1

BEFORE THE 1

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 2

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS PUBLIC MEETING FOR 3

BATTERY CHARGERS AND EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES 4

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

13 October 2010 15

Washington, D.C. USA

___________________________________________________ 16

BUNN & ASSOCIATES 17

Registered Professional Reporters Worldwide

Post Office Box 297 18

310 South Main Street

Lusk, Wyoming 82225 USA 19

In USA 1

- 800

- 435

- 2468 Worldwide 001

- 307

- 334

- 2423 20

Worldwide Telefax 001

- 307

- 316

- 0388 21

E

- mail: BUNNWORLDWIDE@aol.com 22

Copyright 2010 232

ATTENDEES: 1

DOUGLAS BROOKMAN 2

Public Solutions, Inc.

Moderator 3

MIKE AGRONIN 4

Director

Technical Analyses, Building Science and 5

Engineering

D&R International 6

LARRY ALBERT 7

Senior Technical Manager

Produc t Safety and Compliance 8

701 East Japps Road

MS TW050 9

Towson, Maryland 21286

USA 10

PH 410

- 716

- 3148

FX 410

- 716

- 2109 11

Larry.Albert@bdk.com

12

TIMOTHY BALLO, Esquire

Associate Attorney 13

Earthj ustice

1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 14

Suite 702

Washington, D.C. 20036 15

USA

PH 202

- 667

- 4500 16

FX 202

- 667

- 2356

tballo@earthjustice.org 17

BRIAN BOOHER 18

D&R International

1300 Spring Street 19

Suite 500

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 20

USA

PH 301

- 588

- 9387 21

bbooher@drintl.com

22

233

ATTENDEES (Continued): 1

LINDSAY DESTEFANO 2

Navigant Consulting

PH 412

- 454

- 4113 3

lindsay.destefano@navigantconsulting.com

4

RIC ERDHEIM, Esquire

Senior Counsel 5

Legislative and Regulatory Affairs

Philips Elect ronics North America 6

1050 K Street NW

Suite 900 7

Washington, D.C. 20001

USA 8

PH 202

- 962

- 8550

FX 202

- 962

- 8560 9

ric.erdheim@philips.com

10

HOLLY A. EVANS

President 11

Strategic Counsel

9040 Patton Boulevard 12

Alexandria, Virginia 22309

USA 13

PH 703

- 496

- 4832

CL 703

- 409

- 1007 14

h.evans1@verizon.net

15

RICK HABBEN

Regulator/Safety Compliance Engineer 16

Wahl Clipper Corporation

2900 North Locust Street 17

Post Office Box 578

Sterling, Illinois 61081

- 0578 18

USA

PH 815

- 548

- 8295 19

FX 815

- 625

- 1841

rhabben@wahlclipper.com 20

MATTHEW HARTLEY 21

Navigant Consulting

PH 202

- 481

- 7555 22

Matthew.Hartley@navigantconsulting.com

234

ATTENDEES (Continued): 1

SANAEE IYAMA 2

Program Manager

Energy Analysis Department 3

Environmental Energy Technologies Division

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 4

One Cyclotron Road

MS 90R4000 5

Berkeley, California 94720

- 8136

USA 6

PH 510

- 486

- 6604

FX 510

- 486

- 6996 7

ssiya ma@lbl.gov

8

DANIEL LAUF

D&R International, ltd. 9

1300 Spring Street

Suite 500 10

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

USA 11

PH 301

- 588

- 9387

dlauf@drintl.com 12

DAVID LIS 13

Appliance Standards Program Manager

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships 14

91 Hartwell Avenue

Lexington, Massachusetts 02421 15

USA

PH 781

- 860

- 9177 x 127 16

FX 781

- 860

- 9178

djlis@neep.org 17

MATEUSZ (MATT) MALINOWSKI 18

Senior Associate

ICF International 19

1725 Eye Street NW

Suite 1000 20

Washington, D.C. 20006

USA 21

PH 202

- 862

- 1200

DR 202

- 862

- 2693 22

FX 202

- 862

- 1144

MMalinowski@icfi.com 235

ATTENDEES (Continued): 1

JOANNA MAUER 2

Technical Advocacy Coordinator

Appliance Standards Awareness Project 3

529 Fourteenth Street NW

Suite 600 4

Washington, D.C. 20045

USA 5

PH 202

- 507

- 4034

jmauer@standardsASAP.org. 6

MARK MENZER 7

Senior Director

Association Affairs and Programs Development 8

Commercial and Electrical

Intertek 9

11112 Chessingt on Place

Reston, Virginia 20194 10

USA

PH 703

- 201

- 8705 11

mark.menzer@intertek.com

12

JIM MORGAN, Esquire

Director and Counsel 13

Government & Industry Affairs

Sony Electronics, Inc. 14

1667 K Street NW

Suite 200 15

Washington, D.C. 20006

US A 16

PH 202

- 429

- 3651

FX 202

- 429

- 3663 17

CL 202

- 436

- 1562

james.morgabn@am.sony.com 18

19

20

21

22

236

ATTENDEES (Continued): 1

WAYNE E. MORRIS 2

Vice President

Division Services 3

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

1111 Nineteenth Street NW 4

Suite 402

Washington, D.C. 20036 5

USA

PH 202

- 872

- 5955 x 313 6

FX 202

- 872

- 9354

Cl 202

- 256

- 4200 7

wmorris@aham.org

8

MATTHEW NARDOTTI

Navigant Consulting 9

PH 202

- 481

- 7546

matthew.nardotti@navigantcons ulting.com 10

KOUSHALY NARESHKAMAR 11

Navigant Consulting

PH 202

- 481

- 7377 12

koushaly.nareshkumar@nagivantconsulting.com

13

SUZANNE FOSTER PORTER

Senior Manager 14

ECOS

1199 Main Avenue 15

Suite 242

Durango, Colorado 81301 16

USA

PH 970

- 243

- 4503 17

FX 970

- 259

- 8585

sporter@ecosconsulting.com 18

ARI REEVES 19

D&R International

1300 Spring Street 20

Suite 500

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 21

USA

PH 301

- 588

- 9387 22

FX 301

- 588

- 0854

areeves@drintl.com 237

ATTENDEES (Continued): 1

ANTHONY ROTOLO 2

Navigant Consulting

PH 585

- 503

- 6554 3

anthony.rotolo@navigantconsulting.com

4

TOBIAS SWOPE

D&R International 5

1300 Spring Street

Suite 500 6

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

USA 7

PH 301

- 588

- 9387

FX 301

- 588

- 0854 8

tswope@drintl.com

9

DANIEL TENINTY

Senior Regulatory Analyst 10

Fulton Innovation

7575 Fulton Street East 11

Ada, Michigan 49355

USA 12

PH 616

- 787

- 4158

616

- 914

- 0835 13

daniel.teninty@fultoninnovation.com

14

MICHAE L VLADIMER

Navigant Consulting 15

PH 202

- 481

- 7323

mvladimer@navigantconsulting.com 16

MEG WALTNER 17

Energy Advocate

Natural Resources Defense Council 18

1200 New York Avenue NW

Suite 400 19

Washington, D.C. 20005

USA 20

PH 202

- 513

- 6270

FX 202

- 289

- 1060 21

mwaltner@nrdc.org

22

NOTE: Cyber attendees remain unidentified. 238

1

I N D E X

Page 2

Welcome 3

By Victor Petrolati 10

4

Attendee Introductions and Agenda Review

By Douglas Brookman 11 5

Background and Overview 6

By Victor Petrolati 15

7

Opening Comments from Participants

By Suzanne Foster Porter 27 8

By Wayne Morris 34

By Ric Erdheim 44 9

Product Definitions and Scope 10

By Ari Reeves 47

11

Market Assessment

By Daniel Lauf 96 12

Technology Assessment and Screening Analysis 13

By Michael Vladimer 123

14

Engineering Analysis

By Michael Vladimer 178 15

By Matthew Nard otti 247

16

Energy Use Analysis

By Tobias Swope 295 17

Product Price Determination 18

By Daniel Lauf 314

19

Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

By Ma tthew Har t ley 328 20

Shipments and National Impact Analyses 21

By Tobias Swope 347

22

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

By Robert Carmichael 356 239

I N D E X 1

(Continued)

Page 2

NOPR ANALYSES 3

By Sanaee Iyama 362

4

Closing Comments

By Wayne Morris 3 69 5

By Suzanne Porter 375

By Larry Albert 377 6

By Ric Erdheim 379

By Douglas Brookman 381 7

Closing Remarks 8

By Victor Petro lati 382

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2310

BEFORE THE 1

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 2

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS PUBLIC MEETING FOR 3

BATTERY CHARGERS AND EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES 4

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Let's take our seats and 6

begin. 7

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Good morning. 8

My name is Vic Petrolati. I'm with the 9

Standards Program responsible for battery chargers 10

and external power supplies. 11

I want to welcome everybody here to our 12

meeting for our preliminary analysis for standards 13

for battery chargers and external power supplies. 14

We hav e got an absolutely packed agenda today that 15

will take us to 5:00 o'clock. 16

We're going to do everything possible to 17

try to remain on that agenda. We have brought 18

enough slides today to probably continue till 19

midnight, so we are going to try to keep everybody 20

on the agenda as much as possible. 21

And, Doug, I want to make sure that we 22

try to do that, okay? 2311

I don't want to say anything more in 1

terms of welcoming introductions. We'll get right 2

into the presentations very soon. 3

Let me turn it over to Doug to just go 4

over some of the ground rules. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. It's our 6

practice to have introductions first, I think, so 7

please say your name and those you represent. 8

We, we won't capture all of this on the 9

microphone, but we do have a Record of who's in the 10

room because everybody registered, name and

-- 11

(Whereupon, at 9:07 a.m. ET, those 12

present announced their names and affiliations. 13

Those attending via cyber attendance remained 14

unidentified, after which the following occurred:) 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you for being here. 16

At the registration table is a handout

. 17

It includes an Agenda, which I'm going to run 18

through very briefly, a very thick packet of 19

PowerPoint slides which will be the basis for the 20

presentation, the questioning, and the discussion 21

today, and also a few additional attachments which 22

will be referenced during the course of the day. 2312

Immediately following this Agenda review 1

I think Vic is going to make some brief summary, 2

some, some introductory remarks, and then in that 3

sequence there's an opportunity for anybody tha t 4

wishes to do so to make brief summary remarks, 5

remarks on key issues and concerns. We hope that 6

they can be brief. 7

We don't anticipate reading anything 8

lengthy into the Record. 9

Following that introduction background 10

and regulatory history, then moving directly to 11

market and technology assessment. We'll take a 12

break midmorning round about 10:25, 10:30

- ish or 13

so. 14

We'll see where the natural break point 15

is. Returning from that we'll have Screening 16

Analysis, Engineering Analysis, then Markups, 17

Energy Use, Life

- Cycle Costs, Shipments, National 18

Impact Analyses. 19

We'll break for lunch around about 20

noon

- ish. Immediately following lunch, then,

-- 21

We'll provide instruction for those of you that are 22

new to the Forrestal Building on where to go and 2313

how to proceed with lunch. 1

Immediately following lunch we'll have 2

Utility and Environmental Impacts, Employment 3

Imp act, and Regulatory Impact Analyses, and then 4

immediately following that, Proposed Standard 5

Levels. We'll break mid

- afternoon as required. 6

Regulatory Flexibility Act Consideration 7

when we return, and then finally Conclusions. And 8

th ere's yet another opportunity for anybody that 9

wishes to do so to make additional comments, 10

concluding remarks, issues that not, have not been 11

covered fully during the span of the day. 12

So, there's another opportunity there, 13

and we, th e agenda that I have

-- 14

MR. PETROLATI: Doug. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: So, my packet that's 16

contained in the Agenda, it's the Agenda for the 17

meeting tomorrow. So, we should all just refer to 18

the slides that you

-- So, this reflects

-- And 19

I've got it right here.

