions in this test procedure address that. So, for standby mode, the Department proposes to just modify the existing definition, that is pretty tight to begin with, but add on the line that it's only for battery chargers with -- sorry. Standby mode is a condition in which the battery charger is connected to the main electrical supply, the battery is not connected to the charger, and for battery chargers with manual on/off switches, that all switches are turned to**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "on." Yes, please. MR. HINDUS: This is Michael Hindus. Just by way of clarification, does that mean that this definition would not apply to a device that does not have an on/off switch? MR. VLADIMER: It tries to address that by saying for battery chargers with manual on/off switches. So if the battery charger doesn't have a manual on/off switch, then the third bullet I don't believe would apply. MR. HINDUS: Therefore, the definition would not apply. MR. VLADIMER: The entire definition or that portion of the definition? MR. HINDUS: That's my question. MR. VLADIMER: Okay. So then the answer is, the first two bullets apply to all battery chargers. The third bullet is structured to address only battery chargers that have the on/off switches to close that loop. Do you have any suggestions as to tighter language to say that one and two apply to all battery chargers and three is only for those with on/off switches? MR. PETROLATI: Mike, we'll need to take a**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 look at that language. You're right. I think it could be interpreted the way you're indicating, and that wasn't our intent. So we will have to take a look and potentially revise that language. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Vic. Okay. These clarifying questions are useful. Larry, please. MR. ALBERT: Larry Albert. Mike, the only comment that we had with respect to that definition is that when it says the battery is not connected, for those products that are integral battery products, and based upon the discussion that was in the Federal Register, we believe that perhaps the Department was contemplating that what you were really talking about is that the integral battery product was disconnected from the cradle or the power source or whatever it was, that you weren't contemplating actually removing the battery from inside the integral battery product in making evaluation of what standby mode was. Because there was some very clear discussion, I think, in the Federal Register about the functional modes of use of the products, right, where there's consideration given to measurements that were consistent with these various functional modes of use. That would line up well with that. So I guess our comment was, and I think it**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was in our presentation, to modify the language to make it clear that it would be the battery not connected to the charger or, in the case of an integral battery product, that product not connected to the charger or cradle or whatever it happened to be. That might involve some more wordy language than what you have so cleanly delineated up there. But I think it would get across what I believe your intent was. MR. VLADIMER: Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. MR. VLADIMER: Vic, anything to add? Or anyone else? I see Chris's hand up. MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Chris. MR. CALWELL: Yeah. Chris Calwell from ECOS. I'm also struggling with the language a little bit. Is it fair to say then that the no-load mode -- theterminology that appears at the top of that slide, noload mode means the battery is not there as a load but it doesn't mean that the battery charging circuitry is not there as a load. So I think what I had seen in your printed wording was you were referring to this and similar language that we had used in the California draft as the "no battery" mode. So I think this wording that you've written here changes that meaning slightly and**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 maybe not intentionally because the battery may not be there but other loads in the battery charging system or battery charger may be there and you can't get rid of those. Do you understand the question? MR. VLADIMER: So, are you suggesting that this read "standby mode or no-battery mode"? MR. CALWELL: Correct. MR. VLADIMER: Okay. MR. CALWELL: Yeah. "No-load mode" is a very relevant term for an external power supply where you can disconnect it from its load, but it's not as meaningful or applicable here, where what you can connect -- as Larry also said a minute ago, you can connect the -- you can remove or disconnect the battery but you can't remove or disconnect all loads. MR. BROOKMAN: I see some other individuals that might wish to comment on this. Wayne. MR. MORRIS: Sure. I would say I agree with Chris that I think that that's what the Department is intending. I think that we need to tighten up the definition and the wording just a little bit. I understand the use of the term "no-load mode," but I think that when it applies to battery chargers you've got to specify it as "no-battery mode."**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I really think that that's what we've done in all the long and other definitions in other test procedures. MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to comment here? Your name, please, for the record. MR. MALINOWSKI: Matt Malinowski, Navigant Consulting. I just wanted to point out that within the scope of the battery charger test procedure the no-load mode actually refers to the presence or absence of justthe battery. That's to differentiate it from the noload mode within the external power supply test procedure. MR. BROOKMAN: It looks like we need a flow chart or something. Larry. MR. ALBERT: Larry Albert. Just to follow up, elsewhere in the proposed recommended changes by the Department to Appendix Y later on where they describe the changes, the influence it would have upon the EPA Energy Star test procedure, there is specific language for how to evaluate this when you're dealing with non-detachable batteries, which would tend to support what Chris and Wayne and I are trying to say, which is that there's an understanding there for products that have non-detachable batteries you need to measure standby mode with those products disconnected, not the battery disconnected from within the product.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It's just that it doesn't -- what's in the directions with respect to Appendix Y is not carried through up in the definitions section. It would seem to be that they need to be consistent and be the way that you'd want to test it. MR. BROOKMAN: Any other comments with respect to this stream of definitional stuff? Ari. MR. REEVES: Ari Reeves, D&R International. One other point of clarification here. I think the reason that it stays standby mode or no-load mode is because that language is what is in EISA 2007. So it's kind of like we have to deal with it as it is and try to modify it the best we can. I think that the point of clarification earlier suggesting that we clarify that for battery -- I think it was good that we clarify that, for battery chargers, instead of standby mode or no-load mode what we actually mean is standby mode or no-battery mode. I think that's something that we'll consider, or the Department will consider. MR. BROOKMAN: An interpretation of the actual language. Okay. Okay. Other comments on this before we move on? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: Let's go a little bit further.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. VLADIMER: Sure. Thanks, everyone, for that input. One other thing, just to follow up on what Larry was saying -- regarding what Larry raised with how this would apply to an integral battery. We do talk about that in the test measurement section. I see what you're saying, how it's unclear in the definition section, but we will get into that in a few more slides. So, just to be aware. Excellent. Now that we understand the Department's proposed standby mode definition for battery chargers, I'll show you the off mode definition. Again, it's quite similar. A condition applicable only to units having manual on/off switches in which the battery charger is (1) connected to the main electricity supply; (2) not connected to the battery; and (3) all switches are turned off. As opposed to the standby mode definition, there's no amendment here because there was no off mode definition previously. Again, the reason that the Department is proposing this as opposed to the off mode definition from EISA is because the EISA definition cites the standby mode definition. So any confusion that we just explained in the standby mode definition would then carry over to off mode.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris. MR. CALWELL: Yeah. I think this question is real quick. I'm assuming that when you use the term "manual on/off switch" it would be a user-activated switch if you will, as opposed to a switch that uses either electrical, mechanical, or optical means to detect that you have a battery in the cradle. Is that a fair statement? So it's literally a switch on the side of the product that the user is intended to turn on or off as opposed to something that would automatically shut the device off when a battery is removed? MR. VLADIMER: I believe so, yeah. MR. CALWELL: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Do you wish -- that's your best thinking right now. MR. VLADIMER: Yes. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MR. VLADIMER: It's user-controlled. That's the purpose. That the user can control it. MR. CALWELL: Because I guess you would argue that the user, by taking the battery out of the cradle, can also control it and turn it on or off. I don't know that the distinction is huge, but since you are creating a new mode here you might want to be**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 absolutely crystal clear about what kind of switches count as a "manual on/off switch" and which ones don't. MR. VLADIMER: Excellent. MR. PETROLATI: Good point. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. MR. VLADIMER: Great. Okay. So, as I stated in the beginning, the Department was granted authority by EISA to amend these definitions as long as it considered IEC 62301 and IEC 62087, so I'm going to speak to that now. IEC 62301 is the Household Electrical Appliances Measurement of Standby Power. DOE looked at those definitions. I reviewed them previously. But it's choosing to propose a different definition. IEC 62087, this largely applies to audio and video equipment. The Department believes that there's a wide variety of products that use battery chargers and IEC 62087 is a little too narrow for this application. MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne. MR. MORRIS: Yes. Wayne Morris. Just a couple of minor clarifications here. What is up there is the current standard for 62301. However, as any good standard is, it's a living document. I happen to serve on the technical committee for IEC 62301, and there is a proposal going to the IEC TC59 meeting that**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will be held later this month to make some modifications to that definition. So my only point of bringing that up is, I don't know that you're ever going to be able to completely harmonize with those standards. I think that you -- the Department is doing the right thing by defining the intent in the situation and what they believe, and I believe that's what EISA said to do, is to take into consideration the 62301 definitions. But there may be time when the definitions in 62301 may be different than what we see today. I don't know that we have the power or the time or the energy within the Department of Energy to go back and make those changes every month or every six months or every year or whatever. So I think that we do the best that we can. I think the intent is what you have arrived at there. I support what you're doing, but it should be acknowledged that it isn't necessarily going to be this definition within the next year because by the time that the balloting is complete on the next version of 62301 that definition will be different. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. MR. VLADIMER: Okay. So, thanks. Our first request for comment. The Department invites**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stakeholder comments on proposed revisions -- revised definitions for both standby mode and off mode for battery chargers. MR. BROOKMAN: We've had good comments as we've been going a long. Perhaps there are others now. Chris? MR. CALWELL: I spoke earlier in the week with Lloyd Harrington, who is working on that revision to 62301. So I think my only suggestion here was to encourage DOE staff or consultants to get in touch with him. I know he's in the middle of wording changes over the next, literally, I think, week or two. And if you're trying to wrap up your language, one of you may have some useful influence on the other toward arriving at common definitions. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments, suggestions, details, counterpoints? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: I see none. Okay. I'm going to suggest we take a break at this point. Before we go to break, Francine? MS. PINTO: Yeah. I just had one clarification when we were talking about consumer product earlier. The actual statutory language, when I talked about intent, is to -- "A product which to any**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 significant extent is distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals." So that's the language. The commercial section tracks the same thing for commercial. So if a product to any significant extent is distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals and it ends up in a commercial application, it is still a consumer product. So I was talking about intent. That's the language I was referring to. MR. ALBERT: Francine? MS. PINTO: Yeah. MR. ALBERT: This is Larry Albert. Does that also mean that a product could be both? That the significant extent does not mean the majority? MS. PINTO: Generally speaking, it's one or the other. MR. ALBERT: Okay. MS. PINTO: Yeah, yeah. But I want to make the point that something can be a consumer product even if it ends up in a commercial application. That could be a little confusing point. MR. ALBERT: But if you have a product that's distributed both for commercial and for personal use, then the determination of which it were would be based**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 upon which one had the greater extent of distribution? MS. PINTO: Yeah. Generally speaking, I would say that. MR. ALBERT: Okay. Thank you. MR. CALWELL: Is there a comparable definition given for a commercial product? MS. PINTO: Yes, there is. MR. BROOKMAN: That was Chris, followed by Francine again. So it's now 10:45. I'm going to suggest we break for 15 minutes. Before everybody moves, please wear your security badges. This room -- there will be people in this room, so you can leave your materials here. There's a coffee shop one floor below us on the far side of the hall. You can just go down the stairwell or down the elevator. Don't go too far because we want you back here. We will start at 11. Thanks for a good start on the day. (Brief recess.) MR. BROOKMAN: So then, Francine Pinto. MS. PINTO: Yeah. Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Hey, folks. Please. MS. PINTO: I'm a little bit concerned that I may have not been clear enough or not responded**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 accurately to people's comments or misinterpreted how people were using words. Let me just see if I can do it a little better. We do not use a particular percentage or majority or any particular number that would separate our determination as to whether something is a consumer or a commercial product. We don't have a magic number, okay. We don't use majority. We don't use an actual percentage. What we look at, and it is not defined specifically, but the language in the statute says, "The term 'consumer product' means any article other than an automobile which in operation consumes or is designed to consume energy -- or with respect to shower heads, faucets, water closets, and urinals, water -- and which to any significant extent" -- again, there is no number that defines what is significant -- is distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals." So what I was trying to say is that if it is distributed, a product is distributed, to any significant extent, for this purpose it is a consumer product. And some of those products could also end up in commercial applications. So when I said it's one or the other, I was**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 trying to capture this language that we have to look and decide. Now, if the statute says something different, for example "This is a commercial product," then obviously the statute controls. But just in general, it's not a number. So we don't just look at percentages. Now, Vic, what else can you add to what I just said? Was there anything I missed? MR. PETROLATI: No. I think that's fine, Francine. I've been giving this interpretation to people who have asked this question. MR. BROOKMAN: Vic, get to the microphone, please. MR. PETROLATI: Sorry. Vic Petrolati. I just want to indicate that the interpretations that I've been giving to people who have written in and asked this question are basically along the same lines as Francine. I've told them that if there is any significant percentage of use in the residential sector, then it becomes a consumer product. I told them we don't have a definition of what that percentage is. I have given them examples such to the extent of 15 percent of the product is distributed in the residential sector, used by consumers. Most likely the Department will consider that a consumer product.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So I think we are consistent now in terms of the way we have defined "consumer products" for our stakeholders. MR. BROOKMAN: Larry, please. MR. ALBERT: The question from before was, for products that are distributed both into commercial and residential sectors, if it is going to be covered under one or the other, right, then would that determination be made on which one had the greatest extent of distribution? No? MS. PINTO: We would probably look at a variety of -- we'd have to look at the market, I would assume, for that product. MR. PETROLATI: Okay. He's asking, I think, if I'm hearing it, if it's 51 percent commercial and 49 percent residential, how we would define that? MR. ALBERT: That would be one part of the question, yes. MR. PETROLATI: Okay. And the answer is because there's a significant percentage of use -- MS. PINTO: Right. MR. PETROLATI: -- in the residential sector, we would define that as a consumer product. MR. ALBERT: So that takes priority, I take it?**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PETROLATI: Yes. MR. ALBERT: Okay. MS. PINTO: Okay. MR. ALBERT: All right. MR. PETROLATI: And if the percentages were 20 percent in the residential sector and 80 percent in the commercial sector, we would define that as a consumer product. MR. ALBERT: Gotcha. All right. Very good. Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Francine. MS. PINTO: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Vic, thank you for those clarifications. MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. MS. PINTO: And this issue has been written up in previous rulemakings. So you can look at our previous Federal Register notices and see descriptions of this issue. MR. BROOKMAN: So, Chris, please. MR. CALWELL: Have there been any comments given yet on products that you've decided are not consumer products? Have you clarified it to that extent yet in responses to calls, or yet to be determined?**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, from one very minor standpoint. MR. BROOKMAN: Get close. MR. PETROLATI: Vic Petrolati. These were supposed to be omni-directional microphones. That's why we paid so much for them. (Laughter.) MR. BROOKMAN: And the green button is supposed to be turned on. MR. PETROLATI: Right. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MR. PETROLATI: Yes, Chris, but this answer probably won't clarify it much. I've told anybody that if their product is only distributed in the commercial and industrial sectors they do not have to worry about these standards. Yeah. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other questions here at the outset before we turn it back to Mike? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Michael.

