UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

PUBLIC MEETING ON TELEVISION SETS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, D.C. 20585

Room 8E-089 Review Center

Thursday

March 22, 2012

Facilitator:

Doug Brookman

Public Solutions

Baltimore, MD
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

2

Participants Identified: 

Bill Schindler

Panasonic Corporation

Matt Malinowski

ICEF International

Bijit Kundu 

Energy Solutions 

Adam Goldberg

Mitsubishi

Jon Fairhurst 

Sharp Labs of America

Charlie Stephens 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

Mark Sharp 

Panasonic

Adam Christiansen 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project

Julia Farber

Underwriters Laboratory

Verna Rodulovis

EPA

Participants from DOE:
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

3

Vic Petrolati

Brenda Edwards

Simone Sydnor

Celia Sher

General Counsel’s Office

Participants from Consultants:

Allen Tsao

Navigant Consulting

Chris Yoder

Navigant Consulting

Louis-Benoit Desroches

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Mia Forbes Pirie

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Chris Calwell 

Ecova

Presenters:

Christopher Yoder

Navigant Consulting

Anthony Rotolo

Navigant Consulting

Louis-Benoit Desroches

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Mia Forbes Pirie

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

4

AGENDA

 ITEM PAGE

Welcome, Doug Brookman 6

Welcome for DOE, Mr. Petrolati 6

Introductions 7

Agenda Review, Doug Brookman 9

Rulemaking Overview, Mr. Petrolati 11

Opening Remarks 13

Rulemaking History and Timeline 15

Mr. Petrolati

Test Procedure Overview, Mr. Yoder 21

Scope and Definitions, Mr. Yoder 22

Testing Conditions and Instrumentation

Mr. Rotolo 28

On, Standby and Off Modes, Mr. Rotolo, 

Mr. Desroches 60

3D Overview and Testing, Ms. Forbes Pirie 135

Energy Efficiency and Metrics, Mr. Yoder 212

Energy Metrics, Mr. Desroches 216
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

5

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

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning everyone. 

3 Welcome. This is the U.S. Department of Energy’s 

4 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking public meeting on

5 television sets. Today is Thursday, March 22, 2012,

6 here at the Forestall Building. Thanks to all of 

7 you for being here. We’re going to start off this 

8 morning with welcoming remarks from Vic Petrolati. 

9 Welcoming Remarks

10 MR. PETROLATI: All right. Good morning. 

11 My name’s Vic Petrolati. I’m with the Department of 

12 Energy. I’m the program manager for televisions. 

13 I’d like to welcome you here to Washington, D.C. 

14 today. We picked an excellent time of the year, of 

15 course, for this TV test procedure public meeting. 

16 The cherry blossoms are blooming out there. The 

17 Washington Capitals are off to a playoff drive. 

18 There’s some political controversy, I think, in the 

19 town, and we’re just hoping it doesn’t spread over 

20 to this meeting today. So first of all, I want to 

21 thank all of you for coming. We’re looking forward 

22 to a good meeting. At this point we are planning on 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

6

1 meeting from nine to five. We are certainly hopeful 

2 that we can address all your questions during this 

3 period of time and look forward to working with you. 

4 Doug, let me turn it back to you.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. It’s our 

6 tradition to do introductions around the room. 

7 I’m going to start over here. If you’ll say your 

8 name and organizational affiliation. You can get 

9 used to turning these microphones on and off. 

10 Introductions

11 MR. SCHINDLER: Good morning. I’m Bill 

12 Schindler, and I’m representing Panasonic

13 Corporation. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

15 MR. MALINOWSKI: Hi. I’m Matt Malinowski, 

16 ICEF International, consultant to EPA Energy Star 

17 Program.

18 MR. KUNDU: Bijit Kundu with Energy 

19 Solutions on behalf of the California investor-owned 

20 utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern 

21 California Edison, and Semper Utilities.

22 MR. GOLDBERG: Adam Goldberg. I represent 

23 Mitsubishi.

24 MR. FAIRHURST: Jon Fairhurst with Sharp 

25 Labs of America.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

7

1 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens with the 

2 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.

3 MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Adam Christiansen with 

4 the Appliance Standards Awareness Project.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: I guess over to you, Celia.

6 MS. SHER: Celia Sher with the Department 

7 of Energy General Counsel’s office.

8 MR. ROTOLO: Anthony Rotolo, Navigant 

9 Consulting.

10 MR. CALWELL: I’m Chris Calwell from 

11 Ecova.

12 MR. DESROCHES: Louis Desroches, Lawrence 

13 Berkeley National Lab.

14 MR. YODER: Chris Yoder, Navigant.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Brenda.

16 MS. EDWARDS: Brenda Edwards, Department 

17 of Energy,

18 MR. SHARP: Mark Sharp, Panasonic.

19 MS. SYDNOR: Simone Sydnor, Department of 

20 Energy.

21 MS. FARBER: Julia Farber, Underwriters 

22 Laboratory.

23 MS. RODULOVIS: Verna Rodulovis, EPA.

24 MR. TSAO: Allen Tsao, Navigant.

25 MS. FORBES PIRIE: Mia Forbes Pirie, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

8

1 Department of Energy.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks again to all of you. 

3 I didn’t introduce myself. My name’s Doug Brookman 

4 from Public Solutions in Baltimore. I’m glad to see 

5 you here. 

6 Agenda Review

7 MR. BROOKMAN: I’m going to do a very 

8 quick agenda review, and all of you received a 

9 packet of information as you came into the room and 

10 as you registered today. Immediately following this 

11 agenda review, Vic Petrolati is going to give a 

12 brief rulemaking overview, and then after that 

13 there’s an opportunity for anybody that wishes to do 

14 so, to make brief opening remarks, issues that you 

15 wish to bring to the fore. And then from there 

16 we’ll drive straight in to the PowerPoint slides 

17 that you have before you. Look at the detailed 

18 content that the Department wants you to consider 

19 and comment on. We’ll take – you can see as listed 

20 in the agenda, a NOPR summary scope and definitions 

21 beginning round about ten o’clock or so. We’ll take 

22 a break round about eleven. We’ll move from there, 

23 following the break, to testing conditions and 

24 testing. We’ll take lunch midday. And then 

25 following lunch, more information, quite a bit of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

9

1 additional analysis and information on testing and 

2 energy efficiency metrics. Whenever we get there, 

3 perhaps earlier than 4:45 or five, there’s an 

4 opportunity for additional comment, anything that 

5 any person wishes to raise that they don’t think has 

6 been covered sufficiently, and we’ll have a few 

7 closing remarks. And that’s the plan for the day. 

8 So questions and comments on the agenda? I see 

9 none.

10 So I ask for your consideration. If you 

11 would, please speak one at a time today. Please say 

12 your name for the record each time you speak. There 

13 will be a complete transcript of this meeting 

14 available and we’ll make the site of that transcript 

15 known to you. I’m going to be cueing individuals by 

16 name as best I can. I also wish to encourage 

17 follow-on comments. I think the Department finds it 

18 useful to have it back and forth on specific issues. 

19 If you can keep the focus here. Please turn your

20 cell phones on silent mode. And also, there’s a lot 

21 to be said. I’m certain we have 100 or so 

22 PowerPoint slides here in the packet. If you can be 

23 concise and share the air time, that would be 

24 helpful.

25 So additional comments here before I turn 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

10

1 it back to Vic Petrolati? Then back to Vic. 

2 Rulemaking Overview

3 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. For the most part, 

4 Doug has covered the ground rules that we have up on 

5 the screen, so let me start discussing the webcast. 

6 We are having a webcast as part of the meeting. The 

7 Department is broadcasting this meeting live over 

8 the internet. DOE is providing the webcast to 

9 accommodate stakeholders that are unable to attend 

10 the meeting in person. The web broadcast allows 

11 stakeholders to listen in and view the slides. All 

12 stakeholders are encouraged to submit written 

13 comments after the public meeting. We are going to 

14 try to take, time permitting, questions from the 

15 people from the webinar. They will be written 

16 questions that we will be handed at the front table 

17 to read, and again, these would be the secondary 

18 questions we respond to. The first questions that 

19 we respond to and take as much time as necessary are 

20 from the people in this room. So that is the way 

21 the webinar will go forward.

22 The purpose of the public meeting – I’ll 

23 just quickly lay out. It’s obviously to present 

24 DOE’s proposed test procedure for television sets. 

25 We’re here to answer questions about a proposed 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

11

1 approach. We want to seek comment, of course, from 

2 all the stakeholders and input from participants on 

3 our proposed testing approach; and to discuss the 

4 NOPR published in the Federal Register which gives 

5 notice of the public meeting and availability of the 

6 NOPR document and describes the proposed test 

7 procedure.

8 Okay. Request for comment boxes in the 

9 format. We’ve got these types of comment boxes 

10 throughout the presentation. These are comment 

11 boxes in most cases specifically from comments that 

12 were in the NOPR. These are the issues that we are 

13 seeking significant stakeholder input in. As you 

14 can see the issue box in the test procedure NOPR, 

15 DOE welcomes comments. Throughout this presentation 

16 specific issues will be raised for discussion on 

17 slides such as this with identifying numbers 

18 corresponding to those in the test procedure NOPR 

19 document. In addition, DOE has added questions that 

20 are not in the NOPR document. These questions are 

21 identified by a letter. So these will be the areas 

22 that we will try to focus our discussions and 

23 comments on, but we do not want to limit in any 

24 fashion, comments or questions during the 

25 presentation.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

12

1 In terms of submitting the written 

2 comments, you can refer to, obviously, the Notice of 

3 Proposed Rule, the postal mail, e-mail, for 

4 submitting comments is up here, 

5 television2010tp0026@ee.doe.gov. Postal mail, if 

6 you’re submitting comments by postal mail, then it 

7 will go to Brenda Edwards at this address. And 

8 again, all of this information is, in fact, in the 

9 Notice of Proposed Rule. Comment period closes on 

10 April 3, 2012, so we would like to get your comments 

11 in by that date.

12 Okay. Doug, opening remarks.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. As we 

14 indicated, now’s an opportunity for anyone that 

15 wishes to make opening remarks. Yes. Jon.

16 Opening Remarks

17 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes, I did send in some 

18 opening remarks. I realize I wrote them maybe more 

19 fully than I needed to, so instead of reading them 

20 verbatim, I prefer to give an overview.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon, those can be inserted. 

22 They will be inserted in the record.

23 MR. FAIRHURST: Excellent.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: I mean the full text.

25 MR. FAIRHURST: Great. So the – so 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

13

1 basically I have a full background involved with IEC 

2 CEA standards development starting with 62087 in IEC 

3 which kicked off this new generation of television 

4 active or on mode testing. 

5 One of the concerns that we have has to do 

6 with the timing, in that because EPA allows testing 

7 of the – requires third party testing. The 

8 possibility would be that it would – that a new test 

9 procedure would cause double testing. And then the 

10 other main point of the comments were that we do 

11 recommend very different ABC levels. Those would be 

12 0, 12, 35 and 300. And I can go into more detail 

13 probably later in the meeting here today.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. There’ll be 

15 plenty of opportunity to raise those issues. Other 

16 comments here at the outset? No additional opening 

17 remarks? Okay. So we’re going to then launch 

18 straight into the content in the PowerPoint slides, 

19 and back to Victor Petrolati. I didn’t hear that.

20 MS. EDWARDS: Somebody on the phone ...

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Oh, not yet. We’ve got a 

22 webmaster over here tracking, yes. We’re going to 

23 try and make it possible for those joining us, as 

24 Vic said, via the web, to pass their questions in 

25 and try to respond to them as that happens. Okay, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

14

1 Vic.

2 Rulemaking History and Timeline

3 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. First thing we’re 

4 going to cover is the rulemaking history and 

5 timeline. Surprisingly, the work by the Department 

6 of Energy on televisions goes back quite a ways. 

7 Doe first adopted a TV test procedure in 1979. As I 

8 was telling the group that I’m working with 

9 yesterday, I was in this program in 1979. I do not 

10 remember us working on that TV test procedure, but 

11 that was quite a while ago. The understanding is 

12 that test procedure back then was strictly a test 

13 procedure for a black and white cathode ray tube TV. 

14 We don’t see too many of them left these days on the 

15 store shops, although I can certainly tell you I’ve 

16 got quite a few in my home at this point.

17 There was a significant change back in 

18 2009 where we had a transition from the Federal 

19 Communications Commission from analog to digital. 

20 Subsequent to petitions from both the California 

21 Energy Commission and the Consumer Electronics 

22 Association, they petition for repeal of our current 

23 test procedure. DOE repealed its test procedure for 

24 black and white televisions on October 2009. 

25 DOE published in September 2010, a request 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

15

1 for information for going forward for developing a 

2 TV test procedure, and I want to thank a lot of the 

3 people that are here today. We got actually a 

4 tremendous response on our request for information 

5 that helped us quite a bit in terms of moving 

6 forward to develop the TV test procedure.

7 Here we are today. DOE has published a 

8 NOPR for the TV test procedure. We have a 75 day 

9 comment period. We’ve got the meeting today on 

March 22nd 10 , and we’ve got the comment period ending 

on April 3rd 11 . So in a quick fashion, that is our 

12 regulatory history associated with televisions. 

13 Again, the notice of public meeting and proposed

14 rulemaking that was actually published on January 

19th 15 , concerning this action, and we’ve got all the 

16 supporting material concerning our rulemaking on our 

17 website. All of the data that’s been collected, all 

18 the justifications for the way we went forward in 

19 developing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

20 Okay. Let me just cover very quickly and 

21 succinctly the rulemaking process. We had 

22 completed, of course, the preliminary stage which 

23 was started with our request for information. That 

24 request was published back in 2010, and again, we 

25 received a tremendous amount of comments on that, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

16

1 that helped us quite a bit in formulating our Notice 

2 of Proposed Rule. Notice of Proposed Rule was 

published, again, on January 19th 3 . We have the 

meeting here today on the 22nd 4 . We expect the final 

5 rule to be published most likely by the end of 

6 September. One of the things that is always 

7 interesting in a rulemaking process is you can never 

8 anticipate both the types of comments or the 

9 potential issues that will be identified at the 

10 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stage. If we do not 

11 have anything new in terms of issues, we might have 

12 finalized the rule in the June timeframe. If the 

13 issues are complex and need further testing, then my 

14 expectation is that it may take us as long as 

15 September at this point. So that is our anticipated 

16 timeframe for today, prior to getting all of the 

17 comments in from the stakeholders.

18 Let’s talk about effective date and 

19 compliance date. If adopted, the test procedure 

20 becomes effective 30 days after the publication of 

21 the final rule. What that means is that 

22 stakeholders, after this 30 days, can decide to use 

23 this test procedure for making representations. 

24 However, all energy use representations made 180 

25 days after the test procedure final rule is 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

17

1 published, must make those representations in 

2 accordance with this new test procedure. Is that a 

3 question? Yes.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

5 MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. This is Adam 

6 Goldberg from Mitsubishi. So does this mean that 

7 180 days after – some time between zero days and 180 

8 days, we need to retest everything that is Energy 

9 Star, for example? Or is it possible for EPA to say 

10 Energy Star label is fine until you get around to 

11 testing again, or a new model, or is it –

12 MR. PETROLATI: Let me answer that without 

13 giving you a direct answer at this point.

14 MR. GOLDBERG: That’s fine.

15 MR. PETROLATI: We have been working 

16 continuously with both EPA and FTC. They are aware 

17 of the 180 day requirement. They have both agreed 

18 to try to get their programs amended to meet that 

19 requirement and to provide guidance to the industry. 

20 I don’t want to get involved in telling you what 

21 that guidance is from these organizations, but I 

22 think they have a number of approaches in terms of 

23 implementing this guidance.

24 MR. GOLDBERG: So I think what you just 

25 said was they’re going to try to work to make it so 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

18

1 that it’s possible to use it. What I’m trying to 

2 ask is, you know, if you publish this at the end of 

3 September, it’ll take effect in March, and that is, 

4 for some cases, in the middle of a model year.

5 MR. PETROLATI: Right.

6 MR. GOLDBERG: And have to test and retest 

7 things is a obstacle.

8 MR. PETROLATI: That comment has already 

9 been made to EPA. They are certainly going to 

10 consider how to move forward under that comment and 

11 we’ll try to work with them as best we can in terms 

12 of implementing the legislative requirements as 

13 well. Okay. 

14 I also want to mention, third box here, 

15 DOE’s test procedure is developed for, but not 

16 limited to the establishment for potential DOE 

17 standards in the future, that’s the first step DOE 

18 takes in terms of any standards setting exercise, 

19 the first step is generally to develop the test 

20 procedures so that everybody has a common ground as 

21 to how measurements are made and how data is 

22 gathered for a potential standard in the future. 

23 We have worked with the Federal Trade 

24 Commission. We are working with the Environmental 

25 Protection Agency. There is no question that they 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

19

1 will be adopting this test procedure as part of 

2 their programs. We also preempt any states from 

3 issuing test procedures for televisions that are not 

4 identical to the test procedures established by the 

5 Department of Energy.

6 Okay. Again, just want to emphasize –

7 this is a question that comes up quite a bit – how 

8 did we basically develop a TV test procedure. 

9 Bottom line is we used industry standards in any 

10 place that we could. IEC 62087, the Energy Star 

11 program requirements, and CEA2037 2009, and we’ve 

12 also incorporated the CEA procedure for DAM testing 

13 for TVs. So this was the basis for almost 

14 everything that was done in this test procedure. 

15 Any modifications that we made were modifications 

16 either for clarity or to make sure that we had 

17 proper tolerances associated with measurements or 

18 instrumentation. So this is our basis, and we 

19 believe that it’s pretty well accepted in terms of 

20 both industry standards and standards established by 

21 Energy Star.

22 Any questions on anything I may have 

23 discussed in terms of the timeline, before we get to 

24 our next presentation? (No response.) Looks good.

25 I’d like to introduce Chris Yoder from 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

20

1 Navigant Consulting. Navigant is responsible for 

2 the development of the TV test procedure and we’ll 

3 have Chris and Anthony Rotolo here speaking on many 

4 aspects of the test procedure. Okay, Chris.

5 Test Procedures Overview

6 MR. YODER: Thank you, Vic. All right, 

7 well thank you guys for being here in person and 

8 over the internet. This slide kind of represents 

9 the four major steps to the test procedure. And as 

10 Vic said earlier, we developed this test procedure 

11 based on the IEC test procedure as well as the 

12 Energy Star specification.

13 The test procedure starts with a warm-up 

14 period that lasts one hour, as seen in the IEC test 

15 procedure, followed by a luminance test in both the 

16 home picture setting and the retail picture setting. 

17 This test was put in place for other rulemaking 

18 bodies, such as Energy Star. After the luminance

19 test, depending on the television, whether it comes 

20 with automatic brightness control enabled by 

21 default, or whether the television comes with ABC 

22 disabled when it’s shipped, or whether it’s not 

23 available, determines the next step in the test 

24 procedure.

25 If the television comes with ABC enabled, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

21

1 the television set is tested in on mode at various 

2 luminance levels. If it is not, it is tested in the 

3 home picture setting. After the on mode test, a few 

4 standby mode tests are conducted, including standby 

5 passive mode and standby active high mode, which 

6 incorporates the CEA download acquisition mode test. 

7 After the standby mode test, there is an off mode 

8 test which in essence, is tested if the television 

9 has a hard off switch.

10 As Vic said, DOE has a website which 

11 incorporates and has various pieces of information 

12 and documents that goes over our analysis and data 

13 that we have collected. Here’s a list of the 

14 datasets that we have up currently on the website. 

15 Scope and Definitions

16 Next I’m going to talk about the scope and 

17 various definitions that we propose in the NOPR. 

18 The scope that DOE has proposed in the NOPR includes 

19 television sets of 15 inches and above which are 

20 sold with a tuner. DOE has also updated definitions 

21 to better suit the updates in television technology 

22 since 1979. The old definitions included a 

23 television set, a definition for color television 

24 set and monochromatic television sets. The new 

25 definition is one definition and as you can see 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

22

1 below, includes various aspects including that it 

2 must be powered by mains power source, must have a 

3 diagonal screen size of 15 inches or larger, must be 

4 manufactured with a TV tuner, and capable of 

5 displaying dynamic digital information.

6 Because we researched and conducted 

7 analysis of other test procedures that are currently 

8 in the market, we thought it best to harmonize with 

9 those test procedures and we pulled the majority of 

10 our definitions from either IEC or Energy Star. For 

11 additional clarification, DOE developed two 

12 additional definitions for clarification in the 

13 luminance testing, including the home picture 

14 setting and the retail picture setting.

15 Doug, are you going to go over the issues, 

16 or should I ask them?

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Go right ahead.

18 MR. YODER: Okay. So at this moment, are 

19 there any comments regarding the scope of the 

20 rulemaking, any of the definitions, or definitions 

21 that DOE has created?

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s see, is it B.J.?

23 MR. KUNDU: Bijit Kundu with Energy 

24 Solutions. Has DOE looked at displays that may not 

25 be manufactured with a tuner, where content comes 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

23

1 through an external tuner or displays that come sold 

2 with tuners but are marketed for delivering 

3 television content?

4 MR. YODER: Yeah, I believe the question

5 whether there are televisions that are sold in the 

6 stores that do not come with a tuner and require the 

7 purchase of an additional television tuner. Is that 

8 the question? Yes, DOE looked into this and because 

9 it’s a NOPR, we’re willing to change the scope if 

10 you want to provide comment as to your opinion on 

11 the topic. So we did assess whether or not to 

12 include that in the scope.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you say that in the 

14 proposed definition they would be included?

15 MR. YODER: In the proposed definition we 

16 have that they are sold with a tuner, so if the 

17 device is – if the television is sold as one 

18 package, it would included in the scope, but if it’s 

19 two separate purchases, I guess, two different line 

20 items on your receipt, then it would not be 

21 included.

22 MR. KANOU: Okay. It’s a little unclear 

23 because it says manufactured with a tuner, I don’t 

24 know if that means internal or something external, 

25 of if that includes external tuners.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

24

1 MR. YODER: Okay. We will add 

2 clarification.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Vic Petrolati.

4 MR. PETROLATI: The term manufactured is 

5 actually a legislative term that includes assembled, 

6 and we’re taking a look at this issue. We are 

7 certainly not interested at this point, nor do I 

8 think we have the legal capabilities of indicating 

9 that Best Buy is a manufacturer because it sells 

10 both a tuner and a display to a certain individual. 

11 So the question of sold with will have to be 

12 defined, and most likely by the definition of 

13 manufactured, which does include assembling, and 

14 certainly if the tuner is placed in the same box by 

15 the particular manufacturer of the product, we would 

16 certainly be covering that. Beyond that, we’re 

17 going to have to take a close look at this issue.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: And so detailed comments on 

19 that would be useful. Jon.

20 MR. FAIRHURST: Jon Fairhurst with Sharp 

21 Labs of America. Regarding the retail and home mode 

22 – retail picture setting and home mode or home 

23 picture setting, I noted those definitions aren’t 

24 necessarily as I would expect. For instance, as I 

25 recall, retail is the brightest – what is it, the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

25

1 brightest selectable mode? It had to do with being 

2 the brightest as compared to identifying the mode 

3 that is – or the setting of the television when t it 

4 has a forced menu, and the retail is chosen. So 

5 that might not be identical. Here it is – “The 

6 preset setting at which the TV produces the highest 

7 luminance during the on mode conditions.” And 

8 that’s not necessarily the same as what we would 

9 expect to be in the retail setting. So if you 

10 wanted to use this definition, it should be called 

11 maybe, brightest mode or something like this, as 

12 compared to retail mode.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

14 MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, I mean I think maybe 

15 a little bit of background might be helpful, I 

16 suppose. TVs typically are going to come with the 

17 forced menu, which is an artifact of a number of 

18 places including Energy Star, and the idea is when 

19 that’s done, to make it easy for a retailer to 

20 select the mode which works well with 30 foot 

21 ceilings and fluorescent lights and people standing 

22 on their feet six feet away. And devices are sold 

23 typically with quite different settings than at the 

24 home. Typically, they’re very bright and that may 

25 not be the brightest possible setting for the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

26

1 device, and I think that’s what Jon is getting at. 

2 You might need to bend over backwards to find a way 

3 that is brighter, but that doesn’t mean that it’s 

4 impossible. So, with this definition, it might be 

5 that even though a device comes with a home and 

6 retail forced menu setting, that the retail picture 

7 setting is not the retail setting, right, which is a 

8 bit confusing and maybe it’s intended, but it would 

9 certainly stand for – if that’s the way the rule 

10 goes, it could certainly stand for some clarity that 

11 retail mode isn’t retail mode, necessarily, which is 

12 kind of funny.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments? 

14 You can see the comment box there. The Department’s 

15 asking for several different bits of information, 

16 not only definitions, but also scope and displays 

17 greater than 15 inches sold with a TV tuner. 

18 Additional comments on those? Okay. Yes, Bill.

19 MR. SCHINDLER: Yes, were we able to offer 

20 comments on the definitions of the standby passive 

21 at this time?

22 MR. PETROLATI: We’re going to come to 

23 that a little later.

24 MR. YODER: Yeah, later on.

25 MR. SCHINDLER: Okay. Great.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

27

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks for inquiring. 

2 Let’s proceed.

3 MR. YODER: Next I’m going to turn to 

4 Anthony Rotolo to talk about the testing conditions 

5 and instrumentation.

6 Testing Conditions and Instrumentation

7 MR. ROTOLO: Thanks, Chris. So I’m going 

8 to discuss the testing conditions, and as you can 

9 see the power voltage and frequency were taken from 

10 Energy Star and so one percent had 115 volts AC, and 

11 60 hertz with a tolerance of one percent. 

12 Similarly, total harmonic distortion was taken from 

13 IEC and has a tolerance – or a requirement of five 

14 percent. Power factor will be measured, and that 

15 will be for other regulating bodies to use. And the 

16 uncertainty requirement was also taken from Energy 

17 Star. 

18 So the light measurement devices. This 

19 requirement covers all illuminance meters and 

20 luminance meters, and this is for testing – this is 

21 for the illuminance test and for on mode test. 

22 These pieces of equipment will be required. 

23 Specification covers both of them, and also for 

24 luminance devices, luminance meters. This covers a 

25 distance luminance meter and a contact luminance 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

28

1 meter. The only caveat that I’d like to make is the 

2 acceptance angle for the light measurement devices 

3 is only for luminance meters, whereas illuminance 

4 meter you have, roughly you have a dome where it 

5 averages light over 180 degrees.

6 And at this time DOE seeks comments from 

7 interested parties on LMD equipment specifications 

8 proposed in the NOPR.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Adam.

10 MR. GOLDBERG: This is Adam Goldberg from 

11 Mitsubishi. Can you explain what the parenthetical 

12 means, plus/minus two percent, plus or minus two 

13 digits?

14 MR. ROTOLO: Yeah. We have a slide that 

15 shows an example. Chris, where’s that slide?

16 MR. BROOKMAN: In the appendix?

17 MR. ROTOLO: It’s actually not in the 

18 printed out slides, but we have an example slide. 

19 Yeah, here it is. So what this means is depending 

20 on the resolution that the meter is displaying, the 

21 last decimal place can vary. So for a low light 

22 situation, if, you know, you are only looking at a 

23 low light situation of a few nits (ph), your 

24 resolution on your screen would change, and it 

25 varies – the tolerance.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

29

1 MR. BROOKMAN: What is nits?

2 MR. ROTOLO: Nits is the measurement of 

3 screen luminance – candelas per meter squared.

4 MR. GOLDBERG: So the plus or minus two 

5 percent, plus or minus two digits, is plus or minus 

6 two percent – is plus or minus the quantity of two 

7 percent plus twice the least significant digit?

8 MR. ROTOLO: Least significant digit. 

9 Yes. And this was taken from the VESA standard for

10 lighting. 

11 MR. GOLDBERG: VESA.

12 MR. ROTOLO: Or Vee-sa (ph).

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you spell that?

14 MR. ROTOLO: V-E-S-A.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. So 

16 that’s useful, that’s helpful. Yes, please. 

17 Christopher, find a microphone.

18 MR. YODER: We can make this and other 

19 examples available on the website if that would be 

20 beneficial.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So additional 

22 questions and comments on this before we return to 

23 where we were previously? Okay, we’re going back. 

24 And we are now at about slide 25 and the Department 

25 is seeking comment from interested parties on the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

30

1 LMD equipment specifications proposed in this NOPR. 

2 Anything additional? Okay. Let’s proceed.

3 MR. ROTOLO: So for the LMD requirements 

4 that a luminance meter is a distance luminance 

5 meter. DOE is proposing a darkroom condition that 

6 shall not exceed one lux in a darkroom. Now this 

7 specification comes from IEC. Also the ambient 

8 light temperature, the ambient temperature and 

9 humidity of 23 degrees plus or minus five degrees. 

10 This comes from both IEC and Energy Star, and a 

11 relative humidity of 20 percent to 80 percent comes 

12 from Energy Star.

13 Now signal source and generation. This 

14 will be using the IEC 62087 dynamic video content. 

15 This material is accepted, industry accepted content 

16 and this was based on comments from stakeholders 

17 from the RFI. 

18 DOE seeks comments from interested parties 

19 on signal and source generation specified in this 

20 NOPR.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me say it’s also a good 

22 thing to hear from stakeholders if the Department’s 

23 landing close to the mark. Do you think this is 

24 good, then it’s helpful to know that as well. You 

25 can include that in your written comments. Jon.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

31

1 MR. FAIRHURST: Jon Fairhurst, Sharp Labs 

2 of America. Yes, certainly we support using the 

3 dynamic broadcast content from IEC. It is the 

4 accepted standard around the world right now.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that called dynamic 

6 broadcast content?