-- that what Vic said 20

earlier on a lot of the same kind of format, 21

although y ou can see the, the 22

content areas are slightly different and we, 2314

though, will go as quickly, a s efficiently as 1

possible, and possibly end today closer to 5:00 2

than this previous Agenda reflects, 3:00. 3

So, that's the overview on the agenda. 4

You can take a quick look through it. 5

I'm not going to repeat and re

- do the 6

agenda. Any questions and comments on the agenda? 7

(Whereupon, at 9:11 a.m. ET, no response 8

was had.) 9

MR. BROOKMAN: I see none. I'd 10

ask for your consideration. We have done a lot of 11

these meetings over the years. 12

If you would, please speak one at a 13

time. Please, you'll have to turn on the 14

microphones. 15

The little green LED button needs to be 16

bright in order to hear you and record you, your 17

comments on the Record. Please say you, your name 18

every time you speak. 19

You don't need to say your organization 20

affiliation unless you wish to or are in the habit 21

of doing so. I'm going to be using this. 22

I wish to have follow

- on comments, so, 2315

to have some back

- and

- forth. That sometimes is 1

very useful in terms of building the Record. 2

If you could keep the focus here, that 3

would be very helpful. Please turn your cell 4

phones on silent mode and please keep your sidebar 5

conversations down. These microphones work very 6

well. 7

And, if you can be considerate and share 8

the air time. We have a lot of contents. 9

And that's all I 10

wanted to co ver. So, comments from anybody before 11

we start? 12

(Whereupon, at 9:12 a.m. ET, no response 13

was had.) 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 15

MR. PETROLATI: Okay, let me cover 16

listening to the, via the web cast, as we have in 17

quite a few of your meetings. We're using the 18

Webinar today to reach our stakeholders that are 19

not able to attend. 20

The Department is broadcasting this 21

meeting over the Internet, obviously, and we're 22

providing webcast to accommodate t hose stakeholders 2316

that are unable to attend the public meeting. They 1

cannot comment. 2

It will allow them to listen in and view 3

the slides of the presentations, but during this 4

meeting we are not accepting, not accepting 5

questions fr om our stakeholders. That is something 6

that we want to do in the future, and we'll try to 7

make sure that next time we have a BC/EPS meeting 8

we will have the webinar and we'll try to address 9

questions from the stakeholders in the future. 10

Okay. All stakeholders are encouraged 11

to submit written comments after the public 12

meeting. 13

The comment period is supposed to close 14

by this Friday, October fifteenth. We are going to 15

extend the comment period. 16

I've just been informed we'll have to do 17

that by Federal Register Notice. It certainly 18

will

-- We'll not extend it beyond another two

- week 19

period. 20

I think that's the twenty

- eighth or 21

twenty

- ninth of October. But, we wi ll do that by 22

Federal Register notice. 2317

So, so, you have two weeks from this 1

Friday, is our planned date for getting all the 2

comments in, and you should see a Federal Register 3

Notice on that soon. Okay. 4

Let me just cover purpose of the meeting 5

before we get started here. To present the 6

procedural and analytical approaches to evaluate 7

energy conservation standards for battery chargers 8

and external power supplies, provide a forum for a 9

public discussion of the ru lemaking issues. 10

We want to, obviously, encourage 11

interested parties to submit data, information, and 12

written comments, and inform interested parties and 13

facilitate this rulemaking process. That is our 14

purpose for the public meeting. 15

Throughout the presentations today you 16

are going to see these issue boxes come up. These 17

are specific areas that we would like to get 18

stakeholder comment on. 19

But, I want to encourage you to provide 20

comments on anything that is either presented 21

today, or anything in the supporting materials that 22

were available for this public meeting. So, not 2318

only do we want you to focus on the comment boxes 1

and the issues that we specifically need to get 2

comment on, but anyth ing that is presented that 3

you're interested in. 4

Okay. These are your ways of submitting 5

comments. 6

Okay, please refer to the Battery 7

Chargers and External Power Supplies Energy 8

Conservation Standard Docket Number and re gulatory 9

information number. You can submit comments 10

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, or you can 11

provide comments directly to our e

- mail box that we 12

have established BC&EPS@ee.doe.gov. 13

We certainly accept comments by postal 14

mail or by courier as well. So, these are your 15

forms for getting us the comment. 16

Again, the comment period will be 17

extended two weeks beyond the closing dates of 18

October fifteenth. Okay. 19

Any questions on submission of comments 20

or the comment period? 21

(Whereupon, at 9:15 a.m. ET, no response 22

was had.) 2319

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. I'm going to go 1

into, very quickly, the background and overview for 2

our standard regulatory process. 3

Okay. I want to review the statute 4

authority, statutory authority with you. 5

I want to present our current Standards 6

for Class A EPSs. I want to present a time line of 7

DOE actions and milestones for all the rulemakings 8

that are under way for battery chargers and 9

external power supplies. 10

And, I want to review the components of 11

the preliminary analysis, and explain what 12

additional steps we'll be taking as part of the 13

Notice of Proposed Rule. Okay. 14

This just gives you a quick schematic of 15

how legislation is accomplished. We've got the 16

Energy Policy Act of 2005, which amended the Energy 17

Policy and Conservation Act, adding battery 18

chargers and external power supplies to our 19

progr am. 20

The Energy Independence and Security Act 21

of 2007 further amended EPCA, resulting in the 22

current rulemaking, a rulemaking for establishing 2320

Standards for non

- Class A EPSs, as well as battery 1

chargers. The Department of Energy is re sponsible 2

for establishing Standards under the Energy Policy 3

and Conservation Act of 1975 for these products. 4

Okay. Just, again, the, a little 5

schematic to show how the rulemaking process works. 6

Congress and the President pass public 7

laws that are codified in the United States Code. 8

DOE publishes Rules and Final Rules in the Federal 9

Register. 10

Final Rules are codified in the Code of 11

Federal Regulations. EPCA, in this case, is the 12

example of the United States Code that was 13

established by Congress. 14

Okay. Any questions? 15

(Whereupon, at 9:17 a.m. ET, no response 16

was had.) 17

MR. PETROLATI: Fairly simple for those 18

who have about been involved in our rulemaking 19

process. Okay, the test procedures are codified in 20

Title 10, the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21

430, Subpart B. 22

Battery chargers appear in Appendix Y. 2321

Extern al power supplies appear in Appendix Z. 1

That's where you can find the test 2

procedures for these products. Okay. 3

Let me just quickly cover the Standards 4

that have been established so far for Class A EPSs. 5

EISA, in 2007, es tablished a Standard for Class A 6

EPSs that became effective on July first, 2008. 7

It incorporated both active mode 8

standards and a no

- load standard. We are 9

obviously, as part of this process, evaluating this 10

Standard to determine whether or not more stringent 11

Standards can be set. 12

Okay. Time frames. 13

The Final Rule for Standards for Battery 14

Chargers, Class A EPSs and non

- Class A EPSs, we are 15

required to have a Final Rule by July, 2011. All 16

right. 17

In the effective date for that Rule, the 18

date when products will have to be in compliance, 19

is July, 2013. We are expecting that to be the 20

effective date for both battery chargers and 21

external power supplies. 22

Okay, the non

- Class A EPS determination 2322

was completed. Our final determination was May of 1

2010. 2

Those products are currently in our 3

Preliminary Analysis. They will be in our NOPR, 4

and most likely our Final Standards. 5

Okay, the PC active mode test procedure, 6

we're expecting a Final Rule on the test procedure 7

by the end of this year. The effective dates for 8

that Final Rule, we expect the amendments to the 9

Class A EPS test procedure to become effect ive 30 10

days after that Final Rule, where the amendment 11

also for the battery chargers and non

- Class A EPSs 12

will become effective approximately 180 days after 13

the establishment of the Final Rule of July, 2011. 14

So, we've phased in the effective date 15

of the test procedures in accordance with many of 16

the comments that we have received on that. Okay. 17

This is just showing you the 18

documentation. We obviously had a Federal Register 19

Notice. 20

I want to apologize. We have 21

all of the documents associated with this Public 22

Meeting up on our web site as of late yesterday. 2323

I sent out e

- mails as of late yesterday. 1

I certainly would have liked to have done t hat a 2

few days before our meeting. 3

Apologize for that, but everything is 4

available at this point on our web site concerning 5

meeting materials. Obviously we had the technical 6

support document, as well as other documents for 7

your rev iew up on the web site a little over a 8

couple weeks ago, I believe. 9

Okay. This is talking about EPCA and 10

the seven factors. 11

I'm not going to go through in any 12

detail. I think a lot of you are familiar with the 13

seven fa ctors that we have to consider, and the 14

types of analyses that DOE has to basically provide 15

as part of the analysis. 16

We're going to go through every one of 17

those analyses today that has been done so far 18

under our preliminary analysis for both Class A, 19

non

- Class A EPSs and battery chargers. Okay, this 20

is just a flow diagram in terms of all those 21

analyses and what the outputs of those analyses 22

are, and where they go as part of this process. 2324

Again, every one of these boxes will be 1

talked about today as we present the information. 2

So, this is just a summary overview of the way 3

we're going to present the information later in the 4

meeting. 5

Okay. Since we're at the 6

preliminary analysis stage, we haven't completed 7

all of the steps associated with the Notice of 8

Proposed Rule. 9

This breaks down what's done in the 10

preliminary analysis in terms of what has to be 11

evaluated and what additional steps we will have to 12

include before coming up with our Notice of 13

Proposed Rule. Again, I'm not going to go into 14

detail. 15

We're going to cover every one of those 16

steps during the presentations today on the 17

preliminary analysis, and we'll have a short 18

presentation later on the additional steps that 19

need to be conducted for the NOPR. 20

Okay, before we get to opening comments, 21

any questions? Background? 22

History? Where we are? Where are we 2325

going? 1

MS. PORTER: Susan Porter from ECOS. I 2

just had a question. 3

I wondered if you could please restate 4

when you plan to have the effectiveness date for 5

the battery chargers system test procedures, 6

please. 7

MR. PETROLATI: Yes, Suzanne. At this 8

point we're planning on that to be effective 180 9

days after the Standard is published in the Federal 10

Register 11

MS. PORTER: So, July of 2011? 12

MR. PETROLATI: I' m certainly hoping to 13

meet that date. Yep. 14

MS. PORTER: Right. Thank you. 15

MR. PETROLATI: We're certainly hoping 16

to meet that date. Yep. Exactly. 17

Okay, any other questions? 18

(Whereupon, at 9:23 a.m. ET, no response 19

was had.) 20

MR. PETROLATI: Thank you. 21

Doug, we are ready for opening comments 22

from the participants. 2326

MR. BROOKMAN: Brenda is not here. I 1

know we have Suzanne Foster Porter from ECOS, wh o 2

wants to present some opening comments, and I 3

believe the only other individual that I received 4

notification from was Ric Erdheim. 5

Is that correct, or are there any other 6

opening comments? 7

MR. MORRIS: I'd like to make

-- 8

MR. BROOKMAN: You'd like to. 9

While we're queuing Suzanne's slides, 10

let's hear from Wayne. 11

MR. MORRIS: I'm willing to wait for 12

Suzanne. She had asked first. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 14

Let me note also that we just 15

distributed the corrected, the correct Agenda, for 16

those of you that were as confused as I was at the 17

outset. So, now you can look at it. 18

Take a quick peek. This will be the, a 19

-- These wi ll be the major content areas that are 20

covered, as described

-- 21

(Whereupon, at 9:24 a.m. ET, remarks 22

were made among those present, off the Record, 2327

after which the following occurred:) 1

MR. BROOKMAN:

-- during, in these ti me 2

periods. 3

PUBLIC OPENING REMARKS 4

MS. PORTER: Thank you for the 5

opportunity to make opening remarks. My name is 6

Suzanne Foster Porter. 7

I'm with ECOS Consultants, here 8

representing Pacific Gas and Electric and other 9

investor

- owned utilities in the State of 10

California. I'm going to just use this opportunity 11

to make a few brief high

- level comments that are 12

sort of over

- arching, focused on the battery 13

charger portion of the technical support document. 14

We wanted to recognize some elements of 15

the DOE approach that we wanted, that we support. 16

Specifically, it obviously is based on the upcoming 17

test procedure of the battery chargers that DOE, 18

DOE's expecting to complete later this year that 19

includes active modes. 20

(Whereupon, at 9:25 a.m. ET, Mr. 21

Petrolati left the room, after which the following 22

occurred:) 2328

MS. PORTER: It expands the battery 1

charger product group from what we saw in the 2

framework document more than a year ago, and it 3

proposes a method to distinguish between battery 4

Charger systems and external power supplies that is 5

in alignment with other jurisdictions around the 6

world, as well as the original definition that was 7

set by Codes and Standards in California. 8

And we appreciate DOE's considerations 9

of multiple levels of external power supply 10

standards, including Level 5 and beyond. I have 11

three key comments I'd like to overview. 12

Speci fically, the first one is that we 13

believe the DOE analysis approach for battery 14

charger systems overlooks the cost

- effective 15

savings for battery chargers. We would recommend 16

the Department look at a different alternative 17

structure for the analys is, specifically looking at 18

collapsing the number of product classes, and 19

considering additional candidate standards levels. 20

This is just an illustration of the way 21

that the analysis currently is done. We've gotten 22

product classes wi th consideration of efficiency 2329

kind of vertically within each product class, and 1

we would like to see a slightly different approach 2

where we can consider the transferable technologies 3

across product classes that might be found in 4

markets where price is not as sensitive, and 5

portability is more a function, a focus in the 6

market. 7

And so more efficient technologies have 8

been incorporated. The key reason why we believe 9

it's important to consider to change the n umber of 10

product classes is that although AC/DC battery 11

chargers have a variety of sizes the functionality 12

is the same. 13

They're all providing portable power, 14

and like external power supplies, efficiency should 15

scale with the size of the power being provided,

-- 16

(Whereupon, at 9:27 a.m. ET, Mr. 17

Petrolati entered the room, after which the 18

following occurred:) 19

MS. PORTER:

-- specifically battery 20

energy and/or battery voltage. But, we don't feel 21

like there's enough difference in the marketplace 22

to warrant individual product classes within the 2330

AC/DC class, so we're recommending collapsing 1

Product Classes 2 through 7 specifically. 2

In addition, we suggest adding candidate 3

standards levels between 2 and 3. Right now DOE is 4

looking at best

- in

- market and maximum technology, 5

and because there haven't been battery charger 6

standards that have had a significant 7

influence in the market anywhere in the world 8

before, we think it's warranted to consider higher 9

levels that would be associated with transferable 10

technology within each product class. 11

Our second comment is that we believe 12

this single annual metric that DOE is considering 13

is te chnically infeasible. Specifically, no duty 14

cycle exists that allow DOE to provide data

- driven 15

weighting for products. 16

Much of the duty cycle data is based on 17

assumptions or limited measurements. And even if 18

were, data were collecte d, we believe that those 19

data would be highly variable , and so any duty 20

cycle chosen, just like external power supplies, 21

would not necessarily represent the product class. 22

Instead, we propose DOE group duty 2331

cycles into two functional groups. Essentially, we 1

know that some battery chargers are charged 2

sometimes, this is the majority of battery 3

chargers. 4

If the product has an active mode 5

regularly expected in the duty cycle, then we would 6

propose that that be one duty cycle element, and 7

the metric to be used with that would be the 8

24

- hour, or active mode efficiency metric that 9

includes both active and battery maintenance mode, 10

plus a standby mode, which could be allowed 11

separately. 12

The other category would be for the 13

emergency battery backup system, which is product 14

Class 10 , where the battery is virtually never 15

charged because of the nature of the product. It's 16

meant to be a, a backup system, and therefore it's 17

only charged when the alternating current outlet is 18

unavailable. 19

You know, the power system goes down, 20

and for this product class we recommend just 21

looking at the power maintenance limit. "No 22

Battery" mode is not necessarily applicable. 2332

And lastly we believe that within that 1

AC/DC product class DOE should con

- , we recommend 2

they consider a continuous curve. A scaling 3

relationship for product classes could be b ased on 4

what's found in the market and could be structured 5

very similarly to what DOE is already doing for 6

external power supplies. 7

They're already looking at scaling 8

relationships among product classes in the current 9

preliminary an alysis, so we would propose to take a 10

more than general approach by collapsing the 11

product classes and scaling the energy efficiency 12

requirement. And this could be based on battery 13

energy, battery voltage, or both. 14

The PG&E approach for the California 15

Energy Commission Standards is based on battery 16

energy. 17

In summary, our analysis for Pacific Gas 18

and Electric suggest that cost

- effective savings 19

can be reduced, excuse me, cost

- effective savings 20

can reduce use by roughly two

- thirds, and DOE can 21

find these savings by looking, reducing the number 22

of product classing, classes, and increasing the 2333

number of CSL levels. 1

We believe the annual energy use metric 2

is technically infea sible, and instead, DOE should 3

employ individual metrics that come directly out of 4

the test procedure. 5

Lastly, a continuous function for 6

efficiency is more appropriate because it avoids 7

boundary condition issues, which I didn't get into 8

very much here, but avoids boundary condition 9

issues between product classes, but also, more 10

appropriately, it reflects the utilities of the 11

battery chargers systems. 12

Thank you for the opportunity to provide 13

opening remarks. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Nicely done. 15

Are you going to make your slides 16

available for everyone? 17

MS. PORTER: Yeah. I don't know 18

if DOE would be comfortable putti ng them on the web 19

site, but we would be happy to submit these to the 20

Docket. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: That's the main thing. 22