Battery Chargers Test Procedure: Test Measurement Michael Vladimer (PowerPoint presentation.) MR. VLADIMER: Good morning. Thanks again.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Michael Vladimer from Navigant Consulting. And so far we've talked -- we're continuing to talk about the battery charger test procedure. We've talked about the definitions, and I want to get into the Test Measurement section now. I think the conversation so far has been very fruitful and I would encourage more comments. Keep going the way we're going. So the test measurement consists of two -- the existing test measurement that you have in the 2006 test procedure, there's only two parts, A and B, inactive modes and active modes. The Department is now proposing to add C and D, standby mode and off mode. So, the existing test procedure is based on the Energy Star test procedure for battery chargers. It addresses standby mode and maintenance mode energy consumption, and we'll explain exactly what that means in the next slide. The proposed amendment would create a separate measurement of standby mode energy consumption in 4C, in addition to that measurement in 4A. So the existing test procedure in 4A considers three parts in the measurement. First, what's the energy consumption in maintenance mode. That's when the battery is completely full, plugged into the charger, and the charger may or may not be**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 delivering excess charge to the battery. The second part is standby mode. Right now it's also called no-load mode. That's when the battery is removed from the charger but the charger is still plugged into mains. Some chargers are going to continue to draw power in that mode, and we want to measure that. And then, finally, a measurement of the energy delivered by the battery. So when you completely empty the battery, how much energy comes out. Those energies are put together in an energy ratio. That is the metric that we're currently using for the energy efficiency of the battery charger. The proposal for standby mode and off mode is very similar to the standby mode measurement I just discussed. The main issue would be that if there's an on/off switch in standby mode it's set to "on" and in off mode it's set to "off," as you can see in the pictures. The test would be a one-hour test, whereas the standby mode for Section A is a 12-hour test. Again, of course, you're connected to the power source and there's no batteries connected to the battery charger. Any questions so far, or comments?**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (No response.) MR. VLADIMER: Great. The specific text would read, "Conduct a measurement of standby power consumption while the battery charger is connected to the power source. Remove the battery from the charger and record the power." This is going to happen over a one-hour test period, and all manual switches must be turned on for the duration of the test. Similarly, the off mode measurement says that the battery charger is going to be connected to the power source, the battery is removed from the charger, the test period is one hour. All switches are turned off. In this case, hopefully this language is clear, but, “if the battery charger does not have manual switches, record that the off mode measurement is not applicable to this product.” So off mode is only for those products that do have that manual on/off switch. This is the slide I was referring to earlier that addresses the issue of integral batteries versus other types of batteries. So the test procedure for standby mode specifies four different cases. The first case is if you have a detachable battery pack. In that case, you simply have the charger, as you see here, and you measure it without the batteries, separately. In the case of an integral battery pack, such**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as a hand vacuum, you would measure the cradle or adaptor alone. So in this case, the cradle and adaptor that are connected together, that's what's measured alone. You don't put the hand vacuum in the cradle. There's another case where you might just have all of the battery charging circuitry inside the product itself and the product just comes with an AC cord. In that case, the power consumption is zero. The last case that we could think of but we couldn't find a product for is if all the battery charging circuitry is in the product itself and the AC cord is not detachable. Again, the standby mode and off mode would not be applicable to that kind of product because it would always be in maintenance mode if it were connected. So, to wrap up, DOE's revisions are based on the EPA battery charger test procedure. The time. As Ken, I believe, stated in the beginning, the Department is proposing a one-hour test. The Department welcomes comment on the duration of the test. I might pose a question in a sec about that. But yes, the Department has proposed one hour. And we cite the EPA battery charger test procedure that gives the option of either a one-hour test or a 12-hour test. And we do have the comment box**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 asking for comment. So, any comments at this time? MR. BROOKMAN: Ken. MR. SALAETS: Yeah, Mike. Just a question. Ken Salaets, ITI. In terms of the one hours, was that merely looking at the current practice and saying one hour was sufficient and then just putting that in, or was there a determination that a minimum of one hour was required to be able to obtain the desired result? Thanks. MR. VLADIMER: Thanks for the question. So the one hour was arrived at through a number of different venues. One is, of course, looking at precedent and looking at what's been done in the past. So from that perspective, that was one consideration. The other issue is that -- I realize that you deal with mostly information technology equipment, but we're aware of other types of equipment that might have pulse modes, where over the course of an hour they might turn on for a minute or two in intervals. So the issue is if that were to happen every hour and you only measure the first 10 seconds, as you proposed in your opening statement, you might miss that energy consumption. So my question would then be, how would you**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 propose addressing this wide variety of products? IT products that might not have pulse mode versus others that would. MR. BROOKMAN: Ken. MR. SALAETS: Ken Salaets, ITI. At this point I'm not prepared to specify how we would suggest that. I appreciate the challenge in trying to create a broad enough rule that it captures the various scenarios depending on the technology and the like. We will take that into account and come back with something, another proposal or perhaps some suggested language that might allow the flexibility but still be able to take into account the different technologies that are at play here that might require a longer duration for testing. Then, of course, we would be happy to engage with anybody in the interim on that as well. MR. BROOKMAN: Since you've raised it, Mike, are there other modes other than pulse, for example, that make this more complicated? We might as well get them out now if there are. I was going to ask you -- MR. VLADIMER: Oh. I mean, that's how I know. It's either continuous or intermittent. It's one or the other. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Wayne.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MORRIS: Thanks, Doug. Wayne Morris. Can you back up one slide, Michael? MR. VLADIMER: Sure. MR. MORRIS: Your missing mode or example there. I think there are some rechargeable products where not only is the circuitry encased in the product itself but the actual attachment for purposes ofobtaining power -- in other words, it's a direct plugin type of device where it has the plug blades built into the side of the product and so it's meant to plug directly into a receptacle. So all of the charging circuit and the connection point are in the product and it's meant to do that. I know that there are some out there. But it's meant to be then taken away from the receptacle and used as a rechargeable product. I think that's -- PARTICIPANT: Flashlights. MR. MORRIS: I wasn't going to mention them particularly. (Laughter.) MR. BROOKMAN: Chris. MR. CALWELL: This is Chris Calwell from ECOS. Yeah, I think on that particular example, wouldn't a UPS also apply there? It's a permanently attached cord. The battery is inside of the device.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 8 You could detach it but it's not routinely detached in practice. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. VLADIMER: By UPS you mean universal -- MR. CALWELL: Uninterruptable power supply. Yeah, so I think that -- I agree with Wayne. There are probably examples you could find for that situation. Really, the main point of raising my hand was to speak just briefly to the item on the last slide that you had up before. MR. VLADIMER: Okay. That one? MR. CALWELL: Yeah. Regarding inviting comment on the duration. I was in some of those meetings. I don't recall the exact reason for one hour and 12 hours. I can tell you that often in these situations there's a desire to achieve thermal stability, if nothing else, because you want the test to be repeatable in multiple labs. And if some plug in the device and measure it immediately, some plug it in and measure it a few minutes later, some plug it in and measure an hour later, the device may have warmed up to a different extent and that in turn has some modest effect on its power use. So I'd be in favor of one hour to achieve a measure of thermal stability, but not going all the way to 12 hours for the reasons mentioned before. Whatever**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you gain in stability you probably lose in tying up expensive lab equipment for more than a day. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Gary. MR. FERNSTROM: So, Doug, Gary Fernstrom from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Following up on Wayne's comment, Rayovac makes a little charger that plugs directly into the wall. There is no cord, and the batteries go in it. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank you for those illustrations. Helpful. Other comments on this series of slides? Please. MR. ALBERT: Larry Albert. Just a general comment, Michael. The Appendix Y currently modifies -- incorporates the EPA Energy Star test procedure and then provides modifications to it. So proposed amendments to Appendix Y need to also look at the potential changing of the requirements in the Energy Star test procedure that might be necessary because of now additional measurements that you're making. Specifically, the reporting requirements in the EPA Energy Star test procedure would need to be amended in Appendix Y to account for the fact that you have now new measurements. Just kind of a housekeeping issue more than anything else.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, thank you. Please. MR. VLADIMER: Doug, could I just speak to that briefly? MR. BROOKMAN: Please do. Yeah. MR. VLADIMER: It's actually interesting that you mention reporting requirements because, just to jump ahead, Vic will be discussing reporting requirements at the end of -- after we finish with external power supplies. So hopefully you can raise that again then. MR. BROOKMAN: Your name, please. MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with Earth Justice. Is this on? MR. BROOKMAN: I don't think it's on. MR. BALLO: I was prepared to speak a little more about the need for active mode. MR. BROOKMAN: Please use that microphone, Tim. MR. BALLO: Is this now working? MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Thank you. MR. BALLO: I was ready to speak a little bit more about active mode use for battery chargers. I'm pleased to hear that the Department is considering a separate rulemaking for that. I just wanted to emphasize that currently, if**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you're only going to cover maintenance and standby and off mode, the Department's test procedure would not meet the requirements of Section 323 of EPCA, which requires the test procedures to be reasonably designed to produce results, measuring energy efficiency during a representative average use cycle or a period of use of the product. I don't think a test procedure that doesn't actually measure the battery charger's energy consumption when it is charging a battery does not reflect representative energy use. Also, Section 325(g)(g), which is -- the Department also cited for this proceeding, which requires standby energy consumption and off mode energy consumption test procedures, does provide a definition of active mode in that section of the statute. I think the only reasonable way to read that section of the statute is that in addition to promulgating a test procedure that covers standby and off mode the Department would also have to promulgate a test procedure that covers active mode energy consumption. That's it. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank you. Yes, please. Jennifer. MS. AMANN: Jennifer Amann. Just keeping on that issue, we're really pleased to see that there is a**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 date proposed for considering inclusion of active mode in the test procedures. But we'd like to encourage the Department to consider including that at this time so we can go ahead and get that process formalized and start collecting data and information on active mode power consumption. MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. MR. PETROLATI: Let me just address that. MR. BROOKMAN: Vic, please. MR. PETROLATI: I think I've mentioned it to a few people who have asked. First of all, am I speaking into the microphone? MR. BROOKMAN: I think so. Yeah. MR. PETROLATI: The bottom line is we are stuck with an EISA congressional date of getting standby and off mode incorporated by December 31st, 2008. It would be impossible at this point, since we have already -- are basically in the proposed rule stage, to incorporate active mode into the battery charger test procedure for this specific regulatory action. The concept of incorporating active mode is still under consideration. We don't have management buy-in yet, but I think the comments that we've received today at this public meeting will be very**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 helpful in terms of making a decision in the very near future on that and starting a separate rulemaking for incorporating changes into the battery charger test procedure. Thank you. MS. AMANN: I'd like to just follow up. So you're saying that you don't see any reason why you would necessarily need until that 2010 date to make that next action? MR. PETROLATI: The 2010 date was the final rule for the battery charger test procedure. We would start the action fairly soon on that. Yes, correct. MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. MR. FERNSTROM: So, Gary Fernstrom, Pacific Gas and Electric. I would just like to concur with Jennifer. PG&E strongly believes that we're missing the boat here if we don't include the active mode as part of determining battery charger system efficiency. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. MR. PETROLATI: Thank you very much for that. MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto. The reason why we can't do it is because of notice and comment. We would have to go out with a supplemental NOPR so you could all give us comments. That's just a process that takes time to do. So to get the other date done, the December 31st date, procedurally we just couldn't do**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it. MR. BROOKMAN: Larry. MR. ALBERT: Yeah. Larry Albert. The comments we made earlier with respect to just providing the E24 measurement, which would be consistent with the CEC test procedure, would not commit the agency, Department rather, to necessarily having an implementation. There's no separate testing that's required to do that. It's already built into the test procedure right now. It's just a matter of measuring the value at the end of that first 24 hours. You're already conducting that portion of the test. Just by providing that additional piece of information out of the existing test procedure would provide a number that would be consistent with the CEC test procedure that is shortly to become rule in California. So that's why we're advocating for the inclusion of that. We think it's a minimal impact. I'm not sure about how it would affect notice and comment because it could be -- it would seem to me to be incorporated just as an additional reporting requirement and not necessarily an additional burden upon testing since there is no additional time involved. MR. PETROLATI: We will take it under**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 advisement. Again, I'm not 100 percent sure at this point whether it meets the test of notice and comment. MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on this subject? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Michael. MR. VLADIMER: Great. Well, I guess one last question that I wanted to put out there before we move on. Because we do specify one hour and 12 hours, are there any people that feel that 12 hours would be a more appropriate standby test? Or, one hour sounds okay? (No response.) MR. VLADIMER: Excellent. I'll take that to mean no 12-hour people. Great. Well, now I'd like to turn over the presentation to my colleague Matt Malinowski, also from Navigant Consulting. He's going to speak about the external power supply test procedure.

External Power Supply Test Procedure: Scope and Definitions Matt Malinowski**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (PowerPoint presentation.) MR. MALINOWSKI: Thank you, Michael. My name is Matt Malinowski from Navigant Consulting. We advise the Department of Energy on helping them with this rulemaking. I'd like to now turn your attention to Appendix Z to Subpart B of 10 CFR 430, which is the Department's test procedure for external power supplies. Like the battery charger test procedure, this test procedure also includes four parts: the Scope, the Definitions, the Test Apparatus, and the Test Measurement sections. We will address proposed changes to each of those in turn. The purpose of this part of the rulemaking is to fulfill requirements specified in EISA 2007, which amends EPCA to direct DOE to test power consumption of EPSs in standby mode and off mode. DOE is proposing modifications to the existing test procedure to fulfill these directives as it is for battery chargers. Those were presented earlier. In addition, EISA 2007 amends EPCA to direct DOE to conduct a determination analysis for classes of external power supplies. DOE is proposing a test procedure for EPSs with multiple simultaneous output voltages, which are a type of non-Class A EPSs that**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 cannot be tested under the current test procedure. As part of that test procedure, DOE has made some departures from its current single voltage test procedure. So today we will also be presenting some of these items which DOE is considering adopting within the single voltage EPS test procedure. So let me rephrase that and clarify it a little bit. EISA requires the Department of Energy to conduct a determination analysis to see whether standards are warranted for EPSs outside of Class A. As part of that group we have multiple-voltage external power supplies, which were the ones that the gentleman from Microsoft described earlier. These EPSs require a new test procedure because they cannot be tested under the single voltage external power supply test procedure. We are presenting that test procedure shortly. Then, some of those changes the DOE is considering adopting within its single voltage external power supply test procedure. MR. BROOKMAN: Let's pause for a question. Tim. MR. CALLAND: Just a quick question. I believe Michael mentioned earlier that most of the test procedures were derived from Energy Star test**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 procedures, for example the test procedure for single voltage output power supplies, which you mentioned. Not accidentally, Energy Star has not addressed multiple-voltage output power supplies. Therefore, it looks like you had to make it up from scratch. Did you look into why California and Energy Star have not been able to develop an appropriate test procedure for this in the past? MR. MALINOWSKI: So I'll be getting into that a little bit later in this presentation, the origins of this multiple-voltage test procedure. But let me just say that it wasn't without precedent. We are basing it on two Energy Star test procedures, one for external power supplies and one for internal power supplies. MR. BROOKMAN: Chris. MR. CALWELL: Yes. This may or may not be the appropriate place to ask, and so if you'd like to defer it to later, that would be fine. It looks like you're working with the congressional language from EISA to try to figure out which other categories might be open for DOE consideration. In other words, what's left in the EPS world outside of Class A. So I see the inclusion of multi-voltage, which makes sense. Is there a discussion at all about extending it to wattages above 250 watts or to medical**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 products or to any other categories that Congress parked in the Class A area and therefore left for subsequent consideration? MR. MALINOWSKI: So this will be more fully addressed in the framework document that will be published later this year. However, of those other possible categories outside of Class A, we have not found ones that cannot be measured using the existing test procedure. So as far as this rulemaking, we'reonly dealing with the test procedure for multiplevoltage external power -- MR. BROOKMAN: Vic Petrolati. MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. Just let me also clarify. At this point we're proceeding with a determination analysis that includes all products not covered under Class A. So that is what our determination scope is currently. Which would also include the exclusions under Class A. MR. CALWELL: Okay. I think I understand. So we're really just dealing with the test procedure scope as opposed to standard scope here. As long as your test procedure could extend to those other products, it doesn't need further consideration. MR. PETROLATI: Right, right. MR. CALWELL: Makes sense.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So, Matt, keep going. MR. MALINOWSKI: Here's a quick diagram of Appendix Z. As you can see, all of the sections of Appendix Z -- or, the proposed amendments apply to all the subsections of Appendix Z. We'll begin with the scope. Because EISA is requiring DOE to examine -- or, to test for standby mode and off mode energy consumption, DOE is proposing to expand the scope such that it covers test requirements for all modes of energy consumption. Any questions? (No response.) MR. MALINOWSKI: Next, DOE is also proposing changes to the definitions. First, of course, definitions for standby mode and off mode. However, DOE is also proposing -- we are proposing some other definitions. So, first, EISA provided definitions for standby mode and off mode and allowed DOE to amend these definitions, taking into consideration IEC 62301 and 62087. DOE is proposing new definitions which, as in the case of battery chargers, resolves some ambiguities that are present when applying these EISA or IEC definitions to external power supplies with, for instance, indicator lights.