7 MR. FAVORS: Yes, it is actually called 

8 dynamic broadcast content.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Not dynamic 

10 video content. For the clarification, thank you. 

11 Okay. 

12 MR. ROTOLO: So we’ll now be moving to the 

13 luminance test. The major change that we have made 

14 from the Energy Star procedure is that DOE is 

15 proposing that the luminance test will be performed 

16 before on mode testing. And the reason for this 

17 change is that throughout DOE testing, we discovered 

18 that for certain TV models, by placing the TV in 

19 home picture setting first, it was unable to be put 

20 into retail settings. So then if the luminance test 

21 came after the on mode test, you would be unable to 

22 test it in that retail picture setting. So the 

23 very first test will be the retail luminance test, 

24 then you’d place the TV into the home picture 

25 setting where you would do the remainder of the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

32

1 luminance test, and then move on to the on mode 

2 test.

3 So this is where we’re going to talk about 

4 the two picture settings. We talked about them 

5 briefly earlier, but – so DOE is proposing a home 

6 and retail picture setting. These settings will be 

7 used primarily for other regulating bodies to use in 

8 a ratio, comparing home picture setting to retail 

9 picture settings. And then the retail, like we 

10 said, I said on the last slide, the retail picture 

11 setting will only be used during the luminance test.

12 So as you can see, these are the 

13 definitions that appear in the NOPR. The home 

14 picture setting is a picture setting which is 

15 recommended by manufacturers from the initial setup 

16 menu or model that the television comes shipped in, 

17 if no setting is recommended. The retail setting is 

18 the picture setting in which the TV produces the 

19 highest luminance during the on mode conditions.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

21 MR. GOLDBERG: Adam Goldberg from 

22 Mitsubishi. One more comment on retail picture 

23 setting. In addition to what I said before, it’s 

24 also true that with this definition, only the 

25 manufacturer will know what – how to put something 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

33

1 in the retail picture setting.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: There’s no on screen --

3 MR. GOLDBERG: No, but see, --

4 MR. BROOKMAN: -- toggle, or –

5 MR. GOLDBERG: Not with this definition. 

6 So under the way things work now, is when the device 

7 is first powered up, you’re given a choice, retail 

8 or home mode, and the retailer will pick retail, and 

9 home people pick home and all’s well. As I said 

10 before, the retail mode may not be the absolute 

11 brightest settings possible. If the retail mode is 

12 not the absolute brightest settings possible, then 

13 retail mode doesn’t fit this definition, and only 

14 the manufacturer would know that, and only the 

15 manufacturer probably would know what combinations 

16 of settings would turn brightness all the way up. 

17 It might be better to not mess with the definitions 

18 and do what we’re doing now in terms of the – at 

19 worse, this is a tiny problem in terms of the

20 luminance difference, but in terms of repeatability 

21 and conformance with the language, it might be a 

22 real hassle. 

23 MR. ROTOLO: And could you propose 

24 language for retail home setting that you think –

25 MR. GOLDBERG: I will certainly try.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

34

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Jon.

2 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes, this is Jon

3 Fairhurst, Sharp Labs of America. On the same 

4 topic, it’s important that we define this properly 

5 so that it is testing as would be seen in retail 

6 because of the initial reason for doing the 

7 luminance ratio test. The idea is that you want to 

8 compare what does the consumer see in the store and 

9 when they go home, you don’t want them to see a 

10 television picture that is much, much darker, so 

11 that’s the basis for this 65 percent ratio that 

12 we’ve seen in Energy Star. So we really do want to 

13 compare what the consumer is seeing at retail and if 

14 that’s not the brightest picture setting, then it 

15 really doesn’t – it’s not appropriate to do the 

16 ratio based on the brightest picture setting. It is 

17 truly -- because the user might not be seeing the 

18 brightest picture setting, it’s truly what did they 

19 see in the store versus what do they see at home.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Isn’t the manufacturer 

21 going to set some default for that?

22 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes, and that’s exactly 

23 right. As Adam mentioned earlier, there is a 

24 concept of a forced menu. So in the past, 

25 televisions were all shipped extremely bright to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

35

1 compete on the retail floor. And so then when 

2 consumers brought the televisions home, they were 

3 also in these overly bright settings, and consuming 

4 much more energy than they needed to. So one of the 

5 key inventions, if you will, during 62087’s 

6 development within IEC, was to develop the concept 

7 of the forced menu. So with the forced menu, you 

8 are presented when you first turn the television on,

9 with a choice of retail or home. And so then the 

10 retailer can choose retail so these new televisions 

11 would still compete with the old TVs that are in 

12 what was called torch mode at the time, and when 

13 they’re brought home, then the consumer chooses home 

14 mode and gets, potentially, a much more pleasing 

15 picture. I guess it’s not saturating so high, and 

16 also much more efficient television. So it was a 

17 very good program.

18 So for those televisions that have the 

19 forced menu setting, yes, there is a preset menu

20 only available at first start up, typically, and in 

21 addition the televisions that don’t have forced 

22 menu, it’s simply out of the box is what you would 

23 expect to see at retail.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Bill.

25 MR. SCHINDLER: I concur with both Adam 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

36

1 and Jon, but basically in terms of a wording for the 

2 definition, I would think it would be very similar 

3 to the home picture setting definition, in that 

4 there would be an or condition. It would be the 

5 retail setting or, in the case where there is no 

6 forced menu, it would be the brightest preset 

7 setting available. And when we say preset, which 

8 you have in your definition, we’re not talking about 

9 changing all kinds of menu issues. I’m sure that 

10 you’re saying preset meaning exactly that, you know, 

11 there’s only three or four or five choices of 

12 presets. It’s very simple to set the brightest 

13 preset. It’s usually called something like vivid or 

14 dynamic, and it’s very easy to do. And really just 

15 putting an or condition, saying the retail mode or 

16 in the case of their being no forced menu, the 

17 brightest preset. And that’s very consistent with 

18 both California and Energy Star.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Charlie.

20 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I would 

21 like to ask the manufacturers what – if that isn’t –

22 if retail or vivid, dynamic, whatever you want to 

23 call it, is not the brightest setting, what is the 

24 point of having a setting brighter than that?

25 MR. SCHLINDER: In our case the brightest 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

37

1 setting, which we call sometimes vivid, sometimes 

2 dynamic, is the retail setting. And in most cases 

3 it would be because in a retail environment, 

4 especially the large retail environments that have 

5 very bright lighting from 40 foot ceilings, the only 

6 way to compete is to put it, quite frankly, in the 

7 brightest setting. Now, that’s what we’re 

8 experiencing. There may be some outliers, but 

9 generally if it’s covered in the definition, that’s 

10 stated in Energy Star and IEC.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

12 MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, I mean, I think that 

13 without a definition for preset, it might be tough 

14 to say. I think what Bill is talking about the five 

15 or so different picture settings that you get, then 

16 it’s easy enough to swap between them, but just 

17 because there are presets like that doesn’t mean 

18 it’s not possible to go in and manually adjust 

19 contrast and brightness and a handful of other 

20 things to make the brightest possible picture. Now 

21 I mean you shouldn’t ever do that, and I mean if 

22 that’s brighter than the forced menu retail, then 

23 there’s probably downsides to it. There’s lots of 

24 tuning that goes on to make the TVs look as good as 

25 you can, and there’s lots of knobs and dials to turn 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

38

1 inside, so to speak. But it might be that there are 

2 ways to configure the set to make something 

3 brighter, even if that would likely never ever be 

4 done, and that’s what I’m sort of trying to avoid.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

6 Additional – yes, Vic Petrolati.

7 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, I was going to ask 

8 Bill a follow up question. Bill, is it generally 

9 the case that the manufacturer will include in the 

10 owner’s manual any information to the consumer as to 

11 which is the brightest picture setting for that 

12 television?

13 MR. SCHLINDER: In the operation manual, 

14 whether it’s an on line electronic or paper, there’s 

15 only four or five modes, and they’re described. And 

16 generally the description for the vivid or dynamic 

17 mode will say something like, for the brightest 

18 environment, you know, as to whether it says this is 

19 the brightest mode, I’m not sure about that. It 

20 would clearly lead one to believe that that’s the 

21 brightest mode. The other ones are like movie mode. 

22 Well, clearly, that’s done in a dark home theater 

23 kind of environment. Then there’s one like sports. 

24 There’s one like game. But the word vivid and 

25 dynamic usually is associated with the description 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

39

1 indicating that it’s for a bright environment.

2 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. For your particular 

3 company, do you actually manufacture a mode or modes 

4 that are brighter than the retail mode for the 

5 consumer?

6 MR. SCHLINDER: Not as preset settings. 

7 As Adam said, one could go and start playing with 

8 advance picture settings – contrast, brightness, 

9 color settings – you could do those kinds of things, 

10 backlight settings, but they’re not presets.

11 MR. PETROLATI: Okay.

12 MR. GOLDBERG: Sorry, I mean –

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

14 MR. GOLDBERG: Sorry, Adam Goldberg from 

15 Mitsubishi. Part of my problem maybe with this 

16 definition is we’re missing – there’s not a 

17 definition for what preset is. Maybe that might 

18 clear things up.

19 MR. ROTOLO: Okay. 

20 MR. GOLDBERG: Because, I mean, chances 

21 are TVs have a picture mode button or something 

22 which cycles between four or five different things, 

23 but if those – if those are the presets in terms of 

24 definition, then maybe we’re okay. But if that’s 

25 not, then it gets more difficult.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

40

1 MR. PETROLATI: That was certainly our 

2 approach, and you’re right, I don’t think we defined 

3 it any place in the NOPR, and possibly putting in 

4 the definition solves the problem. But again, we’re 

5 very interested in getting your comments on this.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

7 MR. FAIRHURST: Jon Fairhurst, Sharp Labs. 

8 The question earlier was why might a manufacturer 

9 have a brighter mode, and there are a couple of 

10 reasons that a manufacturer might have a brighter 

11 mode. One would be that based on testing, because 

12 we need to meet this 65 percent ration, that the 

13 television may be capable of a very bright signal, 

14 but we don’t want to make the retail mode too 

15 bright. We don’t want to make the – in order to be 

16 within the 65 percent, so a manufacturer might – I’m 

17 not saying that Sharp is doing this today – but a 

18 manufacturer might choose to do a set of very 

19 reasonable home mode and then a retail mode that is 

20 within that and there could be a higher brightness 

21 mode for two basic reasons. One would be if the 

22 television might be viewed outside on a deck, so 

23 kind of sunlight mode, if you will. And another 

24 reason might be if a manufacturer wishes to claim 

25 the television is capable of very, very high 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

41

1 brightness. So in the specifications it might say 

2 it’s four, or five, six, or a thousand nits or 

3 whatever that it’s capable of, so the people who 

4 wish to view things in extremely bright environments 

5 would know, oh, this is a good television for me to 

6 buy. But in order to keep within the 65, to have 

7 good efficiency in the home, the manufacturer of 

8 such a bright television might – and I’m not saying 

9 they’re doing this today – but might choose to set 

10 retail at a lower level.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

12 Additional comments on these definitions. 

13 MR. ROTOLO: I just wanted to touch on one 

14 other thing, is the easy to access picture settings. 

15 So DOE had noticed during testing that on certain 

16 remotes, you can access additional picture settings 

17 that might be easily done. We definitely covered 

18 home and retail picture setting, but DOE also

19 requested comments on easy to access picture 

20 settings and if those modes should be looked into as 

21 well.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

23 MR. FAIRHURST: Jon Fairhurst. Regarding 

24 the easy-to-access picture settings, testing all of 

25 the modes would add significant cost because, you 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

42

1 know, for instance, we may be looking at testing at 

2 four different settings for automatic brightness 

3 control and so forth, so you multiply all those 

4 tests with the number of picture settings, and the 

5 test costs could get very high.

6 There’s also no data that I’m aware of 

7 that would give insight to how often the various 

8 picture settings might be chosen, how popular is 

9 sports mode versus movie mode, for instance. And 

10 then in addition, the naming of the picture settings 

11 is not necessarily consistent across manufacturers. 

12 So you can’t – or even across models, yes. So 

13 there’s not a standard set of names where you could 

14 say oh, everyone needs to test in, let’s say sports 

15 mode. Because not all TVs may use that word or –

16 and the meaning is open to interpretation, for, once 

17 again, across manufacturers and models. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: So how should the 

19 Department address this issue?

20 MR. FAIRHURST: I think that the correct 

21 approach is to test, certainly in the home mode, 

22 possibly in retail mode or brightest mode, but at a 

23 maximum only one additional mode that would be found 

24 in television. That’s what Energy Star is doing 

25 now. They require that we report the power in 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

43

1 multiple modes. Course, to keep the price of 

2 testing down, the manufacturers would prefer the one 

3 mode, but certainly testing all the modes would be 

4 very expensive and would not necessarily provide 

5 much additional benefit.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Bijit?

7 MR. KUNDU: Bijit, yes. Bijit Kundu with 

8 Energy Solutions. Just to clarify, these modes that 

9 you’re talking about are just for the luminance 

10 testing, is that right?

11 MR. ROTOLO: Yes, that’s correct.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments?

13 MR. ROTOLO: Okay. So let me walk through 

14 this slowly. It’s quite an overwhelming graph. So, 

15 during DOE’s – question?

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Bill.

17 MR. SCHLINDER: I’m sorry. Excuse me. 

18 This is in reference to the question from Vic. I 

19 actually looked it up in the manual, specifically. 

20 Our most bright mode, which is our retail mode, when 

21 you go into the settings, it’s called vivid, and it 

22 says, provides – in the manual – provides enhanced 

23 picture contrast and sharpness for viewing in a 

24 well-lit room. That’s the instructions to the user. 

25 So it doesn’t imply that it would be the brightest. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

44

1 It doesn’t say the word brightest.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks.

3 MR. ROTOLO: For luminance testing this 

4 was part of DOE’s investigations. Prior to any 

5 testing, Chris mentioned earlier that there would be 

6 a one hour warm up period with a dynamic broadcast 

7 clip, and you can see that right here. This is the 

8 timeline, and this is a one hour period. After the 

9 one hour period, the luminance was recorded – the 

10 luminance was recorded in a 15 minute interval, and 

11 as you can see through this data point, and other 

12 data points here, there was a decline in luminance 

13 and this decline is best illustrated by a feature 

14 called automatic brightness limiting, where the TV 

15 will recognize that it’s displaying a static 

16 content, and it will decrease the luminance – let me 

17 go back – it will decrease the luminance, and to 

18 avoid this, DOE is proposing that testing for 

19 luminance will be measured immediately rather than 

20 in a ten or 15 minute stabilization period, like 

21 Energy Star currently specifies.

22 This is just saying that rather than 

23 having that ten minute stabilization period where it 

24 could possibly fall into a lower brightness, DOE 

25 would like luminance to be measured immediately, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

45

1 preceding the warm-up period.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

3 MR. FAIRHURST: Jon Fairhurst. Yeah, I 

4 think we need to be careful about distinguishing the 

5 warm-up of the television with the potential for 

6 going into a power saving mode or a brightness 

7 limiting mode, you know, screen saving or some mode 

8 that avoids degradation of the screen. In our 

9 initial work in IEC we found that the – of course we 

10 were looking mostly at energy, but I’m aware of the 

11 brightness as well. Brightness for especially CCFL 

12 televisions can change quite a bit based on the 

13 warm-up times, so it’s appropriate to have a warm-up

14 time, but not necessarily a static burn-in time. 

15 And so if the warm-up is done with a dynamic 

16 content, then you’re not likely to go into this 

17 screen saving mode or burnout avoiding mode. So I 

18 think it’s important to warm-up the television with 

19 dynamic content and then quickly measure, based on 

20 the static content.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that not in the test 

22 procedure, that you’re using some dynamic media 

23 during this hour – during this warm-up period.

24 MR. FAIRHURST: Right, so we advocate for 

25 that.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

46

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

2 MR. ROTOLO: So let me now speak on behalf 

3 of the various test patterns that DOE looked into. 

4 So there were four major test patterns that DOE 

5 investigated. There was the three bar video – or 

6 three bar test pattern. There was the nine point –

7 there’s a five point through a DOE modification, and 

8 then there was the dynamic video signal or dynamic 

9 broadcast signal with a square in the center which 

10 IEC was in the process of developing. So these four 

11 various test patterns all had various APLs, which is 

12 the average picture level. Essentially it’s the 

13 white content compared to the dark content, and 

14 that’s what that ratio is. As you can see, the 

15 three bars, you know, half and half, half white and 

16 half dark, and it has a 50 percent APL, whereas nine 

17 point is significantly darker and has a 17 percent 

18 APL.

19 So we’ll go into each of the video signals 

20 and kind of highlight the advantages and 

21 disadvantages of each. So the first is the three 

22 bar signal, and the major advantage of this signal 

23 is it’s an industry standard right now. It’s used 

24 by Energy Star; it’s used by IEC, CEC; and it’s 

25 available as part of the IEC standard. The 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

47

1 limitations of the standard is that it’s relatively 

2 higher APL compared to 34 percent, which is seen as 

3 a typical APL of TVs, and with that higher APL, some 

4 TVs will either emphasize the bright content, or for 

5 other screens, they’ll dim the content. And to 

6 avoid that, because it is a static image, to avoid 

7 this issue, that was part of the reason DOE proposed 

8 measuring it immediately.

9 So the nine point was part of a Chinese 

10 standard. It’s lower than the typical 34 percent 

11 APL and the advantage of this clip is that it 

12 reduces the APL effect, although it was seen on 

13 certain TVs still, kind of illustrating that no clip 

14 is perfect for all TVs. 

15 This signal was developed based on –

16 that’s a five point clip, but it was modified for a 

17 34 percent APL. It is a five point test clip.

18 And finally, the dynamic broadcast video 

19 signal. So for this clip, it’s based off of the IEC 

20 video dynamic broadcast whereas two white squares in 

21 the center and every 30 seconds, I believe, the 

22 white and black space alternate so that, again, to 

23 avoid any type of static feature that the TV might 

24 recognize. Now with this, the white space, the 

25 luminance on the white space, it will kind of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

48

1 continuously change in luminance. But IEC was in 

2 the process of developing this one. So there’s no –

3 at this time, it’s not part of the IEC test 

4 procedure.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Bijit.

6 MR. KUNDU: Maybe Jon can answer this 

7 question. Is the idea for IEC to replace the three 

8 bar image with this?

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

10 MR. FAIRHURST: Jon Fairhurst. This 

11 wasn’t actually being developed by IEC itself, but 

12 an IEC member, participant in IEC, as a possible 

13 proposal. So – and in addition, the current IEC 

14 standards do not have luminance testing whatsoever. 

15 So we’re looking at including a standard for pattern 

16 – for luminance testing. That’s not provided at 

17 this time.

18 MR. KUNDU: Bijit Kundu, Energy Solutions. 

19 Could you say what image is being considered, or has 

20 it just not been finalized?

21 MR. FAIRHURST: It’s still in discussion, 

22 so IEC doesn’t have any statement on it just now, 

23 but there are various proposals from various 

24 constituents.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: You’re considering several 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

49

1 different possibilities?

2 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So you can see 

4 there, it’s – please, Christopher.

5 MR. YODER: Chris Yoder. Navigant. Are 

6 there any test patterns that you’re considering that 

7 we haven’t considered?

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

9 MR. FAIRHURST: Jon Fairhurst. Not to my 

10 knowledge, and in fact, we don’t yet have a 

11 consensus that we will definitely include a 

12 luminance test pattern at this time, though I 

13 believe it’s – well, on one hand, it’s likely in 

14 that most areas of the globe where they are testing 

15 television power, are testing luminance as well. On 

16 the other hand, there’s not once consensus 

17 internationally, and so it might be difficult for 

18 IEC to gain consensus at this time. So right now, 

19 it’s very much up in the air.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Vic Petrolati.

21 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, one of our concerns 

22 with changing the current test pattern was we were 

23 not clear how that might affect the actual ratio 

24 that’s been established previously by Energy Star 

25 for the three bar pattern. And we’d be very 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

50

1 interested in getting the information from the 

2 stakeholders as to if we switched to another 

3 pattern, would there be correlation between the 65 

4 percent ratio that’s currently established under the 

5 three bar pattern? And whether that correlation 

6 would hold under other luminance patterns.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

8 MR. FAIRHURST: Yeah, Jon Fairhurst again. 

9 I think the main change that we are almost certainly 

10 – that one could certainly see if you were to use a 

11 lower APL test pattern is that the plasma 

12 televisions right now are almost certain to saturate 

13 with the three bar signal, saturate their automatic 

14 brightness limiting or power limiting. And so based 

15 on that, your not likely to see much difference 

16 between retail mode and home mode when doing the 

17 testing with plasma televisions, and so that would 

18 be like the change, but that’s really a shortcoming 

19 that we have today. For simpler CCFL televisions, 

20 the LCD televisions that did very little backlight 

21 dimming or very simple backlight dimming, the 

22 pattern doesn’t make much difference. And when you 

23 start talking about more interesting backlight 

24 limiting circuits, and sometimes spatial limiting 

25 and so forth, dynamic backlights that can put light 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

51

1 in one segment of the screen while darkening another 

2 segment of the screen, things get more complex 

3 depending on where things overlap. The algorithms 

4 are extremely complex so it’s difficult to say what 

5 would happen with televisions of that nature.

6 MR. PETROLATI: One other comment, we do 

7 have test data on our website that indicates the

8 type of testing that we’ve done in this particular 

9 area. Our test data was a little different than the 

10 test data that was gathered by CLASP where they 

11 showed clearly that any TV tested under the nine 

12 point pattern generally had a higher luminance in 

13 both retail mode and home mode than a TV tested 

14 under the three bar pattern. We did not find that 

15 in our own results, and our own results, 

16 surprisingly enough, TVs that were tested in home at 

17 the nine point pattern in many cases were actually 

18 lower in luminance values, than they were in the 

19 three bar pattern. That significantly changed the 

20 ratio from the three bar pattern being used to the 

21 nine point. So again, there would probably have to 

22 be considerable work done, not only in determining 

23 what the best test pattern is, but potentially what 

24 the best ratio is associated with these programs as 

25 well, in establishing it.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

52

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Bill.

2 MR. SCHLINDER: This is Bill from 

3 Panasonic. I completely agree with both Jon and 

4 Vic. These are very complicated devices. I just 

5 came from a demo I was doing up in Canada where I 

6 was showing, with our LED displays, given the 

7 pattern, what LED zones were turning off, saving 

8 energy, and it depended upon the pattern. And I was 

9 describing to the audience that, you know, these are 

10 very intelligent devices and they optimize black 

11 level depending upon the pattern. So given that 

12 just that one technology has such a variance 

13 depending on pattern, now when we start looking at 

14 LEDs in addition to Plasma, to CCFLs, and of course 

15 OLEDs that are now just making the market, this is a 

16 Pandora’s box. And furthermore, in Europe, they 

17 have a definition saying the brightness pattern will 

18 be such that there is no automatic brightness 

19 limiting, and it now precludes a single pattern from 

20 being used in Europe. 

21 So our position is that we’ve got five 

22 years of experience with Energy Star, and most 

23 recently with CDC using the three bar pattern, and 

24 we think the approach of the DOE using that is a 

25 correct one.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

53

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

2 MR. GOLDBERG: This is Adam Goldberg from 

3 Mitsubishi. I think that I expect our comments will 

4 support the DOE’s position to choose the three bar 

5 pattern.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

7 MR. FAIRHURST: Yeah, I think there are a 

8 couple of possibilities. One assumption has been 

9 that we need one pattern. There’s also the 

10 possibility of saying you choose whichever gives the 

11 brightest, but once again that adds more 

12 complication, and that would be one way to show a 

13 television that does dimming under one condition or 

14 the other, you would be more likely to be testing 

15 the television that’s not doing dimming with that 

16 pattern, or at least a minimum amount of dimming 

17 with that pattern. 

18 But moving back to the initial discussion 

19 with EPA. Industry did not support the luminance 

20 testing at all because it’s extremely complex, and 

21 one would hope that the manufacturers would be 

22 delivering televisions that have bright enough 

23 pictures that satisfy consumers, because if we 

24 don’t, then we get a bad image, bad brand image, and 

25 we’d like to avoid that so that we can continue to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

54

1 sell televisions. So actually that would be the 

2 ideal situation is unless there is evidence that 

3 shows that consumers are getting televisions that 

4 are overly dark, they’re unhappy with them, they’re 

5 changing the brightness regularly because of it, to 

6 actually avoid brightness testing.

7 MR. ROTOLO: Okay. So just before we go 

8 over this one, I’d just like to emphasize that 

9 although there are two test patterns on this slide, 

10 DOE just, for the purpose of looking at various 

11 measurement locations, that’s why the nine points is 

12 utilized. DOE is proposing the three bar. And so 

13 with multiple test patterns and multiple locations, 

14 it brings up the issue of where do you measure? Is 

15 a single measurement sufficient? 

16 And so DOE is proposing that one single 

17 measurement in the center of the screen, and through 

18 DOE investigation, we looked at taking multiple 

19 measurements, determining an average, and comparing 

20 the average measurement of multiple points in home 

21 mode to the average measurement of points in retail 

22 mode, and we found that these averages are 

23 comparable. So although we know that, you know, 

24 screens, you know, measuring at multiple points you 

25 won’t see uniformity across your screen that if you 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

55

1 take the ratio, you’ll still see the same ratio 

2 regardless of the number of points that you see with 

3 an average.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

5 MR. FAIRHURST: Jon Fairhurst. I concur, 

6 one measurement is adequate by measuring across the 

7 screen, you’re measuring the falloff of the lighting 

8 of the screen, and variance across the screen, as 

9 compared to the perceived luminance the consumer 

10 will see.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: So you agree with this 

12 approach.

13 MR. FAIRHURST: Oh, yes, I concur.

14 MR. ROTOLO: Okay. So at this time DOE 

15 requests comments on the following issues: DOE 

16 proposed luminance ratio, the test signal, and any 

17 additional test signals. DOE also seeks comments on 

18 the warm-up characteristics involved in warming up 

19 the TV to align with IEC.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: We’ve covered some of 

21 these, but let’s be thorough here. Please look at 

22 these issue boxes. Let’s get additional comment. 

23 Jon.

24 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes, there is some 

25 additional information about the warm-up time, not 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

56

1 necessarily for luminance, because IEC doesn’t 

2 measure luminance, but there’s quite a well 

3 described warm-up time for the power measurements 

4 that could be applied here that have to do with 

5 warming up for – see, I don’t remember the exact 

6 details, but it’s at least an hour, but no longer 

7 than a couple of hours or so. So that’s in Clause 

8 11 of the IEC test procedure. It’s 11.4.2 shows the 

9 detailed stabilization that is used.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

11 MR. KUNDU: Bijit Kundu with Energy 

12 Solutions. Just to be clear, on issue five. DOE 

13 isn’t proposing a specific ratio here in this test 

14 procedure, is that right?

15 MR. ROTOLO: Yes, that’s correct. This is 

16 primarily used for other regulating bodies if they 

17 are willing to use a ratio. 

18 MR. KUNDU: Okay. So DOE is proposing 

19 they can take two measurements and do a ratio, what 

20 that specific is – that 65 percent or something 

21 else.

22 MR. ROTOLO: Yeah, and DOE is also just 

23 requesting comments if you think that a ratio should 

24 be included, although at this time part of the 

25 proposal is not to include a ratio, but –
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

57

1 MR. KUNDU: Yeah, I would think that not 

2 including it in the proposal would be appropriate 

3 for this test procedure.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Vic.

5 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, we’re going to have 

6 to clarify – no, we aren’t interested in proposing a 

7 ratio. We are interested in proposing a luminance 

8 ratio test and the only people that we believe will 

9 establish the ratio are the other stakeholders, and 

10 the ratio will not be put into the DOE test.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Take a look one more 

12 time, issue five, six, seven and issue A, which is 

13 a new issue that wasn’t included previously, so 

14 additional comments on these. Yes, Bill.

15 MR. SCHLINDER: This comment is in 

16 reference to the warm-up sequence. We understand, 

17 as was already stated, that the reason the luminance 

18 testing is preceding the power testing is because 

19 you found some TVs, once they got put into I guess 

20 it was home mode, couldn’t go into retail mode. I 

21 understand that. It’s not a problem with our TVs, 

22 probably others have that. Where our factory was 

23 concerned, they had no issue with that, but the 

24 power testing and the IEC was concerned when we 

25 developed the standard as Jon said, with the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

58

1 stabilization of the device just prior to the power 

2 measurement. So the factory is concerned about 

3 repeatability such that if we’re doing these 

4 luminance tests and then – you know, the warm-up is 

5 done first, then the luminance test with different 

6 patterns, obviously, the three bar pattern as 

7 opposed the IEC broadcast loop. Then we do the 

8 power measurement. Presumably, the device, because 

9 now it’s at the three bar pattern instead of this 

10 IEC pattern, it may have destabilized during that

11 period of time, so if it’s necessary to change the 

12 order so that the luminance testing is first, 

13 they’re concerned about repeatability, so perhaps it 

14 would have to enter another stabilization period 

15 with the broadcast loop, and that may be a full 

16 hour, maybe just to ascertain that two repeatable 

17 measurements, I believe, displays – you -- Energy 

18 Star said, you know, do two ten minute tapes of 

19 power measurements. If they’re within two percent 

20 of each other, I believe that was the number, then 

21 you can take them as valid, otherwise you do that 

22 perhaps until they do stabilize. But we’re 

23 concerned about repeatability of the measurement and 

24 so however it gets determined, we’ll put that in.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

59

1 MR. ROTOLO: Thanks. We will be 

2 discussing on mode. The next few slides, I just 

3 want to state this, they might be slightly different 

4 than in the handouts, there were three additional 

5 slides that were viewed later on and we’ll be 

6 viewing them directly after this one. 