So, let's proceed. 2334

Wayne Morris, are you ready? 1

MR. MORRIS: Sure, Doug. Thank you. 2

Wayne Morris, with the Association of 3

Home Appliance Manufacturers. I guess it's 4

probably good that we agree with something that 5

Suzanne said, to begin with. 6

And we would all agree with the, the 7

fact that it's important that the Department has 8

provided a great deal of data on this, on, on this 9

rulemaking. It is an important one. 10

It is one that our industry, at least, 11

has supported this rulemaking since its inception. 12

We ha ve continuously asked that the Department move 13

ahead rapidly on this rulemaking which it is doing, 14

and that it do so on the basis of a lot of 15

technical information. 16

And we're pleased that the technical 17

resources of a number of consult ing groups and 18

staff have been made available on this 19

important rulemaking. I would say that we do 20

have a couple of very genuine concerns that we 21

have made available and that we have mentioned in 22

several of the activities. 2335

I think that everyone ought to agree to 1

two propositions. First, Congress made it clear 2

that external power supplies and battery charger 3

categories should be regulated by the Federal 4

Government. 5

And second, it's bad regulation to 6

double

- regulate a product for the same 7

characteristic energy, and even worse to do so in a 8

manner where it's unclear into which categories 9

products or components fall. So, we need to take a 10

step back and ensure that we are representing the 11

product category comprehensively, but not 12

double

- regulating. 13

It's irrational to do otherwise, and 14

unless we're actually compelled by Statute to do 15

so, and that that was Congress' intention, we ought 16

to find a way out of it. We have explained many 17

times that we consider, un like many external power 18

supplies, a battery charger and its power su ppl y , such as a 19

portable rechargeable electric shaver or portable 20

vacuum cleaner are completely integrated. 21

It's not a de vice purchased off the 22

shelf, but a design part of the overall appliance 2336

from its very beginning. If regulation drives the 1

overall battery charging system away from the part which 2

goes into the wall and into the part where the product 3

is recharg ed, then we're creating a real confusing 4

mess. 5

Fortunately, there are several ways to 6

handle this. First, the law makes it clear in 7

EPCA, Section 321, Subsection 36, the definition of 8

"external power supply," that a Class A external 9

power supply does not include any device that 10

powers the charger, a detachable battery pack, or 11

charges the battery of the product that is fully or 12

primarily motor operated. 13

We do not understand why this doesn't 14

end the debate there. Our products such as that 15

that is incorporated into a portable vacuum cleaner 16

or to a portable electric shaver contain devices 17

that charge the battery of a product that is motor 18

operated. 19

This does not mean that it's exempt from 20

regulation, because it's classified clearly as a battery 21

charger meaning a device that charges batteries. 22

Consumer products including battery chargers 2337

embedded in other consumer products, that' s not 1

escaping regulation. That's simply a 2

classification. 3

And for some reason this exemption from 4

EPS coverage is not sufficient, then, as described 5

in the May 14, 2010, Federal Register, Option B, or 6

mod ified op tion B more or les s achieves the same purpose. 7

Under Option B, our type of wall adapter would not 8

be considered EPS as long as it powers a battery 9

charger. We're very clear about the type of 10

products we are discussing, including 11

motor

- operated appliances, floor

- c are appliances, 12

personal

- care appliances. 13

We do not understand the comment on Page 14

27172 of the Federal Register that this approach is 15

a problem because, quote, would create two 16

definitions of "EPS," which would prevent one from 17

rea dily identifying a particular wall adapter as 18

being an EPS until it is known whether it powers 19

the charger of a detachable battery pack, or 20

charges the battery of the product that is fully or 21

primarily motor

- operated, unquote. 22

What does it mean, or what is the 2338

significance of preventing one from readily 1

identifying a particular wall adapter as being an 2

EPS? We don't understand that. 3

DOE will have no problem monitoring 4

compliance of the law be cause the evaluation and 5

testing will be done for the component as 6

incorporated in the overall product. Isn't that 7

correct? For example, the testing by EPA under 8

its new certification Rules and verification 9

requirements will be for the product as 10

incorporated. 11

Third, if for some reason the Option 12

B or Modified Option B approach does not work and 13

the Department cannot see its way clear to just 14

simply exclude from EPS coverage

-- And we're not 15

asking exclusion from the Regulation

-- then why not 16

use the provision in EPCA Section 325 Q, "Special 17

Rules," for certain types of classification of products 18

that allows a separate class and separate standard if 19

the product, quot e, has a capacity or other performance

20

related features which other products in such type or 21

class do not have, and such feature justifies a higher 22

or lower Standard from that which applies and will 23

apply to other products which are in such type or 2439

class, unquote. 1

DOE is required to consider such factors 2

as the utility to the consumer of the feature. 3

In this case, whether you call it an EPS or a BC, 4

the point is that you create a separate class and 5

have as a standard and test procedure testing and 6

requirements that are appropriate to this component 7

as proscribed by EPCA and the Energy Independence 8

and Security Act of 2007. 9

Surely between these, and possibly other 10

options, we c an provide federal regulation in a 11

clear manner that avoids confusion to the regulated 12

industry, to regulators, and to other industry 13

parties, but will avoid the testing burdens and 14

functional restrictions of double

- regulation. We 15

would include that in that, that

-- I think I've 16

read now close to 1,000 pages of information and I 17

still can't tell whether this thing is an external 18

power system or a battery charger. 19

Seems to me we could have solved that 20

one a lo t easier. Thank you very much. 2140

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 1

So, let's note for the Record that you 2

held up a hand

- held shaver, correct? 3

MR. MORRIS: Battery rechargeable with 4

battery recharger. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And what's the 6

other

-- What's the other device? Excuse me. 7

MR. MORRIS: Battery charger and,

-- 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Got ya. 9

MR. MORRIS:

-- and the shaver that goes 10

with it. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Oh, okay. I didn't know 12

they were attached to one another. 13

MR. MORRIS: They can be. If you want 14

me to, I will be glad to. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: There we go. 16

MR. MORRIS: Attached. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Great. 18

Other comments from others at the 19

outset? Brief summary remarks about concerns? 20

One of you. Who would like to go first. 21

MR. ALBERT: Larry Albert, Stanley Black 22

& Decker. 2341

First of all I wanted to compliment the 1

Agency and these consultants on the amount of work, 2

analysis, and data collection that went into the 3

Technical Support Document . It, it's a very 4

comprehensive document. 5

It is clearly a lot of thought, a lot of 6

analysis

. You can tell there was a lot 7

of discussion that went on in the formulation of the 8

document and the work that went behind it. And it's 9

good to see that the Department's taken such an effort 10

to try to get this as correct as it can be, all right? 11

And i t's definitely an important document. 12

I also want to compliment the Department on taking the 13

advice that we provided and I think is the obvious 14

approach in utilizing the annual energy use at the 15

metric to drive the Standards

- making process. 16

I think it's meaningful because not 17

only does it establish a practical link between 18

the Regulation and the usage of the product, but 19

also between the Regulation and the benefits to the 20

consumer public, all right? And that's a key issue. 2142

You can certainly regulate on many other 1

factors. The question then becomes: Is it 2

meaningful with respect to the public, and d oes the 3

public actually derive any benefit? 4

There are a few issues, though, we would 5

like to bring up, one of which is, again, wall 6

adapters that are used for motor

- operated applications and 7

detachable battery packs. And, again, I th ink the 8

issue here is the case where you have these wall 9

adapters for MADBs that are used with battery 10

charging, either in the end product or with 11

detachable battery packs. 12

And, again, does the regulation of those 13

provide any net be nefit to the consumer, given that 14

you're regulating the battery charging system 15

it's a part of? Again, it's been our contention 16

all along that those are situations where the 17

energy efficiency of the entire system, the 18

Regulation that captures th e energy efficiency of 19

the entire system provides for the energy 20

efficiency of its component parts. 21

And we think that the law provides 22

sufficient opportunity to discriminate in those 2343

cases so that those are not to be separately 1

regulated. 2

And the next point I think is that, 3

necessarily in creating product classes, you need 4

to lump together a number of products that may not 5

all be the same type. Right? 6

And in the case for us, in particular, 7

in Product Class 4, lumping together battery 8

charging systems that are used for notebook and, 9

and laptop computers along with those for power 10

tools, we believe there's some fundamental 11

differences between the two product categories. 12

Right? 13

And, and while we recognize the 14

need to sort of summarize these into, in broader, 15

broader product 16

classes, we think there may be some opportunity to 17

provide some, you know, meaningful differentiation or 18

meaningful accommodation with r espect to those two 19

different product classes, or categories, rather. 20

And lastly, I want to just be very clear 21

that, you know, we see this as a way of 22

improving the energy efficiency of products, 2344

products that are designed based upon consumer 1

demand and utility , and we want to make sure that 2

there's no inherent, in the Regulation, there is no 3

presumptions as to changing utility with respect to 4

either charge time or cell chemistries. Right? 5

And we need to make

-- We believe that 6

the Regulation should be careful as to 7

ensuring, as it looks at higher technology options, 8

that those options do not presume something about 9

the utility of the product or the 10

consumer demand for a particular product category. 11

Thanks so much

. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 13

Ric. 14

MR. ERDHEIM: Thank you, Doug. And good 15

morning. 16

Since you're going to ask me for the 17

Record, I will be holding up a Philips Norelco 18

beard trimm er, and I'll also be holding up a beard 19

that the beard trimmer works on. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: I wish we had video. 21

MR. ERDHEIM: There we go. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: It just happens to be 2345

Philips electronics. Okay. 1

I thought I would clarify that for the 2

Record. Go ahead. 3

MR. ERDHEIM: Again, thank you very 4

much. We've participated at every step along the, 5

the way in this process, and we've made the same 6

point at every step, which is that the basis 7

for this Regulation is to save energy. 8

You can't save energy if 9

the product is almost never plugged into the 10

outlet. We want to thank the Department. 11

They've gone through and 12

identified 57 different products, and put down 13

estimates of active

, maintenance, no battery, 14

and most importantly for the point we've been 15

raising, the unplugged element of the product. 16

I counted this morning. Of those 57, 18 are unplugged 23 17

hours a day, and I would argue that that's probably 18

an understatement. This beard trimmer, for which 19

the estimate is that it's unplugged 23 hours and 20

plugged in one hour, when I bought this in July I 21

charged it for three hours. 2246

Hav en't had to recharge it yet. There's 1

a "Low Bat," "Low Charge" on it. 2

"Low charge" light is not lit. I'm not 3

going to spend

-- This product's not going to spend 4

one day in "charge," let alone one, one hour a day. 5

So,

-- But, it's very important that the 6

Department has done this, because you can't come up 7

with energy savings unless products are plugged

- in

. 8

But, I'm disappointed at the same time 9

that the Department has, in coming up with the 10

categories, not used usage factors as a 11

distinguishing characteristic. 12

And that means that you're going to be 13

lumping products together with different usage 14

factors, and the result is you have to be 15

overestimating the amount of ener gy that you'll be 16

saving. And we think that's a fundamental problem. 17

So, I'll be talking more about that as 18

we go along. Thank you. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank you. 20

Other comments here at the outset as 21

we're about to launch into the content? And 22

there's a lot to cover here. 2347

(Whereupon, at 9:45 a.m. ET, no response 1

was had.) 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, let's do that. 3

Let's proceed with the content slides. 4

The we binar's working okay? 5

A TECHNICIAN: Um

- hum. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 7

PRODUCT DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE 8

MR. REEVES: Hello. I'm Ari Reeves from 9

D&R International. 10

I'm going to present on 11

the product definitions and scope. 12

(Whereupon, at 9:46 a.m. ET, Mr. 13

Brookman conferred with a technician, out of the 14

hearing of others and off the Record, during which 15

the following occurred:) 16

MR. REEVES: Okay, great. I'm going to 17

go over four t hings. 18

First, what is the approach 19

for BCs with wall adapters, something that's 20

already been discussed? Secondly, what's an 21

external power supply? 22

Thirdly, what's a battery charger? And 2348

lastly, what's a consumer product? 1

So, first of all, DOE is moving forward 2

with Approach A as described in the framework 3

document. Under this approach, a wall adapter's 4

always considered part of the battery charger, and 5

it's also considered an external 6

power supply, but only if it does not perform 7

charge control. 8

I'll explain what DOE's criteria for 9

determining the presence of charge control are in 10

the next slide. Or a couple slides. 11

So, this approach has received broad 12

stakeholder support both at the 13

time of the framework document public meeting, and 14

also in connection with the later test procedure 15

NOPR public meeting. And in the context 16

of the determination, and it applie s to Class A 17

EPSs, non

- Class A EPSs, and battery chargers. 18

And the diagram here shows what I've 19

just described, that the whole system is a 20

battery charger, and the wall adapter also is an 21

EPS if it does not contain charge control. 22

So, what's an external power supply? 2349

The first four parts here are from the Statute, 1

EISA and EPACT. 2

It's outside, external to, the product 3

that it operates. It attaches to and obtains power 4

from mains. 5

It ou tputs DC current or lower

- voltage 6

AC current, and powers a consumer product. And 7

then there are some additional attributes that 8

constitute an interpretation that DOE is using in 9

order to evaluate and eventually set, perhaps set 10

more stringent Standards for these products, and 11

that is: 12

Does not perform

-- An EPS does not 13

perform charge control functions as determined using 14

DOE's evaluation criteria. And it may be a 15

component of the battery charger. 16

So, these are kind of

-- These aren't 17

explicit in the Statute, but flow from it. 18

So, let's look at this question of charge control. 19

What is charge control? How do we 20

determine whether a wall adapter has charge control 21

in it? 22

The current method that DOE's pursuing 2350

is based on the ENERGY STAR criteria for EPSs. And 1

if you look at the criteria, Version 2.0, 2

it says Section

-- It's under "Definitions." 3

They have a definition for "external 4

power supplies," and it's Parts F and G of that 5

definition. So, if a wall adapter meets either of 6

these two conditions here that you see on the 7

slide, then it is assumed not to contain charge 8

control. 9

The first condition is that it 10

has batteries or battery packs that physically 11

attach directly, including those that are removable, 12

to the power supply unit. This includes power

- tool 13

chargers such as the one depicted here, as well as 14

universal battery chargers and others. 15

The other condition

-- And, remember, 16

it's an "or." If either of these conditions hold, 17

then it's not a battery charger. 18

It's not considered an external power 19

supply if the wall adapter, if it has a battery 20

chemistry or type selector switch and an indicator 21

light or state

- of

- charge meter. The "and" is 22

important here. 2351

That means it's not sufficient to simply 1

have a battery chemistry or type

- selector switch, 2

or have an indicator light or state

- of

- cha rge meter. You 3

have to have one from the first line and one from 4

the second line in order to be considered 5

as not an external power supply. 6

So, DOE analyzed six other methods, and 7

none were found to be superior to this method. All 8

seven methods are detailed in Appendix 3

- C to the 9

TSD. 10

The idea, the main idea here is that the 11

energy performance of these wall adapters that do 12

contain charge control will be addressed 13

by battery charger Standards because it's cle ar 14

that they're always used to charge batteries. 15

And at this time I'd like to take 16

comments on how best to determine whether a wall 17

adapter performs charge control functions. And I 18

should also add here that if people have ideas for 19

how we can make, if DOE were to proceed with 20

these current criteria, if people have ideas for 21

how they can be spelled out more clearly, 22

particularly this first criteria about 2352

batteries and battery packs that physically attach 1

directly, 2

DOE welcomes those as well. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Please enter your name 4

into the Record. 5

MR. TENINTY: My name the Dan Teninty 6

again. I'm with Fulton Innovation; also 7

representing the Wireless Power Consortium, wh ich 8

is a consortium of 56 companies, including Philips. 9

The technology used for wireless power, 10

wireless powering of products, uses primarily 11

inductively coupled technology. The 12

modularity of the system is not adequately 13

described by any of the categories or classes used 14

here because there will be suppliers of 15

transmitters. 16

For example, office furniture could have 17

a device built into it that would power a laptop or 18

a cell phone inductively coupled . And so it's 19

not the

-- The charge control is in the end 20

product. 21

And there is an 22

interoperability standard that is available to the 2353

public on the Wireless Power Consortium web site. 1

It's notable by the logo that is 2

licensed and restricted fo r use to the consortium 3

members or associate members, 4

including companies like Texas 5

Instruments, Nokia, Philips, Everready, Energizer, 6

Sanyo. So, there are some rather major 7

international corporations that are involved. 8

We will be submitting written comment. 9

We found out about the activity here rather 10

late in the game, so we were unable to supply 11

comment. 12

But, there needs to be provision for 13

this type of technology in the Standard. Oth erwise 14

there is going to be a major impact on the market 15

in trying to categorize, and things are going to 16

get stalled, and products won't reach market. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 18