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 These definitions, furthermore, explicitly address EPSs with on/off switches, as was the case for battery chargers. So, just a bit of background. EISA 2007 defines standby mode as the condition in which an energy-using product is connected to a main powersource and offers one or more of the following useroriented or protective functions. This is the same as was discussed for battery chargers. Off mode, in contrast, is defined as the condition in which an energy-using product is connected to a main power source but is not providing either an active mode or a standby mode function. These, again, are unclear in this case. For instance, light may be considered a user-oriented function. So, two EPSs may be in different modes depending on whether or not they have light, an LED indicator light, even when they're disconnected from a load and connected to mains. So DOE is proposing a new definition for standby mode that will resolve this issue. The text reads, "The condition in which the external power supply is in no-load mode, and for external power supplies with on/off switches, all switches are turned on."**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 No-load is amended -- DOE is proposing to amend the no-load definition as well to apply to multiple-voltage power supplies. The proposal reads, "The mode of operation when an external power supply is connected to a main electricity supply and the output is (or ‘all outputs are’, for a multiple-voltage external power supply) not connected to a load (or ‘loads’.)" Any questions on these definitions? MR. BROOKMAN: Larry. MR. ALBERT: Yeah. Larry Albert again. Just to clarify, for an EPS in general, that is theinclusive category that covers both Class A and nonClass A, does that -- just that which is enclosed in the single, separate enclosure? And the reason I'm asking the question here is, given that definition, would standby mode in the case of a cradle connected to a wall adaptor, would the disconnection point be between the cradle and the wall adaptor or would it be at the cradle itself? MR. MALINOWSKI: I imagine it would be between the wall adaptor and the cradle. However, I'm not sure. I don't think DOE has stated conclusively where that would be. Vic, do you -- MR. PETROLATI: Let's take that one under**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 advisement, Matt. We do not have an answer at this point. MR. ALBERT: Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: You heard the response? MR. ALBERT: Yes. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Chris. MR. CALWELL: I guess I read the two definitions but I don't fully understand the distinction between them. The first definition mentions the presence of an on/off switch and says it needs to be turned on. The second definition doesn't mention the presence of an on/off switch. So, are you distinguishing a separate -- oh, okay. Separate condition when switch is turned off shows up on the next slide. Then the only other question would be, is there any chance for confusion here with existing rules and requirements? I'm thinking of the state standards, the Energy Star specs, the international standards, and so forth, who have a no-load power requirement, and whether these redefinitions create any potential for inconsistency with that. I'm not saying they do. I'm asking if there's any chance that they would because I don't fully understand the distinction yet between the two.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MALINOWSKI: Sure. So that is, I think, the reason why DOE is moving to keep two separate definitions such that all the existing other standards and test procedures that refer specifically to no-load mode would not be affected and standby mode would draw on -- is based on no-load mode. MR. CALWELL: So, does that mean, then, that if an external power supply has a switch it's not held to a no-load requirement? MR. MALINOWSKI: No, I think it would be. MR. CALWELL: Okay. MR. MALINOWSKI: Yeah. The -- MR. PETROLATI: That's with the switch on, isn't it, Matt? MR. MALINOWSKI: Yeah. It would be tested with the switch on. MR. CALWELL: But it says -- it calls that the standby mode, whereas it distinctly calls the next one down the no-load mode and there's no reference to a switch there. So, see, Vic, part of the curiosity here is the first definition, which is called standby, references no-load mode. The second definition is called no-load mode. MR. PETROLATI: Right. MR. CALWELL: So you can understand how**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 someone might wonder where to put their product when the same wording appears in both definitions. MR. BROOKMAN: So, would you recommend any specifics on this? MR. CALWELL: I would acknowledge bafflement, but I don't know if I have a suggestion for you. (Laughter.) MR. CALWELL: Honestly, I'm not trying to make a legal point or obfuscate here. It's really just, if we're not totally sure around this table what no-load means, we want to make sure that manufacturers would be absolutely sure when they're testing their products. That's all. MR. PETROLATI: And please provide your recommendations in terms of what you think we should define each of these. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments on these definitions? Yes, please. Jim. MR. HAYNES: Jim Haynes with Uniden. I just wanted to bring out another point just for concern. I know that we still have the definition of a Class A power supply for cordless or for telephones kind of up in the air. But also, I just wanted to point out that the term "standby mode" as it relates to the products such as a cordless telephone, if it's obviously -- if**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it's not in a no-load you're saying it's in the standby mode. There are multiple standby modes. I mean, there are multiple different categories, possibly four or five different categories, of standby modes. I just wanted to bring that to the attentionof this group because, you know, it's not a black-andwhite situation or an on/off situation. It's various degrees of what the loads are that may still be in standby. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Wayne. MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris. This is why IEC 62301 in the latest draft is considering not using that terminology as strongly and using a multiplicity of low-power modes rather than this situation. Because we got into the same thing that Jim is alluding to with what does "standby" mean. If you use the old, olddefinition of "standby" being the lowest powerconsuming mode, that didn't fit. I mean, we recognized that right away, that that didn't help us through the situation of all the different product configurations that are out there that could be left in a mode that isn't necessarily the lowest power-consuming mode for a very extended period of time.So we now use this lower power mode, the lowpower modes, as being a better way of looking at this.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Department may wish to consider that suggestion. MR. PETROLATI: Wayne, could I ask; generally, I think what you're referring to is standby modes for the end use consumer product. MR. MORRIS: Yes. MR. PETROLATI: We're referring strictly to standby mode for the external power supply. Yes, we fully understand there can be a lot of different standby modes associated with the end use consumer product. I don't think we believe that's the case with the external power supply. We are stuck with the definition of standby mode from Congress, which we have taken and revised to fit well under what we consider to be the appropriate testing for external power supplies. MR. BROOKMAN: Larry. MR. ALBERT: Larry Albert. I think that works as long as the understanding is that the EPS then is that single unit and that you couldn't possibly interpret EPS to include additional circuitry connected to the initial power conversion block. Then it becomes just that one unit that does the power conversion. So then you can -- it's a lot simpler than looking at what could happen when you're talking about additional circuitry that might have multiple low-power modes.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PETROLATI: Right. And the test procedure of course does not test the end use consumer product. Okay. But we have heard from Microsoft that they would like to see the end use consumer product be incorporated into the test procedure in certain applications. That might raise some issues as to how we define standby and off mode, maybe, in those particular applications. MR. ALBERT: For multiple output. MR. PETROLATI: Right. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That was Vic just then. Now to Tim Calland. MR. CALLAND: Yes. To clarify, we are being held to other standards regarding standby power for the combination of power supply and the console. So I think to put in any additional requirements at the EPS level would be redundant and possibly in conflict with the other requirements we have to meet. MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks. Additional comments on these? Chris. MR. CALWELL: Yes. I do recall one conversation I had with Lloyd earlier in the week, Lloyd Harrington, where a possible way to clarify some of this maybe for stakeholders internationally would be, there's been a debate for a while now about IEC**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pursuing its own standardized test procedure just for external power supplies. 62301 was a preexisting test procedure for standby that was meant to apply horizontally to all products and got underway long before we all started creating test procedures for EPSs. So I don't know if it's within your purview relative to what Congress has asked you to do, but if the U.S. and other parties were just to get together and do a standard IEC test procedure for EPSs, any meaningful definition of "standby" could appear there instead of having two different IEC test procedures both affect the same products. I don't know if that makes sense. Just to clarify again, so 62301 is generally intended for finished consumer products in their full configuration. So, power supplies plus the devices they're powering. It's a little less applicable to treat just a power supply as a component of that product under 62301. It would be better to just have an IEC standard test procedure for that, to which DOE could provide input. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Back to Matt. MR. MALINOWSKI: Moving on. That was the definition for standby mode. Now on to off mode. DOE**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposes to define off mode as the condition applicable only to units with manual on/off switches in which the EPS is connected to the main electricity supply, the output is not connected to any load, and all switches are turned off. And this definition parallels the one we presented earlier for battery chargers. MR. ALBERT: Larry Albert again. When you say the "unit," do you mean the EPS? MR. MALINOWSKI: That is correct. MR. ALBERT: Okay. MR. MALINOWSKI: And DOE does request stakeholder comment on this issue. MR. BROOKMAN: Should there be any additional

ones. (No response.) MR. MALINOWSKI: So, moving on. DOE also proposes to change additional definitions and add some new definitions. Modifications to existing definitions would promote consistency with the definitions that stakeholders currently use. DOE also proposes new definitions to clarify undefined and possibly confusing terms. I'll go through both of these categories next. DOE proposes modifications for consistency with IEEE 1515-2000 to the definitions of active mode efficiency, THD, and true power factor, and proposes**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 modifications for consistency with EISA, to the definition of active mode, and proposes modification tothe definition of no-load mode to accommodate multiplevoltage external power supplies. Furthermore, DOE proposes new definitions to clarify the existing definition of true power factor. Those would be for active power and apparent power, as well as new definitions that would be consistent with IEEE Standard 1515 for ambient temperature and unit under test. Finally, DOE proposes new definitions for instantaneous power, nameplate input frequency, input voltage, output current, output power, and output voltage. These would be consistent with the existing Energy Star test procedures. So, all of these were terms that were used in the test procedure but were not explicitly defined. DOE is trying to make sure that there is no confusion in the use of these definitions. Are there any comments? (No response.) MR. MALINOWSKI: Okay. Great. Moving on. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, DOE will be proposing a test procedure for multiple-voltage EPSs. As part of that test procedure, DOE has found it necessary to**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 propose additional definitions. Those would bedefinitions for minimum output current, for multiplevoltage external power supply, as well as for output bus. DOE is also proposing a definition for a special case of a single-voltage external power supply. This would be the switch-selectable single-voltage external power supply. DOE has tried to find definitions that would make that definition consistent with ones used by other programs. That concludes the run-down of the definitions there. All definitions are listed in the notice for your comment. MR. BROOKMAN: Chris. MR. CALWELL: Could I just ask; what's the need for a definition of minimum output current? I mean, in the past we've thought of minimum output current as being none, zero. So, why define it? What do you want to do with it that requires a definition? MR. MALINOWSKI: So this will be addressed a little later in the presentation. But basically, in the case of multiple-voltage EPSs, there are cases where the specification of the EPS requires a minimum output current on one of the buses for the other buses to operate.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CALWELL: Okay. So it's like a standby rail or a plus-five SB rail, something like that? MR. MALINOWSKI: Not necessarily. MR. CALWELL: Okay. MR. MALINOWSKI: But I guess you can say it that way. MR. CALWELL: All right. Thanks. MR. MALINOWSKI: And I'll proceed next with Section 3 of Appendix Z, which is the Test Apparatus and General Instructions, where DOE is proposing toinsert Subsection B to deal specifically with multiplevoltage external power supplies. This is a typical setup for testing in accordance with the DOE test procedure. As you can see, it involves an input power meter, a unit under test, and output current and voltage meter, as well as the load. For testing multiple-voltage external power supplies, this setup will be modified to include multiple loads, one for each output bus, and multiple sets of output meters. Yes, that's just a brief overview just to get everyone familiar with the setup of the test procedure. When deciding on how to frame this test procedure, DOE consulted two existing test procedures,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 one for internal power supplies and one for external power supplies. The first one that DOE consulted was the IPS test procedure, internal power supply test procedure, which has been -- MR. CALLAND: Sorry. MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Calland. MR. CALLAND: Tim Calland, Microsoft. Internal power supplies for what kind of product? MR. MALINOWSKI: These are typically used for personal computers. MR. CALLAND: Okay. MR. MALINOWSKI: And, yeah, this test procedure has been adopted by the 80-plus industry standard as well as Energy Star in their, I think, latest specification for personal computers. This test procedure was used because it prescribes methods for safely dividing the output current between the different outputs. There are cases which we'll present later where it's not possible to simply load all the outputs of a multiple-voltage external power supply to 100 percent of nameplate. MR. CALLAND: Tim Calland again. Are you referring to the Tier 1 or Tier 2 requirements of Energy Star 4.0? I believe that Tier 2 requires actual software exercise and evaluation of test under load.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MALINOWSKI: I'm not familiar with Tier 2. MR. CALLAND: Okay. MR. CALWELL: This is Chris. I can answer that. It's Tier 1. So the 80-plus requirements for efficiency and the test procedure to determine them were adopted by Energy Star in their version 4.0, Tier 1 for computers. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. MR. MALINOWSKI: And the second test procedure that was used in the drafting of thismultiple-voltage EPS test procedure was the singlevoltage test procedure which has been adopted by DOE and Energy Star. This test procedure contains measurement conditions for standby mode as well as warm-up times that DOE believes would be more applicable in the testing of multiple voltage external power supplies. It also forms the basis for various international regulations as well as, as I mentioned, the EPA Energy Star program for EPSs.So the proposed Section 3 for multiplevoltage EPSs largely parallels the existing structure of the single-voltage test procedure. However, it differs in four significant ways. One is the adoption of modified requirements regarding the calibration,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 uncertainty, and the resolution of measurement equipment. Second is dropping what DOE felt was kind of too restrictive a requirement on the AC source, that it be capable of supplying 10 times the nameplate power. Third, the requirement that AC source THD be less than 3 percent versus the current 2 percent. And finally, the requirement that all test losses be fully accounted for when performing the test procedure. As I mentioned earlier, DOE is considering, not currently proposing, just considering, adopting these same requirements for the single-voltage EPS test procedure. MR. BROOKMAN: Chris. MR. CALWELL: My only suggestion here would be to confer with the EPRI staff that developed the original test procedure. I was more of a secondary participant in that, but EPRI led the effort. I know they had gotten comments from manufacturers as they went through this. This second provision about 10 times the nameplate output power, I agree; when you look at it, it seems onerous. But there was a desire for the robustness or the stiffness of the source so it wouldn't be influenced by the test.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Just a variety of things that EPRI engineers could comment on or perhaps even unearth the comments they got from industry that suggested why those were there. It might save you the time of getting the comments again from industry who offered it originally. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. MR. MALINOWSKI: Thank you. And I'll go through each one of these proposed departures from the single-voltage test procedure in turn. The followingset of slides is organized with the current singlevoltage language on the left and the proposed multiplevoltage language on the right. The first set deals with calibration requirements. Standard practice is to periodically calibrate equipment to traceable standards. The modification includes an explicit reference to existing calibration standards. So on the left you can see the current single voltage EPS test procedure just requires that equipment be suitably calibrated, versus the proposed multiple-voltage test procedure actually specifies which standards that equipment should be calibrated in accordance with, as well as that the equipment be within its calibration period. MR. BROOKMAN: Larry. MR. ALBERT: Larry. Interestingly, you**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 invoke ISO 17025 with respect to equipment calibration. But that standard covers a fairly broad range of laboratory practices to ensure that you get satisfactory results. Are you suggesting that perhaps 17025 should be invoked in the entire standard as a requirement for the processes that are used during all the measurements? MR. MALINOWSKI: The proposal is fairly limited. It just specifically refers to the calibration of equipment. MR. ALBERT: Okay. Thank you. MR. MALINOWSKI: I'm sorry, Larry. Were you suggesting that the proposal be expanded to refer to 17025? MR. ALBERT: Just a question as to -- 17025, for example, you need to ensure that laboratory personnel are trained in the operation of the test equipment, right, which is -- so it's not just the calibration procedure but it extends to other laboratory practices. I was wondering whether the Department was considering the broader referencing of 17025. MR. MALINOWSKI: Not currently. MR. CALLAND: Tim Calland, Microsoft. There are a lot of other requirements in 17025 that would be**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 far more than is needed to prove this. So I hope you don't go down that path. MR. MALINOWSKI: Next would be a slight amendment to the uncertainty requirement. Uncertainty is, of course, the errors that accumulate from all the different steps of the measurement process. The proposed language includes a confidence level for the uncertainty requirement, something that was absent from the single-voltage EPS test procedure but is present in the multiple-voltage IPS test procedure. This would make the test procedure consistent with IEC 62301 and the IPS test procedure in this regard. Any comments? (No response.) MR. MALINOWSKI: Next would be a resolution requirement. Resolution is the ability of measurement equipment to reflect the smallest change in the quantity being measured. It can both be limited by the measurement resolution as well as the display resolution of the equipment. The current single-voltage EPS test procedure requires measurement instruments to have a resolution of 0.01 watts or better for active power. The proposed language is based around a tiered approach, whereby the resolution requirements becomes successively less**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stringent at higher output powers just because of the difficulty of maintaining a 0.01 watt resolution at output powers greater than 100 watts. Again, this proposed resolution requirement is consistent with the internal power supply test procedure as well as IEC 62301. The next proposal refers to the AC source requirements. This is the one that Chris referred to earlier. And the existing requirement requires that the source be capable of delivering at least 10 times the nameplate input power of the unit -- output power of the unit under test. The proposed language maintains that as a suggestion, similar to IEEE Standard 1515, which also just recommends that. However, the proposal does maintain a plus or minus 1 percent requirement on the AC source voltage. So keep the performance-based requirement of plus or minus 1 percent and just maintain the 10 times output power as a guideline. MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, PG&E. There might technically be a slight difference here depending upon how you measure the input voltage and maintain it, plus or minus 1 percent. Since many of these loads are nonlinear, you'd have to maintain the voltage on an**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 instantaneous basis plus or minus 1 percent, not average? MR. ALBERT: Larry. My assumption is what they're talking about is the RMS value of the voltage. The question in my mind is, is it the measurement of the RMS value of the voltage prior to the beginning of the test. Because if it's at any point in time, then you're really saying over line and load conditions and not just over line conditions, right. I think the original requirement of plus or minus 1 percent was for the UUT power supply independent of the connection to the product being -- the UUT being measured, right, which is just a line variation type requirement. MR. FERNSTROM: What I want to make sure is that we don't get harmonic distortion in the voltage. That is that supply is stiff enough so that you're not seeing little instantaneous voltage dips. MR. ALBERT: That would probably be addressed -- I'm sorry. Larry Albert. That would probably be addressed by the THD requirement that's also there, providing that THD requirement is understood to be present under load conditions. What was the -- that's the next set of slides, I guess. MR. MALINOWSKI: That's right.