7 So for on mode, the way that this works, 

8 and I think Chris briefly talked about this earlier, 

9 is that if a TV is shipped with ABC enabled by 

10 default, that mode will be tested, the automatic 

11 brightness control sensor will be tested with the 

12 four proposed luminance levels in addition to the 

13 regular on mode test, which is with the sensor 

14 disabled if it has it, or just with – or just with, 

15 you know, the as shipped features in home mode. And 

16 then if the TV is shipped with it disabled, or there 

17 is no sensor, then there’ll be just that one single 

18 measurement.

19 And this just is a visual representation 

20 of the order a little bit again, and it states the –

21 it states the levels at which these illuminance 

22 measurements will be taken and the tolerance of 

23 these measurements. So it’s 10, 50, 100, and 300 

24 lux are the illuminance measurements and the 

25 tolerance levels are plus or minus one lux, plus or 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

60

1 minus two lux, plus or minus five lux, and plus or 

2 minus nine lux, respectively.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Leave it up there for just 

4 a second. I don’t recall seeing that slide. Does 

5 that –

6 MR. ROTOLO: These slides are a few 

7 farther back in the presentation.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: I want to make sure they 

9 get a chance to look at this. Are we ready to move 

10 on? BJ?

11 MR. KUNDU: Are you looking for comments 

12 on this?

13 MR. BROOKMAN: We’re going to look for it 

14 eventually.

15 MR. ROTOLO: Yeah, there is a comment 

16 slide later on, but if you do have any questions now 

17 you –

18 MR. BROOKMAN: You can comment now if you 

19 wish.

20 MR. KUNDU: Yes, well, I’m curious about 

21 the equal weighting point you have here, that DOE 

22 may advise weightings. Again, for – I guess it’s 

23 unclear to me how you’d weight these measurements 

24 differently, considering this is a test procedure 

25 and you’re not necessarily setting specific on mode 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

61

1 standards here.

2 MR. ROTOLO: So at this time and we’ll 

3 talk about metric a little bit later, but at this 

4 time, in the on mode metric these points are all 

5 equally weighted, and so I guess one of the issues 

6 that DOE is also requesting comments on is the 

7 weighting, if one point seems to be seen a bit more 

8 than other points, should that point be weighted 

9 higher? Do consumers tend to watch their 

10 televisions more at the lower end where ten and 50 

11 should be weighted higher than 100 or 300?

12 MR. KUNDU: And maybe it’ll become clear 

13 in later slides, but weighted for what?

14 MR. ROTOLO: So the – as part of the on 

15 mode calculation, you take the power measurement of 

16 your ten – your ten lux measurement, your 50, 100, 

17 300 – and then they’re combined by those points 

18 being weighted into a final output for your on mode.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Vic, go ahead.

20 MR. PETROLATI: Yeah, just to be clear. 

21 Weighted in accordance with usage profiles to the 

22 extent that, if we feel 50 percent of the viewers 

23 are actually watching their televisions at ten lux, 

24 that might in fact, become a weighting factor. We 

25 have not applied weighting factors at this point. A 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

62

1 lot of the data that has recently been gathered may 

2 potentially provide us more information in terms of 

3 establishing weighting factors, but those are not 

4 included at this point, so that’s an area that we 

5 will, obviously, request stakeholder comment on.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

7 MR. GOLDBERG: So, I mean, I think that 

8 the purpose of the procedure is to generate a 

9 number, right, and not four numbers, or not a number 

10 and an arbitrary illuminance. So I think that this 

11 is the right venue to be discussing whether there 

12 should be unequal weighting, and if so, what that 

13 is, rather than leave it to any downstream regulator 

14 to pick numbers. Because if we did it that way, 

15 then we would be in a situation where using the DOE 

16 test, you come up with different numbers.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: So are you going to 

18 describe what the weighting should be?

19 MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I think that’s a 

20 separate question, what the weighting should be. I 

21 think that if there is to be weighting other than, 

22 you know, 25 percent, 25 percent, 25 percent, 25 

23 percent, then we should do that here. And if not, 

24 then, you know, then we should do that here.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Vic Petrolati.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

63

1 MR. PETROLATI: Again, we’ve asked for 

2 comment on this area, Doug, and we do have a 

3 presentation later on that evaluates the data that 

4 has been gathered, and shows what the incidents are 

5 of many of these points in terms of the actual 

6 usage. We don’t have a different proposal to 

7 present today, but we’re hoping to educate those in 

8 terms of all of the data and potentially weighting 

9 factors might be applied. And we’re certainly 

10 interested in getting your comments.

11 MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, what we’re trying to 

12 say is, it’s just, from my perspective – this is 

13 Adam Goldberg from Mitsubishi – from my perspective, 

14 as long as the outcome of the DOE test procedure is 

15 a number, and not a number that would vary depending 

16 on circumstances, that’s good, and we can decide and 

17 end up with what – if there is weighting, and if 

18 there is, what it is. And if the illuminance levels 

19 should change, then what they should change to. 

20 That’s all fine, as long as first order, we should 

21 have a test procedure that generates a number.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

23 MR. FAIRHURST: Yeah, Jon Fairhurst. 

24 Yeah, I also support that it’s important that the 

25 wattage number that the television manufacturer 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

64

1 claims, that we claim on the FTC labels, that we 

2 claim with EPA, with California and so on, are all 

3 the same number. If there’s – if different agencies 

4 or different groups use different numbers, then we 

5 could get into a very confusing situation, and even 

6 manufacturers could be accused of claiming different 

7 things, so having one number that’s published is 

8 very, very helpful, I think, for consumers, 

9 manufacturers, as well as policy makers.

10 In addition to that, I’d like to say that 

11 if the weightings are slightly pessimistic, in other 

12 words, maybe we look at the usage data and we find 

13 that there’s much more viewing in low light 

14 conditions, but the weightings maybe a little higher 

15 than that for the higher illuminance conditions, 

16 that may be appropriate because there will be some 

17 users that are going to switch off automatic 

18 brightness control. So we don’t know exactly how 

19 many that will be, hopefully that will be very few 

20 because this does save energy. But if it’s a little 

21 pessimistic, that’s probably appropriate.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens.

23 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I don’t 

24 know that our data will help, but some time this 

25 summer we may be able to provide you at least some 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

65

1 actual numbers by television make and model number 

2 from 100 households where we’ve actually measured 

3 the consumption of all of the televisions in those 

4 households. And we probably can go back and find 

5 out what the settings are, whether they’ve altered 

6 any of the default settings or what they’re 

7 operating it in. We will also have the time of day 

8 when all of the on hours are, so you’ll at least 

9 know whether it’s daytime or nighttime, but we will 

10 not have measured the illuminance in the room. But 

11 there may be some data you could test your 

12 weightings and potentially see if they reasonably 

13 align with the field data that we have on those 

14 households, and at least begin to sense if you can 

15 meet the terms of the law requiring a test that 

16 reasonably approximates the energy use in a typical 

17 use cycle.

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

19 Bill.

20 MR. SCHLINDER: This is Bill from 

21 Panasonic. We just recently, in a CEA meeting, 

22 discussed this very issue, and there is some data, 

23 in fact quite a bit of data through the CLASP study, 

24 and also the CEA study, on home illuminance, the 

25 actual values. And we’ve taken as an action plan to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

66

1 at least assess what the weighting would be around 

2 values such as what we’re talking about – ten, 50, 

3 100, and 300. We could do it around those 

4 weightings. We could do it around other weightings 

5 or close to that, you know, other values. And it 

6 would – I understand it to be simply adding up the 

7 numbers within a range, centered around, let’s say, 

8 ten or 50 or 100 lux. It would be quite easy to do. 

9 So that’s what we plan on at least performing that 

10 study. It should be quite easy to do, given the 

11 fact that CLASP, NCEA already has data.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

13 comments in this stream. We’re going to keep 

14 pressing on with the next slides.

15 MR. ROTOLO: Okay. So as part of the on 

16 mode test, the luminance test or the illuminance 

17 test, DOE is proposing a direct method of simulating 

18 the illuminance levels with the ABC sensor. DOE is 

19 proposing to shine the light source directly on the 

20 ABC sensor and having that value measured directly 

21 at the sensor’s location. But DOE is also 

22 interested – we’ve explored diffuse light, but DOE 

23 is also interested in stakeholder comments in using 

24 diffuse light sources.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: I think we’ve now jumped 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

67

1 ahead to slide 60 or so?

2 MR. ROTOLO: Yeah.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: So – I just want to make 

4 sure that they can follow where they’re sitting. 59 

5 or so. And those intermediary slides, are they –

6 are you going to cover those?

7 MR. ROTOLO: Yeah, we’ll address those 

8 after, and those – we briefly spoke about those. 

9 Those are more to do with the different illuminance 

10 levels and research that was being done in reaction 

11 to possible other illuminance levels.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: I just want to make sure 

13 everybody can follow where you are. Okay, now that 

14 we’ve got that – yes, Jon.

15 MR. FAIRHURST: Jon Fairhurst. So we very 

16 much support using a simple test procedure of direct 

17 light. With diffuse light the – trying to get a 

18 lambursion (ph) source is – which is a evenly 

19 distributed light – is very, very difficult. So we 

20 prefer the simpler, direct method. But we should 

21 also note that tends to be more difficult for the 

22 manufacturers in terms of the power rating. And the 

23 reason is that when we measure the light with – in 

24 the different surveys, so both CLASP, CEA and DOE as 

25 well – we tend to use the light sensors with domes 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

68

1 in front of the bezel. Actual implementation will 

2 typically have a flat diffuser that’s very small, 

3 with a recessed sensor. So the television sensors 

4 are actually much more directed, so in other words, 

5 they see light very well straight ahead, off axis 

6 light, maybe not as well as the light sensors that 

7 we’ve used in the measurements. So what we’re going 

8 to see is if you wish to approximate, let’s say, a 

9 50 lux household, so you’ve tested it with your 

10 light meter, you say 50 lux. When you shine – if 

11 you have in that household, if you looked at the 

12 reading in the television with that diffuse light 

13 compared to the direct light, the direct light will 

14 be read higher in the television. So it’s going to 

15 be a bit pessimistic. In other words, we’re going 

16 to show higher power levels typically with the 

17 direct light testing. However, because of the 

18 complexity of moving away from a direct light

19 source, Sharp anyways, does support using the direct 

20 light source, but be aware that it is going to be 

21 more pessimistic. In other words, the television is 

22 going to think the room is brighter than maybe how 

23 we’ve designed it to be. But because of the need 

24 for simplicity, repeatability, and so forth, I think 

25 that’s what Sharp anyway acknowledges that we need 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

69

1 to accept.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: How -- can you quantify 

3 that?

4 MR. FAIRHURST: No, it’s too complex. It 

5 varies by make, model, manufacturer.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

7 MR. GOLDBERG: So – Adam Goldberg from 

8 Mitsubishi. I think that, you know, fundamentally 

9 what Jon is saying is that a light meter is built to 

10 be a light meter, and a television is built – the 

11 ABC aspect of a television is not built to be an 

12 accurate light meter. It’s meant to perform it’s 

13 function, right. So the performance of the things 

14 is going to be a little bit different. 

15 I’m curious how much investigation DOE has 

16 done in terms of how difficult it actually is to 

17 construct a diffuse light situation. There’s 

18 significant collection of products that’s easily 

19 available commercially for ... lighting with the 

20 umbrella diffusers and things like that that would, 

21 in an effective and not terribly expensive way, can 

22 produce some pretty good diffuse light that might 

23 avoid the sorts of issues that Jon is mentioning, 

24 and still yield a repeatable and not overly costly 

25 environment. I don’t have any specific suggestions 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

70

1 today, but maybe I will in a couple weeks when we 

2 submit comments.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Bill? Bill, 

4 get that a little closer to you, will you please?

5 MR. SCHLINDER: Sure. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

7 MR. SCHLINDER: Again, I think I made two 

8 or three comments today about repeatability. The 

9 factory is very, very concerned about repeatability 

10 and the direct lighting, as Jon indicated, is the 

11 way of guaranteeing that. Yes, there are some down 

12 sides in terms of calibrating direct lighting, 

13 compared to what you find in the room, but the 

14 factory is also saying well, yeah, but whose room 

15 are we talking about? This room with fluorescent 

16 lights coming down from the ceiling, or a room where 

17 you have situational lights behind sofas and things? 

18 How are we ever going to calibrate diffuse lighting 

19 to be real light? It varies on home to home. There 

20 is no study right now. Was it light coming in 

21 through a window? Shining on the TV? Or was it 

22 nighttime with three lights off to the side? So 

23 they’re saying it’s basically, from a repeatability 

24 standpoint, the direct light as you specified, is 

25 really their recommendation as well, which is, of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

71

1 course, what they’ve been doing in their test 

2 laboratories for some time.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Vic.

4 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, I’ll ask this of Jon, 

5 but it’s to all the manufacturers. From what I 

6 remember, CEA 2037 didn’t necessarily identify the 

7 lighting source originally. And I believe that 

8 you’re working on an update to CEA 2037. Is there a 

9 chance that you can describe what the recommendation 

10 will be in the update concerning the lighting source 

11 and how it should be used in the measurement.

12 MR. FAIRHURST: Right. First of all, in 

13 IEC it just says directly into the sensor. And so 

14 that’s – I believe that’s the prevailing consensus 

15 that I’ve heard in the meetings is also directly 

16 into the sensor. In fact, I’m sure of it. That’s 

17 been the consensus in the meetings, rather than go 

18 to direct light source, precisely for the reasons 

19 that Bill stated. And in addition, as Adam 

20 mentioned, there are many inexpensive ways to get 

21 diffuse light, but unless you specify one device 

22 from one manufacturer, the diffusion with soft boxes 

23 and so forth, varies from manufacturer to 

24 manufacturer. It’s not specified, typically, with 

25 those products. And so, so to actually develop a 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

72

1 consistent diffuse light source with the fall off –

2 calibrated fall off would be very difficult. So the 

3 intent is to stay with the directly into the sensor 

4 type of specification.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Is CEA working on an 

6 update?

7 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes, CEA is actively 

8 working on an update. I’m the co-chair for that.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: And the time horizon for 

10 that would be?

11 MR. FAIRHURST: We’re hoping to get the 

12 standard ready for our four approval, that’s the 

13 next level up above our workgroup, in the May 

14 timeframe. Then there would be voting, 30 day 

15 voting typically, depending on comments and 

16 publications, it would be some months after that.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Maybe the summertime?

18 MR. FAIRHURST: Possibly in the 

19 summertime, yes.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

21 Additional comments on this? Okay. 

22 MR. ROTOLO: Additionally, DOE is 

23 recommending a 100 watt equivalent incandescent 

24 halogen light source for their illuminance light 

25 source. DOE recognizes that there is many other 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

73

1 types of light sources and would like to request 

2 comments on using additional light sources.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Jon.

4 MR. FAIRHURST: I’ll just say quickly that 

5 it is important that we have a light with a 

6 continuous spectral distribution as indicated.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: As recommended here. Thank 

8 you. No additional comments.

9 MR. ROTOLO: I believe we already touched 

10 on this, but – so at this time I would like to move 

11 over to Louis Deroches or are we going to break 

12 right now?

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, I think now’s a good 

14 time for a break. Yeah, let’s take a break. Thank 

15 you. 

16 MR. ROTOLO: Thank you. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: It’s now 10:45, we’ve 

18 covered a lot of ground. It’s been very, very 

19 useful comment from the stakeholders present, so 

20 thank you for that. And thanks again for those 

21 joining us via the internet. We’re going to take a 

22 15 minute break. Here in the Forestall building, 

23 you must wear your badge inside the building, so 

24 make sure you’ve got that with you. There are rest 

25 rooms at both ends of the hall. The coffee shop is 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

74

1 on the ground floor. 

2 (Whereupon, at 10:47 a.m., the meeting was 

3 recessed for a 19 minute period.)

4 MR. BROOKMAN: So let’s start back up. So 

5 we’re going to continue where we left off. 

6 Background Research on Room Illuminance

7 MR. DESROCHES: I’m going to describe the 

8 background research that was done on room 

9 illuminance. And just a bit of a background here. 

10 Testing with ABC enabled is currently required as 

11 part of the IEC and Energy Star programs, so TVs 

12 shipped with ABC enabled by default, both are a 

13 separate test, and DOE did request comment on 

14 incorporating such a test in its request for 

15 information. And in general, interested parties 

16 supported the adoption of this test procedure, and 

17 in particular, to make this test procedure 

18 repeatable and representative. And so that was why 

19 DOE is proposing to incorporate a test procedure for 

20 TVs with automatic brightness control enabled by 

21 default.

22 Just to clarify the conversation a little 

23 bit. The automatic brightness control is a power 

24 saving feature in which the screen luminance in 

25 candelas per meter squared is adjusted based on the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

75

1 ambient room illuminance in lux. And luminance is a 

2 directional measure and illuminance is an integrated 

3 measure. And there’s a clear relationship between 

4 the TV luminance and the power that it consumes. 

5 The television’s total power is largely 

6 dominated by the production of light, and on this 

7 graph here you can see the bottom here is room 

8 illuminance, and on the left axis there’s a measure 

9 of power, and that’s the blue line on the graph. On 

10 the right axis, there’s the luminance of the 

11 television and that’s the red line on the graph. 

12 And so you can see – and this is just for an example 

13 television – that as the luminance of the television 

14 changes as a function of the room condition, the 

15 luminance goes up and the power responds 

16 accordingly. There is a base load power that is 

17 used by the television for non-light purposes, but 

18 the change in the power is clearly driven by the 

19 luminance changes in the television.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Just a program note. We’ve 

21 now gone back in the slides, and we’re now back to

22 slide 44 in your packet, so you can find where we 

23 are. Okay. 

24 MR. DESROCHES: So this slide here is a 

25 representation of a theoretical ABC response and how 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

76

1 it would work best for the user. On the X axis 

2 again, is room illuminance in lux, and on the Y axis 

3 is an arbitrary TV luminance axis. And the point of 

4 this slide is to show that when you are in darkened 

5 conditions, shown on the very left there, that the 

6 TV luminance doesn’t have to be as bright for the 

7 user to have a good viewing experience, and then as 

8 the room gets brighter and brighter, the TV 

9 luminance will increase and eventually you get to 

10 some very bright condition, brighter than typical 

11 conditions, and the TV luminance will max out.

12 Because the human eye has a logarithmic 

13 response to light, this change does not have to be 

14 linear, and this is, as you can see here from the S15 shaped curve, that as the room illuminance gets 

16 brighter and brighter, it take successively larger 

17 and larger steps in room illuminance to achieve what 

18 the human eye perceives as an equal doubling in 

19 brightness. And at the top here of the graph, you 

20 see these numbers of eight, 16, 32, 64, and so on. 

21 Those are successive doublings of room illuminance, 

22 so this is just to guide you as to what the eye 

23 would perceive as a doubling of light. And so the 

24 typical response curve should follow this natural 

25 response of the human eye.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

77

1 The exact TV luminance values that occur 

2 at the lowest room illuminance settings. There are 

3 organizations like the Imaging Science Foundation 

4 and product review organizations like CNET, that 

5 have recommended levels at the low end. And there 

6 are some studies as indicated here like the Masumoto

7 2011 study that looked into consumer preferences at 

8 the bright end. And so there are data points 

9 available for what is considered to be an 

10 appropriate TV luminance at the low end and at the 

11 high end. But in general, what is important is this 

12 gradual response curve.

13 So currently the ABC test requires testing 

14 at zero lux, and at greater than 300 lux. And there 

15 was a recent study, and the full citation is down 

16 below, there’s a recent study that demonstrated that 

17 the automatic brightness control response in some 

18 televisions is often implemented in a manner that 

19 does not take full advantage of the ABC savings, so 

20 it is not only not saving energy, but it’s not 

21 providing the user experience that I was just 

22 describing before, which is ideal for the consumer. 

23 And in many cases, the luminance at zero lux is very 

24 dim, and is unwatchably dim.

25 Some TVs in this study did show this 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

78

1 gradual response curve, and some had a very steep 

2 step function as part of their ABC implementation. 

3 And so as a result, measuring at only zero lux and 

4 300 lux may result in an energy consumption reported 

5 value that is not indicative of actual use.

6 And in addition to all of this, the actual 

7 room illuminance in homes has been, until very 

8 recently, uncertain. There have been some recent 

9 studies that have just been made available and that 

10 provided us some preliminary results and I will 

11 discuss that in a moment. 

12 So DOE decided to do some additional 

13 testing to complement that earlier study to see if 

14 those trends held. The next three slides, I will 

15 show the results of those tests. This testing 

16 occurred over the last year and a half or so. It 

17 included televisions of 2010 and 2011 model years. 

18 It included a range of sizes and a range of 

19 manufacturers and a range of technologies. In 

20 addition, there was testing that was performed by 

21 CLASP and as well there’s some testing performed by 

22 EPA as part of the Energy Star program. And so what 

23 is shown here is a compilation of all these recent 

24 tests.

25 Shown on this graph here are the response 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

79

1 curves of the smaller televisions, from the 23 to 

2 42-inch category, and you can see that there is, 

3 again, there is a mix of response. And I’ll use the 

4 cursor here for a second here. So this red line 

5 here, for example, is an example of the television 

6 that is responding in a gradual fashion and is 

7 increasing as the room illuminance increases; and at 

8 the same time the television, such as this purple 

9 line here, which is responding in a very step-like 

10 fashion. I apologize – this one here – is 

11 responding in a very step-like fashion. And so 

12 there is again, there appears to be two basic 

13 approaches to ABC, there is the gradual approach and 

14 a step approach.

15 One thing I just want to note very quickly 

16 is that the testing that was performed by DOE, by 

17 Energy Star, and by CLASP, this is – these are 

18 different test – they were tested at different 

19 points, the room illuminance points, and so that’s 

20 why not every curve here has all the points on them. 

21 And another note I want to make here is that the 

22 lines that are connecting the points here, they’re 

23 just here for clarity. DOE is not making any 

24 assumptions about what the behavior of the ABC 

25 response is between these. This is not 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

80

1 interpolation, this is just meant to guide the eye 

2 as to where the points are connected.

3 MR. FAIRHURST: This is Jon Fairhurst from 

4 Sharp. One concern I have about the way that this 

5 is drawn is that some of the televisions are not 

6 tested at 100 lux, and so it implies that saturation 

7 often doesn’t occur until 150 lux, but I believe 

8 that most of the TVs shown that were tested at 100 

9 lux are at or very near saturation. So can DOE 

10 respond to that?

11 MR. DESROCHES: Yeah, and I will show this 

12 in the next two slides as well. I believe it’s the 

13 CLASP study did not measure at 100 lux, and so we 

14 can’t say anything about that. For the DOE tests 

15 that were conducted at 100 lux, there actually is a 

16 fair number of televisions that are not saturated at 

17 100, and that the maximum brightness does occur at a 

18 later stage. And I’ll show some examples of that.

19 The other thing I want to mention, too, is 

20 the CLASP study did not measure at zero lux and so 

21 for those televisions we make no assumptions of the 

22 behavior at zero, so it’s just not on the graph.

23 This is the same as the previous slide, 

24 but this is now in the 46 to 47 inch category, and 

25 again, this is a combination of tests by the three 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

81

1 organizations. There is once again a general trend 

2 of having two response curves, such as this orange 

3 one here gradually increases, and then there are a 

4 handful of step functions as shown here. In one 

5 case there was this unusual response of a gradual 

6 increase and then at 300 lux, the television dropped 

7 quite significantly in luminance. And again, just 

8 to clarify, this – what I’m showing here is power 

9 consumption, but as I just showed before, there is a 

10 connection between power and luminance.

11 MR. GOLDBERG: (off mic) You mean an LED 

12 lit, LCD TV?

13 MR. DESROCHES: That’s correct.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Use your microphone. 

15 That’s okay.

16 MR. DESROCHES: So the comment was whether 

17 LED represents an LED/LCD TV, and yes, it does.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

19 MR. DESROCHES: And a CCFL is a CCFL LCD 

20 TV. And so to answer an earlier question, this is 

21 an example here of a television whose measured value 

22 at 100 lux and 150 and 300, indicates that the 100 

23 is not saturating, and there’s another example here 

24 of the orange line, the television being measured at 

25 100 and then being measured again at 150 and then 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

82

1 300, and so 100 is not – the ABC sensor is not being 

2 saturated at 100 lux necessarily.

3 This slide is again showing a similar 

4 pattern for the larger televisions. This is 51 inch 

5 and larger. Again, there’s a mix of technologies 

6 and these data come from various organizations. And 

7 again there is the same – there are a number here of 

8 step functions, like this red one here, but there 

9 are examples in a larger category of some of the 

10 more gradual response functions, and you can see 

11 some down here. And again, there is an example here 

12 of a television whose value at 100 lux is lower than 

13 the value at 150 and the 300. Similarly for this 

14 red one.

15 And so, in summary, of the testing that 

16 was done recently, this seems to support what was 

17 done in the earlier study and that there appears to 

18 be two basic approaches to ABC. I’m showing on the 

19 left here, at the top, is the gradual response 

20 approach of some televisions and on the right there 

21 is the step function approach of some televisions. 

22 And when the ABC approach is utilized in a gradual 

23 fashion, there is significant power savings that are 

24 possible.

25 The 100 lux does not necessarily represent 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

83

1 ABC sensor saturation for all televisions. There 

2 are examples of a few televisions that do not 

3 saturate at 100. Three hundred lux does generally 

4 represent ABC saturation. There are a few examples 

5 here and there – there was that one example that 

6 turned over at 300 lux, but overall, 300 lux is 

7 representative of the maximum TV luminance. And 

8 when tested at zero lux, there are some televisions 

9 that are sometimes very, very dim, and shown here on 

10 the top right is an example of such a television. 

11 So again, now I’m showing power and 

12 luminance again. So blue is power and red is 

13 luminance. And on the television on the right here, 

14 the luminance point, if you look on the right axis, 

15 is under 25 nits, and that is incredibly dim, and 

16 the user would find that to be unwatchably dim. 

17 Question?

18 MR. KUNDU: Yes, Bijit Kundu with Energy 

19 Solutions. Does DOE know what’s going on with some 

20 of the – the few exceptions of power decreasing at 

21 300 lux, or maybe some of the manufacturers in the 

22 room could answer what’s going on there?

23 MR. DESROCHES: I’m not going to comment 

24 as to what the manufacturers are or are not doing, 

25 but the test – that test was repeatable, and it was 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

84

1 verified that the response at 300 was going down, 

2 the TV was getting dimmer.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Vic, please.

4 MR. PETROLATI: Yes. Again, we have a 

5 test procedure that measures, currently, at zero and 

6 300 lux. And I would assume that it’s trying to get 

7 the maximum value of maximum value of produced 

8 energy consumption by that approach, because it 

9 certainly doesn’t seem like that would be a benefit 

10 to the consumer to have significantly reduced 

11 luminance levels of the television at a room 

12 condition of 300 lux.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

14 MR. GOLDBERG: This is Adam Goldberg from 

15 Mitsubishi. I have no idea what we would be 

16 thinking, but I think I agree with what Vic just 

17 said that it would seem that constructing a set that 

18 decreased its luminance in bright situations would 

19 be a set that would be poorly reviewed and yield 

20 poor performance and poor marketplace

21 characteristics. But I have no idea.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

23 MR. FAIRHURST: Jon Fairhurst. It’s 

24 possible that no matter where we put ABC points to 

25 be measured, that the manufacturer could reduce the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

85

1 performance of the television set at those points in 

2 order to maximize the score, without necessarily 

3 saving the power that would be represented by the 

4 score. We had had, in the development of the new 

5 CEA 2037 standard, some discussion of ways to 

6 mitigate that, especially where it turns over. 

7 There are possibly ways towards standard such that 

8 you measure at a given level, or the highest power 

9 consuming level between that and the previous step, 

10 such that non-increasing monotonic televisions like 

11 that, in other words, any time it turns over, could 

12 be potentially avoided in the wording. A 

13 manufacturer that does not play games like that 

14 would not have to do any additional testing to 

15 verify it, knowing the nature of the design, while –

16 and it would also take away motivation for 

17 manufacturers to do such things in the future. So 

18 there are ways to mitigate that without necessarily 

19 testing many, many points, or requiring that of all 

20 manufacturers.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Vic.

22 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, Jon, we’d be very 

23 interested in getting this type of language or an 

24 alternative approach that might be used in terms of 

25 the way this is structured, in terms of the way 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

86

1 ABC’s response should be measured. Thank you. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And CEA is working 

3 on this also, Jon?

4 MR. FAIRHURST: We had discussed that. 

5 The standard is still in development, and of course 

6 whatever we come up with is still subject to voting 

7 within our four committees. So what exactly will 

8 come out at the end, as a CEA approved standard, I 

9 can’t say anything there yet, but the – we’ve had 

10 that discussion as a possible solution.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional questions 

12 on these curves, these illustrations?

13 MR. DESROCHES: This summary table is just 

14 included for your benefit for future reference, and 

15 for reference during the presentation, but this is 

16 the summary of all the testing that was done on the 

17 previous three slides.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: And the actual data points.

19 MR. DESROCHES: And the actual data 

20 points. And the highlighting is just to show that 

21 some televisions were tested at different test 

22 pattern – test points than other televisions.

23 So now I’m just going to switch to – from 

24 the testing of the televisions to the room 

25 illuminance testing that was done. So prior to 2011 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

87

1 there was very limited data on what the 

2 representative room illuminance values were in 

3 homes. In mid-2011, there was a study that was 

4 published, based in Japan, on the common room 

5 illuminance values found in about 77 homes. On the 

6 right here are the two main graphs that show the 

7 results.