Other comments? 19

Yes. 20

MR. ALBERT: Larry Albert, Stanley Black 21

& Decker. 22

Couple of questions, Ari. First of all, 2354

to address your question about charge control, 1

when I looked at Appendix 3

- C, and looked at the 2

products that were used in evalu ating the 3

suitability of the various methods, it did not 4

include those wall adapters that were associated 5

with motor

- operated products or detachable battery 6

packs, which was obviously, at the time we were 7

commenting on this with respect to what w e thought 8

might be suitable methods, which you,

-- And you 9

did address those methods, right, but I don't think 10

you looked at those categories. 11

And it was possibly because that 12

evaluation was done at the point where you were not 13

considering wall adapters to be part of the class 14

of EPSs, and perhaps that's why you didn't include 15

them. But, it's a pretty large category, I think, 16

that would have a large influence upon the outcome 17

of your analysis if you were to include the m. 18

And since, in the final analysis, they 19

end up getting regulated, or may be getting 20

regulated as EPSs, anyway, they deserve notice 21

within the analysis. Otherwise you're not, you 22

know, fairly treating them, because they're 2355

either a member of the class or not a member of the 1

class, right? 2

Secondly, to go back to your other 3

question with respect to direct connection, it's 4

always been a little fuzzy, at least in my mind, 5

anyway, and I wonder if you could let me k now how 6

the Department is viewing that. In other words, 7

how do you determine direct connection? 8

MR. PETROLATI: Vic Petrolati, 9

Department of Energy. 10

That is one of the issues that we are 11

trying to get stakeholder commen t on. The only 12

thing we've provided is two examples which we 13

considered to be direct connection. 14

And we are, in certain cases, evaluating 15

other examples, but we would like to get 16

stakeholder comment, since we haven't had 17

experience with this EPA ENERGY STAR criteria, 18

whether or not there are ambiguities, and what 1956

those ambiguities are. And if you could present 1

those to us, and how they should be handled, that 2

would be extremely helpful. 3

MR. ALBERT: Okay. And I guess the 4

follow

- on question to that is: 5

It seems like, because of the 6

restrictions in the Code, you feel like you 7

need to stick to those ENERGY STAR requirements in 8

determining whether something is an EPS or not. 9

But , in the case of non

- Class A EPSs you've been 10

relieved of that obligation, right? 11

So, you're applying, essentially, I 12

sense, applying the same criteria for Class A and 13

non

- Class A EPSs, right? 14

MR. PETROLATI: Correct. 15

MR. ALBERT: But, you're not obligated 16

to apply those criteria for non

- Class A EPSs, 17

right? 18

MR. PETROLATI: That is right. The same 19

definition that we had for Class A EPS? 20

MR. ALBERT: Right. 21

MR. P ETROLATI: It's not the same 22

definition that we're required to follow for 2357

non

- Class A. 1

MR.ALBERT: Right. So,

-- 2

MR. PETROLATI: So, this was a policy 3

call in terms of how we would treat a wall adapter 4

as an EPS. And t he policy call was that we 5

wouldn't be concerned about whether it was 6

connected to a battery charging system that had 7

been excluded under the Class A definition, or a 8

battery charging system that had been included 9

under the Class A definition. 10

And to give you examples, there are wall 11

adapters connected to battery chargers under the 12

Class A definition such as external power supplies 13

powering the cell phones or notebook computers 14

which are clearly covered under Class A. 15

MR. ALBERT: Correct. 16

MR. PETROLATI: And we have the 17

definition under Approach A that corresponds to how 18

that would be treated. We also have adopted that 19

same approach for those products connected to 20

battery

- charging systems that are motor

- operated 21

batteries or detachable batteries. 22

And, we have a very limited 2358

definition of what a detachable battery is. So, 1

we have applied one definition across the line to 2

define EPSs. 3

And that is correct: It was a policy 4

call. 5

MR. ALBERT: Alright. Well, obviously 6

we believe that there's sufficient difference 7

in these classes, the motor

- operated and detachable 8

battery class, which we 9

believe should, you know, warrant perhaps separate, 10

distinct criteria than those that fall under Class 11

A EPSs. 12

And we believe that, you know, the 13

Statute recognizes that. And so

-- 14

MR. PETROLATI: If I could ask a couple 15

of questions? 16

MR. ALBERT: Sure. 17

MR. PETROLATI: In my mind, that creates 18

two specific definitions for whether or not a wall 19

adapter is an EPS, where one would not be able to 20

make that determination until one knew exactly what 21

that wa ll adapter was being connected to. If that 2259

wall adapter was being connected to a cell phone or 1

a notebook computer, you're indicating it should be 2

a Class A EPS. 3

But, if that wall adapter is connected 4

to a motor

- operated

-- and let's just use 5

motor

- operated product

-- you would say that that 6

wall adapter is not an EPS. 7

Consequently, one would have to know 8

what that wall adapter is connected to before 9

making the distinction as to whether or not that 10

product is an EPS. 11

MR. ALBERT: Right. And the 12

rationale behind that is, in part, that those wall 13

adapters that are provided with motor

- operated 14

products are provided as part of the product 15

offering. 16

They're offered for sale to th e 17

consumers, used

-- 18

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 19

MR. ALBERT:

-- solely with that 20

product, right? 21

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 22

MR. ALBERT: And any energy savings that 2360

is a result of Regulation

-- Right?

-- is only 1

realized by the use of that product along with 2

that wall adapter. 3

It's not that the consumer's purchasing 4

a separate wall adapter off the shelf from some 5

other source that they intend to use in a variety 6

of different ways. 7

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 8

MR. ALBERT: And so this notion that 9

that these wall adapters were, themselves, 10

the consumer items, and, therefore, the consumer 11

would be able to realize some benefit from the 12

Regulation

-- Right?

-- is almost always the 13

exception, and not the majority of cases. 14

MR. PETROLATI: I agree with not the 15

majority of cases, but let's

-- 16

MR. ALBERT: Right. 17

MR. PETROLATI :

-- talk about the 18

exception. There are wall adapters that would be 19

defined as EPSs in the active market at this point, 20

sold at Radio Shack and other places, that might be 21

used in terms of charging battery

- charging 22

systems

-- would that be cor rect? 2361

MR. ALBERT: That those

-- 1

MR. PETROLATI:

-- that could be used

-- 2

MR. ALBERT: Yes, they could be. 3

MR. PETROLATI:

-- as a wall adapter or 4

EPS for charging battery

- powered systems. 5

MR. ALBERT: So, clearly in those cases 6

where they're offered for sale separately

-- 7

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 8

MR. ALBERT:

-- then it makes sense to 9

regulate it because the consumer gains 10

benefit from in terms of energy efficiency. 11

MR. PETROLATI: Right. Yep. 12

MR. ALBERT: Where the adapter is part 13

of the end

- use product as offered for sale,

-- 14

MR. PETROLATI: Yep. 15

MR. ALBERT:

-- then the only 16

energy s avings the consumer realizes is that due to 17

the Regulation of the complete package, right? 18

MR. PETROLATI: Yep. Yep. 19

MR. ALBERT: This end product, whether 20

that is an integral part power tool

-- 21

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 22

MR. ALBERT:

-- or whether it's a 2362

detachable battery charger,

-- 1

MR. PETROLATI: Yep. 2

MR. ALBERT:

-- all of that is linked 3

into a single end product, which you're already 4

regulating; correct? 5

MR. PETROLATI: Right. So, your 6

definition, if I understand that correct, is that 7

the wall adapter would not be considered, even 8

though it met all the EPS criteria, if it was sold 9

by the battery

- charging system. 10

And, that battery

- charging system would 11

have to be a motor

- operated or detachable battery 12

system. 13

MR. ALBERT: Correct. And, we believe 14

there's some precedent for this in, for 15

example, the ENERGY STAR system. 16

There the mark is associated with 17

the battery

- charging efficiency for the product 18

that's offered for sale. And so, certainly, the 19

Department could adopt a similar sort of 20

approach from a regulatory

-- I guess from 21

a conformation

-- standpoi nt, that's ultimately what's 22

going to happen anyway. 2363

End products have to be evaluated as 1

they're offered for sale in the market, because 2

that would be the point where the 3

Department could take action in the case of 4

noncompliance. 5

MR. PETROLATI: But, that's not, 6

unfortunately, the only place that the Department 7

could take action. The Department can take action 8

on imports. 9

MR. ALBERT: Um

- hum. 10

MR. PETROLATI: And I want to ask you 11

ho w we would handle the import situation. Would 12

this wall adapter that's coming in to charge this 13

battery

- charging system of only a motor

- operated 14

product, if it's imported, would it be imported 15

with the motor

- operated product as well? 16

MR. ALBERT: At least in our case, 17

in almost every case that I can imagine

-- Right? 18

-- we import the finished product. 19

That is, the tool with the 20

wall adapter, or we're importing the tool with the 21

battery charger with the wall adapter 22

physically attached. W ithout except ion 2364

it connect s to the cup, right? 1

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 2

MR. ALBERT: And so, therefore, it's 3

clearly part of that, and the detachable battery 4

charger. 5

MR. PETROLATI: Can you envision, or can 6

you think of a product that would be importing a 7

wall adapter defined as a n EPS if it's connected to 8

a motor

- operated product that would be imported, 9

without the end

- use consumer 10

product? 11

MR. ARNOLD: I can't think of a case 12

that I'm familiar with in our industry

-- Right? 13

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. 14

MR. ALBERT:

-- where that's true. 15

Right. 16

MR. PETROLATI: Right. And 17

that's solely the power tool ind ustry that you're 18

referring to? 19

MR. ALBERT: Power

- tool industry, but 20

we're also active in battery

- operated vacuums and 21

some other small, battery

- operated appliances. 22

MR. PETROLATI: Right. Okay. 2365

MR. ALBERT: So, within that range of 1

product. Right? 2

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 3

MR. ALBERT: There is not an instance I 4

can think of where the wall adapter is not either 5

associated with

-- 6

MR. PET ROLATI: Right. 7

MR. ALBERT:

-- or a finished product 8

for sale. 9

MR. PETROLATI: Yep. 10

MR. ALBERT: Even though it's not 11

physically attached, or it's part of, it's 12

physically attached to the base, you 13

know, the charging base, for example,

-- 14

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 15

MR. ALBERT:

-- to the battery charger. 16

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 17

MR. ALBERT: And so in all those cases 18

it's easy to determine that th at's the 19

case. Now, we may be shipping in wall adapters to 20

our factory for inclusion into an end product, 21

right? 22

But, that's not a consumer product I 2366

believe at that point

-- Right?

-- because it's 1

just used as a

-- 2

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 3

MR. ALBERT:

-- an OEM component. 4

Right? So, in those cases it should be 5

-- You know, I don't know as much about import 6

and export, but it would seem to me that would be 7

easy to discriminate, right? So, the big question 8

for us, which is what we've said all along, is that 9

we want to make sure that whatever the Regulation 10

does, that it's realizable by the end consumer. 11

Right? 12

MR. PETROLAT I: Right. 13

MR. ALBERT: And we see that wall 14

adapters are used as part of battery chargers. The 15

regulation of those obviously adds cost

-- Right? 16

-- without any realizable benefit, because the 17

charger it's connected to is separately regulated, 18

-- Right?

-- and therefore you have to meet 19

that requirement anyway. 20

And that

-- Since that requirement has 21

an energy benefit to it and a cost associated with 22

it,

-- Right?

-- there's no 2367

energy benefit, you know, differ entially to the 1

consumer associated with regulating wall adapters 2

that are attached to battery chargers. 3

Right? So, there's a 4

cost upper without an energy benefit, essentially. 5

MR. PETROLATI: Right. Although we are 6

re quired under Class A to take the same approach 7

that we are taking for non

- Class A. 8

MR. ALBERT: Correct. 9

MR. PETROLATI: Did Congress think that 10

there was a benefit under those circumstances from 11

a standpoint of the enforcement, or from energy 12

savings? 13

MR. ALBERT: It's difficult for me to 14

comment on this because of the fact that, 15

obviously, that everything we're interested in 16

falls within the non

- Class A categories. 17

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. Right. 18

MR. ALBERT: But, if I took the category 19

broadly and looked at, you know, what would 20

be sort of comparable products,

-- Right?

-- they 21

would be wall adapters intended for, you know, 22

laptops and fo r cell phones and so on, right? 2368

MR. PETROLATI: Telephones; yeah. 1

MR. ALBERT: And so from those, you 2

know, in a technical perspective, I can, I 3

certainly feel that those, though, fulfill the 4

technical intention of what it would be, although 5

certainly the manufacturer of those products could 6

have made a similar argument, right? 7

And so it may be the case that, you 8

know, it wasn't recognized at the time that these 9

were distinct enough because they weren' t

-- 10

MR. PETROLATI: No, they weren't, they 11

weren't excluded, as the motor

- operated products 12

were. 13

MR. ALBERT: Correct. 14

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. 15

MR. ALBERT: Right. 16

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. 17

MR. ALBERT: But, whether that was a 18

function of whether that was brought to Congress' 19

attention or not,

-- Right?

-- or a function of 20

whether there was, in fact, Congress viewed no 21

benefit, that t here was benefit to regulating those 22

or not, I can't say. 2369

Right? 1

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 2

MR. ALBERT: I can say from a technical 3

perspective that the wall adapters that 4

are used for laptop computers,

-- Right?

-- you 5

know, have a very different sort of role 6

in that situation by virtue of the fact that, you 7

know, that they're essentially fully 8

regulated separate power supplies that can operate 9

the computer independent of the battery. 10

Right? And that's certainly not the 11

case in all of our products. 12

Right? 13

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. 14

MR. ALBERT: And that's why we believe 15

there was a technical reason for differentiating 16

these;

-- R ight?