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ALBERT: Matt, was that your intention, that they would be as connected to the UUT -- the THD requirement or -- MR. MALINOWSKI: Yes. MR. ALBERT: -- the THD requirement of the source prior to connection to the load? MR. MALINOWSKI: That would be under load, which I think is also as specified in the existing single-voltage test procedure. MR. ALBERT: All right. So, Gary, that would address that, I think. MR. FERNSTROM: Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Gary. Thank you, Larry. Some fairly -- quite a bit of detailed bits of discussion. I want to make sure we're not going too fast. We don't want to lose anybody in this. So speak up. It's getting on towards lunch, also. We may be fading slightly. Yes, please. MR. HABBEN: Rick Habben. I just have a general question. The language that's proposed for the multiple-voltage EPSs, is that language also going to go back and be applied to the single-voltage EPSs or are they going to be two different requirements? MR. MALINOWSKI: So, currently DOE is**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposing this language but also considering it for inclusion in the single-voltage test procedure, depending on stakeholder comments. So either is a possibility at this point: maintaining separate testapparatus requirements for multiple-voltage and singlevoltage or making them consistent, depending on how stakeholders weigh in. MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. MR. CALLAND: Don’t differentiate between single-voltage output and dual-voltage output in this context. This is just good test practice. So if it's applied to one, it should be applied to the other. MR. BROOKMAN: Do you wish to weigh in again? MR. PETROLATI: No. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MR. PETROLATI: Anybody else have comments on that issue? MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Vic. MR. PETROLATI: One of our concerns, obviously, that we incorporated into the NOPR was the fact that if we changed the single-voltage EPS test procedure it would not be harmonized with some of the other countries that are using that EPS voltage test procedure. MR. BROOKMAN: Chris.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CALWELL: Vic, thanks for prompting a comment. This is similar to an issue that I had raised in some earlier remarks I sent to DOE. I don't know if these changes affect the measured values. I do know that there's a very carefully arrived at roman numeral labeling system to allow power supplies tested in one country to be treated as having achieved a certain efficiency in others. So I just wanted to suggest that either DOE publish some testing showing that these changes don't affect the measured efficiency values and therefore it is consistent with existing labeling methodologies, or consider trying to make these sorts of changes through the IEC process I mentioned earlier so that when they take effect they would be simultaneously adopted by all the IEC subscribing countries rather than arriving at a situation where you might be measuring something in a meaningfully different way than your fellow trading partners are. MR. CALLAND: This is Tim Calland. The term "IEC-adopting countries" is not exactly correct. IEC standards -- in some cases the same standards may be adopted by some countries. However, there are many subscribers to IEC standards, many different countries who pick and choose which standards and which editions**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of standards they choose to use. So I think that ultimately we can't refer to an IEC document unless we tie it down by revision number and edition number. We will need to -- any time that document changes, we'll need to go through this process again. MR. BROOKMAN: Larry. MR. ALBERT: Just to clarify, this is only -- this would only be an issue if through the Department's determination analysis they come to the conclusion that multiple-output EPSs are worthy of regulation because higher-power EPSs could be handled by -- above 250 watts could be handled by the single-voltage output EPS test method that's already available. That's correct? Or has it already been determined that multiple-output

-- MR. BROOKMAN: Vic Petrolati. MR. PETROLATI: Larry, my confusion probably, but we're still on the issue of making changes to the single-voltage EPS and whether or not making those changes would cause problems with harmonization. One of the things we also are considering if we do make changes to the single-voltage EPS to incorporate some of these same changes here that are being discussed for the multi-voltage, is to phase in**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that test procedure, possibly with an effective date of the test procedure that coincides with the effective date either of the standards or the issuance of the standards, such that we don't have a harmonization issue up until 2011 or 2013, which would also allow countries to consider adopting our test procedure as well. But we are very interested in getting stakeholder comment on making any changes to the single-voltage EPS test procedure and how we should do that. MR. BROOKMAN: Chris. MR. CALWELL: I guess I would just say I think the phase-in idea sounds like a promising one. It might allow people -- what you're really up against, I think, is you've got a set of people who now know they have to meet a federally prescribed test procedure and standard that the government put into EISA. Trying to make a change midstream on them could throw them off, whereas if you know you're going to have a new standards adoption date a few years from now phasing in this change to the test procedure to take effect then, it could also give you time to make your case before IEC to make the same changes you're making. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MALINOWSKI: Let me continue. The next proposed change in the requirements deals with THD. That stands for total harmonic distortion, which is a measure of the deviation of the AC source voltage wave form from an ideal sine wave. Currently, the single-voltage test procedure requires that the THD of the supply voltage not exceed 2 percent, up to and including the 13th harmonic. DOE is proposing that that requirement be loosened such that it does not exceed 3 percent, up to and including the 13th harmonic, mainly to alleviate some of the burdens on the testing laboratories of maintaining a 2 percent THD. The final requirement deals with test lead loss measurements. The test leads are cables that are connected to the units under test during measurement. They do have some losses and may slightly change the test results. So DOE is proposing to require that these losses, the voltage drops across the test leads, be added or subtracted from the input and output voltage measurements just for a full accounting of any losses present in the test apparatus. Again, DOE doesn't believe that that will significantly add to the testing burden because laboratories do routinely perform these measurements.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The goal here is to be explicit. MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom. So you're talking about here the test leads, not the leads associated with the equipment under test itself; is that correct? MR. MALINOWSKI: That is correct. MR. FERNSTROM: Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. MR. CALLAND: So, to clarify. Tim Calland, Microsoft. The measurements would be done at the termination of the test leads of the equipment under test? I'm sorry. The termination of the integral cord associated with the equipment under test? MR. MALINOWSKI: That is correct. MR. CALLAND: Okay.MR. MALINOWSKI: Similar to the singlevoltage EPS test procedure. The NOPR, again, is -- describes this in detail. MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your name. DR. MADIGAN: Michael Madigan, Texas Instruments. Could you please clarify exactly where in the test setup -- if you could bring the slide up that had the picture of it? -- where that would be measured. Is it -- specifically, which side of the watt meter,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the power meter? Because the power meter requires a resistive shunt. When you have a system that doesn't have power factor correction there's a big difference between the harmonics that are measured on one side of that shunt and the other. The shunt tolerance is specified but the shunt impedance is not. In some cases I've used a shunt of 10 ohms, which is terribly large, and I'vegotten completely different power measurements for noload power than using a shunt that was one-tenth of an ohm. So, are there any specifications somewhere in that signal -- the power train, in that part of the power train that spell out the shunt? MR. MALINOWSKI: I would imagine the -- I'll have to look through it again. But if you wouldn't mind actually raising -- elaborating on that concern in a written comment, that would be very helpful. DR. MADIGAN: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Can you point to it? Can you point to the location? MR. MALINOWSKI: I think we're talking about the power meter itself. DR. MADIGAN: Yes. MR. MALINOWSKI: And the drop across the**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 power meter. MR. BROOKMAN: So, those comments in writing would be helpful. Please. Larry. MR. ALBERT: Larry Albert. Expanding on the gentleman from TI's comments, this would also apply, I guess, to the measurements of THD and also tolerance, right, because the THD measurement can be different before or after the watt meter, depending upon the internal shunt impedance. MR. FERNSTROM: So this is Gary Fernstrom. Common practice is to measure the voltage on the load side of the shunt and the current through the shunt, right? MR. BROOKMAN: Larry? MR. ALBERT: Yes. The question here is with respect to the source, right, and what the requirements are for the source and whether the THD is measured when the UUT is connected or not and under load conditions, right. To your earlier point about how do you normalize the measurements with changing source impedances on the AC source, right, by controlling THD at the UUT under the load conditions you could do that. However, if you're measuring on the wrong side of the watt meter, then you might get erroneous results. That**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 4 1 would also apply, of course, with source tolerance as well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. FERNSTROM: Thanks. I understand the question. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thanks to both of you. Other comments on this before we move to close to the final slide? Yes, please. Michael. MR. VLADIMER: Hi. This is Michael Vladimer from Navigant. MR. BROOKMAN: Is it on? MR. VLADIMER: I think so. To the gentleman from Texas Instruments, could you just briefly elaborate a little bit further? If you look at the picture you could see that there's an external power supply. Its cable is black, and then there's a connector going to a black and a red output cable, and pretty much the same thing on the input side as well, which you can't see. So, how would you propose addressing -- like, because I would expect to measure it at exactly that output and exactly that input. DR. MADIGAN: The AC source -- well, it can be either viewed at the transformer that's -- the output voltage adjustor, actually. The input voltage adjustor. Or on the other side of the watt meter.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The watt meter actually measures voltage but it also measures current. So, really, the voltage that's being applied to the adaptor itself is looking at the impedance of the watt meter in series with the other elements in the test setup. So there's sort of a total impedance, if you will, that will affect the performance, the modes, and efficiency of the adaptor. Are there any limitations on it? We're specifically addressing things like the cables, but this seems to be one element that may have slipped our attention. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So those written comments. MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. (Laughter.) MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Then let's move on. MR. MALINOWSKI: Here's a brief summary of the different proposed requirements that I just went through, as well as DOE's estimated impacts of adopting these requirements versus what is currently in the single-voltage EPS test procedure. Again, DOE is requesting comment on all of these proposed changes to the requirements. MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to go back to the previous slide? Just leave it there for a moment. So this is a summary slide. Additional**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 comments, questions, clarifications on this whole bunch of definitional proposals, changes, and the like? Yes, Chris. MR. CALWELL: Chris Calwell from ECOS. Just one question that reflects the fact that we have a lab technician that makes these measurements and it's not me. So I may just not understand something here. In your visual that in effect leads to this summary slide -- there you go. So you're showing an isolation transformer and then an input voltage adjustor. It looks like that's what I as a layperson would call a manual voltage adjustor, meaning that you're dialing it to the level that you want but that, as Gary mentioned before, as you conduct your test you could be influencing that voltage by loading the system. We have a reference voltage source in our lab, and I know EPRI uses something similar, sometimes a very large UPS, that will automatically hold you at that voltage regardless of how you load the device. So it seems as if those two setups might have different levels of precision or assured voltage stability. I guess thus my concern -- when we had drafted the EPS single-voltage test procedure and when EPRI had drafted the multi-voltage, they were working largely under IEEE's guidance and manufacturer comments**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that they wanted that degree of certainty, repeatability, and automatic voltage stability. I just wonder if this is too much of a shortcut when you consider the caliber of the labs that are likely to be involved and the fact that automatic -- I'm sorry, that reference voltage sources, I think, are routine in those labs. So that would be my comment. Even though I clearly acknowledge that you're going to save money in the lab, I don't know if it actually cuts the cost of the testing much since reference voltage sources are the integral front end of every test we do in our lab for every purpose for every test procedure. The bottom line: we use them all the time. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Tim. MR. CALLAND: Real quick. What this really talks to is tolerance and how close you are. The concerns that we're discussing right here will depend on whether I want to take advantage of the 1 percent error built into the system or not. If I have something that clearly complies I don't have an issue. Otherwise, I might have to send it out to an outside lab to get a second opinion. MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne. MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris. I understand and**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appreciate the interest in trying to get at the most accurate measurements, but I also don't want to start taking this into the realm of where we have to hire laboratories that charge increasingly huge amounts of money to have this done and where it takes it out of the hands of a manufacturer with a suitable laboratory facility and abilities to be able to produce these results within the tolerance range, within the stiffness range, and within the repeatability range that we're looking for. So while I perfectly understand the interest in this, I'd suggest to us that we watch very carefully that we aren't pursuing perfection to the extent that we are eliminating the ability of many manufacturers to do this on a cost-efficient basis. MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Gary. MR. FERNSTROM: Gary, PG&E. When I do these measurements I use a precision voltage supply that maintains 115 volts to one-tenth of a percent pretty much instantaneously. I think what Chris Calwell was reacting to was the presence of what I would call a variac in this picture, which is the variable voltage transformer. As the utility mains voltage varies, it's usually impossible to maintain even 1 percent precision**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 throughout a measurement period. So the whole notion of having a laboratory grade constant voltage supply is important here, so we should collectively look into this to make sure we're not giving up too much. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So that also would be welcome in your comments. Tim. MR. CALLAND: Just one last, I hope last, real small comment, which is that I think the precision we're pursuing right now is fine for type testing, but the kind of variation we're going to see in normal manufacturing practices is going to exceed this. So I may have a sample somewhere that passes with this kind of precision, but if I cut it this close a certain percentage of what I manufacture is going to be out of tolerance. MR. BROOKMAN: How would you suggest the Department should address that? MR. CALLAND: My only suggestion is perhaps worrying too much about this resolution, getting it this tight when actual manufacturing variation is probably on the order of 10 times greater than what we're measuring. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So I would call your attention once again -- Gary, go ahead. MR. FERNSTROM: Well, this issue comes up in**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all standards with air conditioners, refrigerators, and so on. The performance is measured in the laboratory and then manufacturers certify that production off the line meets those requirements. So it does us no good to test a sample and find that it complies and then find that due to normal manufacturing tolerances a third or a half of the product off the line doesn't comply. This is a standard. All the product off the line should comply. If I go buy a sample and test it in my lab using precision equipment, I would expect it would comply. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So once again, I'd like to refer you to Slide 90, the summary slide, and ask you to survey this one more time and make final comments on these if you wish. Yes, Larry. MR. ALBERT: Just to follow onto what Gary was asking about, with respect to what's on Slide 81, which refers to the uncertainty limits, doesn't this imply that you're establishing a sampling level for measurements and then that would mean that any consequent referee measurements or field surveillance or something would be done with a similar sample size to achieve the same competence limits? What was your intention there, Matt? MR. MALINOWSKI: So the intention there is to**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 specify the accuracy of the test equipment. I won't bother going back to the slide here, but this would be -- most test equipment comes with accuracy specifications. That accuracy, assuming a normal distribution of errors in the equipment, it's unbounded. So we're trying to bound that such that 95 percent of the time that equipment will be accurate to 2 percent. MR. ALBERT: I'm sorry. I must have misinterpreted that. You're talking about the measurement itself rather than the -- MR. MALINOWSKI: Right. But I guess the -- as I understand, there are two ways to describe the error in the measurement. One is to perform lots of measurements and the other is to take the equipment and add together the errors from each piece of equipment to come up with an estimate of the total error. So that's how that was -- that's what that was intended to do. I don't think DOE expects manufacturers to perform multiple tests on a single UUT to discern what the error would be. MR. ALBERT: -- 5 percent of the population of manufacturers' products may be noncompliant? MR. MALINOWSKI: No, I don't think so. I think what it implies is that it's possible that even**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 though the equipment -- 95 percent of the time the equipment is accurate to within 2 percent, 5 percent of the time it may not be accurate to within 2 percent. It might be accurate to within 2.1 percent, and so on. MR. ALBERT: It's an equipment competence limit, not a measurement competency. MR. MALINOWSKI: That's right. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thanks for that interpretation. Final comments at this point? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then I'm going to suggest we go to lunch. I call your attention to one thing on the agenda. I don't think I covered this at the outset this morning. At the end of the day today, round about 2:45, 3 o'clock or so, there's yet another opportunity for any of you to raise additional issues that you wish to raise, or reaffirm points, or clarify things that went forward. So if you found that this period of concentrated stuff was -- if you find that you wish to comment further on it, that would be an opportunity for you to do that. It's now 12:25. I'm going to suggest we take an hour for lunch. Please wear your badges inside the**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 building. For those of you that have not been here before, there's a full-service cafeteria down one floor and all the way underneath the street. There will be a whole herd of people heading in that direction. (Laughter.) MR. BROOKMAN: I suggest you stay with the flow. We will be locking this room, so you can leave your materials in here. We will reopen it at 1:20. At 1:20 we'll reopen it. We'll resume at 1:25. Please don't go off the premises. Don't go outside or you'll have to reenter through security, I think. That's all I can recall. There are bathrooms, once again, on both sides of each corridor. Vic? MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. One other thing. We have, I think, two foreign nationals here. Do we have any foreign nationals here in the audience? I need to talk to you about -- we had problems with the cafeteria before, so if I could see you before we head off to lunch down in back of the room. MR. BROOKMAN: Enjoy your lunch. We'll resume at 1:25. (Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the meeting was adjourned for lunch, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m.)