8 So on the X axis here are various bins of 

9 room illuminance, and then on the left axis here is 

10 the frequency of each bin, and on the right axis 

11 here is the cumulative frequency as you step up in 

12 room illuminance. And so – and this is for both the 

13 day, on the top, and the night, on the bottom. 

14 And there are two major findings from this 

15 Japanese study. One is that the bin of 50 to 75 lux 

16 or so was the most common in both day and night, and 

17 the other major finding is that more – at least 50 

18 percent or more of the results were at 100 lux or 

19 less. And so if you follow this cumulative 

20 distribution to about 50, to represent 50 percent, 

21 you’re at about 100 lux or less, and the night, that 

22 50 percent is reached at a much lower value. So 

23 these are the results in Japan for a set of Japanese 

24 homes, and they’re not necessarily indicative of US 

25 homes. Japanese consumers may have different 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

88

1 lighting preferences than US consumers. And so this 

2 is the first data available, but not necessarily 

3 representative.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Jon.

5 MR. FAIRHURST: Yeah, Jon Fairhurst. Do 

6 you know the location of the meter during these 

7 tests? Were they in the middle of the room or on 

8 the television bezel as has been done in the other 

9 tests?

10 MR. DESROCHES: I believe they were on the 

11 bezel.

12 MR. FAIRHURST: Thank you. 

13 MR. PETROLATI: My understanding is 

14 though, they were on the top bezel of the 

15 television, rather than the bottom.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Vic. Yes, Bill.

17 MR. SCHLINDER: Actually I’ve been told by 

18 many, many Japanese over the years that they tend to 

19 use fluorescent lighting in their homes. They like 

20 brighter homes than American, and we actually had, 

21 through an IEC meeting, a gentleman from Korea that 

22 said that the CLASP and CEA data was dimmer than 

23 what he felt Korean homes use, so there may be a 

24 difference, obviously, internationally. I just 

25 wanted to point that out.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

89

1 MR. DESROCHES: And we agree with that 

2 statement.

3 So after this Japanese study was 

4 published, there have been some recent US studies. 

5 Lawrence Berkeley Lab conducted a pilot study. It 

6 involved only nine homes. It was just a pilot 

7 study. These homes were in California and in 

8 Colorado. And the measurements were taken between 

9 May and June of last year, and the methodology was 

10 to have simultaneous metering of both the television 

11 power and room illuminance at ten minute intervals 

12 for a period of about one or two weeks in each home. 

13 The room illuminance meter was on the bottom bezel 

14 of the television, and the simultaneous metering of 

15 the television power was used so that you could 

16 correlate what the room illuminance value was when 

17 the television was actually being used.

18 Shortly after, CLASP also conducted a 

19 study on room illuminance. This study was over 60 

20 homes. It was in two cities in California and in 

21 DC. It was over October and November timeframe of 

22 last year, and again, the methodology was to have a 

23 simultaneous metering of both the television power 

24 and room illuminance. This time it was at five 

25 minute intervals and it was again over a period of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

90

1 about one or two weeks per home.

2 And there’s also the CEA/CEDIA study that 

3 included 234 homes, although some of those 

4 measurements were excluded, and the locations were 

5 varied, but the majority were in California as well. 

6 And this was conducted over September and December 

7 of last year, and this study had a one-time spot 

8 measurement of room illuminance, but the room was 

9 arranged as if the viewer would be watching 

10 television.

11 This is just a quick check to see if the 

12 three studies that have been conducted so far are 

13 representative of actual use, and so on the left

14 there is the American Time Use Survey from the 

15 Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks usage 

16 behavior for a variety of different activities. And 

17 this is just a histogram of when consumers watch 

18 television, generally, as a function of the day. So 

19 on the X axis here, is – so this is just the hour of 

20 the day down here, from zero to 24, and then the 

21 frequency. So very clearly people are watching 

22 television most prominently in the later afternoon, 

23 early evening kind of prime time hours, and so we 

24 wanted to check to see if three luminance studies 

25 were at least matching those conditions. And indeed 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

91

1 for the most part, all three are showing a peak in 

2 the nighttime. All three have some issues 

3 associated with them, none of them is perfect. The 

4 CLASP distribution actually has quite a bit more of 

5 the measurements taken during the day, and so it 

6 perhaps is a bit biased toward daytime viewing. The 

7 LBL study was just a pilot and has a very limited 

8 sample, and so the distribution is very 

9 discontinuous. And the CEA is very biased towards 

10 the evening hours. And so none of the three studies 

11 are perfect, but all three are at least indicative 

12 of, and representative of the dominant use which is 

13 in the evening.

14 MR. FAIRHURST: For the -- regarding the 

15 CEA study, in the group that led this, we did have 

16 DOE participation, and we were actually requested to 

17 focus on the evening viewing, so that was exactly 

18 what we did, and actually it was very appropriate 

19 because we didn’t do the continuous sampling the way

20 the CLASP did, so it’s actually very complementary. 

21 CEA measured more homes, and because there are only 

22 a few modes where the lighting is typically going to 

23 be in a home at night, that’s very appropriate to 

24 test more homes. With CLASP it did the more 

25 continuous measurements so they actually have the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

92

1 more, I think, definitive data for the daytime 

2 viewing. So between them, they complement each 

3 other well.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Charlie.

5 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. ... data, 

6 this summer I think we’ll be able to give you 

7 another distribution that will, perhaps, fill in the 

8 holes or confirm one or another of these.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

10 MR. DESROCHES: So this slide here is 

11 representative of the results, and I’ll spend a 

12 little bit of time on this. So what is shown here 

13 on the X axis is the room illuminance, and this is 

14 on a logarithmic plot, so a lux of one is – so on 

15 the axis here, is the room illuminance, a lux of one 

16 here, and ten, and 100 and so on. And what’s being 

17 plotted is the cumulative distribution of all the 

18 data. So the data have been ordered and you’re just 

19 getting the cumulative distribution. 

20 There’s a slight difference between the 

21 CEA and CLASP and LBL because the CEA – sorry, the 

22 CLASP and LBL studies are taken at certain 

23 intervals, and so there is this cumulative – there’s 

24 a lot of data points in this cumulative 

25 distribution. And the CEA are one time measurements 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

93

1 over a lot of homes. And so the cumulative 

2 distributions are not directly comparable, but they 

3 are similar and they’re just being shown in the same 

4 graph here for comparison.

5 Also on this graph, I’m just indicating 

6 for your benefit here, this line here represents the 

7 25th percentile of the cumulative distribution, and 

8 this line here represents the 50th percentile of the 

9 distribution, and the 75th percentile of the 

10 distribution. And this is separating the cumulative 

11 distribution into four quartiles just for easy 

12 comparison here.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Matt.

14 MR. MALINOWSKI: This is Matt Malinowski, 

15 ICF. Are you plotting the raw data or is that – is 

16 this the data normalized by the BLS?

17 MR. DESROCHES: This is raw. This is all 

18 raw.

19 MR. MALINOWSKI: Did you do that at all?

20 MR. DESROCHES: The?

21 MR. MALINOWSKI: Normalize the data by the 

22 BLS?

23 MR. DESROCHES: No, we didn’t.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

25 MR. GOLDBERG: Adam Goldberg from 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

94

1 Mitsubishi. One last clarification. The table on 

2 the right hand side, just verify that I’m reading 

3 this right. That says, for example, that half the 

4 viewing hours were, under the CEA study, at 13.3 lux 

5 or less, is that right?

6 MR. DESROCHES: That’s correct. And I was 

7 just about to get to that. The way to read that is, 

8 as you step up in the cumulative distribution, the 

9 three studies are there and so this is the 

10 percentage of – so, as you said, if you move to the 

11 50 percent distribution, the CEA suggests that half 

12 of the measurements are at 13.3 lux or less, 15.1 or 

13 less for CLASP and 16 for LBL. So as you move up 

14 the distribution, you’re going to go up in the lux 

15 values that are less than that.

16 A couple things I just wanted to highlight 

17 is the only – the LBL and the CEA data recorded 

18 integer values of lux, but the CLASP study recorded 

19 the lux values to two decimal places, and so that’s 

20 why it is extending pretty far down there. The 

21 CLASP study recorded 0.00 lux so, as best as it 

22 could identify exactly zero lux, in only point two 

23 percent of all cases. Everything else was at least 

24 .01 lux or higher. And in particular, there was a 

25 significant amount of viewing that occurred above 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

95

1 point one lux, but the viewing at zero lux, at 

2 exactly zero lux, was actually an extreme condition.

3 The other thing to note is where this 

4 cumulative distribution is rising the fastest, which 

5 is right around here. This is between, say, ten and 

6 15 lux. Yeah.

7 MR. GOLDBERG: Sorry, this is Adam for 

8 Mitsubishi. Do we know any information about the 

9 meters used by, for example, CLASP? I mean, it’s 

10 nearly impossible to construct a dark room, and it’s 

11 nearly impossible to measure lux in the hundredths

12 of a lux range. I wonder if we know what they were 

13 using. Or perhaps, it might make sense to not pay 

14 too much attention to things less than a couple lux.

15 MR. DESROCHES: They do list the meters 

16 that they used in their report.

17 So one thing – just from some anecdotal 

18 testing that we’ve done, we do find it very 

19 difficult to actually reproduce zero lux in a 

20 darkroom condition because even the television being 

21 on, that the room will reflect some of that 

22 television light off ceiling, off the furniture, off

23 even the clothing, so having a perfectly zero lux 

24 measurement was very difficult to achieve just 

25 anecdotally – with a very high precision instrument.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

96

1 So what I was just going to highlight is 

2 this area here is the quickest rise in the 

3 cumulative distribution that represents where the 

4 most common, most likely value would be. It’s 

5 between ten and 15 lux or so is where you would have 

6 the peak of all these measurements, and I’ll show 

7 this on the next slide in a different way to 

8 highlight this.

9 And then by the time you get to about 100 

10 lux or so, you’re about 85 percent or so of all the 

11 measurements are at 100 lux or less, and by the time 

12 you get to 300 lux, there’s only – there’s less than 

13 five percent of the data that are at 300 lux or 

14 above.

15 Very quickly, the CLASP study, at the 

16 bottom here, tends to show slightly darker 

17 conditions than for instance, the LBL study. That’s 

18 perhaps explained by the fact that the CLASP study 

19 was taken during the fall and winter months, whereas 

20 the LBL study was done during May and June, and so 

21 the daylight conditions would be longer and 

22 typically brighter during the summer. And so that 

23 may be a possible explanation for why it’s slightly 

24 darker in the CLASP study. And similarly, the CEA 

25 curve at the top is a little bit darker than some of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

97

1 the other ones, and again the CEA study was designed 

2 to be primarily in the evening, and so that is 

3 possibly explaining why the CEA data are showing 

4 slightly darker conditions at the high end. 

5 But overall, despite the differences 

6 between the three studies, despite their relative 

7 limitations, they are showing a consistent picture 

8 of what is happening in room illuminance in US 

9 homes, and they are in reasonable agreement with 

10 each other.

11 This is the same data just represented 

12 slightly differently. We’re just showing here the 

13 distribution in bins of room illuminance, and these 

14 bins are logarithmic bins, and so the spacing of the 

15 bin gets bigger as you increase in room illuminance, 

16 and again, this is to reflect the sensitivity of the 

17 human eye and its logarithmic response. And again, 

18 you can clearly see that the peak of this 

19 distribution is in the eight to 16 lux bin or so, 

20 and that is consistent across all three studies. So 

21 there are some differences between the studies, but 

22 they are showing the same rough picture.

23 There’s also a secondary peak at the very 

24 low condition, between zero and one, so that does 

25 represent a condition that many viewers do watch 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

98

1 television in, and there is a fairly large tail at 

2 higher lux conditions as well.

3 So just a summary of what I’ve mentioned. 

4 The zero lux condition appears to be an extreme 

5 condition that in the CLASP data it occurs at less 

6 than point two percent of all data. And the 300 lux 

7 is also at the high end, and less than five percent 

8 of the data are at 300 lux or greater. The peak of 

9 the distribution appears to occur between ten and 15 

10 lux or so, depending on the individual data set, and 

11 roughly about 30 percent of all the data in all 

12 three studies are at ten lux or less, and about 75 

13 percent of all the data are at 50 lux or less. And 

14 about 85 percent of all the data are at 100 lux or 

15 less. And – let me just finish my point – and then 

16 for future home illuminance studies, if there are 

17 other rounds of this study, they should attempt to 

18 have a more representative household sample to 

19 ensure geographic diversity, to ensure that the span 

20 of dates in that sample include various seasons to 

21 account for any seasonal effects, and to make sure 

22 to appropriately measure weekday and weekend 

23 television viewing.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

25 MR. FAIRHURST: Yeah, regarding zero lux, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

99

1 while exactly zero lux is extreme conditions, in 

2 fact might be impossible in that you need to be at 

3 zero Kelvin to be at true zero lux, --

4 MR. BROOKMAN: The other ideal test 

5 condition.

6 MR. FAIRHURST: Yeah. There is a strong 

7 peak. In fact, if you look at the CLASP data for 

8 nighttime conditions, the area around zero lux is 

9 actually the highest peak in the CLASP data, so I 

10 think it’s a little misleading when you say that 

11 zero lux is less than two percent. While factually 

12 true, it might make people say, oh, well no one’s 

13 watching TV in near dark conditions, but that’s 

14 actually very common. 

15 Another thing I’d like to mention is I 

16 believe all the CLASP measurements were done in the 

17 primary viewing room.

18 MR. DESROCHES: That’s correct.

19 MR. FAIRHURST: While in CEA we had a 

20 significant number of bedrooms tested as well. And 

21 many people do watch TVs in their bedrooms in fully 

22 dark conditions. So we also showed a very strong 

23 peak in the CEA data in bedrooms near zero lux.

24 MR. DESROCHES: Just a quick follow up on 

25 that. I would agree with all those comments, and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

100

1 there is a peak in the distribution here at the low 

2 lux, and the only point here is the recording of 

3 exactly zero was an extreme condition.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens.

5 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. One of 

6 the things that our data will probably have that may 

7 help fill this in is that we actually are, in all of 

8 the houses we are measuring television use, we’re 

9 doing all of the televisions everywhere, and so 

10 we’ll have actually the fraction of hours of 

11 television use in each household, along with all the 

12 demographic data on these households, for all of the 

13 televisions, so you’ll know how much is in bedrooms 

14 and how much is in the family room or the TV room or 

15 everything else, and we might be able to get a sense 

16 of that, how to weight these things.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Please, Bill.

18 MR. SCHLINDER: Bill from Panasonic. 

19 Again whether it’s zero lux or one lux or something 

20 in between, the reason the IEC favored the zero lux 

21 measurement was ease and repeatability of the 

22 measurement. One simply takes a piece of tape, 

23 black tape, and covers the sensor, and makes the 

24 measurement. So whether we include other 

25 measurements like ten or 50 or 100 or whatever, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

101

1 that’s great, but in order to overall reduce the 

2 variance in the combined average, we support putting 

3 zero – as well as 300, because 300, on the other end 

4 of the spectrum, is very repeatable in that we’re 

5 pretty sure that most of the TVs if not all, will be 

6 saturated and producing the greatest brightness at 

7 that point, so it gives us an easy, repeatable 

8 measurement at zero, the 300. And then there may be 

9 others in between, but those others being in that 

10 active range will be varying depending on the 

11 tolerance of these sensors, the tolerance of the 

12 light meters, and other conditions of the test.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Vic.

14 MR. PETROLATI: Bill, just to follow up on 

15 that. We obviously realize harmonization is a major 

16 issue for manufacturers. If we went forward with 

17 our points that were in the NOPR, ten, 50, 100, 300, 

18 would you be required to do any additional testing 

19 for selling TVs in North America beyond those 

20 points?

21 MR. SCHLINDER: I’m Bill, responding to 

22 Vic. We probably – you know that represents four 

23 points, okay, whereas there were just two points, so 

24 I think that’s more than adequate in terms of 

25 characterizing the ABC.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

102

1 MR. PETROLATI: Right.

2 MR. SCHLINDER: The only issue is the 

3 repeatability of the measurements, in that three of 

4 those, the ten, 50 and 100 would be an actively 

5 changing part of the ABC circuit. What I mean by 

6 that is it’s very sensitive to variations in the 

7 measurement lux that it’s receiving. Furthermore, 

8 the circuits themselves, these are not light meters. 

9 These are inexpensive sensors for consumer 

10 electronics. They’re not calibrated the same way you 

11 would calibrate with an adjustment, a light meter. 

12 Those are all calibrated instruments. Consumer 

13 televisions generally, from a price standpoint, are 

14 not going to go through that elaborate calibration 

15 cost. So as a result, there will be repeatability 

16 variance, and the more you have measurements in that 

17 active range, the worse it becomes. And, we, from 

18 verification purposes, are very concerned about 

19 that. That’s why we at least recommend the zero 

20 point, because you lock it down. It really takes 

21 the sensor out of the picture. It’s your minimum 

22 brightness. The 300 lux is your saturation point 

23 for sure, it takes that out. So now what you’re 

24 left with is the points in between, which will have 

25 that variability. But the points that you 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

103

1 identified more than characterized the system. Four 

2 points as opposed to two.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Please.

4 MR. CALWELL: Chris Calwell from Ecova. I 

5 wanted to try to get a little more detail if we 

6 could on the discussion between Jon and Louis about 

7 the really low lux conditions. And so, I wonder if 

8 there are any other differences in the studies that 

9 could account for the different prevalence that 

10 we’re seeing. And Louis, you had said something 

11 earlier about the extent to which power metering was 

12 occurring during light measurement. So I wanted to 

13 make sure I understood. In all three cases, did we 

14 know that the television was on when the power 

15 measurements were taken?

16 MR. DESROCHES: I’ll let Jon answer for 

17 the CEA study, but for the CLASP and LBL study, the 

18 television was on.

19 MR. FAIRHURST: Right, and in the case of 

20 the CEA study, the television was specifically off 

21 because we were doing a single point measurements 

22 and there was no way to determine what the – there 

23 was no way to insert in consumers’ homes, easily 

24 anyway, a standard test pattern. So if we could 

25 have done a, let’s say a 34 percent white screen, we 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

104

1 would have done that, but that was impractical. So 

2 to keep the testing consistent, we simply said turn 

3 the television off.

4 MR. CALWELL: So it sounds like it’s 

5 possible at least, then, that at the really low lux 

6 conditions, you’d be missing the contribution of the 

7 TV to the room’s own light level.

8 MR. FAIRHURST: That’s true. I did some 

9 measurements at home and found that with the light 

10 meter I had, which was roughly a $1000 Minolta light 

11 meter, its sensitivity down below one lux was very 

12 poor. So the – so I often got zero lux measurements, 

13 even though it was not truly zero, with that 

14 particular instrument. It’s another point with the 

15 CEA study, because it was kind of a group 

16 contribution, rather than a single entity that we 

17 hired that went out and bought many light meters. 

18 We did use – there were a variety of light meters 

19 used in the study. We recommended that any done 

20 with cell phones were eliminated because those are 

21 not calibrated light meters. But the light meters 

22 used for each data point, they are noted in the 

23 study.

24 MR. CALWELL: Any other thoughts, Louis. 

25 Does that cover it?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

105

1 MR. DESROCHES: That covers it.

2 MR. CALWELL: Thank you. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Chris.

4 MR. DESROCHES: So some stakeholders have 

5 recently suggested alternative room illuminance 

6 points to test at, in public comments, and so some 

7 examples include the zero, 12, 35, and 300 as Jon

8 alluded to in his opening remarks. There’s also 

9 been some suggestion of using – to keep the existing 

10 zero and 300 lux measurement, but add a third 

11 measurement point, perhaps around ten. CLASP 

12 recommends having three measurement points between 

13 ten and 100. This is actually consistent with the 

14 DOE proposed test points at 10, 50, 100 and 300. 

15 And then if we go back to the cumulative 

16 distributions that I showed previously, if one picks 

just the 25th, 50th, and 75th 17 percentiles from those 

18 distributions, you would pick illuminance values 

19 that are roughly five, 15, and 45 lux, and you could 

20 extend logarithmically to 135 to try to represent 

21 maximum brightness. 

22 And alternatively, if you pick the mid 

23 points of the quartiles, you would pick the 12, 37,

24 62nd and 87th percentiles, you would choose one, 

25 ten, 30 and 100 from those cumulative distributions. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

106

1 And again you could extend it to 300 to try and 

2 represent saturation. And so these are multiple 

3 ways of weighting the data.

4 And so, in an effort to determine how the 

5 different choice of these different metrics, how did 

6 that impact the overall reported energy value, DOE 

7 conducted some additional testing, ABC testing, on 

8 some televisions. These are seven televisions that 

9 represent the 2011 model year, so these are the most 

10 recent televisions that DOE had, as well as EPA. 

11 It’s a combined data set. They represent six major 

12 manufacturers and those six major manufacturers 

13 represent about 65 percent of the market. And this 

14 includes LED LCDs as well as some plasmas. And so 

15 this is indicative of the most recent ABC 

16 implementations that DOE has access to.

17 And so DOE conducted some additional 

18 testing at all these additional points for all these 

19 televisions, and so what’s shown here are ABC tests 

20 at zero lux, one lux, five lux, ten lux, 12 lux, 15 

21 lux, 35 lux, 50 lux, 100 lux, 135, 150 and 300. So 

22 this is a very big characterization – very complete 

23 characterization of the ABC response in these seven 

24 televisions. 

25 And again here I’m showing room 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

107

1 illuminance on the X axis, and power on the left –

2 on the vertical axis, and power is again, a proxy 

3 for luminance. There’s again, a step-like behavior 

4 for most of these televisions, and there are two 

5 televisions that have a gradual response. And 

6 again, the dashed line here, is just connecting the 

7 dots, there’s no interpolation between the two. And 

8 the televisions that have a gradual response do 

9 behave in a fairly predictable and normal fashion in 

10 between points that were previously untested. And 

11 the other televisions that have a very step-like 

12 behavior, do saturate and remain saturated at the 

13 high levels.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: yes, Adam.

15 MR. GOLDBERG: This is Adam from 

16 Mitsubishi. I wonder, do you have any explanation 

17 for the discontinuous line shown by the purple one 

18 at the top?

19 MR. DESROCHES: The top one?

20 MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. In other words, is 

21 it order or time of day, different models, different 

22 – what might have caused that because it seems – it 

23 could show what Bill was talking about, an 

24 inexpensive sensor compared to meters, or something 

25 else, I don’t know, but –
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

108

1 MR. DESROCHES: This is – this particular 

2 television was a little bit sensitive and it did 

3 jump between two levels at the high end, between two 

4 power levels, and so this is characterizing the 

5 error in that measurement for that one television. 

6 None of the other six televisions had this kind of 

7 behavior, this kind of response. Those other points 

8 were fairly repeatable, but that top television did 

9 have some issues with repeatability.

10 MR. GOLDBERG: Did you try a different 

11 unit of the same model, maybe?

12 MR. DESROCHES: No, there was just the one 

13 unit.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens.

15 MR. STEPHENS: I hate to point out the 

16 obvious, but it was starting to look like that 

17 before, but not only are some of the sensors not 

18 particularly sensitive, but above ten lux they 

19 aren’t even functioning. I mean that’s what it 

20 looks like over a lot of televisions, they just 

21 don’t vary the power at all after ten lux. Am I 

22 misreading something here?

23 MR. DESROCHES: No, that’s correct, and as 

24 I alluded to before, this is – there’s one of two 

25 general implementations of ABC, and this step like 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

109

1 behavior is one of them, so other fraction 

2 televisions utilize this ABC response curve. And at 

3 above ten lux, the ABC’s sensor is not doing 

4 anything, and the television luminance is staying 

5 constant.

6 MR. STEPHENS: So, you know, it seemed 

7 like there were quite a number of other models 

8 earlier that looked like they were doing that even 

9 though fewer points had been tested, that’s still 

10 what they looked like.

11 MR. DESROCHES: Yeah, and this is just 

12 confirming that that is what exactly is happening.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Vic?

14 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, Louis, I’m sorry. We 

15 are explaining, of course, that these are the latest 

16 models –

17 MR. DESROCHES: That’s correct.

18 MR. PETROLATI: These are all 2011. We 

19 are indicating – I believe you indicated that you’re 

20 only seeing one that would respond through what we 

21 would call a typical ideal curve for lux in this 

22 particular case. We also have done – there’s six 

23 manufacturers represented here. We also have 

24 confirmed with some additional testing that each 

25 manufacturer actually implements the ABC performance 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

110

1 curve throughout its model lines in the same 

2 fashion, and we have been told that before, so this 

3 is very typical of the way televisions are 

4 currently, in 2011, responding to the EPA test 

5 procedure at zero and 300 lux.

6 MR. KUNDU: Bijit with Energy Solutions. 

7 It also, on the other side of the spectrum, there 

8 does, again, this is kind of stating the obvious, 

9 but at the first, at one lux, it seems like for a 

10 number of these sets, it jumps – from zero to one 

11 lux there’s a huge spike, maybe indicating that some 

12 of these sets are, you know, have low power drive at 

13 zero lux, which we’ve all discussed is kind of not a 

14 practical or not a typical viewing condition.

15 MR. DESROCHES: Just to clarify, that’s 

16 actually at the five lux measurement that it jumps 

17 up for some of these televisions, so the zero and 

18 one –

19 MR. KUNDU: Oh, okay.

20 MR. DESROCHES: The zero and one are right 

21 next to each other here, and then the five is this 

22 one, and then the ten, 12, 15.

23 MR. KUNDU: But that yellow – that yellow 

24 curve, what would be the one lux on –

25 MR. DESROCHES: Yeah, I think the zero and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

111

1 one lux are ...

2 MR. KUNDU: Okay. Thanks for the 

3 clarification.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

5 MR. FAIRHURST: Yeah, I think looking at 

6 this comprehensively, if one were to do testing on 

7 these televisions at the one or three, five lux, 

8 something in that area, rather than zero, for a 

9 number of the televisions, you would be in a very 

10 high gain area. So I would assume that the 

11 repeatability might be difficult across models. So 

12 one way to solve the zero lux issue, where the 

13 potential is that the manufacturer starves the 

14 television at zero lux, so the good thing is it’s 

15 easy to test at zero lux, the bad thing is it might 

16 be starved. If you test just above zero lux, it 

17 doesn’t necessarily solve things, because you’re on 

18 this high gain curve and the repeatability between 

19 units is probably going to be poor. So it’s 

20 possible to measure at zero and then some reasonable 

21 level, ten, 12, something like this, and then put a 

22 floor under what can be repeated or reported at zero 

23 lux. Such that if there is an abrupt change down to 

24 zero you can only gain so much advantage out of 

25 doing so, and that would benefit manufacturers by 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

112

1 being able to do the simpler, more repeatable test 

2 at zero and it would also avoid this issue of 

3 starving the television at zero. 

4 So moving on, as we tested around ten, or 

5 we recommended 12, that’s around the peak usage 

6 pattern, so that’s a very reasonable level. Aside 

7 from the television that turns back down, 300 is 

8 very reasonable in that it gives you a worst case, 

9 and in fact, if you look at the one television that 

10 goes down at 100, the reduction in power is very low 

11 there, and the occurrences, as we’ve seen, are very 

12 low there as far as viewing habits. 

13 So I think it’s easy to, for the 

14 manufacturers to say at 100, to kind of punt, and 

15 say that test the worst case, nominally at 300, 

16 though there may need to be some wording to deal 

17 with non-monotonic televisions, so that you would 

18 truly test the saturation point. If you report that 

19 and then just assume at 100 that there’s no real –

20 ABC doesn’t really offer much power savings there, 

21 so it’s kind of not worth worrying about.

22 There’s another good reason not to test 

23 around 100, is that a very bright television may be 

24 able to saturate higher. A very dim capability 

25 television may ideally need to saturate before 100, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

113

1 but they might be tempted with a measurement at 100 

2 to deliver less power there. And that could become 

3 prescriptive in that if you are cutting the power at 

4 100 to help your test scores, but the television 

5 isn’t really bright enough to do that well, 

6 consumers might find that when they do view their 

7 television in that condition, ABC is a negative. 

8 They would get a bad taste in their mouth about it, 

9 and turn off the feature. And that would be a very 

10 negative consequence for overall energy savings.

11 So because the potential savings at 100 

12 are so low, if we can measure it at 100 and simply 

13 assume that there are no significant power savings 

14 around 100, I think we’re best served with that. 

15 And having a – potentially a – the last measurement 

16 as we recommended, in the 35 area so that we’re in 

17 what we would hope to be part of the linear curve, 

18 then that would also be effective. So that’s in 

19 summary, why we recommended a true zero, possibly 

20 with this floor, 12, around the peak, 35 which is 

21 kind of midway geometrically between 12 and an 

22 assumed saturation of 100, and then one final test 

23 at 300 or the saturation point.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Vic Petrolati.

25 MR. PETROLATI: Yeah, just one comment on 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

114

1 that, Jon, I’m trying to get the right numbers from 

2 our presentation. But, it would certainly seem to 

3 me with zero, 12, 35, and 300, that this same group 

4 of manufacturers in trying to achieve the best 

5 results of the test, would start their peaks 

6 slightly beyond 35 lux in terms of their step 

7 function. And at 35 lux, I guess we’re missing 

8 somewhere between 25 and 35 percent of the 

9 cumulative viewing hours. I wonder why we wouldn’t 

10 test slightly above 35 to capture more of those 

11 viewing hours.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

13 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes, slightly above 35 may 

14 also be acceptable. The key point is to avoid the 

15 likely point where different TVs should saturate 

16 differently. I think no matter where you test, the 

17 possibility is that there will be steps, some small 

18 number of lux above that, and in fact when looking 

19 at weighting factors, one might simply assume that 

20 that is how a manufacturer might implement the 

21 television. There’s another reason we might expect 

22 to see that type of implementation, is that, as Bill 

23 mentioned, consumer – the manufacturers are 

24 concerned about repeatability. So it’s very likely 

25 that manufacturers will want flat areas around the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

115

1 measurement point so that it’s absolutely repeatable 

2 across the sensors. That’s something that we’re not 

3 seeing here today with 2011 TVs, but when you do 

4 multiple measurement points and we need 

5 repeatability, I expect to have a flat segments 

6 around those measurements.