-- that it's the difference from 17

the other ones. 18

Right? And so that's why, you know, I 19

think we presented that position. 20

So, we think there's a technical basis 21

for it. We think in terms of consumer benefit 22

there's clearly no benefit in regulating these wall 2370

adapters separately. 1

And, you know, we've always pushed for a 2

regulation of the battery charger. And it seems 3

that some of these methods have sort of, 4

looking at it now, and tryin g to figure out where 5

to draw that line, such as charge control, direct 6

connection, so on. 7

Right? Don't, don't seem like they get 8

to that core issue, right? 9

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 10

MR. ALBERT: Which is: Is there a 11

benefit or not, right? 12

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. One other 13

question I've got for you. 14

When we met with you years ago,

-- 15

MR. ALBERT: Yes. 16

MR. PETROLATI:

-- a year and a

- half 17

ago, you told us at that point that none of the 18

wall adapters that serviced your products included 19

charge control. Excuse me. 20

They all included charge control, if 21

I remember correctly. 22

MR. ALBERT: At the time you 2371

were looking at ch arge control to subsume the 1

possibility of having distinctive 2

characteristics. 3

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 4

MR. ALBERT: And that's reflected in 5

your analysis that's done in 3

- C, right? 6

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. 7

MR. ALBERT: You know. So, we believe 8

that's true for the vast majority of products 9

that we have right now. 10

The switch to lithium ion may ultimately 11

change that composition. Right? 12

So, I may need to amend t hat comment in 13

the future. Right? 14

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 15

MR. ALBERT: You know. But, at the 16

time, you know, I think that was pretty 17

representative of the product offerings that we 18

have. 19

MR. PETROLATI: Ri ght. And does the EPA 20

criteria that we have now adopted distinguish the 21

wall adapter sold with your system as having either 22

charge control or not having charge control? 2372

MR. ALBERT: What I 1

believe you have, are planning to adopt,

-- 2

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 3

MR. ALBERT:

-- which is going back to 4

the ENERGY STAR criteria,

-- Right? 5

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 6

MR. ALBERT:

-- limits the definition of 7

"charge control" to specific featu res. 8

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 9

MR. ALBERT: It means you need both a 10

switch and an indicator, right? 11

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 12

MR. ALBERT: And so we don't have that. 13

Right? 14

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. 15

MR. ALBERT: And when you look at some 16

of the other criteria which we had proposed,

-- 17

Right? 18

MR. PETROLATI: Attached directly to the 19

battery. 20

MR. ALBERT: No, no. With r espect to 21

charge control. 22

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 2373

MR. ALBERT: You, you investigated other 1

charge control criteria

-- 2

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 3

MR. ALBERT:

-- which were 4

short

- circuit, you know, whether you can, could 5

short

- circuit, you know, regulation of all those 6

issues. 7

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 8

MR. ALBERT: We proposed those as 9

alternative criteria from a functionality, 10

VI performanc e standpoint. Those were evaluated 11

with products other than our products, right? 12

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. 13

MR. ALBERT: And so we don't find it 14

surprising that you didn't see any positive 15

determination, right? 16

M R. PETROLATI: Okay. 17

MR. ALBERT: But, we're just saying: If 18

we're going to be in that class, you should have 19

included us in the determination. Right? 20

MR. PETROLATI: Alright. 21

MR. ALBERT: Charge. Direct connection. 22

You know. Again, our, our position 2374

would be galvanic connection is direct connection, 1

right? 2

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 3

MR. ALBERT: It's the only one that 4

matters. Whether it's in the enclosure or there's a 5

piece of wire that connects to it, it's 6

immaterial, right? 7

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 8

MR. ALBERT: And the third thing is: It 9

powers a product, right? 10

And "po wers a product" means that it's 11

connected to the product

-- Right?

-- and it 12

provides the power for the product. 13

And in none of the cases of the MADBs

-- 14

Right?

-- does that qualify, because it either 15

powers a battery charger, which is not the product, 16

-- Right? 17

The product is the drill. Right? 18

Or, if it's connected to the drill,

-- 19

Right?

-- it's not capable of powering it because 20

the power demands of the end product are much 21

greater than the ad apter can provide. 22

Right? 2375

So, it's incapable of either providing 1

power, or it's not connected to power. So, 2

therefore, the powered product is not by itself, 3

okay? 4

MR. PETROLATI: Okay, let me ask my 5

question. And you may have given

-- 6

MR. ALBERT: Okay. 7

MR. PETROLATI:

-- the answer and I 8

missed it. 9

The wall adapter that is connected to 10

the motor

- operated products, your products, would that qualify as an EPS 11

under the ENERGY 12

STAR criteria? 13

MR. ALBERT: It may, 14

depending upon the direct

- connection criteria,

-- 15

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 16

MR. ALBERT:

-- which is why I was 17

asking about that. 18

MR. PET ROLATI: Yeah. 19

MR. ALBERT: Yeah. 20

MR. PETROLATI: And in certain cases, 21

have the products in your industry been certified 22

or voluntarily covered under the ENERGY STAR 2376

program as external power supplies? 1

MR. A LBERT: Well, we've had, obviously, 2

the case in California where we've had to do that. 3

Yes. Yeah. 4

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Based on the same 5

criteria? 6

MR. ALBERT: Based on this criteria, 7

yes. 8

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. 9

MR. MORRIS: Which we have consistently 10

disagreed with. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne, we didn't get 12

that. 13

MR. MORRIS: Sorry. Wayne Morris, with 14

AHEM. 15

MR. ALBERT: So, the question we see 16

here is: As you look at how it is different from 17

those, you're moving past, if I'm remembering now, 18

it's CSL

- 1, or something. 19

It, it's for the EPS levels. EPS. I'm 20

sorry. 21

MR. PETROLATI: ENERGY STAR. 22

MR. ALBERT: EPA. 2377

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 1

MR. ALBERT: Okay. So, as you go beyond 2

that voluntary requirement,

-- Right? 3

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 4

MR. ALBERT:

-- and you're seeing that 5

you've got positive payback,

-- Right? 6

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 7

MR. ALBERT:

-- that positive payback 8

presumes that consumers derive benefit from 9

those higher and more stringent levels. Right? 10

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 11

MR. ALBERT: But, since the criteria 12

used to evaluate the energy efficiency of EPSs 13

is distinct from the criteria used to determine the 14

energy efficiency of battery chargers, then we 15

believe the criteria for battery chargers 16

represents what's actually realizable by the 17

consumer. Right? 18

Therefore, the cost associated with 19

increasing the efficiency of EPSs

-- Right?

-- 20

does not translate into any energy efficiency 21

that's realizable by the consumer, and so, 22

therefore, it does two things. 2378

It never makes a payback for 1

the wall adapter. Right? 2

It always makes that negative. And 3

while the battery

- charging system may already have 4

a positive payback, it will be less positiv e by 5

virtue of the fact that you added more costs into a 6

component that has no net effect upon the final 7

result. 8

Right? I don't think that was taken 9

into account. 10

I don't think that calculation was 11

considered in evalu ating payback analysis in that 12

subset of MADBs that are used as part of 13

either, you know, integral or battery chargers. 14

Right? 15

It may have, but I didn't see it, you 16

know. And so that's the issue. 17

You know. The issue i s that we see, you 18

know, increasing regulation. 19

I think where you were leading is: 20

Aren't you already living with this? Right? Is 21

probably where you were heading? 22

MR. PETROLATI: Well, I was trying to 2379

understand. But, right. 1

MR. ALBERT: Right. We're already 2

living with this. 3

But, the very nature of the rulemaking 4

process is that it's not just what you're living 5

with

-- 6

(Whereupon, at 10:15 a.m. ET, Mr. 7

Petrolati and Mr. Kido conferred, out of the 8

hearing of others and off the Record, during which 9

the following occurred:) 10

MR. ALBERT:

-- today, but what the 11

future portends. And what we see there is 12

increasing levels of restrictions

-- 13

MR. PETROLATI: Go ahead, Larry. 14

(Whereupon, at 10:15 a.m. ET, Mr. 15

Petrolati and Mr. Kido conferred, out of the 16

hearing of others and off the Record, during which 17

the fo llowing occurred:) 18

MR. ALBERT:

-- increasing 19

levels of restriction on no

- load and active 20

mode energy efficiency, without any translatable 21

benefit to the consumer. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Let me note that I saw 2380

other representati ves from the manufacturing 1

community nodding your heads consistently while 2

Larry was talking. Do you wish to contribute to 3

this Record in any way, briefly? 4

Wayne does, if you don't. 5

Ric? 6

MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim, Philips. Vic 7

asked about imports, and we would import 100 8

percent of our final product. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: That was one of the 10

things that both you and your counterpart, Rick, 11

also, you were both n odding in agreement, I thought, 12

at that point. 13

MR. HABBEN: Yeah. We would just 14

confirm what Larry was saying about the wall 15

adapter being always supplied with the product. 16

And, and in most of our cases

-- 17

( Whereupon, at 10:16 a.m. ET, Mr. 18

Petrolati and Mr. Kido conferred, out of the 19

hearing of others and off the Record, during which 20

the following occurred:) 21

MR. HABBEN:

-- with the UL 22

Regulations, most of the time the UL Standards will 2381

require that you actually state on your product and 1

on the wall plug to use with the particular model 2

number of the trimmer or the appliance that 3

your wall plug is supplied with. So, they are 4

meant to go together as a system. 5

I'd also like to comment that, you know, 6

we do not have with

-- In our instructions we do 7

not recommend, or we do not allow the consumer to 8

go out and purchase an off

- the

- shelf 9

transformer or wall adapter to substitute 10

with our pro duct because we don't know how the 11

performance is going to be with that wall adapter 12

that we have not tested. 13

It may charge the batteries too fast and 14

cause overheating and functional problems with the 15

product. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. 17

MR. HABBEN: So, it has to go, the 18

correct wall adapter with the correct product. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 20

Wayne, do you want to comment at this 21

point? Do you want to ask a follow

- on question 22

here? 2382

MR. PETROLATI: No. No, all set. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Wayne. Wayne 2

Morris. 3

MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris, with AHAM. 4

Appreciated Mr. Albert's comments because I think 5

they adeq uately state what we have said in numerous 6

hearings and in our written comments as well. 7

And so I take significant opposition to 8

the comment that, unfortunately, Ari, you made 9

earlier that there was broad stakeholder agreement 10

with Op tion A. It was certainly never our intent 11

to agree to Option A. 12

We have steadfastly indicated that we do 13

not believe Option A is appropriate for battery 14

chargers. Non

- Class A EPS is some figment of a 15

new definition that was created, not one that 16

actually exists in reality. 17

We're talking about a wall 18

adapter. The Department seems, in the Technical 19

Support Document, to flip

- flop back and forth a 20

number of times. 21

In places they have called them "wall 22

adapters;" in other places they called them "EPSs;" 2383

and in places they called them "battery chargers." 1

There's not a consistency throughout. 2

I would also mention that the shipment 3

numbers that are shown are different between things 4

that are supposedly wall adapters for one 5

particular class of product such as a wall 6

adapter that drives the battery charger and a 7

cordless rechargeable vacuum number. 8

The shipment numbers in the EPS number 9

are different than in the section for battery 10

chargers. The Department must have some difference 11

there that they understand between a wall 12

adapter that's driving one from another, and yet 13

there's no explanation in the document as to how 14

they knew. 15

You know , it

-- There's an old joke 16

about Thermos bottles: You know, that they keep hot 17

things hot and cold things cold. How do they know 18

the difference? 19

I think that we have a situation here. 20

We have EPSs and battery chargers, and I don't 21

think the Department really understands what the 22

difference is. 2384

Our industry does understand what the 1

difference is. The wall adapter that is connected 2

to

-- And we said this all along

-- 3

A wall adapter that is 4

connected to a battery

- charging system is part of 5

the battery charger, is mated with it. It is sold 6

with it. 7

It is marketed to be used with it. It's 8

a clear situation. 9

The Department does not have a 10

difficulty, we do n't believe, in enforcing this 11

Regulation because there is going to be a clear 12

indication that, as they look at, you know, 13

the end products for sale in the 14

marketplace, it's going to be clear that: Is it 15

recharging the battery? And that: Is i t sold 16

together with it? 17

So, we think that a lot of this 18

is going back and taking parts of old definitions 19

and then taking parts of new definitions and trying 20

to ram them together. It's not appropriate, and we 21

think that what they 're trying to do here with 22

this Regulation is to fix things and make it 2385

clear from here going forward, not to try and jive 1

old definitions together that were, in fact, 2

written before EISA. 3

So, I think it's important we try to 4

fix these things, not make them more complicated. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Larry. 6

MR. ALBERT: Hold it. I wanted to make 7

one more point. 8

You mentioned your dilemma 9

with

-- This is Larry Albert from Black & Decker

-- 10

You mentioned your dilemma earlier with the problem 11

that EISA provided you with a distinct 12

definition for Class A, and how do you reconcile 13

that for those cases that don't fall under the MADB 14

category? 15

But, certainly in that definit ion is 16

where they mention powers consumer products. 17

And in that case, again, I think it offers an 18

opportunity by looking at that particular criteria 19

to discriminate those wall adapters

-- All right? 20

-- that don't qualify as powering the consumer 21

product. 22

Either they power a battery charger 2386

itself, and that, itself, is not the 1

consumer product,

-- Right?

-- or they are not 2

capable of powering the product all by 3

itself. 4

And in that case I think you'd find that 5

there are things like wall adapters for laptops that 6

would qualify as an EPS using that criteria because 7

they're capable of powering the end product, 8

the consumer product. Right? 9

And the same thing with cell phones. 10

However, in all of the cases that are 11

motor

- operated or detachable battery packs, they 12

don't fit within that requirement of powering 13

either the end product, which is the consumer 14

product. 15

They don't power the end product itself 16

in the case of integral. They don't power the 17

consumer product in the case of the battery 18

charger, which is not the product itself. 19

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. 20

MR. ALBERT: Alright? 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 22

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Mike, one point. 2387

MR. BROOKMAN: At this time, Mr. Mike 1

Vladimer. 2

MR. VLADIMER: Michael Vladimer with 3

Navigant Consulting. 4

I just want to restate the problem, I 5

think, bec ause some of what you were saying 6

from your technical perspective might not be the 7

same as what Vic was thinking from a policy 8

perspective. So, I think you're saying as 9

far as VI curves and voltage relationships and all 10

those things, when you w ere referring to the 11

conversation that we had a couple of years ago, the 12

issue is: 13

From a circuitry perspective 14

it can be pretty clear what "charge 15

control" means. But, from a regulatory perspective 16

it's very hard to look at a wal l adapter and 17

know whether it contains that circuit without 18

cracking it open and having the circuit diagram, or 19

whether it's just an inefficient product. 20

And so the main

-- I think you've 21

made some really great points, and if you have 22

suggestions as to how to refine these criteria, I 2388

think that the main issue is: How do you figure 1

out what's in the box? 2

Or, if you want to go so far 3

as to, say, take the product and look it up and 4

look at the circuit diagram and do it that way. 5

But, that's really the problem from 6

the policy perspective: What 7

criteria can you use consistently to identify this 8

issue, Larry, a little better? 9

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. And I think 10

that's what you've bee n trying to address. 11

But, yeah. It is certainly different 12

than ours at this point. Is there additional? 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 14