**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 1:30 p.m. MR. BROOKMAN: I'm glad you all could find your way back. That's the first step. Second, Brenda reminds me that the Department will supply a photocopy compilation of everybody's business cards. They will have that for you by the end of the day. Any other items that we should -- yes, yes. I'll take care of that. MR. PETROLATI: Transcripts. MR. BROOKMAN: Oh, transcripts. Is the best way to do transcripts simply to speak to Green directly? MR. PETROLATI: No. Transcripts will be posted on our website at some future point in time. PARTICIPANT: Hopefully before October 29th. MR. PETROLATI: That I can't guarantee. PARTICIPANT: Are these presentations also available on the website? MR. PETROLATI: They are now, yeah. MR. BROOKMAN: Any other questions here at the outset that relate to these housekeeping and other logistical kinds of issues? (No response.)**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Then, do you want to say anything at the outset before we turn it back to Matt? MR. PETROLATI: Let's get going. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Matt. External Power Supply Test Procedure: Test Apparatus and General Instructions Mateusz Malinowski (PowerPoint presentation.) MR. MALINOWSKI: Welcome back. I hope you had a nice lunch. Let me continue with the Test Apparatus and General Instructions section, which is Section 3 of Appendix Z to Subpart B of 10 CFR 430. Before the break I talked about the proposed changes to Section 3 which address multiple-voltage external power supplies. During the discussion we went over some changes to the requirements on the AC source, the equipment resolution and uncertainty, as well as test lead measurements, or I should say test lead loss measurements. These the Department is proposing for adoption for the multiple-voltage EPS test procedure. DOE is also considering adopting these for the single-voltage EPS test procedure but does not necessarily intend to implement them without stakeholder comment. We touched upon that briefly**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 before the break, and I'll go into a little bit more depth on that right now. Again, the two terms are "propose," which is what is in the notice, what is currently in the rule language of the notice, versus "consider," which is left a little bit more open and is DOE's -- they're waiting for stakeholder comments on that.So DOE is considering changes to the singlevoltage test procedure in the Test Apparatus and General Instructions Section. These changes would besimilar to the proposed changes for the multiplevoltage EPS test procedure. Again, just to refresh, there was the three tiered measurement resolution requirement. Then there was the AC source requirement, the THD requirement, and the test lead losses. The issue that was highlighted earlier is that this would make the single voltage -- adopting the changes would make the single-voltage EPS test procedure no longer harmonize with the test procedure used by Energy Star as well as international jurisdictions. However, DOE does believe that incorporating these changes would improve a lot of the accuracy and repeatability of measurement as well as easing the manufacturer burden.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Department does request your comment on this issue. MR. BROOKMAN: Please. Is it Robin? MS. CLARK: Yes, it's Robin. Robin Clark with ICF International. We provide consulting support to EPA on Energy Star. I just wanted to offer one suggestion with regards to the international harmonization comment. It is important to EPA. This test procedure, though, has been in existence for a while and they certainly understand that over time it may need some modifications and adjustments. I wanted to suggest that there are some international stakeholders who will be in Washington, D.C., in late October, I think the week of October 20th, for APP and IEA meetings. That includes representatives from the Australian government, who also use this test procedure for external power supplies. I just wanted to suggest that through EPA we could potentially help to organize a meeting or a brief call with Vic, DOE, to just sort of talk through these issues, make sure they're aware of them, and figure out how we're going to continue to be, hopefully, internationally harmonized and still work through these adjustments and improvements.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PETROLATI: Robin, thank you. We'll take you up on that offer. Thank you. MS. CLARK: Thank you. External Power Supply Test Procedure: Test Measurement Single-Voltage EPSs Mateusz Malinowski (PowerPoint presentation.) MR. MALINOWSKI: Continuing on, we're moving to Section 4 of Appendix Z, which deals with Test Measurement. This is the heart of the test procedure, the instructions for how to conduct the test procedure. We'll proceed with the single-voltage EPS test procedure. The single-voltage test procedure is the one that you're all familiar with that was adopted by Energy Star. The modifications that DOE is proposing would deal with incorporating measurements of standby mode and off mode in addition to the existing test procedure. Again, just to refresh, the definition for standby mode requires that tests be conducted with any manual on/off switches set to "on" versus "off." The measurement of off mode will be conducted with those switches turned to "off." Again, the Department welcomes comments on this proposal.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (No response.) MR. MALINOWSKI: Continuing, in terms of the measurement requirements, just to refresh, the current single-voltage test procedure measures efficiency at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of nameplate output current and does not address multiple-voltage EPSs. One of the things that DOE is considering in addition to the test apparatus changes that are up for consideration, DOE is also considering an improved stability requirement for the single voltage test procedure. Currently, the stability requirement reads that over a period of five minutes if the power level does not drift by more than 5 percent from the maximum value observed, the UUT -- unit under test -- can be considered stable. DOE is considering an alternate stability requirement. The power level does not drift by more than 1 percent. DOE does recognize that that may not always be achievable, in which case an alternate measurement method involving average power as specified in IEC 62301 is under consideration. Here's just a quick illustration of what that would look like. DOE does hope that this would result in more repeatable and accurate test results, as well as,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 again, providing an out in case that stability cannot be reached. MR. BROOKMAN: Go, please, right ahead. And then Gary. Gary, let's let this gentleman go first. DR. MADIGAN: I want to ask a question -- MR. BROOKMAN: Say your name again. DR. MADIGAN: -- maybe you could clarify. Michael Madigan. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. DR. MADIGAN: Do you mean to actually average -- the alternative is to average over the full five minutes? MR. MALINOWSKI: Yes, that would be correct. DR. MADIGAN: Okay. MR. MALINOWSKI: So it would either be an instantaneous measurement, if the device is stable, or an average measurement over five minutes if it is not stable. DR. MADIGAN: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. MR. FERNSTROM: Okay. So, Gary Fernstrom. We're talking about the power supply output voltage here? MR. MALINOWSKI: This would be for all the power measurements. This would be both input and**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 output power. MR. FERNSTROM: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Please. MR. HABBEN: Rick Habben. I just have -- MR. BROOKMAN: That's not on. MR. HABBEN: I just have a question. Can you give the background and rationale why you're going from -- wanting to go from five to one? MR. MALINOWSKI: I believe we used -- I think -- let me just double-check. If I'm correct, I think that was based on the internal power supply test procedure, which uses a similar stability requirement. I'm not sure -- the notice goes into more detail on that. I can't recall specifically what the precedent was. We felt that given that the uncertainty of measurement is specified at 2 percent, a 5 percent swing in the power measurement seems a little excessive in this case. DR. MADIGAN: Michael Madigan. Is that the section of the IEC standard that calls for five minutes or 200 sampling cycles, the longer -- does that include the sampling cycles? MR. MALINOWSKI: Not as currently -- DR. MADIGAN: Not currently. Okay. MR. MALINOWSKI: Not as currently proposed.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DR. MADIGAN: Okay. MR. MALINOWSKI: Or, not as currently written in the notice. So, continuing. A further change to the single-voltage EPS test procedure, this time that DOE is proposing, would be to allow for the testing of switch-selectable external power supplies. These are single-voltage units -- rather, they can provide only one output voltage at a time. However, what that output voltage is, is controllable by the user. So these would be replacement adaptors that one could buy after-market that would work with a host of other products. Here, for example, there's an illustration of one with the voltage selector switch clearly marked. To test these, DOE is proposing that their efficiency be measured both at the maximum and minimum voltage settings, which will bound all the possible efficiencies of the power supply. This proposal is consistent with the way these types of units are tested in Australia and New Zealand as well as under the Energy Star program here. In addition, DOE is proposing that these be tested in standby mode and off mode and, again, the test setup would be consistent with the single-voltage**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EPS test procedure, i.e., standby mode would be tested with the on/off switch set to "on," off mode with the on/off switch set to "off." However, these units would again be tested twice, once at the highest voltage setting, once at the lowest. DOE invites stakeholder comment on these proposed changes to the single-voltage external power supply test procedure, specifically as it applies to switch-selectable single-voltage EPSs. (No response.) MR. MALINOWSKI: Thank you. And anotherissue that came up in the drafting of the multiplevoltage EPS test procedure is that some units may not have all the nameplate -- all the information necessary for the conduction of the test procedure specified on the unit itself. This is particularly an issue with high-power external power supplies such as those used for, for example, ham radio applications, where the units are slightly different from what we've been seeing so far. They can be in metal enclosures, and the nameplates for those units may not list all the data available or all the data about the device. MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. MR. CALLAND: I just wanted to say that you**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will often find -- or another situation where you won't actually find nameplate ratings are for dedicated use power supplies. For example, Underwriters Laboratorieswill forego ratings if there is a hard -- a nondetachable cable between the two or if there are markings on the power supply and on the end-use product specifying: for use with this and for use with that. You don't need to put a nameplate. This is just yet another little plug that dedicated power supplies are often treated differently than general purpose power supplies. MR. MALINOWSKI: Is there another source for those ratings? Is there another way to obtain them in order to conduct -- MR. CALLAND: Well, the combination of the two, the system would have a rating on it instead. MR. BROOKMAN: Larry. MR. ALBERT: Just a point of clarification. Larry Albert. The UL 1310 covers only Class 2 power supplies and only for a certain subset of applications. Considering that there is no voltage limit in the description of low voltage output for EPSs and since that could include voltages that exceed the Class 2 limits, as was the case that was brought up by the gentleman from Conair earlier, you probably don't want**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to provide any specific standard reference to UL 1310. Since you're also including power supplies that could be powering laboratory equipment or other applications like that, or IT equipment, which might be covered under 60950, or many other standards out there where one could -- you could get a safety approval on an external power supply other than 1310, that might have different marking requirements. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Chris. MR. CALWELL: Yeah. Chris Calwell from ECOS. It seems like if you're asking for comment on what might be done to rectify the problem, one option would be for DOE to require that these four pieces of information be on the nameplate of external power supplies. Then it's not a UL safety issue, it's product labeling for purposes of efficiency standards compliance labeling question. MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Wayne. MR. MORRIS: There's a fairly large track record within DOE that you have responsibilities for delivering data to DOE under 10 CFR 430 on an annual basis, at least for new product development, and you must update the Department when you have a new product coming on board. At the time that you do that, this information could certainly be made available and could**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be kept as one of the records that the DOE keeps. It doesn't seem like it's necessary to require additional marking to be put on product if in fact the Department would already have that information available. MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. MR. CALLAND: The UL nameplate marking is intended to indicate maximum normal load and in fact is used to determine what kind of testing is done for the power supply, whereas, again, as discussed before with the efficiency characteristics associated with the power supply, it's very inefficient at a true maximum normal load. So for a lot of different reasons, for that reason as well, we don't necessarily want to work with the nameplate power -- output power rating is what we should be testing to. MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on this subject? (No response.) MR. MALINOWSKI: None? The next section of the presentation will deal with the multiple-voltage EPS test procedure that's proposed, and my colleague Michael Vladimer will continue.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 External Power Supply Test Procedure: Test Measurement Multiple-Voltage EPSs Michael Vladimer (PowerPoint presentation.) MR. VLADIMER: Hi. Good afternoon again. I'm Michael Vladimer from Navigant Consulting. I hope you all had a good lunch, and thank you, Matt, for the presentation so far on test measurement and test apparatus. I'm going to speak about the test measurement for multiple-voltage external power supplies, and then I'll hand off to Vic Petrolati, who's going to wrap up with the Reporting Requirements section. So once we talk about this, I'm going to briefly talk about standby and off mode and how that would apply to multiple-voltage external power supplies and then get into the measurement requirement section, which focuses on active mode. It's pretty detailed, and that's where most of the focus is going to be. So the Department is proposing a test measurement for multiple-voltage EPSs in standby and off mode. This is similar to the single-voltage proposal that we talked about so far. The main difference would be that for a multiple-voltage external power supply that we specify that all outputs**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are disconnected as opposed to for a single-voltage where it's just one. What that means in practice is you can see the output cable right here for multiple-voltage power supply. There are a number of different pins. All of those pins should be disconnected. None should be connected to the product during the standby or off mode test measurement. The Department welcomes comment on that proposal. Any thoughts, suggestions? (No response.) MR. VLADIMER: Okay. Thank you. Now I'd like to turn to active mode for multiple-voltage power supplies. First, a quick summary. We're looking at the stability requirements for when we take the test measurements as well as addressing how to take that measurement for the general case. Then, because multiple-voltage power supplies are a little bit more complicated than their single-voltage counterparts, there are two special cases that we'll get into. First, with stability requirements, it'ssimilar to what Matt was talking about with singlevoltage external power supplies. There is no precedent other than the single-voltage language that talks about a 5 percent drift over five minutes. We would propose**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a 1 percent drift. Any comments on that, or thoughts? (No response.) MR. VLADIMER: Okay. So, yeah. Same thing I just said. MR. BROOKMAN: Why don't you repeat it again. MR. VLADIMER: Sure. MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. I think they didn't stay with you on that one. MR. VLADIMER: Okay. So once again, the graph shows that it would be a five-minute duration for the test to take the measurement and then a 1 percent drift would be the acceptable tolerance of variation over those five minutes. MR. BROOKMAN: Rick. MR. HABBEN: This is Rick Habben. MR. VLADIMER: Sure. MR. HABBEN: I don't know how the 1 percent for sure is going to affect us, but I think that potentially something may need to be considered in relationship to the amount of voltage that's being recorded. So for instance, 1 percent on 1 volt is a lot different than 1 percent on 30 volts as far as your error there. So there may have to be a range where you may have to open it up a little bit when you get down to the smaller voltages and outputs.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. VLADIMER: Thanks. I would follow that up with a suggestion that if you do want to look into that further and comment later. If you wanted to suggest a certain cutoff point, or if anyone else could think of a cutoff point. I mean, I totally understand what you're saying, but is it at 1 volt or at 5 volts or at 30 volts. MR. BROOKMAN: Larry. MR. ALBERT: Larry Albert. Michael, you're considering the stability requirement, yet the out forit is essentially taking the average over the fiveminute period. So there's no requirement for stability. It's just suggesting that your voltage reading would be considered accurate if you can evidence that you can stay within the peak of that, within 1 percent over a five-minute period, right? MR. VLADIMER: In order for the -- although you might be averaging, or you're going to be averaging your power, that power measurement is valid as long as you stay within 1 percent of your peak. If you -- it's not like you can vary outside that 1 percent range and then, just because you're averaging, use that measurement. MR. ALBERT: But, isn't that what your last bullet is saying? Isn't it saying that 62301 provides**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 an out that if stability can't be achieved then you make the measurement through averaging? I guess the question is, that's the test method anyway. Why would you need to fulfill a stability requirement prior to taking the measurement if your out is to take the average anyway? MR. VLADIMER: I see what you're saying. MR. ALBERT: And I guess the follow-on to that is, even when you're talking about a peak and you're measuring power, you're still talking about averaging within a certain sample window, right? So you still have to stipulate, I think, that a sample taken for, whatever, 200 milliseconds, right, that that peak value average during that sample window compared to alternate sample windows taken at all other times, right, would not vary by more than 1 percent. I guess I'm not seeing the utility of having a stability requirement separate from an averaging requirement. MR. VLADIMER: Okay. I think when Matt was speaking before he was talking about taking an instantaneous measurement versus the average. MR. ALBERT: I think he had almost the identical slide that you have here. MR. VLADIMER: Identical graph for sure.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ALBERT: Yeah. MR. VLADIMER: But I think that that's the issue. If you want to take an average or you want to do -- energy and divide by time, you can do that. The key idea here is such that you don't have -- I mean, before we were talking about battery chargers, but again, maybe with an external power supply you might have a pulsed operation or an intermittent operation. So that, if you're going to look at that intermittent operation you don't record it when the product is off, or essentially off. So if you want to average it out, like the bullet says -- I should be more specific. As the bullet says, if that's the case, you can average. But if you want to take an instantaneous measurement you need to meet these requirements. MR. ALBERT: Instantaneous over five minutes? Or, instantaneous measurement providing you meet astability requirement as ascertained through a fiveminute sample. MR. VLADIMER: Like that. MR. ALBERT: Right. MR. VLADIMER: So if you're within 1 percent for five minutes, then you can go instantaneous. Otherwise you need the average.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ALBERT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Chris. No? Okay. Other comments on this? That was really slicing it pretty thin, I thought, right there. (Laughter.) MR. BROOKMAN: As a non-electrical engineer. MR. FERNSTROM: Larry is a master at that. (Laughter.) MR. VLADIMER: Okay. We'll continue. So now we're going to talk about the active mode test procedure and how that would apply. One of the questions that's posed when you have a multiple-voltage product is how do you load the outputs. You could vary one at a time, you could vary both at a time, or both together I should say. So the proposed test procedure simultaneously loads each output to the same percentage of their output current - - of their nameplate output current. So they would all be at 25 percent at the same time, all at 50 percent at the same time, all at 75 percent, and so on. Those four points would then be averaged together to get your -- and that average would be the efficiency of the actual power supply. There has already been discussion previously, and I'm sure we'll continue on it, as to why those**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 points and how we should deal with products that might operate at different points. One or two things just to mention before I open it up is that these loading points -- it is an average. It isn't that if the Department were to set a standard -- for which there is not even a determination done yet -- but if it were to have a positive determination, the standard would be based on the average of those four points and would not hold any one of those four points to that standard alone. That's one thing. And then the other thing to raise when considering these loading points is how to come up with a test procedure across a number of different products because that's another challenge that the Department faces in developing any test procedure. Doug? MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. MR. CALLAND: Okay. Just to clarify, I understand and appreciate the concept that this is an average. However, we still object to the principle of averaging in points that the power supply would neversee in actual use under actual load for dedicatedproduct power supplies. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CALLAND: Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on this slide, and these two points especially, on 113? Yes, Chris. MR. CALWELL: Chris Calwell from ECOS. I did want to speak a little bit to why 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent because the historical basis for this goes back a few years. It was a long and lively discussion with a lot of manufacturers. One of the most common points raised, which we hear again today, is "My product is unique. My application is unusual. Something about my product doesn't behave the way the test procedure does." I think we would all stipulate that the universe is large enough that it contains unique products. But that test procedure's purpose is to lend some standardization and some uniformity to the way you measure and compare them to each other. So for example, lots of individual manufacturers showed that they had products that either didn't reach 100 percent or never fell as low as 25 percent. But the purpose of the test procedure and the resulting standards was not to improve the efficiency of the end use product, it was to improve the efficiency of the universe of power supplies that could be connected to such end use products and therefore**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 make them all more affordable because the industry is changing over their efficiency en masse. So maybe the relevant point here is, on this Xbox unit that we're seeing, I would totally agree that a model I might buy today could have a power use of no greater than X and no less than Y. But if subsequent design changes allow it to drop down to a lower period of maximum power during periods of inactivity, I would want its power supply to run efficiently there. Similarly, if I could add some element into it later that could cause it to draw more power than it maximally does today, I would want it to run efficiently there. So I think you will have an endless series of exceptions in your test procedure if you try to accommodate every manufacturer and every product that makes an assertion that they don't run somewhere between 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent. MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. MR. CALLAND: In direct response to that, if this rule becomes law, it's the obligation of the people who put the power supply into commerce that they meet all possible cases of loading, or at least meet whatever we decide on for the test procedure. We're honored by the example of Xbox in the**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 up and coming pictures, so we can go ahead with that. If that's the product -- if we have sufficiently satisfied the United States government that we designed a power supply for the Xbox and we designed the Xbox for the power supply, then if we make any modifications in the Xbox, we would have to make modifications to accommodate the additional load in the power supply. If you pull one off the shelf and it doesn't comply, we would be in violation of your law and we understand that. We feel that's sufficient without trying to hit an artificial loading point that we know for a fact we're not meeting right now. MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments or a counterpoint? (No response.) MR. VLADIMER: Thanks. So let's take a look at the Xbox. With everything that I'm presenting I'm going to give an example as well as an explanation, as I just finished with the general case. So here let's examine how to apply that general test procedure. You can see that we have an Xbox power supply with a nameplate rating. It specifies 203 watts as the maximum output power. Then there are two output buses, one at 12 volts, one at 5 volts. What is really crucial for the test**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 procedure, or the proposed test procedure I should say, are the rated output currents for the 5-volt and 12- volt output buses. Once we have identified those off the nameplate, we can then calculate the proper loading conditions. In this case, you take 25 percent of 16.5 amps and 25 percent of one amp. You come up -- and if you want to test at the 25 percent load condition, which gives you 4.125 amps and then a quarter of an amp on the other bus. Then you sum up the output powers across both of those output buses, divide that by your input power, and that's going to be the efficiency at that single point. Take that, along with the efficiency of the other points, and you get your average efficiency for the power supply. MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. MR. CALLAND: This is Tim from Microsoft. This illustrates our point exactly. Our 5-volt line goes to 100 percent of full load at one watt. It stays that way throughout the operation. It would never ever see 25 percent loading. The power supply isn't designed to be that way. So, to do this is just artificial. Additionally, our console never ever hits 25 percent of full load.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. MR. VLADIMER: Okay. The Department invites any other stakeholder comments? Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom. But wouldn't it be nice if your console could at some point hit 25 percent of full load? MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. MR. CALLAND: That's the subject of a different day and a different meeting. Certainly, we understand the importance of energy efficiency at all modes and loads. We understand that there are circumstances in which we can hit other energy improvement goals. We are indeed pursuing those separately and mostly through a voluntary process rather than a mandatory one. MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments in this vein? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: Seeing no additional comments. MR. VLADIMER: Okay. As I said in the beginning, we're going to look at one general case and two special cases. Now I want to explain why this case is not a special case. The two possible special cases are minimum output current or overloading at 100 percent current.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 When we look at minimum output current, sometimes the output buses, especially on the multiple-voltage power supplies, will specify certain minimum levels in order for it to operate properly. If that's the case, then we have to make sure that when we load it, for instance at 25 percent load, that we're not going to dip below that because we want to make sure that we stay within the rated operating conditions of the product. At the same time, we also want to make sure that we don't overload the product. Some of these products will be able to put a lot of power through one output bus at a time but won't be able to provide that same output power through both buses simultaneously. In that case, we've come up with a derating scheme to handle that. But in this case, you can see on our graph here that the total bus output power, 198 watts plus 5 watts, is the same as the nameplate output power of 203 watts. Now let's examine the minimum output current limits. In this case, like I said, there will be a specification that says if you dip below a certain current it's not within the operating range of the product. As Matt mentioned before, we did look to other standards out there and there was an existing IPS**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 test procedure standard that we referenced that also addresses this issue. By IPS I mean internal power supply. MR. CALLAND: Also, I believe he mentioned that that was an internal power supply that's used in a computer, which is a unique kind of product that hits a wider range of power and has a generic description, not a unique, dedicated product. MR. VLADIMER: Okay. Anything else? Anyone else? (No response.) MR. VLADIMER: So, now let's look at an example. Here we have a multiple-voltage power supply with three output buses. Although it's not written on the nameplate itself, there is a specification sheet that comes along with it. It delineates for each of those output buses a minimum output current. What's interesting is that for output bus number two, that minimum output current is higher than for the other ones, on a percentage basis. In fact, if we were to load that output bus to 25 percent of nameplate output current, we would be going below that limit. In order to address this during the 25 percent loading measurement, we would load Output Buses**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 and 2, still at 25 percent, but for Output Bus Number 2 we would go up to that minimum level. Does that make sense? MR. REEVES: Ari Reeves here. MR. VLADIMER: Yes. MR. REEVES: Just to clarify, I think you loaded -- you would load Buses 1 and 3 at 25 percent. MR. VLADIMER: Oh, did I say -- MR. REEVES: I think you said 1 and 2. MR. VLADIMER: My bad. Thank you. MR. REEVES: Okay. I just wanted to make

sure. MR. VLADIMER: One and three would be at 25 percent and output bus number 2 would be at the minimum level. In this case, 31 percent. Thank you, Ari. Okay. Any stakeholder comments for the special case? (No response.) MR. VLADIMER: Excellent. Let's examine the next special case, which is a little bit more complicated. So for the case of an over -- sorry. How do I say this? Sometimes the total output bus power may be more than the nameplate output power. Here on the graph you can see that we have -- if you look at the ratings for these three output**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 buses, they are more than the nameplate output power. Sometimes the output power is going to be provided directly. Sometimes we'll have to calculate it based on the provided voltage and current. Either way it's definitely possible to ascertain. The Department in this case would propose a proportional allocation method to derate each bus. Again, there is a precedent for this idea with the IPS test procedure. In order to figure out the derating method, what you would do is you take the nameplate output power and then you look at the total bus output power and put those together to calculate D, or derating factor. Once you have your derating factor, that will allow you to scale each output bus. If the value of D is greater than one or equal to one, then your total bus output power is going to be less than your rated output power, or equal to, and you don't need to go through this. So, D is applied at all four loading points. All four loading points shift down. At the highest loading point, at D times 100 percent, the total output power for the EPS is going to be the same as the total bus output power. In an example, we have this external power**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 supply that is rated for 27 watts, as you can see here. But if you calculate the output power for the two buses individually, it comes to 43 watts. So if we were to try to load those together, we would be well over 27 and it would not be in the normal operating range of this product. So what we do is we calculate D, the derating factor, as 27 watts divided by 43 watts, 0.63. Multiply 0.63 times our loading conditions. In this case we're looking at 25 percent load. When we apply that, we look at the output buses at more or less 16 percent of their nameplate output current instead of 25 percent. Again, the Department welcomes comment on proportional allocation. MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. MR. CALLAND: This is a unique and clever way of addressing a very artificially structured situation. I think that -- I do see that you did manage to find one other multiple output voltage power supply. I don't know if it was for a dedicated product or not. I suggest it was. I guess it is. Every step, you start with artificial loads and then you derate them in an artificial way. You're geometrically complicating the artificialness of the**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 whole proposal to begin with. I strongly recommend that wherever possible, when you have tied down to the satisfaction of the law of the United States of America and the Code of Federal Regulations that one will be used with the other, that that is what you use for the load. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments about this method, really? MS. PINTO: Excuse me. MR. BROOKMAN: Francine. MS. PINTO: Could you please restate what you just said? MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. MR. CALLAND: If it is my obligation as a manufacturer that sells a system product, you open up a box and you take what's in the box and you plug it into the wall, that that system be tested as intended to be used, rather than take the system apart, test one portion of the system in an artificial manner in case it were misused in some way, and load it in this rather arbitrary means so it would comply with some artificial standard. Whereas, when they're both tied together in such a way that they will always be used together and never be used separately, a more appropriate way to**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 test it is to test them together. MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. MR. FERNSTROM: So your argument is very reasonable. But how do you then understand the efficiency of the external dedicated power supply under different operating conditions of the device which it was designed to supply? Take your Xbox for example. The Xbox, I presume, depending upon what it's doing, can present different loads on the power supply, maybe not with respect to the 5-volt bus but with other outputs. So, in a simple universal way for the purpose of having a standardized test, how would you define the different operating points of the device under which the power supply would be tested? MR. CALLAND: Let me give you another example which is also part of the Code of Federal Regulations. In this case it's covered by the Federal Communications Commission, having to do with electromagnetic compatibility and unintentional radiators. The Code of Federal Regulations requires that unintentional radiators do not radiate beyond a defined limit in all modes doing all functions. It's the obligation of the manufacturer to design a product that**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 meets that rather than hit artificial points. It's my obligation. It's my product. I designed the product and I know how it's going to operate. You mentioned 25 percent earlier. I know you can't get to 25 percent with my product. If my product is redesigned such that it is, it's my obligation to redesign my power supply so it operates at whatever the efficiency level set by this public rulemaking is at that level. I'm simply proposing an alternate to the arbitrary, artificial loading method that I can actually load with my product. MR. FERNSTROM: Okay. So if I understand your response correctly, you would simply suggest that the power supply meet the efficiency requirement under any operating condition that the product might present. MR. CALLAND: That's correct. If you find -- you look at our comments, you'll find on the last page a proposal that states just that. All modes, all functions. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other viewpoints on this subject? Rick. MR. HABBEN: One other thing that you may want to consider is, the proposal that you have with the derating potentially would allow manufacturers that are maybe having difficulty passing a particular**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 efficiency rating to play with the output rating to meet the particular efficiency rating that they need to. So you can play with the output to adjust your ratings accordingly rather than testing according to what Tim here is saying as far as using the actual output load. MR. CALLAND: I agree with that. That's a good point. The curve that you show here shows you starting with not very good efficiency, at zero, and then it kind of asymptomatically approaches some level as it goes to 100 percent. I propose that's an artificial curve and it's done by derating the maximum output power. If you're really loading to the maximum output power, the curve is going to drop off kind of like a camel hump as you start approaching 100 percent of load because you have a certain amount of components within the power supply that operate less efficiently as they start to warm up. Again, that 100 percent rating on the nameplate label, the reason why it's even there is because that's what it was tested at in terms of temperature and fire hazard. It has nothing to do with efficiency. MR. VLADIMER: I just want to respond to that because I think you're raising a couple interesting**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 points there. First, as far as actual test, this curve, although it is generic, we've measured this in the lab with at least 50 products and they all more or less come to the same curve, including -- I don't remember offhand the results, but I know that we -- as you can see, we purchased the Xbox and tested that, too. MR. CALLAND: Yes, so I'd love to compare data with you. Thank you. MR. VLADIMER: Excellent. So I looked at the data and the variation between 25 percent and 100 percent is minimal. I mean, by minimal, I think roughly speaking it's probably somewhere around 85 percent at all points, plus or minus two. MR. CALLAND: And if your limit is one, you just messed me up. I would contend that it's -- MR. VLADIMER: I'm saying that if you average it, you might be a little bit above or a little bit below. But I don't want to quote numbers because I'm roughly remembering them. But I do want to stress that we looked at the Xbox, but we looked at a lot of other multiple-voltage power supplies as well. There are a lot of printers and multi-function devices, which are kind of all-in-one combination printers, that we looked at. We went onto the different external power supply**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 distributors' websites and looked at their multiplevoltage power supplies. This was really not done in a vacuum. This was looking at a number of different products. Any regulation that comes forward, the determination as it goes forward, is going to be based on a wide amount of data. I understand that you have one product in particular, but we're trying to consider your product as well as many other products. MR. CALLAND: No, that's understood. Again, I'm not saying that you eliminate your proposal for those people who choose to pursue it. I'm simply saying that you give the rest of us the option of using the actual load. MR. BROOKMAN: Is it Joel? MS. WATKINS: It is. MR. BROOKMAN: Please. MS. WATKINS: Joel Watkins. Concerning the argument of making one system and not wanting to take it apart, I think that -- isn't it a reality that it's likely that aftermarket products would be made to replace those external power supplies in the same way that you can go to stores and buy pieces for your cell phone?**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The point is to regulate things that the consumers are purchasing more than it is to maybe protect the manufacturer's monopoly, perhaps, on that. MR. CALLAND: We're not suggesting a monopoly at all. We're just suggesting that because we do tie these two together we can meet it with our load. If there's an aftermarket power supply that somehow or other has used our patent and our connector, then it would still be their responsibility to meet the loading requirements in your standard. Because it doesn't come with the product, it would have to meet it according to this curve instead of using our product as the load. MS. WATKINS: That's what I thought was a bonus. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Vic. MR. PETROLATI: Doug, one comment. Mike, I may have misheard you, but it sounded to me like you indicated that we had tested 50 multi-voltage external power supplies. I believe we've only tested a very limited number of multi-voltage external power supplies. MR. VLADIMER: That's true. Thank you. I'll clarify. So we've tested about 50 power supplies in general. MR. PETROLATI: Right.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. VLADIMER: Of which a handful of those, like Vic said, just a few. Not the majority. But we are pursuing multiple-voltage power supplies, but not - - the majority were single-voltage. MR. PETROLATI: Right. If possible, if we could get some data from manufacturers or others using this test procedure to show us that there may be problems, we would certainly ask you to submit that. It wouldn't have to be by the end of the comment period, but if you're willing to use this test procedure and you can provide some information, I think that would be very helpful. MR. CALLAND: Absolutely. MR. PETROLATI: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Great. Thank you. Other comments on this series of slides? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MR. VLADIMER: Okay. So I'm just going to conclude by discussing how all these special cases and general cases relate to each other and how the test procedure applies. If it gets a little complicated, it's all clearly laid out in the Federal Register. But the way it works is, step one is figure out if there's an**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 overloading condition. Step two is look at any minimum loading condition. Step three is do your testing. So, step one, figuring out the overloading condition, you calculate that derating factor, D. If D is greater than or equal to one, then you don't need to derate. You can go ahead at those 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent loading points. If D is less than one, then you apply the derating factor to those four points. Next, you look at the lowest point, either 25 percent or D times 25 percent, and decide if for any of those buses that that would be below its minimum rated output current. Then, now that you've identified all the loading conditions, apply the loading conditions, test at the four loads, average those values together to get your efficiency for the external power supply. So, any other questions with that order of operations? (No response.) MR. VLADIMER: Great. Well, with that, I thank you for your time. I'll just briefly run through everything that Matt and I covered. We talked about widening the scope. We have definitions that address standby mode, off mode, as well as a number of new definitions to work with this multiple-voltage external power supply test procedure.