7 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. One other point 

8 that’s not on this view graph, is that for all of 

9 these televisions, we did multiple measurements at 

10 ten, 50, 100, and 300. We found, for all practical 

11 purposes, no variability between the measurement 

12 points at ten, 50 and 100 in that testing. And 

13 we’ll see if we can get that posted on our website 

14 as well. However, the procedure for the direct 

15 light source and how it is basically shined into the 

16 sensor, is something that we have been 

17 investigating, and we found that that’s a critical 

18 aspect in terms of getting that type of 

19 repeatability. So we may be concentrating on 

20 developing more in our Notice of Proposed Rule, the 

21 actual procedure associated with shining that direct 

22 light source into the sensor as a way to gain 

23 repeatability. But our tests have shown 

24 repeatability.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

116

1 MR. FAIRHURST: Can I clarify that was 

2 repeatability within a single unit, or multiple 

3 units?

4 MR. PETROLATI: That was repeatability in 

5 multiple tests on the same television, measured at 

6 ten, 50 and 100, as well as zero and 300.

7 MR. FAIRHURST: And of course, as you 

8 recognize, the manufacturers are making large runs 

9 of televisions with parts that could come from 

10 different runs of – from our suppliers. So that’s a 

11 real concern, it’s not within the single unit, it’s 

12 across multiple units.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Bill?

14 MR. SCHLINDER: I think Jon beat me to the 

15 punch in terms of –

16 MR. PETROLATI: You guys do have quality

17 control standards and everything, right?

18 MR. SCHLINDER: Oh, absolutely. In fact, 

19 we’re well known –

20 PARTICIPANT: Jon and Bill or –

21 MR. SCHLINDER: I believe our parent 

22 companies are well known for those quality 

23 assurance. I think his name was Demming, actually, 

24 taught them a thing or two about it.

25 But all seriousness aside, the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

117

1 repeatability from unit to unit is critical, as well 

2 as from lab to lab, and so I fully support, Vic, 

3 your concentrating on how to supply the light source 

4 in a very repeatable manner. 

5 Backing up to the other subject of the 

6 fact that many of these zero lux measurements appear 

7 to be artificially low, Jon Fairhurst indicated that 

8 perhaps giving a floor credit to that zero lux 

9 measurement, compared to the next reading, which may 

10 be at ten lux or 12 lux or whatever, is an idea. 

11 Another idea would be to, in terms of the weighting 

12 factors, it may be that the weighting factor all by 

13 itself is going to give less impetus for a 

14 manufacturer to artificially reduce that zero lux

15 point, simply because there’ll be less credit for it 

16 due to the weighting. Currently, both California 

17 and EPA are giving a 45 percent credit to that zero 

18 lux point. You’ve already reduced it to 25 percent 

19 with equal weighting, and with looking at the CLASP 

20 data, with the CEA data, it may reduce itself to, I 

21 don’t know, something less than that. So I think 

22 that’s all heading in the right direction.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris.

24 MR. CALWELL: Yes, Chris Calwell from 

25 Ecova. Two questions that this makes me think of. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

118

1 One of them was, is there a luminance value at zero 

2 lux below which the manufacturers think that TV 

3 would be too dim? That’s the first question. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: (inaudible.)

5 MR. CALWELL: Yeah, when the room is in 

6 zero lux, you know, or something very, very dark, is 

7 there a measured lux, is there a measured – excuse 

8 me, nits value, measured luminance value of the TV 

9 that you believe is too low?

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Bill?

11 MR. SCHLINDER: Having just performed 

12 those presentations yesterday on that very thing, 

13 where we dropped the room lighting to zero as far as 

14 we could, we were demonstrating that some sets were 

15 very, very readable, whereas others weren’t. It was 

16 all because of the black level. The black level, 

17 which means the contrast essentially, of the TV. 

18 And again, because of the huge disparity in not only 

19 the black level of contrast, but also pattern 

20 variation – all these sets change their brightness 

21 as a function of patterns as well, or at least a lot 

22 of them do. We can’t even guarantee a given nit 

23 level. The answer to your question is we don’t have 

24 one. It depends upon the contrast level, which is 

25 the black level, and it depends upon the pattern, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

119

1 and it would be inordinately difficult to establish 

2 any kind of nit value like that.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

4 MR. GOLDBERG: Furthermore, it’s worth 

5 understanding that for different technologies, they 

6 have really different performance for black level, 

7 emissive and transmissive devices that do this have 

8 their different challenges at black levels, and 

9 other technologies have other challenges. And 

10 furthermore, that black level is a – is a reasonably 

11 big component of quality of the picture, and so 

12 devices with really good black level performance 

13 tend to be sort of very good picture display 

14 devices, and so there’s a lot more to it than, well, 

15 there’s a minimum. I think one of the effects of 

16 what Bill said is, for a really good TV, a really 

17 low brightness in low illuminance conditions is 

18 fine, and for less good TVs, objectively less good 

19 TVs, it would be a completely different number, 

20 quite a bit higher. So maybe the answer is, well, 

21 there’s no answer.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

23 MR. FAIRHURST: Another way to look at 

24 this is, kind of three points. There’s what’s the 

25 darkest point, so the black background. What’s the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

120

1 brightest point, you know, the stars in a night 

2 picture. And what’s the mid-point, which is 

3 typically going to be the skin tones. So, depending 

4 on the gamma setting as well, you might measure, hey 

5 this TV’s really bright, so the stars are bright, 

6 but the – if the gamma setting is low, now the skin 

7 tones are low and the television is going to be less 

8 pleasing in those conditions, and then as Bill 

9 mentioned, if the black levels are elevated, now the 

10 skin tones are very near the black level, so it’s 

11 even worse. So bottom line is, it’s complex.

12 MR. GOLDBERG: Sorry, this is Adam again. 

13 But one last thing, is – as you can tell from this 

14 couple of moments here, there’s a lot of variables 

15 that go into the equation, and you shouldn’t always 

16 assume that because at a certain illuminance the 

17 power consumption is a certain amount, that is 

18 necessarily well, they turn that knob in order to 

19 have better energy performance. There’s lots of 

20 invariables and knobs and dials to twist that affect 

21 how good the pictures are, and it’s a big balancing 

22 act that’s done during the engineering of the 

23 television to sort of try to maximize the quality, 

24 minimize energy, maximize what the reviews will look 

25 like, maximize how it’s going to look on a retail 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

121

1 shelf, et cetera, et cetera. It’s really complex.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Very good. Yes, Chris.

3 MR. CALWELL: Thank you, by the way. The 

4 second question then was – and we heard a couple 

5 references to you don’t want the consumer to turn 

6 automatic brightness control off, which I think is 

7 obviously true. We’ve seen examples in the review 

8 literature where the reviewers themselves have said, 

9 you should turn this off. You know your TV will 

10 look better if you don’t have this feature engaged, 

11 and so any suggestions, I guess from any 

12 stakeholders, on what could the test procedure or 

13 public policy do to discourage ABC from being turned 

14 off?

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon?

16 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes, Jon Fairhurst. I’m 

17 hoping that with good levels and a good test 

18 procedure that this will motivate good designs of 

19 ABC. So, for instance, testing has revealed that 12 

20 lux is very common. That information is known to 

21 manufacturers of US televisions. I would hope that 

22 the manufacturers are going to design to get their 

23 televisions to look really good there. So, assuming 

24 that happens, then we will have improved ABC designs 

25 and people will hopefully turn them on. But I also 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

122

1 agree that you are correct, reviewers who are often 

2 calibrating televisions and so forth. That class of 

3 viewer is likely to turn ABC off. Installers, 

4 custom installers are likely to turn ABC off. The 

5 reason they’re going to do that is they’re going to 

6 install it at a certain time of day. They’re going 

7 to set it up, they’re going to calibrate it, and 

8 they don’t want some – the light level to change and 

9 then the settings of the television are unknown and 

10 they get a call from their customer, their client. 

11 So there are certain groups of people who will turn 

12 ABC off and yeah, that’s just the way it is. 

13 But with improved designs, and I would say 

14 that part of improving the design is not just being 

15 not too dark, but also not having absolutely abrupt 

16 steps, and I think that does help to – so that the 

17 consumer doesn’t really notice the ABC. With abrupt 

18 steps where you go, hey, I turned the lights off and 

19 the TV ramped down to an extremely dark level. 

20 They’ll notice that. With the smoother designs, 

21 they’re less likely to notice, more likely to leave 

22 it on.

23 MR. CALWELL: And that was really part of 

24 the question, was when Louis had shown the S curve, 

25 I wondered, in general, if TVs had an ABC curve more 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

123

1 like that, would users be less likely to shut it 

2 off, shut off that feature?

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Bill?

4 MR. SCHLINDER: Yeah, I believe the curve 

5 that was published by ISF there earlier, would 

6 certainly make it very satisfactory. I think a lot 

7 of the work that we’re doing today in this standard 

8 is going to go in that direction. And finally, 

9 relative to Jon’s statement about professional 

10 calibrators, should be noted that’s about probably

11 one percent. I don’t have the exact number – it may 

12 not even be that high, so most people turn their TVs 

13 on and they’re lucky if they can find their HD 

14 channels, and then they call it quits at that point.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

16 MR. PETROLATI: Doug, one other question.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Vic, please.

18 MR. PETROLATI: Vic Petrolati. We had 

19 also noticed in our testing that when the TV is 

20 switched into other modes from home mode, that in 

21 many cases ABC is disabled. Can I get a sense of 

22 whether that’s appropriate in terms of the way a 

23 television should respond in terms of providing the 

24 consumer the maximum benefits associated with ABC? 

25 And is that anything that we can do under those 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

124

1 circumstances?

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Bill?

3 MR. SCHLINDER: Yeah, Vic, in many cases 

4 in your retail mode, which we’ve all just talked 

5 about an hour earlier, is, at least in our case, our 

6 brightest mode, you really don’t want to have that 

7 variability of automatic brightness control because 

8 depending upon the store lighting and how that 

9 sensor is picking up, you can lose a lot of sales if 

10 your TV suddenly turns dim because it was shadowed 

11 somehow, you know, the lighting, so yeah, retail 

12 mode, you don’t want that variability of ABC in 

13 there, so I would imagine that a lot of them don’t 

14 have the ABC set there. I don’t have any details on 

15 that, but that would be a motivation in terms of 

16 sales to have your retail mode not only the 

17 brightest mode, but more than likely, not to have an 

18 ABC, which is going to cut down on that brightest 

19 mode. 

20 Because it’s incredible how many people 

21 buy TVs based simply on the brightness as they’re 

22 lined up on a store wall. I have experience of 

23 that, recent experience, and in terms of this, if we 

24 lose all our sales, the whole game’s over anyway. 

25 So that’s the motivation. And I think if we’re 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

125

1 testing in the highest mode anyway in terms of that 

2 65 percent luminance ratio, I think that part of it 

3 is covered because what it’s saying is that the home 

4 mode has to be at least 65 percent of that very high 

5 end retail mode, or brightest mode. So by not 

6 having an ABC, it’s full maximum rated, and now we 

7 have to be 65 percent of that, which pushes the home 

8 mode up. 

9 Some people would question that that 65 

10 percent is actually eliminating some TVs from saving 

11 even more power, because there are technologies out 

12 there that are going to push up the retail 

13 brightness and capture the sales for a good reason. 

14 And they would maybe be able to bring their home 

15 setting down to 50 percent, but because it’s told 

16 that you have to be at least 65 percent, then the 

17 home mode is at least 65 percent. In some cases 

18 it’s too bright, causing less savings which is what 

19 was motivating that whole home-retail forced menu in 

20 the first place.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris, you have another –

22 Chris.

23 MR. CALWELL: Vic, I think you were 

24 referring to modes beyond the retail one, right?

25 MR. PETROLATI: Correct.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

126

1 MR. CALWELL: So the other default display 

2 conditions –

3 MR. PETROLATI: Preset modes.

4 MR. CALWELL: I agree we should say 

5 “presets” instead of “modes” -- it can be confusing. 

6 So, sports, movie, things like that – should or 

7 could ABC operate during those conditions, which are 

8 also commonly used in the home, but are not the 

9 retail mode. Maybe that’s the most precise way to 

10 ask the question.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

12 MR. FAIRHURST: So Vic you asked about the 

13 different modes, if they turn off ABC. For Sharp, 

14 my most recent data point is the retail mode, we 

15 turn off ABC per policy, simply because of the 

16 reason that Bill mentioned, that we want it to be 

17 absolutely repeatable, location to location. 

18 There’s also the concern that DOE pointed out, which 

19 is that once you’ve gone into home mode, sometimes 

20 you can’t actually get back to retail mode, which 

21 complicates testing. So if we were to eliminate all 

22 ABC off modes, then we would definitely be 

23 eliminating our retail mode after going into home 

24 mode, which would be unfortunate for doing testing 

25 after the fact.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

127

1 But, yeah, we turn it off for home mode. 

2 I think some televisions I saw a few years ago did 

3 turn off ABC on some modes, but I don’t know if 

4 that’s commonly practiced with our televisions, but 

5 I think most of them have – most, if not all, have 

6 ABC on once you’ve gone into the home mode.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. You want to –

8 MR. DESROCHES: Yes, I’ll wrap up. So, 

9 this table here shows if any of the suggested room 

10 illuminance levels were used today on the 

11 calculation of reported energy use for those seven 

12 televisions that were recently tested, how would 

13 that impact the reported energy value? So these are 

14 all percent changes relative to the current Energy 

15 Star reported values. So the Energy Star is 

16 zero/300 with a 45/55 percent weighting. And so 

17 then there’s the NOPR proposal here of 10, 50, 100, 

18 300, and then zero, 12, 35, 300; zero, 10, 300; 

19 five, 15, 45, 135; and then the last one is one, 

20 ten, 30, 100, and 300. And so given that DOE had 

21 completed extensive testing on those 2011 model TVs, 

22 we could calculate what that reported energy value 

23 could be.

24 The column on the left there, the 46-inch 

25 LED, that is the TV that had the gradual response, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

128

1 and so you can see that relative to all the other 

2 televisions, that TV is performing – has a reported 

3 energy value that is much more favorable than the 

4 other televisions, regardless of what the specific 

5 calculation was. In the NOPR case, its energy value 

6 that is reported is actually the same as what is 

7 currently done in Energy Star, but all the other 

8 televisions had a reported energy value that was 

9 significantly greater.

10 For the other proposed room illuminance 

11 levels, the reported energy level of that one 

12 gradual television, that reported energy value goes 

13 down by a fair amount. But again, compared to the 

14 other televisions, that difference between that 

15 television and the step function televisions is 

16 about the same, regardless of which calculation you 

17 use.

18 One quick note is this television here, 

19 the 51-inch plasma, is currently qualified by Energy 

20 Star, but only barely so, and regardless of what 

21 metric is chosen for the room illuminance 

22 calculation, it then drops out of the Energy Star 

23 qualification. And then the other is the 60-inch 

24 LED television here, currently qualifies for Energy 

25 Star, and the only point where it then becomes 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

129

1 disqualified from Energy Star is this 35 percent 

2 here. So it remains Energy Star qualified for all 

3 of these other calculations, but it’s no longer 

4 Energy Star qualified for this 35.

5 And just to clarify, all of these other 

6 calculations are done with equal weighting.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

8 MR. FAIRHURST: As one would expect, I 

9 would think that the implementations would change 

10 for future models with different weightings. So the 

11 television on the right with – that have the step 

12 functions, I think, we would no longer see that 

13 implementation and overall, I think that’s a good 

14 thing. I think the other point, I’ll bring it up.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Matt.

16 MR. MALINOWSKI: Matt Malinowski, ICF. 

17 Just a point of clarification. The past drafts of 

18 the revised Energy Star, specific issue for 

19 televisions, the levels were adjusted to take into 

20 account the proposed DOE lux levels. So it might be 

21 premature to say whether a particular television 

22 would qualify or not.

23 MR. DESROCHES: Yeah, let me qualify. 

24 This is just – if this calculation were done just 

25 like that today, and just talking about the existing 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

130

1 calculation, this is not a comment about future 

2 Energy Star qualification.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Jon, yes.

4 MR. FAIRHURST: I remember my other point. 

5 If there were, in addition, a floor put under the 

6 relative drop in power between the ten or 12 point, 

7 whatever the lowest non-zero point is, and the 

8 measurement at zero, those columns – or excuse me, 

9 the rows that include measurements at zero would 

10 actually potentially go up for the TVs that have 

11 step functions as well. So that would additionally 

12 help to mitigate the – any gains at under driving 

13 the television at zero.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

15 MR. GOLDBERG: This is Adam from 

16 Mitsubishi. The data behind this chart, is that 

17 available?

18 MR. DESROCHES: So – yes –

19 MR. GOLDBERG: In fact, there it is.

20 MR. DESROCHES: Yeah, so again, we’ve 

21 included it in the presentation for reference, and 

22 this will be posted on the DOE website shortly. 

23 This was done very recently. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Other questions and 

25 comments on either the data or the chart itself? 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

131

1 Chris.

2 MR. CALWELL: Yes, Vic made a comment 

3 earlier, and I just wanted to make sure that the 

4 manufacturers thought that was true. I think we had 

5 done a little bit of testing to see if ABC tended to 

6 perform in a similar fashion across multiple models 

7 made by the same manufacturer. And in the case 

8 where we did that, it looked like it was true. Is 

9 that your understanding as well, for all of the TVs 

10 that a given manufacturer makes that has ABC, would 

11 they tend to implement ABC in a similar fashion at a 

12 given time?

13 MR. DESROCHES: For a given model year.

14 MR. CALWELL: Yeah, that’s right, in one 

15 year.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Jon.

17 MR. FAIRHURST: Yeah, in looking at the 

18 data charts that you just showed, it shows the 

19 lowest lux level at one. I don’t see any data there 

20 for zero, so if that was accidentally left off, then 

21 we’d appreciate getting that. 

22 MR. DESROCHES: We’ll add that.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: So, looking ahead, there 

24 are – you can see the comment boxes listed there in 

25 eight and nine. As I read through them, I think 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

132

1 we’ve at least taking a shot at answering both. 

2 Louis, is there anything in these comment boxes that 

3 you would call out for additional comment?

4 MR. DESROCHES: I think we’ve discussed 

5 all of these comments during the course of the 

6 presentation.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s what I thought as 

8 well. So looking ahead, the 3-D slides, there are 

9 quite a few of them. And it’s now 12:30. So I’m 

10 going to suggest we pause for lunch, and unless 

11 anyone objects. But let’s pause for lunch. It 

12 takes, just about takes an hour to get to lunch and 

13 come back, so we’ll resume here at 1:30. 

14 I want to thank all the folks here 

15 present, we had really, really positive and solid 

16 comment here this morning, and I hope that will 

17 continue after lunch. Most of you are familiar with 

18 the Forestall building. I think you go down to the 

19 ground floor, you go about 100 yards in that 

20 direction, and then you go up the escalator to the 

21 big cafeteria, or there’s a Subway shop where the 

22 coffee shop is also on the ground floor that you can 

23 find. You must wear your badge. You might need an 

24 ID to get back through security at the big cafeteria 

25 on the other side of the street. Don’t leave the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

133

1 Forestall building. Please do not, you won’t make 

2 it back in time for us to resume at 1:30. You can 

3 leave your stuff here, this room will be locked up 

4 and so any of the things – you know where the 

5 restrooms are. I think that’s it. So we’ll see you 

6 back here to start up at 1:30.

7 (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the meeting in 

8 the above captioned matter was adjourned for lunch 

9 recess, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m.)

10
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

134

1 AFTERNOON SESSION

2 1:38 p.m.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: So let’s start back up. We 

4 are about to launch into a section on 3D overview et 

5 cetera, and we’re going to hear right now from Mia 

6 Forbes Pirie.

7 3D Overview and Testing 

8 MS. FORBES PIRIE: Hi. So just in case, 

9 as an aside before we start, just in case I rush out 

10 of the room, it’s not personal. I’m not feeling 

11 very well so one of my colleagues will take over if 

12 that happens. Okay. 

13 So I’m going to start with preliminary 

14 conclusions, and in its NOPR, DOE didn’t propose to 

15 include a 3D test procedure. It did, however, 

16 explore two alternatives for including 3D in a 

17 future test procedure. And so I’m going to talk you 

18 through our thinking on that, starting with the 

19 energy impacts of 3D TV, and then looking at the 3D 

20 TV market, and possible routes for the test 

21 procedure development.

22 In terms of the order of this, the 

23 information that you receive in section A will be 

24 very relevant in section C. So I know it’s hard to 

25 stay awake after lunch, but please try and remember 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

135

1 that. Thank you. 

2 So we started by looking at the power 

3 impacts of 3D TVs, and in 3D modes, TVs generally 

4 consume a power premium, when compared to their use 

5 in 2D mode. And our data, which is a reasonably 

6 small sample, but shows quite a wide variability in 

7 these premiums. We have one TV that showed a 

8 negative 21.5 percent, and that was a retrofit 

9 device. So it wasn’t what’s kind of standardly 

10 found on the market. But the rest of our figures 

11 were between two percent and a positive 86 percent. 

12 So there seems to be quite a lot of variability.

13 So these are the – a little bit about the 

14 units that we tested. We tested five different 

15 types of 3D TVs with two types of Blu-ray players, 

16 which were capable of converting 2D to 3D content. 

17 And we span a number of technologies including 

18 plasma, backlit and edgelit, LED LCDs, and the rear 

19 projection DLP, which was the TV that I mentioned 

20 which had this retrofit function.

21 So in terms of the test that we performed, 

22 we used –

23 MR. GOLDBERG: Sorry, this is Adam from 

24 Mitsubishi. Can you explain what you mean again, by 

25 retrofit?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

136

1 MS. FORBES PIRIE: The TV was a 2D TV and 

2 it had an attachment which allowed playing in 3D so 

3 the attachment did some kind of conversion to 3D. 

4 That’s what I mean by retrofit, as opposed to the TV 

5 being one TV that was 3D. Maybe Chris Calwell wants 

6 to add something?

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris or Vic?

8 MR. PETROLATI: Oh, I’m sorry. We’re 

9 trying to get the actual name of it. There was a 

10 converter box that has to be purchased to allow this 

11 TV to actually perform or actually show 3D.

12 MR. STEPHENS: This is Charlie Stevens. 

13 And it has a power -- associated power consumption 

14 associated with a converter box as well?

15 MR. CALWELL: Correct.

16 MR. STEPHENS: And that was measured in 

17 addition to the television power?

18 MS. FORBES PIRIE: Yes.

19 MR. STEPHENS: And the result was minus 21 

20 percent?

21 MR. BROOKMAN: So this is additive – these 

22 figures, right?

23 MR. CALWELL: Right.

24 MR. PETROLATI: A couple of other things 

25 we want to mention. We discussed them yesterday. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

137

1 We’re not certain whether or not there was actually 

2 an increased brightness associated with this 

3 television, but actually in 3D there were some 

4 concerns about the picture quality, both in contrast 

5 and in other areas. Chris, would you be able to 

6 speak a little more on that?

7 MR. CALWELL: This just in. New data. 

8 So, our team did measure the TV and in 2D mode –

9 this is tricky, right, because we were using a 3D 

10 video clip as opposed to a test pattern, but we 

11 measured luminance at the same exact point in the 

12 same frame on a 3D and a 2D test clip. And this 

13 particular television, the one that Mia was 

14 referring to was 175 nits in 2D, normally you’d 

15 expect a higher brightness in 3D. On this 

16 particular TV, it was 76 nits in 3D. And so the 

17 reason you see lower power, even with that extra 

18 box, is much lower luminance.

19 MR. GOLDBERG: Well, so for I think maybe 

20 the external box is causing an issue and it’s 

21 probably worth just simply discarding this from 

22 consideration because it’s not real helpful. DLP 

23 televisions in general have a white light. It 

24 consumes exactly as much power as it consumes, and 

25 it doesn’t matter what the content is. 2D, 3D, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

138

1 black, white, green, yellow, doesn’t matter, it’s 

2 going to consume what it’s going to consume more or 

3 less. Any confusions and strangeness about whatever 

4 this external box is on a DLP TV can only be a 

5 distraction. I think you’ll find that DLP sets will 

6 consume about precisely the same amount of power in 

7 2D mode and 3D mode.

8 MS. FORBES PIRIE: Thank you. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks.

10 MS. FORBES PIRIE: Thanks, that’s very 

11 helpful. I think we do consider it a bit of an 

12 anomaly, but we wanted to present just all of the 

13 data that we collected. So, we agree.

14 In case you’re not familiar with the 

15 wonderful cinematographic “Cloudy with a chance of 

16 meatballs,” we chose that because it has both a 2D 

17 version and a 3D version that you can buy, so that’s 

18 why we used a ten minute segment of that. And we 

19 performed some power consumption tests using the 3D 

20 version, using the 2D version, and then converting 

21 the 2D to 3D version with each of the Blu-ray

22 players that do the conversion, and also two of the 

23 TVs that we tested had the internal ability to 

24 convert 2D to 3D. So we also checked out the 

25 results with that.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

139

1 And this is some of what we found. So 

2 there’s a lot of information on this slide, so I’m 

3 going to direct you a little bit to probably three 

4 key points. So if you look at the 3D version in 

5 watts, unsurprisingly, the two Blu-ray players 

6 played pretty much – the two Blu-ray players used 

7 pretty much the same amount of power in playing 

8 that. If you look at the 2D to 3D conversion, the 

9 measurements are again very similar between the –

10 both between each other, the 2D to 3D conversion, 

11 and when you compare them with the 3D versions. And 

12 we have, the next slide has percentages on it, so 

13 I’ll show you that in a minute.

14 If you see the two little stars in the 

15 middle of the 2D to 3D column, that was an anomaly 

16 that occurred, whereby the second Blu-ray player was 

17 a different brand from the TV, and the TV didn’t 

18 automatically recognize the signal as being a 3D 

19 signal. So we discounted that value. What would 

20 have had to happen would have been to change the 2D 

21 into 3D mode, and so that’s what that means.

22 And the other point I’d like to draw your 

23 attention to is another anomaly. It’s this 93.4 

24 watts in 2D, and the fact that the setting was in 

25 standard. And so what happened here was that in 2D 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

140

1 the Blu-ray player did something strange, and 

2 converted the setting to “standard” instead of 

3 “cinema”. So the 3D reading is accurate, but the 2D 

4 reading is in a different setting. 

5 And here we see the percentage 

6 differences, and we can see that the difference from 

7 the conversions, so the 2D to 3D conversion, and the 

8 3D is minimal. Likewise, we see the next column, 

9 the percentage difference in retail from 3D to 2D to 

10 3D is almost zero, which tells us what we already 

11 guessed, but that most 3D TVs are as bright as they 

12 can be when they’re playing in 3D. Then we see the 

13 differences, in the next column, the percentage 

14 increase from 2D to 3D in home mode. And so that 

15 45.2 percent is the result of the odd 2D reading, 

16 not the 3D reading, so the real value is the 2.04 

17 percent. And you can see the differences on the TVs 

18 other than the DLP TV are between two percent and 86 

19 percent.

20 And so based on that limited data set --

21 we’d obviously like to expand the data set and get 

22 any other data that other parties have – but based 

23 on the data set so far, there’s very little 

24 difference in how the TV displays 3D content, 

25 whether it’s converted or in 3D original format. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

141

1 The difference in energy consumption between 3D and 

2 2D modes is, as we said in the beginning, can be 

3 quite significant, and it’s highly variable. And 

4 there was some difficulty with one of the products 

5 which was the two stars that I explained on the 

6 slide before, where the TV didn’t recognize the 

7 content as 3D.

8 So next we’re going to move on to the 3D 

9 TV market and see how many 3D TVs are really out 

10 there and how important this area is. Currently 

11 about 20 percent of TV sales are 3D capable. And 

12 this is increasing, particularly for larger sizes, 

13 so sizes above 40 inches, have about a 45 percent 

14 market share. The sales of larger TVs are also 

15 occupying a larger share of the market, which 

16 suggests that more – there’s going to be even more 

17 3D TVs on the market. And there are barriers to 

18 adoption of 3D, but they are decreasing, so I’m 

19 going to talk you through that. 

20 This basically shows the increase in 3D 

21 shipments, and the second graph, the bottom line is 

22 the 3D that’s growing, the green line, and the top 

23 line is the 2d that’s decreasing proportionately. 

24 And it looks like at some point they will cross 

25 over. And that was – the previous slide was global 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

142

1 shipments forecast.

2 This slide is also displays such data, and 

3 it looks at the same forecast in shares by regions. 

4 And we can see that the US, globally, has the 

5 largest 3D – the largest share of 3D TVs. And this 

6 dotted line here is the average worldwide, so we can 

7 see that the US is way above the world average.

8 And here, in the next slide, we’ve just 

9 compared the DisplaySearch market forecast to the 

10 CEA market forecast, and the CEA market forecast was 

11 more recent, so both show that 3D is rapidly 

12 growing, but just at a slightly different pace.

13 This is a slide from Sony, which 

14 essentially, the big graph at the top, shows the 

15 same thing: the increase in 3D in the market. But 

16 the table at the bottom is what’s interesting and 

17 that’s where we get our 45 percent projection for 

18 2012 in the 40-plus range.

19 And this just shows how overall the 

20 shipments of smaller TVs are decreasing, and 

21 shipments of larger TVs are commensurately 

22 increasing, so more people are buying bigger TVs. 