Ric? Now Larry. 15

MR. ALBERT: So, basically, you know, 16

the way w e viewed the charge control thing is that 17

it's something that we needed to deal with because 18

it was an artifact of the original definition of what 19

qualified as EPSs, not that it fundamentally 20

addressed the question of: Here's a power source 21

or component of a battery charger. 22

Right? And so while we've been trying 2389

to work on the charge control thing it's because we 1

believed it was the only way of helping to 2

differentiate these because it's not clear. 3

The important thing is: Is it part of the battery 4

charger? 5

And, if the battery charger's being 6

regulated, then you don't need to regulate the wall 7

adapter. And so the best thing would be to 8

find a way in which you could clearly lu mp, you 9

could say: 10

"This thing belongs with this. It's a 11

battery charger. 12

"We're already regulating. There's no 13

sense regulating the component of it. 14

Right? And so the whole charge control 15

thing was just because charge control was one of 16

the criteria for exclusion. 17

Right? And it really wasn't, you know, 18

because we felt like it was the most important 19

thing. 20

Right? Our point, I recall, 21

I think early on in the discussio n was in 2290

terms of understanding the 1

technical difference between what a power 2

supply and a power source for a battery 3

charger was fundamentally, and sort of the degree 4

of regulation, and whether it could ride through a 5

short circuit. 6

So, if you need

-- So, I had sort of the 7

electrical analysis that you wanted to perform on 8

this box, you, you could, right? But, that's not 9

the key issue. 10

The key issue is it's part of a battery 11

charger. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: So, we should proceed now 13

I think, right? 14

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Let's proceed with that. 16

Ari, I'm going to ask you to present that later. 17

MR. REEVES: Will do. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Keep moving. We've got a 19

lot of slides to get through here. 20

MR. PETROLATI: Sorry. 21

MR. REEVES: Okay, let's move on to: 22

What is an EPS? On the left

- hand side here you see 2391

kind of a parsing of the classification of EPS 1

provided by EISA 2007. 2

Class A EPSs output only one voltage at a 3

time, have output power less than 250 watts, 4

do not power medical devices, do not provide input 5

for a product that is fu lly or primarily motor 6

operated, and is not a power battery charger for 7

detachable battery packs. 8

DOE has divided Class A EPSs into four 9

separate categories based on their output current 10

type and output voltage. And I'll just provide a 11

few example applications here, but all the product 12

classes will be discussed in 13

more detail later. 14

The four product classes here, A1, 15

A2, A3, and A4. Cordless phones are an example of an 16

application for A1. 17

Mobile phones and MP3 players 18

are example applications for A2, home security 19

systems for A3, and aquarium accessories and indoor 20

fountains for A4. 21

Class A EPSs were the primary focus of 22

the preliminary analysis of EPSs. So then non

- Class 2392

A EPSs are all those EPSs that don't fit the 1

definition of Class A. And you should have a 2

handout that's entitled "Battery Charger and 3

External Power Supply Product Classes 4

in the Preliminary Analysis." 5

There a re two tables, one for

-- 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Looks like this. 7

MR. REEVES: I invite you to refer to this 8

throughout the day. It's a handy crib sheet. 9

And for non

- Class A EPSs, as I said, 10

it's everything that doesn 't fall into Class A. 11

And DOE classified them into four groups: multiple 12

voltage, high

- power, medical, and MADB. 13

And for medical and MADB, they're 14

further subdivided into four

-- each is further 15

subdivided into four product classes t hat mirror 16

those for Class A EPSs. 17

So, what is a battery charger? Battery 18

chargers charge batteries for consumer products and 19

may be embedded in a consumer product. 20

Those two attributes are taken directly 21

from the definition in the Statute. And then there 22

are two additional elements that DOE has added in: 2393

May obtain power from mains or another 1

source, and that's added because the statutory 2

definition is silent on the source of power. So, 3

unlike EPSs, which must obtain their power from 4

mains, BCs may obtain their power from mains or 5

another source, such as USB ports and 12

- volt 6

cigarette lighters and the other auxiliary power 7

por ts in automobiles. 8

But, like EPSs, we see battery chargers 9

charge batteries for consumer products as well. 10

So, let's move on to the next slide. 11

Here's a list of battery charger product 12

classes. I won't go over this now be cause we'll 13

see this later in the context of the technology 14

assessment. 15

And then lastly: What is a consumer 16

product? So, again, a consumer product is defined 17

in the U.S. Code. 18

It consumes energy or water. It is, to 19

a significant extent, distributed in commerce for 20

personal use or consumption by individuals. 21

And, a consumer product is not an 22

automobile. An automobile is defined in the U.S. 2394

Code as well. 1

For those who want that refere nce, it is 2

49 USC 3291(a)(3). So, here on the list, here on 3

the left is a list of some consumer products that 4

we have considered within the preliminary analysis, 5

and on the right are some products that were not 6

considered within DOE's analysis because they were 7

not considered consumer products. 8

First and foremost is road vehicles. 9

That's basically all electric vehicles 10

that are regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 11

Standards. So, this includes the low

- speed 12

vehicles as well as, like, full

- on electric cars. 13

Also, commercial and industrial products 14

such as forklifts, emergency egress lighting, 15

credit

- card scanners, bar

- code scanners. You might 16

be able to think of s ome others. 17

Those were not included within our 18

analysis. And for a full list of all the 19

applications that we have included to date, you can 20

see Appendix 3

- A. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Larry. 22

MR. ALBERT: Larry Albert. Quick 2395

question, Ari. 1

Products that, for instance, connect 2

to cigarette lighters, they were not excludable 3

under the generalization for automobile, or

-- It 4

would seem to be something outside o f DOE's 5

purview. 6

MR. PETROLATI: That's correct. They 7

were not excludable under the definition of 8

"automobiles." 9

MR. ALBERT: Okay. 10

MR. PETROLATI: And we did check with 11

Legal Counsel in terms of whether o r not the 12

definition of "automobiles" would be a factor in 13

terms of whether those products were excluded, and 14

where it was not set. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: We got all of that. It 16

wasn't mic feeds, but we got it. 17

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Pardon. 18

MR. REEVES: That's the end of my 19

presentation. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. 21

Some comments, then, on the preceding 22

slides? I think a lot of these definitional issues 2396

were covered in the other discussion. 1

Don't mind a short shrift of this 2

important topic. Okay. 3

Then let's proceed. Let's see. 4

It's 10:30. How many

-- Who's 5

presenting next? 6

How many slides in your first chunk 7

next? 8

MR. LAUF: I believe about 15. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Fifteen slides. I guess 10

we should take a break. 11

Let's take a break. It's 10:30. We'll 12

resume here at 10:45. 13

(Whereupon, at 10:3 2 a.m. ET, those 14

present took a brief recess and returned at 10:50 15

a.m. ET, after which the following occurred:) 16

MR. BROOKMAN: So, let's start back up. 17

Please take your seats. 18

We're going to resume where we left off, 19

and Daniel Lauf is going to be presenting on market 20

assessment. 21

MARKET ASSESSMENT 22

MR. LAUF: So, hello, everybody. Once 2397

again, my name is Dan Lauf, and I'm with D&R 1

International. 2

I'll be talking about the Department of 3

Energy's assessment of the market for b attery 4

chargers and external power supplies. As we can 5

see, this is the first of, the first analysis that 6

we'll be talking about, and it feeds into the 7

remainder of the analyses that you'll hear about 8

today. 9

Inputs for this analysis are 10

stakeholder comments and published data, published 11

reports, as well as some of DOE's estimates and 12

analyses. 13

So, the purpose of the market 14

assess ment is to analyze consumer end

- uses o f BCs 15

and EPSs to characterize the markets for BCs and 16

EPSs; shipments, lifetimes, and efficiency 17

distribution s in the market. 18

DOE also analyzes trends 19

that may affect the market for consumer end

- uses 20

for BCs and EPSs. So, first, it's important to 21

note that BCs and EPSs are typically packaged with 22

e nd

- use consumer products. 2398

So, in order to better understand the 1

market for BCs and EPSs it is important to 2

understand the shipments, lifetimes, and other 3

characteristics of these EPSs, or of 4

these costumer applications, as well as power 5

requirements. 6

DOE identified approximately 80 7

applications that use BCs or EPSs. These are in 8

Appendix 3

- A of the TSD, and the full list is also 9

available in the handout that you have. 10

It's titled "Battery Charger and 11

External Power Supply Application Data Sources." 12

DOE has also identified a number of 13

market trends, some of which it has taken into 14

account in the preliminary analysis, and some of 15

which it is considering taking into account in the 16

NOPR stage of the rulemaking. 17

The first is the GSM Association's 18

Universal Charging Solution. This is for mobile 19

phone external power supplies. 20

The Universal Charging Solution 21

will, in effect, standardize power supplies for 22

mobile phones. It's a voluntary agreement, but 27 2399

of the largest mobile phone manufacturers and service providers 1

have already signed on and agreed to do thi s. 2

It will standardize these EPSs to 3

five

- volt output USB EPS s. T his will take effect 4

in 2012. 5

And DOE feels it will it extend the 6

lifetime for EPSs, and consequently reduce 7

shipments. Two other applications that DOE is 8

considering analyzing separately in the NOPR stage 9

analysis

-- It has not 10

yet done this in the preliminary analysis

-- are 11

s mart phones and tablet PCs. 12

These are two relatively new and 13

emerging applications that are rapidly gainin g in, 14

or rapidly gaining popularity. DOE expects that 15

certain characteristics will differ from mobile 16

phones and notebook computers respectively, such as 17

potential lifetimes and usage. 18

So, this slide displays the top 20 19

applications by shipments that DOE analyzed, along 20

with their lifetimes. Now, lifetimes are, those 21

are one of the characteristics that DOE understands 22

in terms of the applications that they power. 23100

This is because, for the most part, BCs 1

and EPSs are intended to outlast the consumer 2

applications that they power. So, once the 3

consumer application fails or is replaced, the 4

EPS or BC that powers that application is replaced 5

as well. 6

So, the one exception here, as I 7

alluded to earlier, is for mobile phones. 8

The typical mobile phone lasts two years, and this 9

is driven by the Service Contract of the mobile 10

phone. 11

Now, DOE does believe that the battery 12

charger will be replaced when the mobile phone is 13

replaced. However, since the GS MA Universal 14

Charging Solution will take effect prior to this 15

Standard taking effect, DOE believes that the 16

lifetime for the EPS component of the mobile phone 17

wil l last for more than lifetime of two mobile 18

phones. 19

So, rather than two years, the EPS 20

lifetime will be four years, and shipments will 21

effectively be halved for the EPS component. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Ric? 23101

MR. ERDH EIM: Ric Erdheim, Philips. 1

Did you just list MP3 players twice by 2

mistake, or were you trying to suggest something 3

else? 4

MR. LAUF: Oh, y es, there may 5

have been a mistake. 6

MR. ERDHEIM: Okay, that's fine. 7

MR. LAUF: And it's possible one of 8

those may be MP3 speaker docks or one of those. 9

MR. ERDHEIM: Okay. 10

MR. LAUF: Yeah, it was a mistake. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Docking station. 12

MR. LAUF: Dock ing stations. Thank you. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Keep 14