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We talked about the test apparatus and four proposed changes for multiple-voltage external power supplies and considered changes for single-voltage power supplies. Then we talked about the test measurementand how that would be for standby and off mode singlevoltage EPSs, and then concluded with multiple-voltage EPSs, their standby and off mode measurements, as well as the active mode measurements. At this point I'd like to hand off to Vic Petrolati, who will wrap up with the Reporting Requirements section. MS. CLARK: Doug? MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. MS. CLARK: Could I make one general comment? MR. BROOKMAN: Please do. Please, Robin. MS. CLARK: Robin Clark. MR. BROOKMAN: Is your mic on? MS. CLARK: I believe so. It looks bright green. I just wanted to make a general comment. EPA does not have any specific comment at this time on the multi-voltage EPS test procedure but overall is supportive of DOE's work in this area. We recently were working on the Version 2 external power supply specification for Energy Star, and a number of**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stakeholders through that process suggested that EPA take a look at multiple-voltage EPSs. EPA was not able to do that at the time given resources and the time constraints that they were working within. So they are definitely interested in the feedback from stakeholders and the ongoing work on this test procedure. MR. BROOKMAN: So you'll consult what DOE receives by way of comment. MS. CLARK: Yes. MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Thank you. Reporting Requirements Vic Petrolati (PowerPoint presentation.) MR. PETROLATI: Okay. I'm going to cover the last area, the reporting requirements for Class A external power supplies. First of all, I want to thank everybody for sticking with us through this part of the presentations. We'll try to get this through as quickly as possible. Okay. EISA established standards for Class A external power supplies, as we covered previously. Those standards went into effect on July 1st, 2008. All manufacturers of covered and regulated products must report to DOE that their products are in**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 compliance with the applicable energy conservation standards. All products currently that have standards are required to submit compliance reports and certification reports. We'll get into the details of those a little later. We are now at the point where we must implement the certification enforcement procedures for Class A external power supplies, and we're going to discuss one portion of those. Let me talk about all of the certification enforcement procedures actually as they exist currently. We are proposing that manufacturers certify what's called each basic model of an external power supply, but we're also considering an alternative approach called the design family approach that is used by the Energy Star program. Manufacturers will select units to test under certification and enforcement using a sampling plan. The sampling plan currently isn't in existence at this point. It was proposed in the July 2006 rule. The Department of Energy is currently trying to finalize the certification and enforcement procedures for EPACT 2005 products, in which battery chargers and external power supplies are both included. When that is finalized, there will be sampling requirements.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Manufacturers will measure energy efficiency with the DOE test procedure currently in existence, and the product must meet the energy efficiency standard currently in existence for Class A EPS standards. Manufacturers certify according to DOE reporting requirements, and DOE is currently proposing reporting requirements specific to external power supplies. This is probably a little confusing. Is there any questions before I go on concerning this? MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Ken. MR. PETROLATI: Yes. MR. SALAETS: Ken Salaets, ITI. Vic, I'm trying to read your body language and kind of decipher your emphasis. You seem to emphasize the word "proposing" in the fifth bullet there. I just wanted to make sure I heard that correctly? MR. PETROLATI: In the fifth bullet. MR. SALAETS: It's something to the effect that DOE is currently proposing reporting requirements. MR. PETROLATI: Yes, that is correct. MR. SALAETS: Okay. But the emphasis suggests that there's -- the mind is not made up, there's some flexibility, you're inviting comment, and

--**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PETROLATI: That's the case with every proposed rule. MR. SALAETS: I understand. MR. PETROLATI: Right. And that is the case

-- MR. SALAETS: I just wanted to make sure -- MR. PETROLATI: -- here as well. Now, in this particular case, and we'll get into it in a few seconds, we've got the standard reporting approach and we've got an alternative approach. But yes, we are open to comments on all aspects of the reporting requirements. Yeah. MR. BROOKMAN: Michael, do you want to add on? MR. VLADIMER: Yeah. Hi. This is Michael Vladimer, Navigant Consulting. I think just to address what Ken's question is getting at, some of the reporting requirements are already established. We're going to show -- in the Federal Register there's actually a copy of a sample document for reporting requirements. The proposed reporting requirements are additional ones that Vic is going to talk about. So that's why he was stressing "proposed," because what's in the copy that's in the Federal Register is -- it doesn't address specifically external**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 power supplies. MR. BROOKMAN: Let's let him keep going and then we'll double back as needed. MR. ALBERT: Just a quick question. MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Larry. MR. ALBERT: Just to clarify, right now there is a test method. MR. PETROLATI: Right. MR. ALBERT: And it's for July 1, '08. MR. PETROLATI: Right. MR. ALBERT: There's a test method, there's a standard, right? MR. PETROLATI: Correct. MR. ALBERT: Therefore, manufacturers must comply to that standard. MR. PETROLATI: Correct. MR. ALBERT: However, there are no reporting requirements in place right now. MR. PETROLATI: Correct. And no sampling requirements in place right now in terms of the number of units that have to be tested with the test procedure before reporting. MR. ALBERT: Okay. MR. PETROLATI: All right? MR. ALBERT: So, in the interim,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 manufacturers should be doing what? They just have to comply and then just keep it to themselves, right? MR. PETROLATI: I will give you a recommendation which makes perfect sense to me. It may not make perfect sense to everybody. The July 2006 rule had sampling requirements. There were no comments on the sampling requirements for external power supplies in that July 6th, 2006, rule. Most likely, the final rule is going to have those same sampling requirements. They also are the same sampling requirements that exist for all products, for all practical purposes. MR. ALBERT: Do the sampling requirements also indicate the required information that will most likely be used in the reporting requirements? MR. PETROLATI: No. That's what's in our proposed rule. What information has to be submitted. MR. ALBERT: So, as a practical matter, if a manufacturer right now is attempting to comply, so they conduct the testing themselves -- MR. PETROLATI: Right. MR. ALBERT: -- to the test procedure -- MR. PETROLATI: Right. MR. ALBERT: -- they record the data -- MR. PETROLATI: Right.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ALBERT: -- or what they think the right data and information are. MR. PETROLATI: Right. MR. ALBERT: However, let's say they miss -- it would be unlikely they would be no more extensive than those? MR. PETROLATI: That's correct if you're talking about the sampling requirements which were proposed in July 2006 and the reporting requirements that we're going to be discussing in the next few minutes. MR. ALBERT: Okay. Thank you. MR. PETROLATI: Yes. And I'm sorry it's so confusing. I'm also sorry we're breaking it up into so many different pieces. Yes. MR. BROOKMAN: Jim, go ahead. MR. HAYNES: Mine will be real quick. I just wanted to go on record that -- I'm speaking of telephony products but primarily cordless telephones -- that school is still out whether or not they are considered Class A. MR. PETROLATI: Yes. MR. HAYNES: Thank you. MR. PETROLATI: I guess that's a fair statement.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HAYNES: Thank you. MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. It's a fair statement because we haven't provided any specific guidance yet. You do have the legislation and what is defined under Class A. So you'd better be aware that your product is either excluded or isn't part of the criteria under Class A. MR. HAYNES: Okay. MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MR. PETROLATI: I'll try to go on. (Laughter.) MR. PETROLATI: Basic model. This should be simple because it's the same definition that's been used by DOE for all of its products, all of its basic models. All units of a given type of a covered product manufactured by a manufacturer, et cetera, with respect to external power supplies which have electrical characteristics that are essentially identical and which do not have any different physical or functional characteristics that affect energy consumption. Now, our interpretation of that language is that external power supplies are different basic models if they differ by characteristics such as output power, output voltage, output cord length. That's our**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 interpretation based on the fact that we feel that all of those will affect energy efficiency of the model. MR. BROOKMAN: Chris. MR. CALWELL: Vic, in response to the last of your three items there, wouldn't it be output cord resistance, since you could actually have a change in the length or the gauge of the wire and it would affect the power lost in the cord? MR. PETROLATI: I think that's correct. NCI, agree with that? PARTICIPANT: Can you say that one more time? MR. CALWELL: He had prefaced these three items that are listed at the bottom there by saying those are the three that could affect the measured value. But I think it's not actually output cord length, its output cord resistance should be affected either by length or gauge of wire, but not only by length. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Good point. Thank you. All right. For each basic model DOE proposes a requirement for a compliance statement and a certification report. The compliance statement attests that the basic model meets applicable standards, the**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 application of the test procedure conformed with the requirements, and all information is true and accurate. The certification report goes into the details of the product itself, such as the manufacturer's name, manufacturer's model numbers, product class, private labeler's name, product type, et cetera. Okay. DOE is proposing that certification reports specific to external power supplies includeinformation on the active mode efficiency and the noload power consumption. Both standards have been established under the Class A external power supplies for both of those descriptors. MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on those? Wayne. MR. MORRIS: This is Wayne. Just to -- no, I got it. Thanks. Never mind. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments on those? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Quickly -- MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. MR. CALLAND: Just one thing that was kind of bugging me. We're talking about certification. I think the general term of art in this case is**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "declaration" and a certification is something that's offered by a third party. To be consistent, I think "declaration" works pretty good. It means I'm saying so, I'm not getting you to say so. MR. PETROLATI: Okay. First of all, let me try to address the third party concept. The Department of Energy for this product, and I believe all the other products, does not require third party certification at all, any testing by any independent laboratories. These basic -- what we're talking about basically is manufacturer certification. A manufacturer can test it himself and certify by the compliance statement and the certification report that the product is in compliance. MR. CALLAND: No, I agree. Just, it's been my understanding and practice in the past 25 years that if I do it myself it's considered a declaration. MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. MR. CALLAND: If someone else does it, it's a certification. MR. PETROLATI: Okay. MR. CALLAND: What you're asking me to do is to declare that I comply with the law. So that might be a better term to consider going forward. MR. PETROLATI: Thank you. All right. We're providing within the Federal Register notice here a**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 copy of the standard compliance statement and certification report. This is in the Code of Federal Regulations. It doesn't differ at all for this product from any of the other products. Okay. Now, first of all, before I go on to the alternative approach, any last questions on the standard reporting requirements? I'm going to hold you to this. MR. BROOKMAN: Chris.MR. CALWELL: This one is short. The secondto-last bullet says "active mode efficiency." Are you wanting them to report the average or report the four values that were used to compute the average? MR. PETROLATI: That is a real good question. (Laughter.) MR. PETROLATI: Our Code of Federal Regulations does not specify for any of the other products that I could find. I will have to get back to you as to whether or not there's something that I've missed through the language in the Code of Federal Regulations that requires the actual test data or an average of the test data or what. Francine, by any chance, do you have an answer for that? MS. PINTO: I don't, no.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. I don't know, either, other than reading the Code of Federal Regulations. It doesn't sound very specific to me. I would like to make it more specific. Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne. MR. MORRIS: As I'm sure Vic is aware, and others -- Wayne Morris. Sorry -- there's a long history within NAECA that, where an energy factor or other kind of number is arrived at, manufacturers are not required to deliver the portions of that number that are used to arrive at the final number. So for instance, when an energy factor of another appliance which may be the sum or may be a product of multiple different values, they are not required, as I understand it, to report all of those individual values that go back to make up that final value. They're required to report the final value. In the case of an energy factor, that factor. MR. BROOKMAN: And you cited NAECA? MR. MORRIS: That's my understanding. MR. BROOKMAN: NAECA there? MR. MORRIS: NAECA. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MR. MORRIS: Yes. MR. PETROLATI: Okay.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 0 5 MS. PINTO: But you also -- this is Francine Pinto. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Francine. MS. PINTO: You are required to keep the data. MR. MORRIS: Right. Absolutely. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MR. PETROLATI: Which may be made available upon request, right? MS. PINTO: Correct. MR. PETROLATI: Thank you. That's a good clarifying point as well. Thank you. All right. Let me quickly discuss the alternative approach that we have for reporting. Again, it's based on, as I'll get to, an approach that's used under the Energy Star program. It's called the Design Families Approach. Design families consist of external power supplies that have the same output power rating, the same input voltage range, the same fundamental electric circuit design, but different output voltages. Under the design family approach, manufacturers would submit a compliance statement and a certification report for all the basic models in the design family, supported by test results for the lowest**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 06 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 output voltage model and the highest output voltage model. Let me mention that the statement about test results may be inaccurate, based on my latest reading of the Code of Federal Regulations, but we definitelywant the results of the active mode efficiency and noload mode efficiency for those devices. All right. I'll have to check on the concept of whether test results can be submitted, or have to be submitted, excuse me, in the design family. Again, this approach is based on an approach that has been used by the Energy Star program for quite a while. Okay. The alternative approach, just going through it again. The manufacturers would certify and be responsible for compliance for all the EPSs within the design family. The design family approach does not address differences in output cord length. Chris had a good comment on output cord length. It's more than just the length, it's resistance. Output cords could affect and could vary between external power supplies. Manufacturers are required to attest that all external power supplies within the design family meet standards regardless of differences in output cord or any other differences associated with those products within the**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 design family. That should be primarily the only difference. DOE is considering this alternative approach if it reduces manufacturer burden while ensuring compliance with standards. This may reduce reporting burden for custom built external power supplies, which are a significant segment of the external power supply market. MR. BROOKMAN: If it's part of a family you can do it as a family. MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Basically, just a chart showing that if in fact we incorporated the design family approach into reporting, on the left you would see that all four of those external power supplies would have to be reported individually. Under the design family approach, you would be submitting one compliance statement and one certification report for all of those four external power supplies. So we certainly feel that we're reducing reporting burden. I do want to emphasize that the manufacturer is still responsible for ensuring compliance with all of the external power supplies within the design family. Okay. As mentioned before, we're seeking comment on our reporting requirements, on the**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 08 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 approaches that are presented or any other alternative approaches that you feel might be acceptable. MR. BROOKMAN: Ken. MR. SALAETS: Ken Salaets, ITI. Being the least knowledgeable person in the room, I'm going to ask what might be considered a silly question. But, what does the agency do with the information that's submitted? MR. PETROLATI: That's not a silly question at all, Ken. I believe the agency right now has a database. We do respond to requests for information that has been submitted. We're currently responding to a request from an outside organization to provide them information that has been submitted on certain products. The information that is submitted certainly serves as the basis for ensuring compliance of the products, both the fact that the manufacturers have knowingly demonstrated that compliance and in fact have assured themselves through the testing that those products are in compliance. MR. SALAETS: So if I may follow up, then, based on all of those obligations that fall on the Department based on statute -- MR. PETROLATI: Right.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SALAETS: -- et cetera, you could accomplish all of those tasks if the manufacturer retained that information at their facility in whatever format you require rather than submitting that as a report. I mean, that information would still be available. You would still have the privilege or the right to request that information to be provided directly. I think Wayne was suggesting or intimating that that information could be made available for other, for example, government bodies or the like that might be requesting or have similar requirements relative to adopting this regulation, for example, for their marketplace. MR. BROOKMAN: Do you have reservations about the actual submission? MR. SALAETS: There are some reservations that may be just in terms of burden and the utility of doing that relative to having the manufacturer retain it. Again, supplier's declaration of conformity is usually, as Tim was suggesting, a declaration of conformance. I think in the standards world it's essentially the same as compliance, for the most part. Lawyers might disagree. But the notion is that the information is retained and made readily available. In fact, at one**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time ITI was contemplating creating a mechanism whereby global parties or interested parties can request that information and have it in a single location instead of having to distribute it everywhere where somebody might desire to retain it for whatever purpose. But just in terms of the cost factor and utility, I think it might even be more cost efficient if the manufacturers were required to retain that information and make it readily available at the request of the Department. MR. PETROLATI: Let me ask, Ken; unless I'm mistaken, the design family approach and the information that's reported in the design family approach to EPA would make that very consistent with the same information that EPA is already gathering. Is that correct? MR. SALAETS: Ken, ITI. The EPA process -- and I'm a surface person, I'm not an in-depth person on everything that's required there; Chris could probably address this better than I can, or perhaps Robin -- but I believe the manufacturer submits the data. Basically, EPA posts the qualified products and some of that data on the website as a qualified list. For example, that list is utilized by the European Union, which is also a partner in Energy Star.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'm not certain if it requires the submission of all of the data. In fact, I do not believe it does require that. I think it's just a declaration, and in fact a voluntary declaration in a "voluntary" program, and that information is examined in some cases on kind of an ad hoc basis by EPA, maybe triggered by a complaint by a competitor, perhaps a request from another agency, in this case maybe the European Union again. But I mean, I could respond or have one of my members respond to that more completely. MR. PETROLATI: Please do. We were under the impression that much of the information that we would be requesting here is very similar to what EPA is getting. We're also under the impression that a significant percentage of external power supply manufacturers are already reporting in this same manner for much of this information to EPA and the Energy Star program. MR. SALAETS: Let me defer to Chris and see if he can enlighten us. MR. BROOKMAN: Chris, do you want to follow on there? MR. CALWELL: Yeah. I was just going to make two points here, I guess. The first is that I agree**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with Vic that the detail or the amount of information being requested here is not substantially different from what would be requested by, say, the Energy Commission in California for a state standard or what Energy Star would request for its voluntary ones. The other point is that we now know that you have two other statutory deadlines where you're looking at possible revisions to the standard. So one could imagine that beyond the utility of simply knowing what complies you probably want to know how efficient it is so you can evaluate that data set in the future as you contemplate standards revisions. So I would say there is a material difference between knowing that someone has asserted their product complies and knowing exactly how efficient it is quantitatively. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Robin. MS. CLARK: I would just add, I agree with what Chris said. There's a lot of consistency. There is a significant amount of data that is reported by the manufacturers to EPA Energy Star for external power supplies. Not all of that is reflected up on the website. That is summarized and streamlined to some extent, just given the medium in which it's being presented.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me go to Wayne and then back to Ken. MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris. I don't disagree, Ken, and I don't want you to think that I do, with your comments or suggestions. I would say that based on our experience with the Department on other product categories there is a certain level of -- certain amount of leveling of the playing field, shall we call it, where every manufacturer has an obligation to submit data. They know that they have to submit that data. They know they have to certify or declare that data as being accurate. It brings them the realization that they have a compliance obligation here in the United States to be placing product on the market, to be shipping product on the market. If it is a matter that they would just simply send a letter saying, "Hey, we're okay. Thanks very much. Call us if you need some data," I guess I'm wondering whether or not that really requires that company to fulfill all of their obligations. We've been through some other regulatory phases here in the last few years with other countries of the world where they are back and forth in terms of declarations and supplier declaration and other kinds**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of things, and it's a tricky issue. I think if there was a way -- by the way, there are other ways that it's done with, in some cases, certification programs. It's done through trade associations, where trade associations will gather data and submit it en masse to the Department or to CDC or to EPA or to other places so that they can make it less burdensome on manufacturers. We fulfill that function in some of our certification programs, as I imagine you do, too, where if the manufacturers submit to you one time, you can then submit it multiple times to multiple places so that it takes the burden off the manufacturer. The Department has always been willing to consider those kinds of situations. I think that there is a level of obligation that we would like to encourage so that all manufacturers that are delivering product in here, especially those that are maybe less familiar with the laws and requirements of the United States, would want to make sure that they are paying particular attention to that. Again, there are multiple ways of doing it. I'm not suggesting that this is what you're suggesting. But I guess I'm hoping that we can -- we appreciate**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Department's willingness to consider alternatives that are much less burdensome. I think that we do need to be careful that we are getting to the point where all the manufacturers working here in the United States are fulfilling completely their obligation so that it protects the companies that are being very diligent as well. MR. BROOKMAN: Ken, you're next in the queue. MR. PETROLATI: I'd like to make one other comment. Wayne, thank you for that. I think that was very helpful. It even gave me some other ideas. I mean, we are dealing with, in this particular case, external power supplies where we believe the majority of the products are manufactured overseas. I do not believe we even know at this point all of the manufacturers of external power supplies. I think we've got a fairly good handle on the majority of manufacturers. We certainly believe that the minority of manufacturers that are manufacturing their products are in the United States. This is an extremely complex product to deal with, with a significant number of manufacturers out there, and I'm not 100 percent sure we even know every one of the manufacturers out there at this point, which even makes it even more difficult for us to ask**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 somebody for their data at some future point in time. But either way, we do appreciate the comments. MR. BROOKMAN: Ken. MR. SALAETS: There may be situations or circumstances where you're dealing with an unknown entity or maybe it's a new supplier in the marketplace. Maybe it's a new supplier geographically somewhere in the world where you need -- maybe it's a very large country that's on the other side of the Pacific. Whatever the case may be, I think you err on the side of caution, and you have even additional reporting obligations. I think in terms of the manufacturers I deal with in the hardware space, their process for evaluating, validating, et cetera, is as rigorous, if not more so, probably than the Federal government's. The reason being ultimately they are held in some cases liable if there is some misrepresentation or the like in the product they offer. That's not the only motivation. The other is brand, good will, all the other things that drive the market and enable you to be successful in that marketplace. The process is rigorous and complete. Case**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in point, going through just the recent requirements to change the power supply efficiency, it was a major, major undertaking that still hasn't reached complete fruition and maturity in the marketplace, which is reflected in some of the low numbers and percentages we have under some of the specifications under Energy Star. But the point is that if every jurisdiction - - we'll call it a jurisdiction -- requests data submission retention and goes through that process, and they typically will, then that burden -- I mean, I appreciate what you're talking about, Vic, here with the family approach and everything else. I get a sense of genuine focus and commitment to the notion of reducing the burden and the cost to accomplish the goals that Congress has stipulated here, not just the goals but the statutory obligations. But I just think that there may be some other ways. Wayne suggested there's flexibility. I appreciate that. I know in Energy Star there is flexibility. ITI reports on market penetration on displays, computers, et cetera, again to reduce the burden and in some cases to reduce the exposure of some of the internal information so that it's retained through an association as opposed to putting it out in**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 public. What we will do in written comments, let's engage and continue to talk. We're sensitive to the requirements, sensitive to the fact that this is a different process as opposed to what we have dealt with in the past. There are some benefits to this process as opposed to what we deal with in the other environment that we appreciate as well. And I appreciate the time to raise the issue and the fact that there's a willingness to continue to engage on it. I'll leave it at that. Thanks. MR. BROOKMAN: Let's take additional comments on these two approaches. Wayne. MR. MORRIS: On a different subject but still one under your reporting obligations -- Francine, maybe you could cite me the specific section of EPCA -- but there is a section in EPCA that refers to the fact that once there is a test procedure and once there is a standard in effect for that particular product all manufacturers that are reporting or having any advertising of the elements required in any form -- sales literature, packaging, Internet displays, whatever -- must be using the test procedure that is under the requirements of, in this case, the federal government or U.S. DOE.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's an obligation that manufacturers also have. It may be one that's pretty difficult to go out and enforce a lot of times. It is still an obligation, and I think it's one that in some cases manufacturers may not realize or may not necessarily pick up on every particular day of the week. Thanks. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So, additional comments and moving, perhaps, towards final comments on these approaches. Larry. MR. ALBERT: Just to clarify, Vic -- Larry Albert, by the way -- this section here regarding reporting requirements applies at this point only to EPSs? MR. PETROLATI: Correct. MR. ALBERT: And presumably when there's a battery charger standard put out, there would also be similar requirements for battery chargers? MR. PETROLATI: Correct. MR. ALBERT: I think this is -- an earlier comment I made with respect to Appendix Y is that it incorporates by reference the Energy Star test procedure, and in the Energy Star test procedure there is a heading for reporting requirements that is not modified by Appendix Y. So I'm wondering whether those -- within the context of the regulation, are those**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 truly reporting requirements or are they really just recording requirements, right, for the test procedure? What do you do when you have a test procedure but you don't have a standard? What do you call that data that you record? You're not reporting it at that point, right? MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Anybody from NCI have an answer as to that section that Larry's referring to as to what the intent was? If not, we'll take the -- go ahead, Matt. Do you have -- MR. MALINOWSKI: This is Matt Malinowski. I believe that reporting requirements is Section 6 of the EPS test procedure. MR. PETROLATI: Yes. MR. MALINOWSKI: It is not included within -- it is not referenced within Appendix Z, which only goes as far as to reference Sections 4 and 5. MR. BROOKMAN: So, interpret that for us. MR. ALBERT: That's for EPS, but for BCs and -- we have -- MR. BROOKMAN: Let Matt finish. MR. ALBERT: I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, Matt. MR. MALINOWSKI: I'm actually not sure about BCs.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. We'll check on that anyway. Okay. MR. VLADIMER: I can speak to one other thing with regard to that. MR. PETROLATI: Go ahead. MR. BROOKMAN: Michael. MR. VLADIMER: This is Michael Vladimer. I think, usually with the test measurements, they're supposed to produce specific metrics as outputs. So when you're talking about the intermediate values that are used to calculate those metrics, I know that there's interest in having those reported as well, but the key thing is the outputs themselves. So in the case of a battery charger with the existing test procedure, it’s energy ratio. With external power, it's average active mode efficiency and no-load power. MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments about these approaches? Larry, you still look like you've got -- no? Okay. Other comments on these approaches? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: So then, I think we've reached the spot now where we want to provide an opportunity for anybody --**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PETROLATI: We do, but let me just mention one last slide I missed. How to submit written comments. I want to emphasize how important it is to get your comments in writing. We've had a tremendous amount of comments that we need to consider from this meeting. I would really appreciate for you to put it in writing and provide those comments by the close of the comment period, October 29th. Okay. Thank you. Doug's right. We are at the last portions of our agenda here. MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. We want to provide an opportunity again for anybody to make closing remarks, brief summary remarks, and I'm going to hand out the evaluation form. That can be circulated while this is taking place. So, yes, Chris. Conclusion and Closing Remarks MR. CALWELL: I was looking over my notes from the conversation today, and the only major issue that I heard questions raised about but no resolution was the notion of whether certain major product families may or may not be considered Class A external power supplies. So I'm looking on Slide 23. There's a restatement of the congressional definition of what a**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Class A external power supply is. Vic, is there some process or timetable by which DOE would declare which products it believes to be Class A, or what's the process for resolving this uncertainty between manufacturers and others on whether their products are covered by Class A? MR. PETROLATI: That's a good question, Chris. Obviously, we don't have answers for every particular product as to whether it's covered in Class A at this point. We're hoping to provide the framework for that -- I probably should have used a different term -- in our framework document that we plan on publishing within the next few months. That will give our initial thinking of what the interpretation is for which products are Class A and which ones we consider to be non-Class A. MR. CALWELL: Yeah. And so, does that then mean that any manufacturer that asserts that they believe their products are not Class A is in effect protected from violating the law until you issue that opinion? MR. PETROLATI: I don't know, to be perfectly honest. I would say that the definition has some ambiguities. If I am a manufacturer concerned with being in compliance with a standard I would want to**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 make sure that I had a legal opinion that that product isn't covered under the current definition, or I was proceeding in a manner that was obviously appropriate from a legal standpoint. MR. CALWELL: Yeah. Okay. I think that makes sense. Since the state standards that preceded this still remain in effect for the products that aren't Class A, it seems like the products are regulated regardless. They're just either regulated by a handful or states or they're regulated federally. But I guess it wasn't one of the topics I expected to come up today because it seemed like power supply manufacturers already had multiple obligations in various jurisdictions to make efficient power supplies. MR. PETROLATI: Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Additional summary remarks, closing comments? Gary. MR. FERNSTROM: So, Gary from PG&E. PG&E would encourage DOE to consider active mode and is delighted that you're doing that. We would also appreciate as much as possible a process and outcome that is consistent with the advocacy that we've provided in California for California's standards for this test procedure. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Michael? Michael,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 get close to the microphone. MR. HINDUS: Thank you again. First of all, I'm very appreciative to DOE staff today for clarifying again that consumer products are covered by this rulemaking and not commercial and industrial products, and for the further guidance as to how to decide what products fall into that category. That addresses many, but not all, of the concerns of my clients who are in the security, surveillance, and life-safety industries. At the same time, having listened to all the comments today, it struck me how inappropriate it is to apply these test procedures to products that do not have on/off switches which were never intended to be used in the no-load, off mode, or standby, and for which no energy efficiency benefits would be gained by this testing, only additional expenses. So again, we would urge you to look at our proposed definition, which would make clear that those modes that are under study today should not apply to devices that are not intended ever to be used in those modes, specifically for the security, life safety, and surveillance products. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Vic, please. MR. PETROLATI: Can I ask, do you have an objection to your products meeting the active mode**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 standard? MR. HINDUS: No, not at all. Of course, we did comply with the July 1st, 2008, standards. MR. PETROLATI: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks for that clarification. Thank you. Michael. MR. VLADIMER: Hi. This is Michael Vladimer from Navigant Consulting. As I mentioned in the beginning, we support the Department of Energy. As part of that support, we speak with manufacturers to understand the technologies that they have been using and the energy efficiencies they've been achieving and any costs associated with that. I highly welcome any of the manufacturers who have been kind enough to come today, or any of the other associations that have any data related to efficiency, cost, market data, to speak with me or my colleague Matt, or our colleagues at D&R International. We appreciate any information that anyone can provide. Thanks. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, please. Wayne. MR. MORRIS: Doug, thank you. Thank you to the Department for all the work that they put in, and D&R and others, into these public meetings. We know**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that there are a significant amount of time and effort put into these, and we appreciate it. At the risk of drawing a cloud with lightning coming down, I will agree with Gary Fernstrom and with others that -- (Laughter.) MR. MORRIS: And I think it's important that there is a consensus among many stakeholders that there really doesn't seem to be a reason why, in the battery chargers test procedure -- especially with consensus of the stakeholders present -- that we couldn't include an E24 active measurement in this particular edition of the test procedure coming up, with due respect about notice and comment. I know that the Department in some cases has shortened that process -- I'll use the term "shortened" rather than "eliminated" -- shortened that process in some cases when there has been consensus of stakeholders. I think also, to Larry's original point, we're not asking necessarily that the test procedure, if it were modified would have any impact because there's no standard yet. So what we're really doing is just gathering a data point. We're asking for manufacturers at the time that they are connecting**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 their battery charger up to a piece of test equipment to take a measurement, a measurement that will already exist, and write it down or have it recorded in a data logger. It really is not burdensome. At least to us it certainly isn’t -- and we're the manufacturers. We don't think it's burdensome to do that kind of thing. I think it's time now to do that in regard to the harmonization of other activities that we've looked at. I also think, now that we have, at least barring the 45-day language, we have a final test procedure essentially in California that will really set the stage here in the United States. I think it is in keeping with what's going on internationally. With this all said, with a very few words added to the test procedure I think that we could accomplish this. We could set this up. We could eliminate the Department having to go through a separate rulemaking for this at some time later. It actually saves energy, amazingly. (Laughter.) MR. MORRIS: Human energy, albeit. It also means that we're one step closer to finalizing this situation so that we set ourselves forward for a rulemaking and we keep on track with the**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 schedule. I know that what I'm asking between the 29th of October and the end of December is a lot, but I think that with consensus and with the minimum of changes that really are affected by this, I really do believe it's possible. So I guess I would plead and ask for General Counsel's Office to review this and see whether that causes a problem with notice and comment significantly, whether this could be taken back to the policy office, and whether they would agree that this is a possibility. We would certainly pledge ourselves to work with staff, and we will be delivering exact language of where we think that that could be modified to cut this down to a minimum of effort on the part of staff. Thank you. MR. PETROLATI: Could I ask Gary, maybe, from California, is there anybody in the California process that you're aware of that objected to the incorporation of active mode? MR. FERNSTROM: Not that I'm aware of. I'd like to double-check with Chris, however. MR. CALWELL: Yeah, Vic, I think the main point is just that at a high conceptual level we're talking about measuring products over a 24-hour period,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as they mentioned, to capture active and maintenance. The devil is in an enormous number of individual details, though, and so I think the CEC is trying to do the due diligence to make sure that someone else doesn't show up at the hearing who maybe hasn't sat in on these discussions so far but brings forward some new concern that hadn't been voiced yet. So there's a lot to look at here. I think there's an encouraging general sense of support for including active mode, but all of us, I think, would want some time to go back and say do we agree 90 percent, do we agree 100 percent, how much variation is there in this position that's been espoused today. MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Very good. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes. MS. AMANN: Jennifer Amann. I would just add to that, I think we would want to look and talk to some more of the technical experts and some of the other advocates that we work with, but we would certainly welcome an opportunity to work with AHAM and any of the manufacturers to see what we could come up with in terms of some consensus language that might allow us to get active mode included in the test procedure this year. MR. PETROLATI: Thank you. That would be**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 great. MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. MR. FERNSTROM: I'd be remiss if I didn't similarly thank DOE, the staff, the consultants, and participants for a very productive workshop. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thanks very much. Other closing remarks? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: I want to take the opportunity to thank those people that participated in the webcast. I think we had 35 or 37 individuals listening on the webcast today. So I would encourage those individuals that participated to send their comments to DOE about how it worked for you on the webcast and how that might be improved. DOE is about constant improvement in their approach to things. So having said that, I would thank you for doing the evaluation form, and turn it back to Vic for closing remarks. MR. PETROLATI: Thank you for coming. Adjourned. (Laughter.) (Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the meeting was concluded.)**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 33 **REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE** 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before: **UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY** In the Matter of: **PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS AND EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES**  Were held as herein appears and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law Judge or the Agency. Further, I am neither counsel for or related to any party to the above proceedings.



### Wendy Greene 16 17 18

19 Official Reporter Dated: September 30, 2008