23 And here we see – I’ve taken out – it’s 

24 the same data, but I’ve taken out the smaller TVs 

25 which kind of cluttered the graph, and we see the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

143

1 yellow line is the 40 to 44-inch, which towards 2015 

2 overtakes the 30 to 34-inch TVs that are being sold, 

3 which are currently -- have the biggest market 

4 share.

5 Moving on to barriers to the adoption of 

6 3D technology. Initially, one of the barriers was 

7 considered to be cost. Cost has declined over time 

8 and now cost is much less of a barrier than it was 

9 before, so 3D TVs cost closer to what their 2D 

10 counterparts do. And another key barrier was 

11 considered to be content, and many – SONY and ESPN 

12 surveys found that consumers didn’t really want TV 

13 because of insufficient content to play on the TV. 

14 And it seems that both providers and manufacturers 

15 are committed to 3D, and seem to be a lot more 3D 

16 content which is developing, and issues to do with 

17 delivering 3D content are being overcome. Right now 

18 there are nine US channels which show 3D content, 

19 five of those show 3D content 24/7. And a magazine 

20 says that US consumers with 3D TV sets “have 

21 something new to watch virtually every day of the 

22 week”. In addition to that, over 90-plus titles are 

23 available on Amazon’s website. So the 3D content 

24 barrier is being overcome.

25 Currently one of the issues that DOE would 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

144

1 have in looking at 3D is DOE is not aware of any 

2 usage data on 3D, and as you’ve seen earlier today, 

3 DOE is considering both a single metric and 

4 different metrics for its test procedure. So if it 

5 were to go down the single metric route, it would be 

6 very difficult to incorporate 3D into a duty cycle 

7 since we don’t have any data on 3D usage. So if 

8 anyone has data, we would be very grateful if you 

9 could point us in that direction.

10 So, as I mentioned, DOE considered two 

11 possible routes for test procedure development, and 

12 this section just talks you through those routes. 

13 The first is based, as I said, on the data that we 

14 looked at in part A, which is the idea of – sorry, 

15 that’s the second, let me start with the second – of 

16 using a 2D to 3D Blu-ray player to convert the IEC 

17 test clip. And that’s why we did the investigation 

18 with the 2D to 3D converters. And the other option 

19 is creating a 3D version of the current 2D IEC test 

20 clip.

21 So the creation of a new 3D version of the 

22 2D test clip is something that DOE looked at as one

23 of these possible options. IEC gave DOE all the 

24 rights that they had to convert the test clip, so 

25 the only rights that they weren’t able to pass on 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

145

1 were the CEA’s rights, which they don’t have the 

2 right to pass on to third parties, and obviously DOE 

3 would be considered a third party in this context. 

4 So although the IEC can use all of the 

5 test clip and could make a 3D test clip, right now 

6 DOE couldn’t use the whole of the test clip. So if 

7 in the future DOE were to go down this option, it 

8 would have two choices. It would be able to wait 

9 and see if IEC develops a 3D test clip and then use 

10 that test clip, or it would be able to develop a 

11 test clip itself, but then it would need to cut out 

12 the portions that it didn’t have the rights to, and 

13 it could then add other material to make sure that 

14 the APL remained the same.

15 The second option is converting using 2D 

16 to 3D converter, the Blu-ray players that we talked 

17 about in Part A, and although our initial testing 

18 was very limited, it did seem to yield positive 

19 results. It was also with 2010 TVs and Blu-ray

20 players, so it was right at the beginning, and we 

21 would like to see what test results would yield with 

22 more recent, sort of more developed, 3D TVs and 

23 converters. And as we mentioned before, there was 

24 that mismatch where a TV didn’t recognize the 3D 

25 content from one of the converter players, so it 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

146

1 would be interesting to investigate whether that was 

2 because it was an early generation model, or whether 

3 that was an issue that could occur in different 

4 circumstances. And DOE hasn’t yet done any testing 

5 of this kind with the IEC 62087 test clip, so that 

6 would be something that we’d need to be 

7 investigating if DOE were in the future, to want to 

8 go down this route.

9 Briefly, on the international scene, as I 

10 mentioned, IEC has the full rights to develop the 3D 

11 test clip based on its current 2D test clip. And 

12 there is a CEA 3D discovery group investigating 3D 

13 technologies and issues with measurement of 3D 

14 energy consumption. Across the seas, in Europe and 

15 Australia, both Europe and Australia are interested 

16 in 3D test clips. They would prefer that they be 

17 developed through IEC or alternatively – they said 

18 that they would be open to them coming through 

19 Energy Star, which this kind of test procedure, if 

20 it were developed, the 3D by DOE, would end up being 

21 an Energy Star test procedure. But the preference 

22 is for it to be developed through IEC.

23 And, looping back to the beginning here, 

24 just to remind you that DOE didn’t propose including 

25 a test procedure in its – in this NOPR, but is open 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

147

1 to the alternatives that we’ve just discussed for 

2 including 3D in its test procedures in the future. 

3 And we would very much like to hear comments from 

4 all of you on both routes that we’ve investigated 

5 and whether it is important for DOE to have a 3D 

6 test procedure. In addition, if anyone has data on 

7 usage, we’d also be grateful if you would share that 

8 with us, or point us in the right direction. Thank 

9 you. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Bijit.

11 MR. KUNDU: Bijit with Energy Solutions. 

12 Just to clarify, when you say a test procedure in 

13 the future, that doesn’t mean the final rule for 

14 this test procedure, or this particular rulemaking, 

15 it would mean an additional rulemaking onto this, or 

16 – or –

17 MS. FORBES PIRIE: I’m going to hand that 

18 question to Vic.

19 MR. PETROLATI: We, of course, haven’t 

20 gotten stakeholder comments yet on this particular –

21 these particular approaches that we’ve identified. 

22 If, in fact, there is overwhelming desire from our 

23 stakeholders to incorporate 3D into this test 

24 procedure, we would be forced to so what’s called an 

25 s-NOPR or supplemental Notice of Proposed Rule, to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

148

1 move forward. So I can’t say at this point that it 

2 will not be included in this final rule. We are 

3 certainly going to wait until we get stakeholder 

4 comments before making that decision to see if it’s 

5 worth potentially including it through an s-NOPR.

6 MR. KUNDU: Well, I guess I’d like to be 

7 the first commenter to say that based on the energy 

8 use characteristics that you’ve shown, and the 

9 increase in market share of these products, I think 

10 we would support inclusion of a test procedure to 

11 measure 3D televisions.

12 MR. PETROLATI: And Mia did mention that 

13 the biggest constraint at this point is we have 

14 absolutely no usage data. Consequently, if FTC or 

15 EPA were to ask us what the contribution of 3D 

16 televisions are in terms of total energy consumption 

17 into that calculation, we would probably not have an 

18 answer that we could give them at this point. But 

19 if we had to estimate it, it would be extremely 

20 small, even though the televisions themselves 

21 potentially might consume significantly more energy 

22 in 3D mode, the amount of operating hours is so 

23 minimal at this point, that the total contribution 

24 might be, in fact, minimal.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

149

1 MR. GOLDBERG: Vic sort of said what I was 

2 going to say that even if there is a significant 

3 power consumption difference in operating in 2D mode 

4 and 3D mode, I expect that there’s rather low – the 

5 times – the amount of cumulative time in 3D mode is 

6 going to be quite low, even when someone has both 3D 

7 content available to them and the 3d television. 

8 And it’s likely not worth the hassle by a fair bit 

9 to do this, especially now when in historical terms, 

10 3D is quite new, really.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Bill.

12 MR. SCHLINDER: It’s absolutely true that 

13 the number of TVs, usually high end TVs, you know, 

14 we’re not talking the entry point TVs that have 3D 

15 capability, but the cost of doing 3D has come down 

16 as Mia already indicated. We are essentially, in 

17 most cases, on the high end TVs, bundling 3D with

18 smart internet TV connectivity, because buyers that 

19 are going to buy the premium TVs want to future 

20 guarantee their purchase, that if 3D in the future 

21 becomes important, they have a TV that can do it. 

22 But a lot of the surveys – I don’t have them in my 

23 head as to which ones – would indicate people are 

24 buying it with little intention of using it, because 

25 the cost differential is so minimal, you buy 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

150

1 something just because you don’t want to not have it 

2 some day if you ever want it. It doesn’t mean 

3 people are using it, as Vic indicated. So the 

4 actual usage of the 3D is quite minimal at this 

5 point, just indicated by the content.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Bill, is that conjecture, 

7 or do you have actual data?

8 MR. SCHLINDER: I participated in a CEA 3D 

9 discovery group as did Vic, and I believe that 

10 information was – I’d have to go look at that, I 

11 didn’t just make that up. I’ve seen it somewhere, I 

12 don’t know where, and it might have been through 

13 that 3D discovery group that there was some 

14 indication that buyers were not necessarily going to 

15 use it. It was just bundled in. I do know that 

16 with our advanced sets, we’re bundling all these. 

17 You cannot buy an advanced, high end set, without 

18 the 3D, so if you want all the performance features 

19 and internet features, then you’re going to get the 

20 3D with it. It’s like buying a car where you’re 

21 going to get – I don’t know – the features are 

22 bundled, the options are bundled in a luxury car, 

23 obviously. You don’t need them all, but they’re 

24 there.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

151

1 MS. FORBES PIRIE: Like a car without the 

2 windows. You can’t buy a car without the windows.

3 MR. SCHLINDER: I’m sure there are 

4 exceptions to that rule, but that’s the general 

5 trend.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon, did you want to 

7 comment here? Yes.

8 MR. FAIRHURST: Yeah, I have a few 

9 comments. First of all I agree that the thing 

10 that’s missing is the usage data. Until we know 

11 what the – that the usage is significant enough to 

12 be concerned with, then it’s hard to know that we 

13 need to test the sets for 3D. But all the other 

14 conditions, I would agree, are there in that 

15 televisions are shipping with 3D more and more, 

16 there is some content available, so the usage data 

17 is kind of the last piece in the puzzle for the 

18 justification side.

19 Regarding the practicality of measuring. 

20 I think one thing that wasn’t necessarily mentioned 

21 or clarified is that a lot of people think that the 

22 additional power from – consumed by televisions in 

23 the 3D mode might be because of the signal 

24 processing, doing some magic things with the image 

25 and so forth. And that’s not really the case. From 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

152

1 what I’ve seen, when you put on the glasses, for 

2 instance, you’ll get some light loss, and so when a 

3 TV goes into the 3D mode, it will boost the 

4 brightness to compensate. So it’s really not a 

5 content issue as much as it’s a mode selection 

6 issue. 

7 Sharp’s 3D televisions, the ones that I’m 

8 aware of anyway, all have 3D buttons, and actually 

9 allow you to select 3D, the different modes, top, 

10 bottom, left, right, and whether or not you want to 

11 boost the levels. So as far as modes would go, one 

12 would need to, you know, ideally you would give it 

13 3D material, it would go into a mode automatically, 

14 but it’s possible you could be asked, which mode 

15 would you like, and then – so there are additional 

16 complications to designing a test procedure that 

17 deals with this. But it really is a mode issue 

18 rather than a content issue. And given that, it is 

19 appropriate to use converters, like a Blu-ray

20 upscaling or 3D converter, in that if it does things 

21 properly, then it would be a good indication of the 

22 3D power consumption in that the television would 

23 switch into a mode.

24 And then as far as the practicality of –

25 or the logistics to get a test procedure, I actually 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

153

1 was the person who edited the – both the SD and HD 

2 material for IEC. I authored the DVDs myself, and 

3 managed the authoring by Sony – Sony volunteered to 

4 do the authoring on the Blu-ray disc, simply because 

5 my $500 tool didn’t have one feature that their 

6 $20,000 tool had, and I didn’t have $20,000 spare 

7 bucks to buy the authoring tool. But that’s really 

8 – the issue is – it’s one of authoring and making 

9 sure that that’s done correctly, and it really does 

10 need to be done carefully.

11 To give you an idea, when I implemented 

12 the – well, both of the discs use MPEG II, and 

13 different MPEG II encoders actually change the APL 

14 of color bars. They weren’t consistent. So I had 

15 to go through and find an MPEG II encoder that would 

16 minimize the APL shifts, because you’d think it 

17 would be one to one, but it’s not. So – yes, MPEG 

18 II compression.

19 MR. GOLDBERG: That’s why they call it 

20 compression, I said.

21 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes, so it is loss-y and 

22 so it can even lose its DC level, and the average 

23 picture level. I do personally have copies of the 

24 master files for doing the 3D conversion, so if at 

25 some point third party is given the rights to make 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

154

1 the final, please contact me, because it should be 

2 done from the original master, uncompressed master, 

3 rather than from the already MPEG II compressed 

4 content.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: That master file you’re 

6 referring to – I lost track of which one that is.

7 MR. FAIRHURST: That’s the IEC –

8 MR. BROOKMAN: The IEC.

9 MR. FAIRHURST: -- broadcast content loop.

10 MS. FORBES PIRIE: And Jon, could you 

11 speak a little bit to where the IEC is in its 

12 process with considering a 3D test clip?

13 MR. FAIRHURST: We’ve had some meetings 

14 recently where in the middle of updating IEC 62087, 

15 to version four. The main things we’re doing is 

16 making it a multipart standard, we’re adding 

17 computer monitors. As a multipart standard, we 

18 would be able to update individual product areas in 

19 parallel in the future. Right now it’s one big 

20 document, so every time you open up the package, you 

21 have to wait for it to get put back together before 

22 we can get a new scope and move on.

23 In addition, we’re looking at updating the 

24 TV area, certainly for ABC, potentially adding 

25 luminance, and we’ve spoken about adding 3D as well, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

155

1 but we haven’t made a final decision on that at this 

2 point. I think the key point, though, is that in 

3 the interim, with a properly implemented converter 

4 box, that would be a proper way to test for now, 

5 before there is a clip ready. But because there 

6 could be some variance between the different boxes, 

7 in the long run, the right way to do it is to have 

8 that one test disc that everyone uses and gets the 

9 same results with.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

11 MR. FAIRHURST: You’re welcome.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie.

13 MR. STEPHENS: I just want to weigh in and 

14 support Bijit’s notion that I think we should at 

15 least consider how to test it, even if we don’t end 

16 up doing anything with it right away. I think it’s 

17 worth, at least especially if IEC is also sort of 

18 going on a parallel track. Whether it’s worth doing 

19 an s-NOPR or not, based on timing, I don’t know 

20 right now, but I think – my concern is that based on 

21 what little I have seen is that the televisions 

22 we’re placing into the field today are, potentially 

23 on an ever-increasing basis, using perhaps a third 

24 more energy than we think they are. Didn’t I see on 

25 average, maybe 35 percent increase when used in 3D 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

156

1 mode? Am I mistaken?

2 MS. FORBES PIRIE: Yeah.

3 MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, but you can’t assume 

4 that at any point in the foreseeable future that 100 

5 percent of television watching will be in 3D.

6 MR. FAIRHURST: Well, we don’t assume 100 

7 percent of anything ever.

8 MR. GOLDBERG: Well, you’re only going 

9 with the 35 percent if you’re assuming 100 percent 

10 in 3D content. If you only assume say five percent 

11 or ten percent in 3D content, then you’re talking 

12 about two or three percent increase.

13 MR. STEPHENS: And if that’s two or three 

14 percent per year, that gets to be a pretty big 

15 number in ten years. We’re planning 30 years out 

16 for power consumption, so we’re looking at trends. 

17 So it’s being taken up. I mean I know in my own 

18 neighborhood, it’s being taken up at an alarming 

19 rate. I didn’t even know it existed until about 

20 three months ago and already I’ve got neighbors who 

21 are watching half of what they watch in 3D when it’s 

22 available. So it’s a – I know it’s happening, we 

23 know it’s happening. We’re out in the market all 

24 the time, surveying. I didn’t know what the 

25 increase was. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

157

1 We may have some data for you. That sets 

2 my other point is we may inadvertently, given the 

3 jump in consumption when it’s operating – when the 

4 same TV is operating in 3D, we may wonder why our 

5 data that we find is suddenly one TV is using 30 

6 percent more power, you know, on Friday than it was 

7 on Tuesday.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Tagged as such, but you 

9 notice the jump.

10 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, we’ll notice the jump 

11 and we’ll tag it, obviously, as something to look 

12 into and find out if it’s 3D capable. I just added 

13 another question to my survey.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam, go ahead.

15 MR. GOLDBERG: So these were 2009 models 

16 or 2010?

17 MS. FORBES PIRIE: Chris and Chris -- they 

18 were 2010, weren’t they?

19 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I think we’ll find 

20 that even if that 30 percent number is right for 

21 those devices, it’s not going to be nearly correct 

22 for next year’s device. And 3D’s still real early.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: On the development side.

24 MR. GOLDBERG: Well, look, so it’s just 

25 broadly speaking in terms of television 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

158

1 technologies, things get introduced first at the 

2 most expensive, high end devices, and they’re 

3 expensive in several different aspects, expensive. 

4 And then as volumes increase, the costs in many 

5 dimensions goes down and it migrates down the 

6 market, that is to less and less expensive devices. 

7 So I think that 2009, 2010, certainly was still 

8 quite early in 3D, and those devices are quite 

9 likely to be quite different from what the majority 

10 of 3D devices would be in say this year or next 

11 year. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Vic.

13 MR. PETROLATI: Yeah, I just wanted to 

14 indicate that even if we do not go forward with an 

15 s-NOPR, this is an issue we plan on following very 

16 closely. We plan on doing, most likely, some 

17 significant testing that will probably not be 

18 completed prior to this rule being finalized. We’re 

19 expecting at this point to test, probably in the 

20 neighborhood of 16 additional televisions, all the 

21 latest model years, to determine what, in fact, the 

22 energy consumption is for the newest model years. 

23 That will certainly be a lot more than what we 

24 currently have, and we currently haven’t tested any 

25 of the TVs with the passive glass technology, so 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

159

1 we’re going to insure ourselves that we cover all of 

2 the technologies that are currently available. And 

3 that, of course, will be data that we will provide 

4 on our website, independent of whether or not we 

5 include into this rule, a 3D test, and we will 

6 continue to monitor to see if we can find data 

7 sources. And Charlie, if you’ve got the ability to 

8 provide us that information, that would be extremely 

9 helpful, because we’re trying to keep up with all of 

10 these aspects, because we are certainly concerned 

11 with the number of shipments and the increase in 

12 terms of software available to the consumer that 3D 

13 in the future will be, in fact, something that will 

14 be much more mainstream than it is today.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Bill.

16 MR. SCHLINDER: That sounds like a good 

17 idea. Are you going to be testing it with the IEC 

18 loop with a 3D conversion, a 2D to 3D Blu-ray as 

19 opposed to “Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs”?

20 MR. PETROLATI: Well, Bill, as you know, 

21 that was one of the recommendations that hasn’t been 

22 finalized yet, as part of the 3D discovery group. 

23 We would love to see that report finalized and we’re 

24 to wait, I think, until that report is finalized 

25 before we start conducting any testing. But as it 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

160

1 currently stands, as a draft report, I believe that 

2 was the recommendation from the manufacturers, and 

3 that would be our intention.

4 MR. SCHLINDER: Great.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Charlie.

6 MR. STEPHENS: Another question for Vic. 

7 We also still have a significant resource going into 

8 television work in the field in the northwest, all 

9 four states, and we have partners north and south of 

10 us that are also engaged. So we have the ability to 

11 go to our distributor partners, which is where we do 

12 our work in that market, to find out, to track 3D 

13 sales, if that would also be of interest.

14 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. I think we’ve got 

15 some sources for 3D sales. Any additional data that 

16 we can get is always worthwhile.

17 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Because we’re out 

18 there, they’re providing us information anyway, we 

19 can ask that question too.

20 MR. PETROLATI: Good. Good.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So very – yes, 

22 Jon.

23 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes, Jon Fairhurst. One 

24 thing I would note regarding the testing is that it 

25 will significantly increase the cost of doing the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

161

1 test because we’re doing four luminance measurements 

2 and we say, oh, now we have to do it in the 

3 additional 3D mode. Potentially, assuming we test 

4 this with the ABC modes, now we’re doing four 

5 additional power measurements for 3D, so I would 

6 hope that we would balance the additional cost of 

7 testing with the actual usage data. And of course, 

8 if it is significant, then it needs to be tested. 

9 Thank you. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So very 

11 constructive, lots of good content there. 

12 MR. CALWELL: One other question.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Chris.

14 MR. CALWELL: I took notes when we were –

15 when the comments were made about new 3D 

16 implementations in 2012, but just wondered if anyone 

17 could offer any more detail there. Is there a new 

18 technological approach that might make that power 

19 delta either higher or lower than what we’ve seen? 

20 Obviously the big change is moving I think to 

21 passive glasses instead of active, but any other 

22 guidance you could give us on what to look for, 

23 trends coming, things to measure, anything?

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon, please.

25 MR. FAIRHURST: Yeah, Jon Fairhurst. The 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

162

1 three basic technologies are the active glasses, 

2 passive glasses and then no glasses. And then as 

3 far as which technologies are chosen, some 

4 manufacturers might have technology in one area and 

5 another, so they might lean one way and another. 

6 And then other manufacturers that don’t have a “dog 

7 in the hunt”, as they say, they’re going to be 

8 looking at what the consumers want the most and 

9 trying to provide those televisions as best they 

10 can. So I think it hasn’t all – we haven’t seen 

11 exactly how this is going to trend.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

13 MR. GOLDBERG: So I’m interested to see 

14 what kind of numbers end up coming up with, but I 

15 wouldn’t expect that the biggest factor by a long 

16 shot would have anything to do with the glasses 

17 technology. Primarily – I mean the power 

18 difference, the consumption difference of what 

19 you’re essentially doing is blocking half the screen 

20 for one eye, and then blocking the other half of the 

21 screen for the other eye, and so it decreases the 

22 amount of light you’re seeing, because each eye only 

23 gets half as much light for each time. And so it 

24 takes more power to turn up the brightness to make 

25 up that difference and make it look as bright, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

163

1 because you’re splitting it into two eyes. 

2 The glasses, eh. I mean, the power it 

3 takes to signal to the glasses, I would expect to be 

4 minor in comparison.

5 MR. FAIRHURST: Yeah, and I should just 

6 say, I don’t think we were concerned about the power 

7 consumption of the glasses, or the communication 

8 with them, but it was – I think the published 

9 literature says that the active glasses have a 

10 higher opacity than the passive ones, and so it 

11 would take more of a luminance boost to overcome 

12 that in an active 3D versus passive. That was the 

13 understanding from the literature.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, are we – yes.

15 MR. PETROLATI: (off mic)

16 MR. BROOKMAN: You want to do it?

17 MR. PETROLATI: No, we’re going to –

18 Simone, I think.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Simone, you’re going to –

20 MS. SYDNOR: Yeah, he’s on here. It’s 

21 Christopher Wold.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

23 MS. SYDNOR: It wasn’t a question. He 

24 just wanted to offer some answer – I think there was 

25 a question about ABC, saying that that he could 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

164

1 answer questions.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: About ABC?

3 MS. FORBES PIRIE: I would imagine he’s 

4 talking about the CLASP study that was done to do 

5 with – wasn’t it? Or –

6 MR. PETROLATI: Yeah, since we’re not on 

7 that at this point, let’s – we’ll ask him to submit 

8 his comment in writing.

9 MS. SYDNOR: Okay. 

10 MR. PETROLATI: Thank you. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: So I hope that you heard 

12 that on line. This gentleman’s name is?

13 MS. SYDNOR: Christopher Wold.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Christopher, so 

15 please send your comments in to the Department.

16 So I think we’re finished with that last 

17 segment. Let’s proceed with the next one, which is 

18 on, standby, and off modes. And back to Christopher 

19 Yoder.

20 MR. YODER: You’ve got a question there.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please use the 

22 microphone.

23 MR. SHARP: Mark Sharp from Panasonic. 

24 Just a general request -- that query from the 

25 webinar brought it to mind – is there any way we can 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

165

1 get a list or the identities of those who are 

2 participating by webinar, so those of us in the room 

3 have an idea of who’s hearing all this? Because 

4 right now we have no way of knowing.

5 MR. PETROLATI: The answer is yes.

6 MR. SHARP: Thank you.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: They will sign in, is that 

8 correct, Simone?

9 MS. SYDNOR: (off mic) They can always 

10 find it by going to the webinar attendee list ...

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Did you hear that? 

12 She said that they’ve signed on for the webinar. 

13 She can provide the list to Vic or another DOE 

14 person, and that information can be sent forth. 

15 On, Standby, and Off Modes

16 MR. YODER: All right. I believe we’re in 

17 the home stretch here. So we’re going to go back to 

18 the different modes in which DOE is proposing to 

19 test. DOE investigated whether or not to conduct 

20 testing with additional functions and power saving 

21 technologies enabled. Currently, in the NOPR, DOE 

22 has proposed to not test with those additional 

23 features enabled. But DOE is currently aware of 

24 power saving technologies, including present 

25 sensors, automatic shutoffs, and display power 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

166

1 management systems as well as others. 

2 But DOE does request comment if 

3 manufacturers or others, interested parties, know of 

4 power saving technologies and how they’re 

5 implemented and how they can affect energy 

6 consumption.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: And I guess we’re talking 

8 here about utilization of these, the adoption cycle, 

9 stuff like that. Jon.

10 MR. FAIRHURST: Jon Fairhurst. One thing 

11 that I would warn against is to watch for any patent 

12 issues with some new power savings technologies, 

13 such as proprietary requirements that we must use

14 patented technology.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Charlie.

16 MR. STEPHENS: Question. Charlie 

17 Stephens. Are these all – what you’re referring to 

18 here – technologies that are saving on mode power?

19 MR. YODER: Not necessarily.

20 MR. STEPHENS: Because you go into, on the 

21 next page, you start into the standby and off mode 

22 measurement protocol, so I’m wondering if we’re not 

23 talking about standby and off mode here, we’re 

24 talking about on mode?

25 MR. BROOKMAN: I see that Anthony’s joined 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

167

1 us. Go ahead.

2 MR. ROTOLO: Yes, I think this is more 

3 just a broad kind of request for information on any 

4 possible power saving features. It doesn’t 

5 necessarily have to be associated with standby or 

6 off mode. It could just possibly place the TV into 

7 one of these modes rather than specifically 

8 associated with these features.

9 MR. STEPHENS: In other words, something I 

10 sort of read this as sort of a feature that might 

11 take a television out of on mode and place it in a 

12 standby mode or something like that, so it would 

13 impact the on mode power consumption, not be 

14 associated with measuring the consumption of it once 

15 it’s in that new state that it’s been placed in, 

16 correct?

17 MR. YODER: Yes. 

18 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. So it would 

19 essentially affect an estimate of the on mode energy 

20 consumption of the television on an annual basis, 

21 for instance.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: I see Bill wants to 

23 comment.

24 MR. SCHLINDER: You go first.

25 MR. CALWELL: Yes, and I think we’re just 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

168

1 at this time we’re not aware of any other features 

2 or any other usage characteristics, but we’ll 

3 welcome any stakeholder comments on that ground.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Mia, do you want to 

5 comment?

6 MS. FORBES PIRIE: I just wanted to add 

7 that we would –

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Closer, Mia.

9 MS. FORBES PIRIE: We’re thinking things 

10 like the power sensors that could switch off if they 

11 don’t – like light sensors, presence sensors, that 

12 if you leave the room they can switch down and leave 

13 sound only, and then come back on when you come back 

14 in, or in Europe, they have a requirement that after 

15 four hours, when no one’s pressed any button, the TV 

16 powers down. So it’s those kind of things. And 

17 we’re aware that sort of the presence sensors for 

18 example are kind of new on the market, so just 

19 anything like that which anyone thinks should be 

20 taken into consideration, with ideas about how it 

21 should be taken into consideration, because it’s 

22 quite difficult to take those things into 

23 consideration.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Adam.

25 MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, I just wanted to note 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

169

1 that sometimes those things are difficult or 

2 impossible to turn off. Things like – I’m aware of 

3 a television that if you haven’t done anything to it 

4 in four hours it’ll turn itself off, and there’s no 

5 way to turn that feature off.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Now, Bill.

7 MR. SCHLINDER: This is in reference to 

8 Charles’ question about whether it would affect the 

9 standby as well. I mean, obviously Anthony said the 

10 primary function is taking it out of the on mode, 

11 and of course you’re saving on mode power. With the 

12 displays, the Energy Star displays, track that 

13 they’re working on now, they were thinking or at 

14 least proposing some very slight additional adders 

15 to those displays in standby mode that had those 

16 functions, simply because those functions might 

17 require a tiny amount of power, a couple tenths of a 

18 watt, in standby, in order to sense the individual 

19 to wake the TV back up.

20 So if you’re going to put extra 

21 intelligence into standby, it will sometimes require 

22 an adder, and they are considering that for computer 

23 monitors and displays. So, yes, it could affect 

24 slightly, the standby power, but its primary effect 

25 is to turn it off. On mode. But once it’s been 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

170

1 turned into standby, some of these things would be 

2 envisioned that would turn it back on when the 

3 person walks into the room. And in order for it to 

4 be sensing whether the person walked into the room, 

5 it requires slight additional power for that optical 

6 sensor to be active. That’s just one example.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Jon.

8 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes, also in this area it 

9 mentions additional functions. And that’s something 

10 that we dealt with in the IEC standard, and I want 

11 to make sure people are aware of the difference 

12 between additional functions and special features in 

13 the standard. The additional functions are 

14 functions that are not required for the basic 

15 operation of the device, so this might include, 

16 let’s say, an FM radio, set top box, something like 

17 that. And so in IEC, those additional functions are 

18 turned off so that we are really comparing the TV 

19 set function, apples to apples. 

20 In addition, though, there are special 

21 functions, and these are, as I said, functions that 

22 are related to, but not required to the basic 

23 operation of the device, and the key thing is it’s 

24 related to the basic operation. So including, but 

25 not limited to, special sound processing, power 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

171

1 saving features, like automatic brightness control. 

2 So, yeah, if you have special processing to make 

3 your TV look good, you test it with that on. If 

4 it’s on by default, because it’s related to the 

5 television. If it’s a toaster that’s cloned into 

6 the TV, you leave that off, or turn that off.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: And you were reading 

8 definitions from the IEC there?

9 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes, that’s from IEC.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: So those will be in your 

11 comments.

12 MR. FAIRHURST: That’s right, and I would 

13 recommend that DOE follow the same basic guidelines 

14 for determining the difference between whether a 

15 function or feature should be left on or possibly 

16 turned off.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. That’s 

18 helpful. Very helpful.

19 MR. YODER: So currently DOE is proposing 

20 to test the following modes as we’ve stated earlier 

21 in the NOPR, it’s proposed to include the standby 

22 passive mode, and standby active high mode. Standby 

23 active high mode incorporates the download 

24 acquisition mode test outlined by CEA.

25 DOE also considered testing in other 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

172

1 standby modes, but is not currently proposing that 

2 they be tested in the NOPR, including standby active 

3 low, and – question?

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Sorry. So, Adam.

5 MR. GOLDBERG: This is Adam from 

6 Mitsubishi. I understand that DOE is not proposing 

7 testing anything but active mode, but I wonder if 

8 you could take a moment and tell me what it is. 

9 Because I don’t – I wasn’t able to understand what 

10 the difference between standby passive and standby 

11 active low were.

12 MR. YODER: Standby passive – it’s our 

13 understanding that standby passive is when the 

14 television is not connected to an outside source, 

15 but can be turned on, like via a remote. Standby 

16 active high is when it’s connected an outside 

17 source, say, the internet, and is actively 

18 transferring information to the television; and 

19 standby active low is when it’s connected by not 

20 transferring information.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon. Well, let’s let –

22 Adam are you finished?

23 MR. GOLDBERG: Connected?

24 MR. YODER: It’s enabled to transfer 

25 information but it’s not currently transferring 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

173

1 information.

2 MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, but standby active 

3 high would have to include things like –

4 MR. YODER: Streaming –

5 MR. GOLDBERG: No, let me finish. Standby 

6 active high would have to include things like 

7 completely unrelated to the internet, it wakes up 

8 and does some housekeeping, for example, plays with 

9 the antenna, right?

10 MR. YODER: Correct. If it’s transferring 

11 information, yes.

12 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

14 MR. FAIRHURST: Yeah, Jon Fairhurst. I 

15 can clarify a little bit of standby active low, it’s 

16 not necessarily connected to the internet to get 

17 data later on, but is connected to an external 

18 signal that can turn the television on. So unlike 

19 just an IR source that turns it on, you might be 

20 able to turn the TV on at a given time from the 

21 internet, I don’t know, to convince the local 

22 burglars that you’re at home. But the key is that 

23 you might need to have a higher level 

24 microprocessor, communication circuit available, to 

25 listen for this external turn on signal. And so I 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

174

1 would agree that it’s not necessary for televisions, 

2 but this does become more important on the display 

3 side, because – so, for instance, with large 

4 displays at retail or something, you might have some 

5 computer system that can turn the TVs on and off 

6 remotely with a signal, as compared to at home where 

7 it’s done with an IR remote control, and can be done 

8 with a much lower power circuit.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So you 

10 can see the comment boxes. DOE seeks comments from 

11 interested parties on consideration of testing the 

12 internet as part of on mode, standby active high 

13 mode, and standby active low mode. We’ve already 

14 received some comment on this, and clarification. 

15 Additional comments?

16 I haven’t heard anybody saying yet they 

17 think this is pretty good. Not that I’m fishing for 

18 it, mind you. Bill.

19 MR. SCHLINDER: I think this is pretty 

20 good.

21 (Laughter.)

22 PARTICIPANT: (Comment off mic.)

23 MR. SCHLINDER: I’m simply, you know, 

24 maybe adding or requesting a little added 

25 clarification, because as we all know that 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

175

1 communication of all these devices is becoming 

2 extremely, not necessarily complicated, it’s just –

3 it’s like a spider web, everything talks to 

4 everything these days. 

5 The standby passive mode is easy, that’s 

6 the same thing as the sleep mode in Energy Star, 

7 because it’s just not connected to anything. That’s 

8 my understanding. 

9 Standby active high mode, if it’s really 

10 the same thing as DAM testing, okay, that’s good, 

11 but the DAM test procedure in CEA – it says that it 

12 can do any kind of data transfer. I mean, if was 

13 first conceived of as downloading, primarily channel 

14 listing information from video-on-demand devices in 

15 hotel rooms. But then subsequently started to 

16 include internet updates of the firmware of the TV, 

17 and then finally it was just decided that it would 

18 include any data exchange, as long as you could list 

19 it, and then determine the usage of that data 

20 exchange over a 24 hour period, and then the DAM was 

21 allowed, in this case, 40 watt hours of usage per 

22 day. And if that’s what’s envisioned there, then 

23 that works because it’s a general transfer of data. 

24 The problem there is how to estimate the usage of 

25 the internet, for example. So that becomes a little 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

176

1 problematic in defining it.

2 And the last one that you have, which is a 

3 standby active low mode, I guess my understanding on 

4 that is it’s just connected but not actively 

5 transferring data, and that can probably be tested 

6 rather easily, just in the displays mode, they’re 

7 saying that the physical layer would be activated, 

8 is a handshaking between the network and the device, 

9 but there is no active data transfer. And if that’s 

10 the understanding, then that could probably be done 

11 also. 

12 So I guess it’s the one that is at standby 

13 active high mode, you know, the way the test would 

14 be done is one could do the DAM test, but the DAM 

15 test, again, you’re supposed to estimate the usage 

16 over 24 hours, and I’m not sure how you do that any 

17 more because these TVs are connected to the internet 

18 with all these aps and how do you ever estimate that 

19 people are going to be using aps for a certain 

20 amount of time during the day. So the CEA DAM 

21 procedure is problematic from that standpoint.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

23 MR. FAIRHURST: I would clarify that in 

24 the context of standby, then the usage of the aps 

25 doesn’t really apply. To date we haven’t seen 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

177

1 televisions – and typically hard drives are large 

2 storage devices – so they’re not downloading movies 

3 or something like that overnight. And because of 

4 the intense pressure to keep costs low, I don’t 

5 expect that to change in the near future, so for 

6 that reason, I just recently checked with our 

7 factory, and when in standby, the internet 

8 connection is truly disabled even if it’s connected.

9 There is a difficulty with – in terms of 

10 if you start testing with the internet connected 

11 beyond just a physical connection through a router 

12 or something like this, is it could be difficult to 

13 determine is there some connection to an outside 

14 server. So if you’re testing in the DOE building, 

15 you may find that oh, it’s not, because I’m behind 

16 this firewall. Or if you’re in Japan, you may oh, 

17 it’s not because that service is blocked to IP 

18 addresses within North America. So it becomes 

19 difficult to understand what’s going on once you 

20 start connecting to outside sources. So, for 

21 repeatability, it’s best if at a maximum, it would 

22 be connected to a disconnected box, if you will.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Those were useful 

24 comments. Thank you for that. Additional comments 

25 before we move on.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

178

1 MR. YODER: Could you clarify what you 

2 mean by a disconnected box?

3 MR. FAIRHURST: A box that is not 

4 connected to the internet at large, so in other 

5 words, the TV might be connected to a local hub or 

6 router, but that router or hub should not be 

7 connected to the internet at large.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: It would be powered for 

9 that local use.

10 MR. FAIRHURST: Right.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. Adam.

12 MR. GOLDBERG: I mean for – so, if you 

13 ever look at the back of a connection, an Ethernet 

14 check, there’s typically two LEDs, one is lit when 

15 there’s a good connection, that is it’s connected to 

16 something on the other end of the wire, and the 

17 other is usage that’s always blinking. And I think 

18 what Jon is trying to say is that blinking makes the 

19 test not terribly repeatable. You don’t know what’s 

20 coming and it depends on what’s on your local 

21 network, what’s on the outsider network, what’s 

22 going on, whether you’ve got file sharing turned on 

23 in one of your computers on the subnet, and whether 

24 the router’s blocking that stuff, et cetera, et 

25 cetera, et cetera. I mean you almost need to – if 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

179

1 you’re just going to measure what’s the consumption 

2 of the device with the IP hardware active, then you 

3 need to isolate it from any communications, by 

4 making it just connected to a hub, but not connect 

5 that hub to anything else, right, so that the 

6 communication hardware is doing something, that is, 

7 it’s on, but it’s not spending cycles trying to 

8 process anything that comes in over that connection. 

9 If that’s where you’re going with that, Jon, right?

10 MR. FAIRHURST: Yeah, that’s correct. The 

11 – it’s mainly because – well, I expect that when the 

12 television is in standby mode it’s typically not 

13 communicating, but it could – there could be some 

14 power draw off if it’s connected, so there might be 

15 something to consider.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes. 

17 MR. KUNDU: Just a quick clarification. 

18 So DOE is proposing to, in the NOPR, to test standby 

19 passive and standby active high, but not proposing 

20 standby active low?

21 MR. YODER: Correct.

22 MR. KUNDU: Or with internet?

23 MR. YODER: Correct.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Bijit. 

25 MR. KUNDU: Can you maybe repeat the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

180

1 rationale for that, at least for not testing with 

2 the internet connection?

3 MR. YODER: The rationale behind not 

4 testing with internet connected is because of the 

5 variability. But if there are interested parties 

6 willing to comment as to a proposed test method, 

7 we’d consider it.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

9 MR. GOLDBERG: You might also consider, 

10 speaking to Bijit here, whether there are any 

11 devices, any television devices for sale in the US 

12 that have any modes which could be considered 

13 standby active low. There may not be.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Bill.

15 MR. SCHLINDER: Yeah, to Jon Fairhurst’s 

16 point, I believe he’s absolutely right that with 

17 consumer TVs, because they don’t have the discs and 

18 all that, they’re not doing a whole lot in standby 

19 in terms of connectivity. With the displays, which 

20 is not TVs, with displays, I guess what I was 

21 thinking about was professional displays that have 

22 to be woken up by controllers and are going over 

23 Ethernet connections – they’re not actually talking 

24 to the internet, but it’s a control portway, and 

25 therefore under standby it has to be able to be 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

181

1 controlled by an Ethernet port, not necessarily 

2 internet connection. So that’s the issue for 

3 displays. So maybe for TVs it would be fine to just 

4 not test the passive – active low, as you’re 

5 suggesting.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Jon, yes.

7 MR. FAIRHURST: In regarding displays, it 

8 might be RS232, RS422 – they’re different means to 

9 implement active standby low, but they don’t really 

10 apply to TVs.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Charlie.

12 MR. STEPHENS: You were just saying about 

13 the repeatability, and not wanting content, 

14 necessarily being exchanged because of repeatability 

15 issues. Isn’t that what I’m reading in standby 

16 active high? I’m reading the last words in there, 

17 “and is exchanging/receiving data from an external 

18 source.” Isn’t that what you said might cause a 

19 repeatability problem?

20 MR. YODER: There’s variability when 

21 connected to the internet, and we propose the 

22 download acquisition mode test and the reason that –

23 it’s in standby mode, and there is – there is 

24 inherent variability, I’m assuming, in the 

25 procedure.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

182

1 MR. STEPHENS: All I wondering is how, you 

2 know, it says there “is exchanging/receiving 

3 information from an external source.” What is that 

4 and how do we avoid variability under that, in that 

5 test?

6 MR. ROTOLO: Correct me if I’m wrong, I 

7 think before you were talking about the reason why 

8 we were not implementing standby active low. And 

9 I’ll just say this – the reason we’re not 

10 implementing standby active low is because we 

11 compared data to standby passive and standby active 

12 low and we saw no noticeable difference between the 

13 two modes, and therefore we saw no reason to do that 

14 additional test on that mode. 

15 Now for standby active high, that is in –

16 we test that in accordance with the DAM test, where 

17 we connected either with an external cable signal or 

18 an Ethernet signal, and over – like Bill said, it’s 

19 an estimation of – in that 24 hour period of usage 

20 characteristics. Now if it’s something like a 

21 firmware update, that’s considered an infrequent 

22 update that’s not factored into the usage 

23 characteristics. I’m not sure if that answers your 

24 question.

25 MR. STEPHENS: Not entirely. I’m kind of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

183

1 wondering, I mean, is there any – I mean how would 

2 you use that information or is there any data that 

3 we have that sort of says how you would factor the 

4 results of that test into anything subsequent to the 

5 test?

6 MR. ROTOLO: Well, the test does define 

7 what a frequent and what an infrequent data usage 

8 is, and so something like a periodic update over a 

9 cable, over a cable signal, like a menu update – you 

10 know, the traditional sense was it was used for 

11 hotels and they would send data over the network and 

12 they would update the TV itself, and that would be 

13 the increase in power in a standby mode. So that 

14 frequentness – you can pinpoint the specific time 

15 when, you know, roughly when this update will happen 

16 or for some type of duration. In a case like that, 

17 that would be seen as what we’re trying to define as 

18 standby active high.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: I see Bill has a comment 

20 here. Bill.

21 MR. SCHLINDER: Anthony, I totally agree. 

22 Maybe I could add just a little bit of input, 

23 because Bijit, you were involved when the DAM was 

24 developed and we had lots of calls and things. Jon

25 Fairhurst is right in cutting the confusion relative 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

184

1 to the internet and all that, in that all these aps 

2 on TVs that are very, very popular these days, 

3 aren’t really doing anything in standby mode, so 

4 it’s not really necessary to worry about the 

5 internet connection. 

6 When these consumer TVs do wake up on 

7 standby to actually communicate, is really our 

8 hospitality TVs – they’re called hospitality TVs 

9 that you find in all the hotel rooms. Those hotel 

10 rooms have servers for video on demand where they 

11 can charge you for movies, they can tell you about 

12 their restaurants and everything else. And they 

13 need to update the TV with the latest video on 

14 demand, and channel listing information. They do 

15 that on a very regular basis, and that’s what the 

16 DAM procedure calls out. It’s specific, if you look 

17 at the Energy Star TV spec, it’s actually in the 

18 hospitality TVs unique testing, and those TVs are 

19 the only ones that actually do the DAM. 

20 On a rare instance, you might have a TV 

21 connected to the internet that has advanced 

22 functionality that needs to get downloaded, a new 

23 firmware update, and it’s not a hospitality TV, it’s 

24 just a TV that talks to the internet, and 

25 occasionally the manufacturer will come in, wake the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

185

1 TV up and say I’ve got to give you new firmware. 

2 We’ve gotten some new feature or something. But 

3 that is so impossible to predict, it might be once a 

4 year, it might be once a month, who knows? And it’s 

5 very, very minimal power usage, so that part really 

6 doesn’t need to be considered. It’s considered 

7 infrequent and not tested.

8 The things that are tested are for 

9 hospitality TVs, where you can predict a regular, 

10 almost once a day, updating of the channel 

11 information for the video on demand function in 

12 these TVs. They’re specialized TVs. They’re almost 

13 industrial TVs in that you’re selling them to 

14 hotels. And that’s what the DAM mode is envisioned 

15 to handle. So, we are testing for that, but really, 

16 the TVs that are subject to DAM are those unique 

17 hospitality TVs, not really consumer TVs. And I 

18 guess from the definition, I suppose those still 

19 fall in, even though they’re sold to companies, you 

20 know, hotels, they’re still being considered as in 

21 scope for this testing, hospitality TVs? That’s my 

22 question, I guess.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Vic.

24 MR. PETROLATI: Bill, to be perfectly 

25 honest, we couldn’t find a reason to necessarily 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

186

1 exclude them at this point. Based on – and Celia, 

2 you might want to add something to this – some of 

3 the guidance that has been developed within the 

4 Office of General Counsel, and they’re indicating 

5 that there have to be special features that make the 

6 television or any product, different from the 

7 consumer product that is sold. And we couldn’t find 

8 anything from a physical standpoint, that made the 

9 hospitality television different than the consumer 

10 television, the typical consumer television. So at 

11 this point, yes, you’re correct, they’re still in 

12 the scope.

13 MR. SCHLINDER: In response to that, 

14 that’s – if you look at the TV in your hotel room 

15 from the front, it looks just like pretty much any 

16 other TV. On the back, it will generally, and in 

17 the definition for hospitality TV, it’ll have to 

18 have another jack, which if you look at the set-top 

19 box that’s behind the TV, not only do you have the 

20 signal coax, but you also have another low level 

21 signal, not modulated, that is a control signal to 

22 the set-top box, and then you have the software 

23 talking between the set-top box and the TV in order 

24 to accomplish this channel downloading information. 

25 So that really isn’t part of a consumer TV, and if 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

187

1 this is only for consumer TVs, it might simplify 

2 matters to not view that as – it’s not a huge 

3 concern of ours, it’s just something that from a 

4 legal standpoint, you could, perhaps, exclude them 

5 if you wish to.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Adam.

7 MR. GOLDBERG: Sorry, Vic, if your 

8 question is, are hospitality TVs in any way 

9 physically different from what you go to Best Buy 

10 and purchase, the answer is yes, they’re different. 

11 Right, Bill?

12 MR. SCHLINDER: They’re different. 

13 They’re sold in a different distribution system. 

14 You don’t buy them from Best Buy. They in our 

15 professional TV group. It’s a completely different 

16 sales group. We have our consumer sales group and 

17 then we have a professional services sales group, 

18 and they handle the hospitality TVs. They’re a 

19 completely different product number. They’re not 

20 distributed through consumer channels. Yes, you can 

21 buy them on line if you really, for some reason, 

22 needed one. Maybe you’re a ma and pa hotel operator 

23 and you’re just going to buy ten and you don’t even 

24 want to go through normal sales channels, you could 

25 buy them on line, but that’s not really a typical 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

188

1 consumer, and it is different in that it has this 

2 connector.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

4 MR. GOLDBERG: Bill, but they are 

5 physically different?

6 MR. SCHLINDER: Physically different in 

7 that they have the extra connector.

8 MR. PETROLATI: And Bill, if you could 

9 supply us maybe some information as to the physical 

10 difference, for Panasonic, and do you know that this 

11 physical difference exists for all manufacturers?

12 MR. SCHLINDER: Yes, because – first of 

13 all, the answer to the first question, I will talk 

14 with the services group to get you the information 

15 to distinguish our product.

16 MR. PETROLATI: Right.

17 MR. SCHLINDER: Secondly, the Energy Star 

18 definition, and Bijit knows, right? You’re a good 

19 man, Bijit. Hospitality television – I’m reading 

20 from the Energy Star TV spec. “A television product 

21 which includes the following features:

22 • A. A control port for bidirectional 

23 communications, DB-9, RJ11, RJ12, RJ45 coaxial 

24 cable, or HDMI-CEC;
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

189

1 • B. Activated hospitality protocol software: 

2 SmartPort, MPI, MTI, serial protocol, to 

3 provide direct access to video on demand 

4 systems or digital media player designed for 

5 hospitality specific applications, and 

6 • C. A power state that meets the definition of 

7 download acquisition mode.”

8 And then, to read from download 

9 acquisition mode, because I think it might be 

10 helpful, “Download acquisition mode, the power mode 

11 in which a product is connected to the main’s power 

12 source, provides neither sound nor picture, and is 

13 actively downloading data. Data downloads may 

14 include channel listing information for use by an 

15 electronic programming guide, TV set up data, 

16 channel map updates, firmware updates, monitoring 

17 for emergency messaging communications, or other 

18 network communications.”

19 So it was really designed to be for these 

20 hospitality TV applications. And I’ll supply the 

21 differentiator physically of those devices, and I 

22 believe all our competitors in that industry are 

23 doing the same thing.

24 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. And I’m not sure if 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

190

1 it’s been officially declared, but my understanding 

2 is that FTC has already made a legal ruling that 

3 the hospitality television is, in fact, a consumer 

4 television, covered under the labeling program. 

5 Okay. But bottom line, anything you can provide us

6 will be helpful. I do want to mention that this 

7 test procedure is also being developed for the 

8 Environmental Protection Agency as part of its 

9 Energy Star program. And we would probably include 

10 the DAM testing in there, even if we determined it 

11 wasn’t for a consumer product. But we’ll have to 

12 check on that as well.

13 MR. SCHLINDER: Yeah, that would make 

14 total sense. And as I said, I don’t have an 

15 objection to this, and I’ll be able to supply that 

16 information to you and since that EPA would want to 

17 use that procedure, then putting that test 

18 procedure makes total sense.

19 MR. PETROLATI: Yep.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam, I thought you were 

21 making a multi-step point, and you just got one 

22 done.

23 MR. GOLDBERG: If I was –

24 MR. BROOKMAN: It’s lost.

25 MR. GOLDBERG: -- I have no idea what it 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

191

1 was.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Jon, you want in 

3 here?

4 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes, if we’ve – I guess 

5 one last comment on the hospitality thing is that 

6 Sharp’s televisions are also – the hospitality 

7 televisions are unique models sold through a unique 

8 sales chain as well.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: And of course the 

10 Department of Energy is looking for characteristics 

11 that would differentiate it, supply chain? Yes? 

12 Yes.

13 MR. FAIRHURST: All those characteristics 

14 are also similar to what Bill read.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

16 MR. FAIRHURST: If it’s appropriate to go 

17 back to the networking testing, I’ve got some 

18 additional information that may be helpful. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

20 MR. FAIRHURST: As I mentioned, we 

21 wouldn’t want to connect to the outside internet, 

22 but it’s also questionable whether or not we would 

23 want to require being connected physically to a 

24 hub. Sharp’s initial, what was it, two or three 

25 years of internet connected televisions, were wired 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

192

1 internet connections only, and the initial data 

2 there that I shared in a different context 

3 publicly, was that that’s on the order of – it was 

4 on the order of a ten percent connect rate. So it 

5 was not an extremely high connect rate. Definitely 

6 the minority of people that have active internet

7 cables in the locations where there televisions 

8 are. Since then we’ve moved to a wireless 

9 implementation. I don’t have numbers to share 

10 right now about how many connect, but I would think 

11 that much of the standby testing has happened in 

12 the presence of Wi-Fi signals. So I think we’re 

13 already doing standby testing that, in some cases, 

14 there’s no Wi-Fi signals, and sometimes -- some 

15 cases there are. So because of that I believe that 

16 manufacturers typically, when they go into standby, 

17 are disabling the wireless feature, because that 

18 would consume additional power that would put us 

19 above the Energy Star requirement of one watt.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris.

21 MR. CALWELL: This is Chris Calwell. I 

22 just wanted to make sure I followed the one set of 

23 comments that were made on DAM, because it went 

24 back and forth a little bit. I understand that 

25 it’s commonly done in hospitality TVs, but was the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

193

1 comment that DAM does not occur in the consumer 

2 versions of the TVs, or simply that it’s rare or 

3 infrequent?

4 MR. GOLDBERG: It’s different.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam, use the mic.

6 MR. GOLDBERG: Sorry. It’s just 

7 different. For hospitality TVs there is some sort 

8 of local server in the basement of the hotel and 

9 there’s additional communication needed for things 

10 like pay per view and things, right. For 

11 televisions – consumer televisions, in a consumer 

12 environment that use a DAM mode to download, for 

13 example, program guide data, those things do happen 

14 differently – it takes a different amount of power 

15 over a different period of time and different duty 

16 cycle characteristics and things. It’s just 

17 different.

18 MR. CALWELL: And so is there – have CEA 

19 or others developed two different test procedures 

20 for those two different circumstances? Or how 

21 would you measure the consumer circumstance?

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Bill?

23 MR. GOLDBERG: All right, give me half a 

24 shot at it. 

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam, please.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

194

1 MR. GOLDBERG: My recollection is that the 

2 way it’s measured is you characterize how much time 

3 it spends in the mode and you find a way to force 

4 it into the mode, and you measure its consumption 

5 while it’s in that mode. Part of the difficulties 

6 in measuring this is without a whole live network 

7 behind it, I mean if you bring one of these TVs 

8 home and you plug it in, sometime overnight it’s 

9 going to check for guide data, but you don’t know 

10 when that’s going to be exactly, and it’s difficult 

11 to, in a completely live system, force it to. And 

12 so there’s a bit of prod it into the right mode and 

13 then measure it.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Bill, you want to add on?

15 MR. SCHLINDER: Energy Star only allows a 

16 DAM allowance for hospitality TVs. So, that’s –

17 again, in there for hospitality TVs. They do it a 

18 little differently. They do what’s called total 

19 energy consumption, TEC, and they add five hours of 

20 on mode, 19 hours of standby, and then they add 40 

21 watt hours of DAM – that’s your maximum, 40 watt 

22 hours over a day. Now, how do you get there? You 

23 go to the CEA DAM procedure, and they say there’s 

24 an ideal test procedure which is very cumbersome in 

25 that you have to supply 24 hour complete data 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

195

1 stream, encapsulating all of this, and no one does 

2 it that way, probably. 

3 The way we do it, is you do the practical 

4 approaches to procedures. And the practical 

5 approach allows you to actually measure the power 

6 that’s coming in when it’s connected and 

7 downloading, and then what you do is you say well, 

8 how long does it take to do the downloading? And 

9 if it’s two hours, then you multiply two hours 

10 times the power, and there’s a spreadsheet that’s 

11 supplied. And then you add it all up and it better 

12 be less than 40 watt hours when you’re done. So 

13 it’s an estimation based upon the power 

14 instantaneously used when it’s in this active 

15 downloading mode, and then you estimate the time 

16 and do the multiplication and get your watt hours. 

17 But the whole procedure, as far as Energy 

18 Star is concerned, is only applicable for 

19 hospitality TVs. For consumer models doing DAM, 

20 the ones that I know about are the ones that are 

21 just doing firmware updates. Every now and then 

22 they get woken up by a network that says you need 

23 new software, and that’s just impossible to 

24 estimate. Now if there’s some TVs that are using 

25 electronic programming guide as consumers, well 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

196

1 that’s a different story, and it’s not being 

2 covered by hospitality TVs. That’s all, you know, 

3 as technology evolves, there are possibilities that 

4 we haven’t considered.

5 MR. CALWELL: Thanks for the 

6 clarification, because really, in the trade 

7 literature, it’s hard to keep up. There are 

8 references to Rovi I believe, pushing out more 

9 multi-media content with the electronic program 

10 guide – photographs of the stars that are in the 

11 movie, and associated data. And so I just didn’t 

12 know if test procedures had kept pace with that or 

13 if the presumption is just it’s a small amount of 

14 TVs for a small amount of time.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Chris. 

16 We’re going to – yes.

17 MR. KUNDU: Do you have a clarification –

18 Bijit Kundu with Energy Solutions – DOE mentioned 

19 you tested televisions with an internet connection 

20 and saw no change? Is that right? Or no power 

21 difference? 

22 MR. YODER: We have the data in the next 

23 few slides.

24 MR. KUNDU: Okay. 

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And at this time 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

197

1 it’s appropriate to move on. So we’re going there 

2 now.

3 MR. YODER: So DOE did some testing when 

4 the television was connected to the internet but 

5 was not actively transferring information. In the 

6 standby passive mode it tested the television with 

7 no connections and when it only had a HDMI 

8 connection. It also tested standby active low 

9 mode, when it was connected to a cable, connected 

10 to the internet, and connected to wireless.

11 This next page, you can use it as a 

12 reference, indicates the energy consumption, the 

13 power consumption, when connected to these inputs.

14 MR. PETROLATI: Chris, were there any 

15 differences at all to point out?

16 MR. YODER: There was one difference in 

17 the 15-inch CCFL, there was a difference of about 

18 point two watts.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Right there. Okay. 

20 MR. KUNDU: Bijit with Energy Solutions 

21 again. Jon, maybe I misheard you. Were you saying 

22 there was a ten percent – you saw sets with a ten 

23 percent increase, is that right?

24 MR. FAIRHURST: No, that was ten percent 

25 of consumers who bought connectors – TVs with 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

198

1 Ethernet connectors actually connect them.

2 MR. KUNDU: Oh, I misunderstood that. 

3 Okay. 

4 MR. FAIRHURST: It’s because we have 

5 Ethernet connectors in our home offices, but not 

6 typically near our entertainment centers.

7 PARTICIPANT: Speak for yourself, Jon.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Bill, go ahead.

9 MR. SCHLINDER: I’m sorry, I do have a 

10 slight clarification looking at the Energy Star

11 Specification. Everything I said was correct 

12 relative to the hospitality TVs and the TEC, total 

13 energy consumption. However, prior to that, 

14 there’s a Section 3.6 that apparently allows a non15 hospitality TV to be tested for DAM. It says, “A 

16 product may automatically exit standby passive mode 

17 and enter download acquisition mode according to a 

18 predefined schedule in order to download channel 

19 listing information, monitor for emergency 

20 messaging, communicate via network protocol. The 

21 measured DAM energy consumption for all DAM states 

22 shall be less than or equal to 40 watt hours per 

23 day.” So we don’t offer the EPG, that electronic 

24 programming guide, on consumer TVs, only on the

25 hospitality, but I imagine that other manufacturers 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

199

1 might do that, and if so then they’re apparently 

2 needing to measure that according to our CEA DAM 

3 procedure and be within 40 watt hours. And so from 

4 that standpoint, once again, Vic, it makes perfect 

5 sense for you to have that in the procedure.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Moving on.

7 MR. YODER: Here the slide just indicates 

8 that we are proposing to incorporate the CEA 

9 download acquisition mode test, and provides the 

10 definition.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: And this is precisely their 

12 definition?

13 MR. YODER: This is Energy Star’s.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Energy Star’s definition, 

15 which has been accepted. Comments on this 

16 definition?

17 MR. YODER: We did, however, believe that 

18 the CEA download acquisition mode test could be 

19 improved upon by indicating a hierarchy of input 

20 formats as seen here, including Wi-Fi, Ethernet, 

21 thunderbolt, USB, firewire, and others. Are there 

22 comments pertaining to the hierarchy of inputs?

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie.

24 MR. STEPHENS: Just a quick one. How did 

25 you establish the hierarchy, or how would you 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

200

1 establish it?

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Anthony.

3 MR. YODER: This was generated by --

4 MR. ROTOLO: First off, I’d just like to 

5 point out like Jon was saying, so Wi-Fi was 

6 selected as the number one, just because Ethernet, 

7 you don’t tend to see it as a connection, but also 

8 this is a similar proposed hierarchy that the 

9 Energy Star display team is using as well. And DOE 

10 – this is one of the points that DOE is requesting 

11 comments upon stakeholders to see if, you know, 

12 what their thoughts on this hierarchy is.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

14 MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, so this is – this came 

15 from a displays proceeding, right?

16 MR. ROTOLO: That’s correct.

17 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So that explains 

18 thunderbolt in front of USB, for example.

19 MR. ROTOLO: Primarily, yes, it’s 

20 primarily display oriented technology.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Does this application 

22 change the hierarchy?

23 MR. GOLDBERG: I’d suggest that in a 

24 television environment, USB would be slightly more 

25 likely than thunderbolt, but none of them are 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

201

1 likely at all. I mean, guessing.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on – Jon –

3 the hierarchy?

4 MR. FAIRHURST: Yeah, I would say that 

5 while a television may have a USB or firewire port, 

6 they’re typically not used for download acquisition 

7 mode. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: We have additional comment. 

9 Please say your name.

10 MR. ZHUMAGALI: This is Bizhan Zhumagali 

11 from ICF International. Just had a question. Wi12 Fi was just said to be the primary or the most 

13 prevalent connection for TVs. But on the previous 

14 slide, on the data slide, there was only one TV 

15 that was tested with wireless, was that because the 

16 other TVs did not have wireless capability?

17 MR. YODER: That’s correct. They 

18 physically did not have the capability to connect 

19 wirelessly.

20 MR. ZHUMAGALI: And at the same time we 

21 see about four or five that have Ethernet.

22 MR. YODER: Those particular TVs, not all 

23 the TVs that DOE tested, had full network 

24 capabilities. All network capabilities were 

25 tested, so at the 47-inch LED TV had all forms of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

202

1 that connection. The other few that were only 

2 tested with Ethernet, those were only tested 

3 because they didn’t have wireless connections. 

4 MR. ZHUMAGALI: I guess maybe this is a 

5 question to industry and everybody. Do we think 

6 that wireless is still the main connection seen in 

7 TVs overall?

8 MR. BROOKMAN: For the record, several 

9 individuals from industry are shaking their heads 

10 “yes.” Okay. Thanks for the question. Jon, go 

11 ahead.

12 MR. FAIRHURST: I have a question actually 

13 about the hierarchy, not for the download 

14 acquisition mode, but I didn’t see a discussion of 

15 the hierarchy for the actually video input signals. 

16 So if it’s appropriate, I have some comments on 

17 that.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, sure.

19 MR. FAIRHURST: Very good. Currently the 

20 NOPR shows the order of HDMI/DBI –

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon, say what you’re 

22 referring to.

23 MR. FAIRHURST: Yes, so this is – let’s 

24 see it’s 4.5 input cable, in the NOPR. So it’s in 

25 the Federal Register page 2865. “Testing shall be 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

203

1 performed using an HDMI cable. If the TV does not 

2 have an HDMI input, the following inputs shall be 

3 used in the following order.” And it prioritizes 

4 HDMI/DVI and VGA component and so forth. And 

5 actually I would say that the DVI and VGA may not 

6 be as appropriate for the primary spots because 

7 when connected to those connections, the television 

8 assumes that it’s a PC and some televisions are 

9 known to go into a different gamma curve. So the 

10 brightness curve of the television may actually be 

11 different. So I would think that the component 

12 analog connection would be the second most likely 

13 high definition connection for video devices. Now 

14 whether or not we get into s-video composite and 

15 where those rank with the computer connections, 

16 that’s another story. But a component is frequently 

17 provided on set-top boxes. Set-top boxes typically 

18 do not have VGA or DVI outputs.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Adam.

20 MR. GOLDBERG: So, backing up what Jon

21 said. First, it’s not clear what’s meant by 

22 HDMI/DVI as different from HDMI. I think the NOPR 

23 says to use HDMI, and if you don’t have that use 

24 HDMI/DVI, whatever that is. I’m not clear what it 

25 is. If what’s meant is DVI, then both DVI and VGA 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

204

1 are really PC interfaces, and in addition to gamma 

2 differences, as Jon was talking about, there’s also 

3 a lot of resolution differences. That is, when a 

4 display think it’s being used as a computer 

5 monitor, it’s going to try to do, you know, one 

6 pixel per pixel display and no smoothing or 

7 filtering, or at least a different set. That is, 

8 the device will act completely unlike a television. 

9 So I’d suggest that it should be HDMI component as 

10 video composite, in that order, and drop the PC 

11 interfaces entirely.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon.

13 MR. FAIRHURST: Thank you. And on my desk 

14 for doing video editing, I actually have a TV 

15 connected to a computer using DVI. And Adam is 

16 absolutely correct, it works differently with that 

17 connection than with the expected video 

18 connections.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Bill, did you have 

20 something? Yes, Bill.

21 MR. SCHLINDER: I haven’t printed out, but 

22 in my notes, the Energy Star actually prohibits the 

23 VGA connection from being used. And it’s in my 

24 notes and I can check it, but you all can check it 

25 too. For the exact reason that the VGA enters a 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

205

1 different color space and it’s just not – it’s just 

2 not used for TVs.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s an actual – that’s a 

4 specification in Energy Star?

5 MR. SCHLINDER: Energy Star, when they 

6 talk about in the test method, according to my 

7 notes, it says that it’s not allowed by Energy Star 

8 to be used, the VGA.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I just wanted to 

10 clarify the source.

11 MR. SCHLINDER: Test signal. Input cable. 

12 Here it is. The DOE NOPR, section 4.5 for input 

13 cable, “Testing shall be used in an HDMI input 

14 cable. If the TV does not have an HDMI input, the 

15 following inputs shall be used, HDMI/DVI, VGA, 

16 component, s-video, and composite.” And then my 

17 notes say “Energy Star states that VGA shall not be 

18 used.” Energy Star only allows HDMI or component 

19 interfaces. We can check that, but that’s what my 

20 notes day.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

22 MR. SCHLINDER: So that’s the VGA. What 

23 Jon was talking about on the input, can I just 

24 backup, please to the standby active hierarchy of 

25 signals for CEA DAM test?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

206

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah.

2 MR. SCHLINDER: Great. We, again, the 

3 hospitality TVs communicate the DAM through the 

4 mains signal cable, so think of the main video 

5 interface. We modulate to the set top box, along 

6 that cable, all of the download information, okay. 

7 So that’s why Energy Star was modified to say that 

8 download acquisition will occur, download 

9 acquisition mode, in addition to be going through 

10 those types of sources could actually come down 

11 through the main signal interface, because we 

12 combine both the download data and the video signal 

13 on that one cable, on the hospitality TVs. Because 

14 in our case, the set top box functionality is very 

15 different than many, so we integrate a lot of 

16 things, which ultimately saves power. When you 

17 integrate functionality and you eliminate boxes, as 

18 we all know, that capability will cost a little 

19 power, but on a system-wide basis, it saves power.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

21 MR. GOLDBERG: So any fully consumer 

22 device that’s using, like we were talking about, 

23 the Rovi download earlier – that stuff is at least 

24 a lot of time, in band as well. That is, before 

25 Wi-Fi it comes to the broadcast channel -- cable, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

207

1 or whatever it is.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Your name please.

3 MS. RODULOVIS: This is Verna Rodulovis 

4 from Energy Star, and a question for Bill. So what 

5 you’re saying that that particular hierarchy is not 

6 necessary for the DAM testing because they have 

7 their own cable. But that particular hierarchy 

8 would be better suited for a consumer television 

9 that doesn’t have – that isn’t a hospitality 

10 television if you wanted to test it in the standby 

11 – I guess standby active, or I guess no, the 

12 standby active low mode, where it’s not necessarily 

13 downloading something, but you’re just connecting 

14 it?

15 MR. SCHLINDER: Yes, it would be 

16 appropriate for – that hierarchy is appropriate 

17 with the exception of what both Adam mentioned for 

18 – he’s saying the consumer TVs will actually do 

19 download acquisition over the main video interface. 

20 And I’m saying that for hospitality TVs, ours 

21 specifically, I know, do the download acquisition 

22 over the main coaxial connection.

23 MS. RODULOVIS: So for the televisions, 

24 then, this is still Verna Rodulovis from EPA, so 

25 then for the televisions that have Wi-Fi, is it the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

208

1 Wi-Fi that is primarily downloading it? I think 

2 I’m hearing two different things, one that it’s 

3 being downloaded from the main connection, and then 

4 on the other hand, a lot of the TVs have Wi-Fi. 

5 What’s the –

6 MR. SCHLINDER: It’s two different 

7 applications. The electronic program guide for a 

8 hospitality TV is downloaded on the same cable that 

9 it’s getting its video signal from. Okay. So that 

10 would have to be put at maybe the top of that 

11 signal – a list, you know, we’ve got a list of Wi12 Fi and then Ethernet – above Wi-Fi, we should 

13 probably add the primary video signal cable.

14 MS. RODULOVIS: So if an American consumer 

15 is downloading something from an app, how would 

16 that come to the television? Would that come from 

17 the main connection or would that come through Wi18 Fi?

19 MR. SCHLINDER: Because it’s going to the 

20 internet for downloading an app, it would be coming 

21 through Wi-Fi or Ethernet, so that works really 

22 well for downloading apps, the existing list that 

23 you have there, Wi-Fi and Ethernet. But since the 

24 DAM test also includes electronic program guide, 

25 then we should just augment this list to include 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

209

1 the main video signal where we have actually 

2 multiplexed on top of it, you know, using the same 

3 cable, the download acquisition mode for our 

4 hospitality TVs. So we just need to add that in 

5 there, that if that’s the primary way of getting 

6 the electronic programming guide is through your 

7 main video feed, then that should probably be 

8 primary. 

9 And then for consumer TVs, Adam says some 

10 of them do that. And so it would still be primary. 

11 But for most consumer TVs, in fact all the 

12 Panasonic ones, consumer, we don’t do that. We get 

13 our download, if we’re ever going to do any 

14 download, through the Ethernet, in which case this 

15 Wi-Fi and Ethernet procedure would be appropriate.

16 MS. RODULOVIS: So in other words, if you 

17 had – the main connection above the Wi-Fi, that 

18 would apply for hospitality televisions and then 

19 for those consumer products that do download it 

20 that way, you’d use that, but if the majority of 

21 the consumer products, they would go to number two, 

22 which would be Wi-Fi or Ethernet?

23 MR. SCHLINDER: I believe that to be the 

24 case.

25 MS. RODULOVIS: All right. Thank you. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

210

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks. Let’s move on. 

2 That was good – that was good explanatory stuff. 

3 Yes, Jon.

4 MR. FAIRHURST: Back on the video input 

5 hierarchy, in Energy Star it does say “HDMI shall 

6 be used for display of test signals during testing. 

7 If HDMI is not available, then the component 

8 interface shall be used. The VGA interface shall 

9 not be used.” And I think to expand on this for 

10 DOE’s use, to cover all TVs in case they don’t have 

11 HDMI or component, that would be rare, but I 

12 imagine that those exist, then s-video and 

13 composite video would be next in line. And to 

14 parallel what’s gone on with VGA, DVI also probably 

15 should not be used. So that’s my recommendation.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Now this 

17 final slide in this segment on off mode.

18 MR. YODER: Yes. So the last mode in 

19 which DOE proposes to include in the NOPR is off 

20 mode, testing in the off mode. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

22 MR. GOLDBERG: Sorry, so – never mind, 

23 sorry.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

25 Energy Efficiency Metrics
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

211

1 MR. YODER: Next we’ll talk about the 

2 energy efficiency metrics. DOE – in the NOPR, DOE 

3 is proposing to output multiple metrics by 

4 including a luminance ratio, on mode power, standby 

5 mode power, and off mode power. Although it’s 

6 proposing to have multiple metrics, it has

7 considered a single metric, combining these 

8 outputs. The benefit of having multiple outputs is 

9 that other rulemaking bodies, such as Energy Star 

10 and CEC set different requirements for these modes, 

11 and that would not have to be changed. The benefit 

12 of a single metric is that it’s calculated within 

13 the test procedure and there’s one consistent 

14 output across regulating bodies.

15 DOE seeks comments from interested parties 

16 about these approaches. Yes.

17 MR. GOLDBERG: Sorry, I’ve jumped ahead a 

18 slide and I’m confused why, if H off is zero, why 

19 you need to bother measuring what the off mode 

20 power consumption might be, if you’re multiplying 

21 by zero anyway. I mean, P off is irrelevant if H 

22 off is zero. Know what I’m saying?

23 MR. BROOKMAN: You’re talking about the 

24 first equation there.

25 MR. YODER: Yeah, let me –
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

212

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Vic.

2 MR. PETROLATI: Adam, first of all, the 

3 equation that you’re referring to, it is not in the 

4 rules section of the NOPR, it’s one of two 

5 alternatives. We are not at this point, convinced 

6 that we are going with the single metric. So 

7 that’s why we can’t eliminate it at this point.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: While we’re cogitating on 

9 that, let’s back up to 103, issue box 13, you can 

10 see the comment request on preliminary decision not 

11 to take into account the possibility that consumers 

12 may switch between preset picture settings. No 

13 comments here? So now we’ll go to the next one, 

14 and questions about these equations.

15 Clarify for us –

16 MR. YODER: The on mode metric?

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

18 MR. YODER: The on mode power metric. 

19 This is an equation which calculates the on mode 

20 power when ABC is enabled, and it averages out the 

21 different power readings when different 

22 illuminances are present on the television. You 

23 would take the power in that particular 

24 illuminance, multiplied by the particular weight 

25 associated with that power mode. So that’s that 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

213

1 equation.

2 The last box outlines the hours associated 

3 with the different modes. Seven hours for on mode, 

4 and 17 hours for standby passive. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Vic?

6 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, let me mention that 

7 again, for H off as zero, we had very little 

8 information in terms of estimating what H off is. 

9 TVs are generally not sold with a hard off switch. 

10 We’re aware of very few that are sold with a hard 

11 switch that is able to turn the TV into completely 

12 an off mode where it cannot be switched on by the 

13 remote. We would certainly be interested in 

14 getting any information if anybody has it, but at 

15 this point, H off is being estimated as zero.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Your name, please.

17 MR. SHARP: Mark Sharp, Panasonic. I had 

18 a question about the hour weightings. Energy Star, 

19 as I believe you’re aware, uses a five hours off 

20 and 19 hours on for their calculation. I’m 

21 guessing that DOE has decided, based on some data 

22 or some other information to change that relative 

23 weighting, and I’m curious if you could explain 

24 that in more detail.

25 MR. YODER: Yes, in the next few slides, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

214

1 Louis will talk about how we’ve come to the 

2 conclusions that we have.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s head in that 

4 direction.

5 MR. KUNDU: Before that, Bijit Kundu with 

6 Energy Solutions. Just want to get more 

7 clarification from the Department. If they went 

8 away from having different requirements for the 

9 different modes and had the single metric, was the 

10 idea that certain televisions would only be 

11 displaying that specific value, and reporting that 

12 to DOE, or would they be reporting all the 

13 different inputs that went into that calculation?

14 MR. PETROLATI: First of all, let me 

15 respond to that. One, we have no reporting 

16 requirements established at this point in time. So 

17 I can’t answer that fully. The concern is, 

18 programs such as Energy Star, set limits on standby 

19 mode power. Using this test procedure with the 

20 single metric, this would most likely eliminate 

21 that approach, as well as the approach of 

22 California in terms of establishing single 

23 metrics. So it’s more of a concern with the single 

24 metric approach eliminating some of the flexibility 

25 for other programs, than it is as to what would be 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

215

1 reported.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. That was good.

3 MR. SHARP: Thanks.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: That was helpful. Okay. 

5 So then, now we’re going to move on. And Louis.

6 Energy Metrics

7 MR. DESROCHES: So to answer that 

8 question, just to describe very briefly where that 

9 seven hours comes from. It comes from a data set 

10 obtained from Nielsen. They have monthly set level 

11 viewing statistics that are available, and we 

12 purchased data from May 2007 to May 2011. And 

13 these data are collected from a representative 

14 cross-section of US households, and as of May 2011, 

15 there are roughly 20,000 participating households 

16 in the survey. And the viewing hours are obtained 

17 by connecting metering device to each television in 

18 the participating household, and some households 

19 have many, many televisions. And meters are also 

20 attached to all the peripheral devices to the 

21 television, and so it’s possible to get viewing 

22 statistics of the television being used in each of 

23 its possible formats. So there’s TV used in 

24 broadcast, TV used from game consoles, TV used from 

25 removable media like Blu-ray players, TV used from 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

216

1 recorded DVR content. So you can aggregate all 

2 this TV use and it is metered data, as opposed to a 

3 survey data, and so this is what the analysis was 

4 based on.

5 And so very quickly, the data we separated 

6 into a primary and non-primary. The primary 

7 television is defined as the television in each 

8 household that is used most frequently, so the one 

9 television that has the most hours of use, that was 

10 called the primary television, and then everything 

11 after that was the secondary television or tertiary 

12 television, and so on. We could lump all the other 

13 televisions as non-primary. And the reason we did 

14 that is because the general usage characteristics 

15 of the secondary televisions and tertiary 

16 televisions were all about the same. 

17 So you can see here at the top right, this 

18 is the distribution of viewing hours across all 

19 these households. This is hours per day on the X 

20 axis, and the frequency on the Y axis. And for 

21 primary televisions, there’s a log normal 

22 distribution with a very long tail. And then you 

23 can see for non-primary televisions, that same 

24 distribution is sharply peaked at fairly low values 

25 and zero values. And this distribution, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

217

1 qualitatively, was the same whether it was a 

2 secondary or a tertiary or so on, television. The 

3 average shifted a little bit, as you might expect, 

4 from secondary to tertiary, but the qualitative 

5 characteristic was the same. So that’s why this 

6 separation was done, to distinguish between primary 

7 and non-primary.

8 And over here, this is the average, annual

9 average for the years that were collected for 

10 primary and non-primary. And in both cases, there 

11 is a slight trend going up in the last couple of 

12 years. And as you can see, for the last full year 

13 of data, the average is about seven for primary 

14 televisions.

15 So as I just said, the last full year of 

16 data, the average daily usage for primary 

17 television is seven hours from the Nielsen. This 

18 is a robust finding because it comes from an 

19 average of over 20,000 participating households, 

20 and Nielsen is a firm that has a lot of expertise 

21 in this area. And just as an aside here, this 

22 value is actually in agreement with the average 

23 from CLASP, the CLASP room illuminance study, which 

24 also had a meter connected to the television in the 

25 primary viewing room, and they found, on average, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

218

1 about 6.9 hours per day across 60 homes, and so 

2 there’s a consistency in this value. And again, 

3 it’s been rising over the last several years.

4 So there’s one caveat to this result, 

5 which is DOE acknowledges that not every new TV 

6 that is purchased today will necessarily become a 

7 primary television. As an example, in the Nielsen 

8 data set, in the last year, on average about – for 

9 every household 65 percent of the newest 

10 televisions in the participating households ended 

11 up being the primary televisions. But for the rest 

12 of the 35 percent, the primary television was 

13 actually an older model television in the home. 

14 And that has risen slightly over the several years 

15 of the data set. It used to be about 55 percent in 

16 2007, and then as people are purchasing televisions 

17 to replace their older stock, it is more likely 

18 that the newest television in the home ends up 

19 being the primary television.

20 But at this time, DOE does not have 

21 sufficient data to do this analysis properly on 

22 what the probability of new shipments becoming 

23 primary televisions. There’s also likely to be a 

24 screen size dependence, such that the larger 

25 televisions are likely – more likely to become a 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

219

1 primary television than smaller televisions. And 

2 again, DOE is not aware of the data that we could 

3 use to do this kind of analysis. 

4 And so if we were to try and do a bit of a 

5 proxy calculation and assume somewhat 

6 conservatively that 65 percent of televisions 

7 purchased today end up being primary, and 35 

8 percent of televisions being non-primary, that 

9 would result in a blended average which is shown 

10 here on the lower left. And again, it’s a 

11 qualitatively similar curve to what was shown 

12 before for primary televisions, but the average is 

13 a bit lower, and the average is about five and a 

14 half hours. But this is an approximation only, 

15 and it is using an estimate of the probability of 

16 being a primary television only on the stock of 

17 televisions right now, and is not necessarily 

18 indicative of what the new television sales are.

19 And then on the right here is again, just 

20 showing this last several years of data, and this 

21 is where the blended average would fall. And we’d 

22 end up with about five and a half.

23 MR. FAIRHURST: This is Jon Fairhurst. 

24 Regarding data as to the which sizes are primary 

25 and secondary, the CEA data set does include screen 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

220

1 size as well as the location, whether or not it’s 

2 living room or bedroom, so that might – that would 

3 give some data, not necessarily robust nearly as 

4 Nielsen, but some data anyway.

5 MR. DESROCHES: On that note, the Nielsen 

6 data also include the location of the room, and so 

7 it may be possible to do some correlation between 

8 the probability of being located in one room to the 

9 probability of being the primary television, based 

10 on the Nielsen data.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Adam.

12 MR. GOLDBERG: Is the Nielsen data that 

13 you acquired available, or would we have to go to 

14 Nielsen and buy it again?

15 MR. DESROCHES: We cannot share that. We 

16 can share a small subsample of it. I think we have 

17 the rights to publish ten percent of the full data 

18 set, but you’d have to buy that data set yourself.

19 And again, the seven hours here is for the 

20 purposes of the single metric, which is being 

21 considered by DOE, but it’s not what’s being 

22 proposed in the NOPR.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Will you post that ten 

24 percent or something?

25 MR. DESROCHES: We will eventually post 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

221

1 the ten percent.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So you see the 

3 comment box at issue E. On the analysis used to 

4 determine average on mode hours per day, the 

5 assumption to base these hours on those measured 

6 for primary TVs and data. And I’d – also a 

7 dependence on screen size, that being a key 

8 assumption. Jon.

9 MR. FAIRHURST: Yeah, Jon Fairhurst. I 

10 have a question for DOE regarding the single 

11 metric. Is it possible for DOE to do a 

12 combination, where we would not report single, but 

13 there would be the three, the annual, as well as 

14 the standby, as well as the active mode? Because 

15 people are used to finding out, oh, how many watts 

16 does it use when I’m watching it, and the 

17 manufacturers often use that in sales literature, 

18 PR reports and so forth. And additionally, FTC 

19 uses a single number, so in that context, we want 

20 to boil it down to the annual usage and the 

21 dollars. So, it seems to me that the status quo 

22 makes sense. So can the DOE NOPR support that, 

23 including specific combination of numbers that each 

24 group would use to get those three results: 

25 standby, on mode, and annual.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

222

1 MR. PETROLATI: What was the third? 

2 Standby, on mode and?

3 MR. FAIRHURST: Annual.

4 MR. PETROLATI: Jon, I don’t have an 

5 answer right now, we’ll check. My concern is just 

6 publishing the annual metric may eliminate some of 

7 the agencies that use or establish requirements on 

8 some of the other metrics. But obviously there’s 

9 already the information within the single metric 

10 that can be pulled out for determining some of 

11 these other factors that you’re indicating. But 

12 either way, we will check.

13 MR. FAIRHURST: Very good.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: That is the last 

15 substantive slide. As we had promised first thing 

16 this morning – thank you – now is an opportunity 

17 for anybody that wishes to, to make additional 

18 comments, raise additional issues, anything you 

19 don’t think has been covered sufficiently during 

20 the course of this meeting.

21 I’m going to hand out an evaluation form 

22 while this is taking place. Comments here as we 

23 move towards closure? Yes, Bill.

24 MR. SCHLINDER: I just have a 

25 clarification question on the very last issue. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

223

1 Does that mean that if the test only specifies 

2 perhaps an AEC, annual energy consumption value, 

3 that other regulating agencies like Energy Star 

4 would then adopt that as their requirement?

5 MR. PETROLATI: That’s correct, Bill, that 

6 is the assumption here, that that would be the only 

7 thing that they would be able to use, because that 

8 is the only metric that comes out of the test 

9 procedure, and we are going to have to work very 

10 closely with the Office of General Counsel to see 

11 if there’s any flexibility if we use the annual 

12 metric for others to use other aspects in terms of 

13 establishing requirements. But the initial reading 

14 was no, that they would be stuck with just the 

15 annual metric.

16 MR. SCHLINDER: Thank you.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Issues? Closing remarks at 

18 this time? Yes, Bill.

19 Closing Comments

20 MR. SCHLINDER: Because this is so new to 

21 me, I haven’t realized about the CEC being a 

22 possibility, the only thing I can see with it is 

23 that because it specifies seven hours of on time 

24 versus five hours which has been the norm, then 

25 these FTC yellow labels that are basically annual 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

224

1 energy consumption, will go up by 40 percent. Five 

2 to seven. And so if there’s two TVs for a while at 

3 some of the retailers, one using one method and one 

4 using a new method, there’ll be a 40 percent 

5 differential which may – it may be the exact same 

6 power, but one’s being multiplied by seven versus 

7 five, so that’s just a management issue, perhaps.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie.

9 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I was 

10 under the impression that in the absence of data 

11 that would suggest otherwise, that you end up at 

12 five and a half hours, not seven. Am I wrong on 

13 that then? The seven was for primary televisions 

14 only, right?

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Louis. Please.

16 MR. DESROCHES: So Louis, LBL. The seven 

17 hours is the most concrete robust number, and the 

18 five and a half is a bit of an approximation, so if 

19 you have suggestions or concerns about the use of 

20 either of those numbers, we would appreciate any 

21 comments on that. But at the time it’s seven 

22 hours.

23 MR. PETROLATI: Let me also clarify that 

24 since we have seven in our formula, that 

25 corresponds to strictly the value for primary 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

225

1 televisions at this point.

2 MR. DESROCHES: That’s correct.

3 MR. PETROLATI: And we are certainly 

4 willing to accept comments concerning the approach.

5 MR. STEPHENS: Okay, we will – we may –

6 we’ll have our data based on television make and 

7 model, which I guess can be traced back to year, so 

8 we may find out that on average, we may agree with 

9 you that 65 percent of the new televisions bought 

10 end up as primary, and 35 percent end up as 

11 secondary. If we do, I would think you would use 

12 that same blended number of five and a half hours.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Louis.

14 MR. PETROLATI: Please provide us a 

15 comment along those lines, Charlie.

16 MR. STEPHENS: I hope to provide data and 

17 comment.

18 MR. DESROCHES: Just clarification. The 

19 issue is not on the energy use of the televisions 

20 that are already in stock. It’s the energy use of 

21 the televisions that are being sold today, and so 

22 what is the likelihood of a new television today 

23 that will be a primary television, and that’s what 

24 we don’t have the data to determine.

25 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, that’s true. I 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

226

1 understand that, but ultimately the televisions –

2 we’re looking at annual energy use and we’re not 

3 just looking at annual energy use next year. We’re 

4 looking at annual energy use of the television over 

5 its lifetime, and a primary television ultimately 

6 will become a secondary television, and, you know, 

7 they rotate through the house as the oldest ones 

8 leave and everything moves. So I don’t know that 

9 the rationale is as clear cut as you’re suggesting.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks. So additional 

11 comments? Final comments?

12 So then for my part I’ll thank all of you. 

13 We had a very productive day. We’ve covered a lot 

14 of ground here, a lot of really, really good 

15 commentary. Many thanks for that. I’ll turn it 

16 back to Vic Petrolati to close it up.

17 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, thanks Doug. Again, 

18 last slide we’ve got today – I don’t want to see 

19 any more – Comments. Comment period closes April 

3rd 20 . We appreciate both your participating in this 

21 meeting. We’re going to appreciate more receiving 

22 comments from all stakeholders involved in this 

23 process. So please get your comments in in a 

24 timely fashion so we can move forward in a timely 

25 fashion. And again, we’ve got all the information 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

227

1 on either our website or in these viewgraphs as to 

2 how to submit comments.

3 Second, thank you very much for your time. 

4 It has been very helpful for us, getting this type 

5 of information and feedback. Again, the comments 

6 that we got for the RFI provided us a significant 

7 basis for moving forward. These comments will 

8 provide us a significant basis for finalizing this 

9 test procedure. So, thank you again for your time 

10 here today, and we appreciate the time and effort 

11 you’re going to spend in submitting those comments.

12 I want to thank those on the web as well 

13 for participating. Any final questions? Yes?

14 PARTICIPANT: (off mic) The presentation 

15 will be posted on the website?

16 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, it was, days ago.

17 PARTICIPANT: And will be available?

18 MR. PETROLATI: Yes.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: All the materials will be 

20 available on line?

21 MR. PETROLATI: Yes.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks to all of you. Safe 

23 travels.

24 MR. PETROLATI: Yes. Okay. Thank you. 

25 (Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the meeting in 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

228

1 the above captioned matter was adjourned.) 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

229

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the attached proceedings 

before:

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL COAL COUNCIL

In the Matter of:

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

PUBLIC MEETING ON TELEVISION SETS

 

 

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 

 Official Reporter

Dated: April 10, 2012