going. 15

MR. LAUF: T his next slide 16

summarizes 2008 battery charger shipments. In 17

total there we re 402 million battery chargers 18

shipped in 2008 that DOE identified. 19

As you can see, the largest product 20

class is Battery Charger Product Class 2. These are low

- energy low

21

voltage battery 22

chargers

. Battery Charger Product Class 4, which 23102

are low

- energy high

- voltage, and Product Class 8, 1

which are USB

- input battery chargers are also 2

significant applications, or are also significant 3

product classes. 4

Here we can see the top ten applications 5

by shipments, by BC shipments. Again, there we re 6

402 mi llion battery charger shipments in 2008, and 7

the most significant application in terms of 8

shipments were mobile phones. 9

There were approximately 130 million 10

that shipped. The majority of these were in 11

Product Class 2, although there are a growing 12

contingent for mobile phones that fall under Class 13

8. 14

Again, these are USB battery chargers, 15

and this is driven primarily by Smart Phones. DOE 16

does expect that this Product 8 category will grow 17

as Smart Phones grow in popular ity

. 18

MP3 players are the more significant application for 19

Class 8, and notebooks and power tools fall under 20

Battery Charger Product Class 4. 21

Here we have 2008 shipments for external power 22

supplies. 23103

This includes C lass A and non

- Class A 1

power supplies here. As we can see, there are 367 2

million external power supplies that shipped in 3

2008. 4

The largest proportion are for Product 5

Class A1, and DOE, for analysis purposes, 6

subdivided Product Class A1 by wattage. So, those 7

subdivisions are also shown here. 8

Product Class A2 is also a relatively 9

significant product class in terms of shipments. 10

There were very few AC

- to

- AC external power 11

supplies that DO E identified. 12

And non

- Class A, the shipments are 13

relatively small. And I'll discuss those a little 14

bit later as well. 15

So, here we have the top t en 16

applications by external power supply shipments 17

in 2008. 18

( Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m. ET, Mr. Albert 19

and Mr. Erdheim conferred, out of the hearing of 20

others and off the Record, during which the 21

following occurred:) 22

MR. LAUF: Once again, the most 23104

significant application in terms of shipments wa s 1

mobile phones. There were approximately 130 2

million that DOE identified. 3

Now, you'll note that this number is not 4

what DOE used for the analysis, and once again this 5

is because DOE assumes that this number will be 6

halved due to t he GSMA Universal Charging Solution. 7

So, DOE did take that into account in the 8

preliminary analysis, and used approximately 65 9

million shipments. 10

And, as you can see, the majority of 11

applications did fall under Product Class A1 as 12

well as Product Class A2. 13

Here we have non

- Class A shipments in 14

2008. Just to recap, non

- Class A EPSs include 15

multiple

- voltage EPSs, medical device EPSs for 16

medical applications and MADB applications, as 17

well as high

- powered EPSs. 18

And hi gh

- powered EPSs are primarily for 19

amateur radios. Multiple

- voltage EPS s also have been divided 20

into two separate product classes, low

- wattage power 21

EPSs, or, sorry, low

- wattage multiple

- voltage EPSs

. 22

T he application that DOE identified were 23105

Hewlett

- Packard multi

- function devices

, and HP has 1

indicated to DOE that it plans on using Class A 2

EPSs in the near future. 3

So, DOE is considering shifting these 4

shipments to Class A EPSs from non

- Class A in 5

the NOPR stage. Higher wattage m ultiple

- voltage EPSs are 6

primarily EPSs of higher wattage, are primarily 7

EPSs for the Xbox 360 by Microsoft. 8

O nce again, the only 9

application that DOE has identified for 10

high

- powered EPSs are EPSs for amateur radios. 11

Now, DOE initially assumed that five 12

percent of wall adapters for MADB applications 13

can be defined as external power supplies. DOE has 14

since adopted the ENERGY STAR definition of an 15

"external power supply," and believes that under 16

this scope, MADB EPS shipments may, in fact, be 17

higher. 18

We do have MADB applications listed on 19

this slide, and at this point you are welcome to 20

comment on the percentage of wall 21

ada pters that, under the ENERGY STAR definition, 22

would be considered external power supplies. And, 23106

you are also welcome to submit comment, of course, 1

late r on in writing. 2

MR. MORRIS: Doug? 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Wayne. 4

MR. MORRIS: Back up maybe to the 5

question box that you've got there. I guess that's 6

a pretty difficult question to ask in the 7

aggregate. 8

I mean, there are a lot of different 9

categories of motor

- operated and detachable battery 10

products, and so are you asking product category by 11

product category? In other words, by, for, for all 12

cordless rechargeable vacuum cleaners, what 13

percentage of the wall adapters, then, meet an EPS 14

definition? 15

MR. LAUF: I would assume that's the easiest way for you to 16

put 17

together your answer, wouldn't it be? 18

MR. MORRIS: I guess. I mean, I'm 19

still stuck with the problem about the 20

shipment number. 21107

Were you going to get shipment numbers 1

later, or are you going, or is that part of what 2

you just did? 3

MR. LAUF: That's part of what I just 4

did under the specific

-- 5

MR. MORRIS: Okay. In the Technical 6

Support Document there is, there are estimates made 7

of the shipments of products within a particular 8

category of product, like, you know,

-- I used 9

vacuum cleaners. I'll stay with vacuum cleaners. 10

It's a cordless, rechargeable, hand

- held 11

vacuum cleaner. There's an estimate number of 12

shipments for those external power supplies, and 13

that's an ex

- , there's an

- , ship, annual estimate 14

of shipments of battery chargers. 15

The numbers are not the same. How did you do tha t? 16

MR. LAUF: Sure. And there 17

are two nuances to take into account here. 18

The first is that even if it's an 19

exclusive battery

- charged application, not all of 20

those battery chargers may be powered by wall 21

adapters. And i f that were the 22108

case, then DOE made an 1

assumption there, looking for data on the 2

number of those batteries that would be 3

powered by a wall adapter. 4

And then, once again, not all of those 5

wall adapters may be defined as an external p ower 6

supply. 7

MR. MORRIS: Well, yeah. I guess you, 8

on that one,

-- This is Wayne again. 9

I'm sorry. You're saying that if it has a wall adapter, 10

then it's counted only as an EPS and it's not 11

double

- counted in the number for a battery charger. 12

You're shaking can your head "no." So, I'm

-- 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Ari? 14

MR. REEVES: Sure. I think there are 15

potentially four different numbers. 16

The largest possible number which you, 17

you may see in the TSD, but only, but not by 18

design, is the number of the total shipments of the 19

application itself, regardless of the presence of 20

the B C or EPS. In no cases did we put that in a 21109

document because we're just looking at B Cs and 1

EPSs. 2

The BC part, you'll find it's the second 3

largest number. If there's a battery there, then 4

there's a battery charger. 5

Okay? That's the second number. 6

T hen the third number, which, again, is 7

not in the document, is the number of wall 8

adapters. This could overlap with 9

battery chargers, right? 10

Some of the battery charged models 11

incorporate a wall adapter and some don't, okay? 12

Then the fourth number, which is going 13

to be the smallest number, is the number of EPSs. 14

In some cases all of the wall adapters are EPSs, 15

but in the case of these MADB applications we 16

carried forward the, the assumption from the 17

determination about the fraction of wall adapters 18

that are EPSs, specifically, five percent. 19

And that's why you'll see very small 20

EPS counts for the MADB applications 21

in the Preliminary Analysis. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead. 23110

MR. ALBERT: Larry Albert. 1

So, what's happening here is that wall 2

adapters that are used as part of battery chargers 3

are, are counted, or could be counted twice, right? 4

Counted as EPSs, and could be counted as battery 5

ch argers. 6

And those counts are used for the 7

estimate of energy, hybrid energy savings? 8

MR. REEVES: That's right. And so the, 9

the estimates of aggregate energy savings are not 10

additive. 11

A dmittedly, overlap the B C and EPS 12

energy

- savings estimates. 13

MR. ALBERT: Right. Thank you. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Michael. 15

MR. VLADIMER: This is Michael. Just to 16

speak to Wayne's point, because I think you're 17

touc hing on a challenge that DOE's been dealing 18

with from the beginning of this, and, and just to 19

make sure that everyone understands what that 20

challenge is, people don't buy B Cs and EPSs. 21

People buy actual products. And so it 22

might seem counterintuitive that there are four 23111

numbers, as Ari was saying, for shipments because 1

DOE's taking these B Cs and EPSs that are used with 2

applications and teasing out that they apply to 3

these BC and EPS criteria that these, DOE is tasked 4

with regulating. 5

So, I think a common theme throughout 6

the day is going to be: How do we go from the 7

application side, which most people think of when 8

they think of these products, to how we tackle that 9

from the BCs or EPS perspect ive? 10

So, if something doesn't seem intuitive 11

for that reason, just let us know and somebody on 12

the team will try and answer your question. 13

MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris. 14

Thanks, Michael. And, believe me, I do 15

un derstand your dilemma with this. 16

But, when we get to the actual

-- I know 17

I'm jumping ahead here, and I apologize. But, 18

this, this is important to, as the foundation from 19

which we then go forward and look at the amount of 20

energy savi ngs. 21

If we don't get this right, then the 22

energy savings is either inflated or deflated 23112

accordingly. And it seems that with the, with this 1

sort of double accounting that's going on here, 2

we're going to be estimating energy in both st ates. 3

And I, I guess maybe I'm an old dinosaur 4

here, but double

- counting of energy savings just 5

doesn't inherently seem like the right thing to do. 6

MR. PETROLATI: Right. So

-- 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Vic Petrolati. 8

MR. PETROLATI: Vic Petrolati with the 9

Department of Energy. 10

First of all, we stated within the 11

document that we were aware of this dilemma. We 12

did, already, some initial analysis associated with 13

this particular case, a nd found that the savings 14

may be reduced, I think for battery chargers, by 15

something in the area of possibly 20 percent. 16

I'll have to go back to our analysis. 17

But, we do fully realize this is an issue. 18

To do a detailed ana lysis on this 19

requires a lot of numbers that we obviously do not 20

have at this point. So, we have done a very 21

careful sensitivity analysis, and didn't find that 22

it really made a huge difference in terms of 23113

savings. 1

But, I agree with you that we have at 2

this point accounted for additional savings that 3

need to be in some manner subtracted out. I'm not 4

sure we have got enough data to actually subtract 5

it out extremely well, but from a rough standpoint 6

we do not feel it's a bi g problem. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Wayne. 8

MR. MORRIS: I agree with you, Vic. 9

Thanks for clarifying that. 10

And I guess we would also agree that in 11

the days of the motor

- operated and detachable 12

battery, this is a v ery, very small percentage of 13

the overall amounts of, of products that 14

we're dealing with in comparison to hundreds of 15

millions of cell phones and laptop batteries. 16

We're a fly speck on the wall here

. , 17

and

-- But, that said, it's important so that 18

we don't overestimate a category to where we then 19

add to that candidate standards level to where it 20

makes it look as if we're going to save more energy 21

going to higher CS L than which we really won't. 22

And so it, it is important. And it's 23114

also important within certain categories. 1

You know, The Department

-- And I 2

understand why

-- has cut these things both 3

horizontally and vertically. 4

They've cut them horizontally, if you 5

will, across, you know, broad categories, like low 6

energy and high voltage and those type of 7

situations. And then they cut them against the, 8

vertically, in other situations by virtue 9

of the act ual product that 10

they're used with. 11

And in some of those categories, and as 12

we've mentioned earlier, that there is pretty broad 13

range of product within that category in terms of 14

both the energy usage and in terms of the savings 15

pote ntial for those particular products. And so I 16

think that, you know, if we can get to better 17

numbers, we would like nothing better. 18

And so if there's something that we can 19

do,

-- 20

MR. PETROLATI: Same here. Right. 21

MR. MORRIS:

-- helping, I hope the 22

Department and its consultant will just ask us. If 23115

we can help with that situation, we'll be glad to 1

try. 2

MR. PETROLATI: We have an open 3

invitation to help us get those numbers. 4

MR. MORRIS: Depends on what number you 5

want. 6

MR. PETROLATI: But, we agree with that. 7

Yeah. Thank you. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 9

MR. LAUF: Yeah, thank you for those 10

comments. And so on th is slide we have two further 11

requests for comment. 12

One is a little more general. And DOE 13

does seek comment on its estimates of the Class A and 14

non

- Class A and EPS shipments and lifetimes for 15

each application and/or each product class

. 16

And DOE does also want to, or is 17

considering analyzing consumer applications 18

that are used in the commercial sector, such as 19

mobile phones or laptop computers, for example. 20

And, DOE seeks comment on which BC and EPS 21

applications c an be used or are used in the 22

commercial sector, and the share of shipments that 23116

go to the commercial sector. 1

DOE also seeks comment on how other 2

characteristics, such as usage and lifetime, differ 3

in the commercial sector. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Responses to these 5

comment boxes? 6

(Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m. ET, Mr. Morris 7

and Mr. Albert conferred, out of the hearing of 8

others and off the Record, after which the 9

following occurred:) 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne? Wayne Morris? 11

No? 12

Okay, we're going to move on then. 13

MR. LAUF: Okay. So, the final 14

component of the market assessment is the 15

determination of base line efficiency distribution s

. 16

So, these are t he efficiency 17

distributions. And the purpose of this is to 18

characterize the distribution of efficiencies in 19

the market in order to allow DOE to better assess 20

the impact of standards. 21

Efficiency distributions were based on 22

prod uct tests, both from DOE and from Pacific Gas 23117

and Electric. And DOE based product class 1

efficiency distributions on these 2

product tests. 3

So, it looked at the distribution of 4

efficiencies across the tested products, and then weighted these by 5

shipments. So, 6

here we have 2009 battery charger efficiency 7

distributions. 8

And, as we can see, approximately 40 to 9

50 percent of BCs that were shipped in 2009 10

fell under the baseline category, while the 11

remainder were more efficient. And this does vary 12

by product class. 13

MR. ALBERT: Question. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Please, Larry. 15

MR. ALBERT: For the Product Class 4, 16

which, of course, is the one I'm most inte rested in 17

here, the two categories that comprise 18

that class are essentially power

- tool battery 19

chargers and battery chargers for laptops and other 20

computers and so on. 21

Do you have any sense of what the 22

distribution is of the efficiencies with respect to 23118

those two classes of products within the, the 1

product class? 2

MR. LAUF: Not offhand. 3

MR. ALBERT: All right. 4

MR. PETROLATI: Are you going to be 5

presentin g that later? 6

MR. LAUF: Yes. Actually, I am. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest (phonetic). 8

MR. RIVEST: That information is 9

actually in the TSD. You can see that the 10

engineering analysis it has at the CSLs, it has a, 11

applications I believe that you're

-- 12

MR. MORRIS: Okay. Thank you. 13

MR. LAUF: And on this side we have 14

efficiency distributions for Class A and non

- Class 15

A EPSs. I do want to point out there is an 16

error that I thought was caught, but the green 17

CSL for Class A EPSs should read "ENERGY STAR," not 18

"Intermediate." 19

So, those two should be switched. The 20

numbers here are correct. 21

So, for Class A EPSs, as we can see, 22

a pproximately 68 percent of Class A EPSs just meet 23119

the EISA criteria, while the remainder are at the 1

ENERGY STAR level or more efficient. 2

For non

- Class A EPSs, for 3

multi

- voltage and for high

- powered EPSs, DOE based 4

these energy distrib utions off the distributions 5

that it calculated in the Determination Analysis. 6

Now, as I mentioned, DOE expects that 7

low

- wattage multi

- voltage EPSs are 8

a small and shrinking category. 9

For medical device EPSs and EPSs for 10

MADB classi fications, these are based off the Class 11

A efficiency distribution with the assumptions that 12

ten percent fall below the current EISA Standard 13

for Class A. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne. 15

MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris. 16

Just a point to make sure in terms of 17

the MADB category. 18

(Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m. ET, Mr. 19

Petrolati and Mr. Reeves conferred, out of the 20

hearing of others and off the Record, during which 21

the following occurred:) 22

MR. MORRIS: I think it would be a bit 23120

of a stretch to assume that the percentages of the, 1

of the 17 percent, for instance, and above, mean 2

that that's the percentage of the marketplace. A 3

number of manufacturers in our industry that have 4

long questioned, if you will, the value of, of 5

ENERGY STAR in this category. 6

I mean, some companies see this as being 7

a benefit. Some participate in it, but it 8

does not mean, therefore, that automatically, for 9

instance, that of, of the entire marketplace, for 10

instance, 17 plus 12 plus 3 is what the marketplace 11

is. 12

And I think it would mean that that 13

perhaps is the number of companies that have taken 14

advantage of that situation. Is that correct? 15

MR. LAUF: No, these were based off of 16

product testing, not off of

-- 17

MR. MORRIS: And I guess we 18

would expect that number to be actually larger than 19

what you're showing there. 20

MR. PETROLATI: I'm sorry, Wayne. I 21

a pologize. 22

Which number? The 68 percent? 23121

MR. MORRIS: No, the MADBs, that 10 plus 1

58 being below the ENERGY STAR line. 2

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. 3

MR. MORRIS: We think that that's 4

actually too high, an d the, the number from 17 and 5

above is actually greater than that. I think that 6

there are

-- And that's because I think that there 7

are a lot of very small categories of products that 8

you may or may not have picked up in your survey 9

for which they probably do apply, but I think they 10

don't necessarily show up in this situation. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne, does AHAM 12

gather that data? 13

MR. MORRIS: No, we don't. it's 14

strictly

-- 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 16

MR. MORRIS:

-- voluntary. 17

MR. LAUF: Okay. Thank you. 18

And, and DOE does believe, also, that 19

this, the share of products that fall within CSL zero for medical devices, 20

or for medical and MADB EPSs, DOE also believes that 21

that is a small and shrinking category. 22122

And I'll take any other questions, and 1

that's the end of the presentation. So, thank you. 2

MS. PORTER: This is Suzanne Porter from 3

ECOS. I just had a clarificati on question. 4

MR. LAUF: Sure. 5

MS. PORTER: And I know this is prob

- -- 6

This in the TSD, but for the purposes of looking 7

at this illustration, how did the CSL levels for 8

non

- Class A EPSs translate to the Class A EPS 9

level s that are shown immediately above? 10

MR. LAUF: Well, actually, 11

we'll have a discussion 12

about the CSLs in a lot more detail later on

-- 13

MS. PROTER: Okay. 14

MR. LAUF:

-- in the presentation. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: We're going to proceed, 16

then. 17

MS. PORTER: I have one more question. 18

The baseline

-- You can use baseline a lot of 19

different ways. 20

So, my other clarification question was: 21

For the purposes of the energy analysis, was the 22

baseline the baseline or lowest efficiency product 23123

used

-- I know the baseline for EPS Class A was 1

EISA, but were all savings calculated against the 2

baseline for the battery charger the lowest 3

efficiency levels, or C SL zero? 4

Or maybe we should save that question 5

for later. 6

MR. LAUF: And that's something we also 7

might answer later on. 8

MS. PORTER: Okay. My apologies. 9

Thank you. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Let's proceed

. 11

Michael Vladimer. 12

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING ANALYSIS: 13

MR. VLADIMER: Ari raised this. This 14

has happened to me more than once in these 15

presentations. 16

MR. PETROLATI: We'll have to reverse 17

the order. 18

MR. VLADIMER: No. Good morning. 19

Michael Vladimer from Navigant 20

Consulting. 21

I'm here to talk about the technolog y 22

assessment and the screening analysis that DOE 23124

performed, and then we'll go to lunch. 1

So, again, the diagram that shows the 2

flow of the analyses. And we're still at the 3

beginning here at the technology assessment. 4

So, the role of the Technology 5

Assessment is to exam ine the factors that affect 6

the efficiency of battery chargers and external 7

power supplies. There's going to be three parts 8

that we talk about. 9

First is product classes; then efficiency 10

metrics, how we measure the efficiency of these 11

products; and then finally, technology options, 12

what specific options do manufacturers have to 13

improve the efficiency of the, these BCs and EPSs. 14

A s noted on the previous slide, Chapter 3 has a 15

lot more detail if anyone's interested. 16

So, product classes. T he main 17

purpose for establishing product classes is to 18

maintain product utility

. 19

There's statutory criteria that explain exactly the 20

criteria that DOE has to consider . E ssentially 21

the goal of product classes is to maintain utility. 22125

So, for example, one of the product 1

classes is for inductive battery chargers. The 2

idea is that inductive battery chargers give us 3

safety in a wet environment such as when using a 4

toothbrush. 5

And that has a unique utility . That's why 6

DOE examined that on its own. 7

So, using these criteria, DOE examined 8

product classes for EPSs and BCs . And I'll start 9

by listing these different criteria. 10

So, there's a number of criteria that 11

are common to EPSs and BCs. That's why they're 12

grouped together. 13

Those are output power, output voltage, 14

output cord length, something that affects their 15

efficiency. There are cert ain characteristics that 16

stakeholders raised during the framework document. 17

In their public comments they suggested 18

that DOE look at us ag e and topology and price. 19

However, those three characteristics do not meet 20

the statutory criteria , so DOE couldn't use them. 21126

Then there's a few that are unique to EPSs, whether 1

or not it's Class A

, output volt age , output power, AC 2

or DC output ; if it's being designed specifically for 3

medical or MADB, which refers to motorized 4

application and detachability batteries. 5

And then there's a number of 6

characteristics that are unique to battery chargers: 7

battery e nergy, battery voltage , battery c apacity

, 8

c hemistry of the battery

, 9

charge rate

, whether or not there's inductive 10

c oupling; and cord

- cordless operation. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Ric. 12

MR. ERDHEIM: Hi. Ric Erdheim with 13

Philips. 14

So, on Slide 54

-- Go back one slide, 15

Michael. 16

MR. VLADIMER: Sure. 17

MR. ERDHEIM: It's Number 3. Says, "any 18

other performance

- related features that will 19

require different standard levels...." So, related 20

to that, why did you delete usage, topology, and 21

price? 22

You said it was deleted be cause 23127

of statutory limitations, but the Statute gives you 1

broad authority to use any features that would 2

affect energy use. I don't know if you're the 3

right person to ask. 4

I'll just ask generally. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 6

MR. KIDO: I just need some 7

clarification on that. What

-- 8

MR. ERDHEIM: So, Michael said on the 9

next slide, the second, second column, 10

characteristics not considered due to statutory 11

limitations. And there's th ree listed. 12

And I'm wondering what the statutory 13

limitations were, given the previous 14

slide, Factor 3, which says any other 15

performance

- related features that require different 16

standard levels. In other words, I don't 17

understand wha t the statutory limitation was to 18

lead to the elimination of one or more of those 19

factors, given the broad authority that the 20

Department's given. 21

MR. PETROLATI: Ric, can I ask the 22

question just from the question of your personal 23128

interests? What feature is it that you want 1

considered that we didn't consider as part of it, 2

our evaluation criteria? 3

MR. ERDHEIM: Well, in terms of setting 4

up the classes, I'd say the period of time 5

that the product is plugged i n. 6

MR. PETROLATI: Period of time the 7

product is plugged in. 8

MR. VLADIMER: Which is part of the 9

usage. 10

MR. PETROLATI: Okay, does that work

-- 11

Is that

-- Do we have to establish a product class 12

based on us age, Mike? 13

MR. VLADIMER: It doesn't. We're 14

talking about external power supplies , right? 15

MR. PETROLATI: Battery

- power ed systems; 16

yes. 17

MR. KIDO: Well, external power 18

supplies. And I think you're right, that there is 19

some, some availability, yes, some flexibility 20

there. 21

Battery chargers ultimately, I don't see 22

anything with battery chargers. 23129

-- 1

MR. ERDHEIM: So, in answer to your 2

question. I'll

-- 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Back to Ric. Go ahead, 4

Ric. 5

MR. ERDHEIM: I'm sorry. So, the 6

concern is: Why didn't you

-- Having 7

identified 58 different classes or products with 8

battery chargers, and about a

- third of them are rarely 9

plugged in, why didn't you establish a category 10

for those products? 11

MR. PETROLATI: And, again, "rarely 12

plugged in" doesn't seem to be a consumer utility 13

or a specific feature, in my mind, where we would 14

have to establish a, a separate product class based 15

on the legislative language. 16

MR. ERDHEIM: Let's not get into whether 17

you had to. The question is, you had the 18

discretion. 19

MR. PETROLATI: 20

The question is: Do we have to, 21

based on legislative language? 22

MR. ERDHEIM: Right. 23130

MR. PETROLATI: I think we do have a n 1

ability to establish more categories, but I need to 2

talk to our Counsel. 3

MR. ERDHEI M: Yeah. And I'm not trying 4

to get you

-- 5

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. 6

MR. ERDHEIM: But, if you go to the 7

next, the reason I asked is, again, the Column 2 8

says we couldn't consider this due to statutory 9

limitations. And that's what I, I don't 10

understand. 11

And maybe you could have, but you 12

decided not to. But, this says you couldn't. 13

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. I think you've 14

got a point. 15

We'll have to take a look at that. 16

MR. KIDO: Yeah, I'll have to take a 17

look at that, because

-- 18

MR. ERDHEIM: Again, just to emphasize 19

the point again,

-- Ric Erdheim from Philips.

-- 20

if the product is not plugged in, or rarely plugged 21

in, or infrequently discharged, whatever you, you 22

want,

-- 23131

MR. PETROLATI: Let's call that the "usage 1

character istic ." 2

MR. ERDHEIM: "Usage." 3

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 4

MR. ERDHEIM:

-- 5

-- Your energy savings are going to be very minimal 6

at best. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Do you wish to comment? 8

MR. MORRIS: No, I don't. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo. 10

MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, wi th 11

Earthj ustice. 12

It strikes me that that's an incorrect 13

interpretation of the law, that the feature,

-- 14

(Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m. ET, Mr. Kido 15

and Mr. Petrolati conferred, out of the hearing of 16

others and off the Record, during which the 17

following occurred:) 18

MR. BALLO:

-- the feature in question 19

would have to be a feature of the battery charger. 20

We seem to be discussing a feature of the user of 21

the end product to which th e battery charger is 22

connected. 23132

It just seems irrelevant to the question 1

of the actual performance characteristics of the 2

charger itself. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your name. 4

MR. SWOPE: Toby Swope. Just to 5

clarify, in our approach, when you were looking at 6

utility , it was in terms of the function that the 7

device provided to the consumer. 8

So, say you needed to have a USB input 9

or you needed to have main s input. Those are 10

different utilities. 11

If we had to set a standard or a product 12

class and it changed that utility so that you could no 13

longer plug into USB to get power that would 14

be something that you would distinguish product 15

classes between, where as usage, it really doesn't, 16

it only affects how much you're using the 17

product. It doesn't affect the way you're using 18

the product. 19

See, you always turn on your laptop the 20

same way. You always plug in your shavers the same 21

way. 22

MR. PETROLATI: And, Ric, going back to 23133

-- 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Vic Petrolati. 2

MR. PETROLATI: Sorry. 3

Ric, going back to your statement, we 4

need to take a look and see if that language is 5

actually cor rect. I don't believe we have a 6

statutory classification saying we cannot establish 7

a category based on those limits. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please,

-- 9

MR. ALBERT: Just a follow

- on question to 10

Toby. 11

MR. BROOKM AN:

-- Larry. 12

MR. ALBERT: Sorry. Larry Albert. 13

Toby, if there's an associated cost 14

associated with a utility, then 15

presumably that utility is selected by the 16

consumer at a higher price point 17

because of their perceived benefit. 18

Right? The concern here is in 19

those situations where something might be perceived 20

as being of a greater utility, is it 21

necessarily appropriate for evaluations that 22

derive greater utility to be automatically 23134

considered to be acceptable? 1

And, because you're saying 2

specifically, I think, price cannot be included as 3

one of the criteria. 4

Right? But, price is often associated 5

with utility

. 6

Right? So, in that indirect way, price 7

could be considered, right? 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Toby. 9

MR. PETROLATI: Toby's not the right 10

person. We need a legal response to that. 11

I'm not sure we're ready for that. But, 12

it is a question that's very interesti ng. 13

I've got it in other Rules, whether or 14

not price can be considered in utility , so that's 15

something we need to respond to. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: It's well raised. 17

Dan? 18

MR. TENINTY: Daniel Teninty, ag ain, 19

Wireless Power Consortium. 20

Along the same line of questioning 21

topology, certainly from a wireless power 22

consortium perspective, very much weighs into the 23135

question of whether or not you can consider the 1

topology as a criteria, b ecause one of the 2

characteristics of inductive power coupling, 3

excluding toothbrushes, is that the voltage level, 4

because of the resonant circuit that's often 5

involved is much higher than the input voltage to 6

the device. 7

And so the definitions so far 8

have been offered would kind of exclude these 9

products from consideration just by that 10

definition, and would be neither a battery charger 11

nor an external power supply, which is probably 12

okay with a lot of product manufacturers. But

-- 13

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah, please, Mike. 14

Yeah. After

-- 15

MR. TENINTY: So, just wanted to kind of 16

raise that same point that Philips and Black & 17

Decker raised. 18

M R. PETROLATI: Same. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. Turn it on, 20

Mike. 21

MR. RIVEST: This is Mike Rivest, 22

Navigant Consulting. 23136

I'm not a lawyer, and this is not a 1

legal opinion. It's merely reflecting on 16 years 2

of proceedings, and how product classes have been 3

handled. 4

I think the starting point here is 5

that product classes are established to make sure 6

that we're not eliminating from the m arket products 7

that the consumer would perceive as desirable. So, 8

for example, I remember a proceeding where the 9

efficiency standard was so stringent that the only 10

way to get there would be to eliminate the window 11

on an oven. 12

That would, you know, was determined 13

that the, the window provided a utility, and 14

if the only way to get there was to remove the 15

window, that warranted a separate product class for 16

ovens with windows with glass. 17

You could think of the same thing of car 18

standards where you don't compete a subcompact with 19

an SUV because if you were to set the standard so 20

stringent that not a single SUV could be sold on 21

the market, you know, that warranted a sep arate 22

product class. 23137

So, it's true that DOE 1

create s classes to isolate those applications 2

that were at risk because they couldn't meet the 3

Standard. In every proceeding I've been involved 4

with, price has never been an issue for pro duct class 5

because we inherently take into account price in 6

the economic analysis, okay? 7

And there's something called the safe ty 8

provision as well, which is related to product 9

utility. So, if you frame it that way, it starts 10

to ans wer some of these questions. 11

And I think, from what I have heard 12

today, for the first time is turning it around, 13

saying: Is there anything preventing us from 14

having more classes? F rankly, I've never 15

heard that. 16

I mean, there has to be a reason that 17

you would create a class. In the past what's been 18

applied is you create a class when, if you don't 19

create that class, you eliminate products

. 20

Now, for the end user 21

for example, the window, is important. Whether 22

they use it one hour or 20 hours a week is an 23138

economic issue. 1

We're not 2

making them use 20 hours or one hour a week. We 3

take that into account in the process

. 4

So, I don't see how usage profile 5

could be used as a way of creating a product class. 6

Of course, I'm not the lawyer. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 8

Yes, Vic. Larry, and then Ric. 9

MR. ALBERT: So, in, in response to 10

that, I guess I'd like to th row out an example. 11

So, if I have, if I have a rechargeable beard and 12

mustache trimmer that the larger volumes are sold 13

at the, let's say, the $15 range because that's 14

what many consumers can afford, and 15

that's what their lifestyle allows them to afford, 16

and then you come along with a Standard 17

requirement that forces you to put X amount of 18

dollars of circuitry into it to make that Standard, 19

and so now that product goes from an average, you 20

know, of a median

- class retail of 15, to $24, 21

aren't you eliminating a product class? 22

Or, I mean, aren't you taking away the, 23139

the effective utility of the consumer to be able to 1

buy that product at the price that they were 2

normally buying at? I'm taking all this into consideration

, 3

that at the end of the day there was no difference 4

in energy savings between, or no significant energy 5

savings between the one that was $15 and the one 6

that now costs $24. 7

MR. RIVEST: So someone will say the 8

whole point of the Standards Program is to, you 9

know, nudge consumers towards more efficient 10

products by doing an economic analysis for them. 11

And then in your example there would be an economic 12

analysis that would show that the $24 13

shaver will save them money over the life of that 14

product, and that's where the Standard is 15

established. 16

Now, the Department does consider the 17

fact that some consumers use the shaver more than others, and 18

that a portion of the of th e users will 19

actually see increases in life

- cycle cost. And 20

that's something that's considered and is weighed 21

in the decision. 22140

So, it's not ignored, but it's not a, 1

like a hard rule that w e can't raise price, because if 2

that was th e hard rule there would be no program. 3

MR. ERDHEIM: Just one quick thought. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Please. Yes. 5

MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim. 6

And Vic understands the issue. I'm not 7

going to belabor it. 8

But, I'd just say that this, Vic's got 9

an impossible job, in my view, in this, because 10

unlike all the other Regulations that we talked 11

about, they dealt with products. They might be 12

different types of products, but they dealt with a 13

pr oduct. 14

This is dealing with a component of 15

multiple products, and that's what makes this so, 16

so difficult. That's why, you know, you've got 17

1,000 pages of documentation to try to go through 18

all of this, and I

-- Believe me. 19

I question whether we should have 20

started down this road because of the 21

difficulty of this. But the point that I'm 22

making is that the Department's analysis went through usage for 57 23

products, and 18 of 24141

them were unplugged 23 hours ou t of the 24 hours. 1

And that's pretty significant. And, 2

again, as the example, I don't know if you 3

were here when I used my beard trimmer 4

example. 5

My beard trimmer is not plugged in one 6

hour a day, and I can't imagine an y that is plugged 7

in. So, the point is that the energy 8

savings potential of that product is completely 9

different than the sonic toothbrush we have that's 10

plugged in 24 hours a day. 11

I mean, I cannot agree with the 12

potential, but at least there's a potential. But, 13

if the product is not plugged in,

-- And there's a 14

wide range of these battery chargers that your, the 15

Department's analysis shows is not plugged in. 16

And just to take it 17

out of Phil ips, we don't make camcorders, but I 18

don't know of anyone who has a camcorder that plugs 19

it in hardly ever. You know, you plug it in the 20

day before you need it. 21

So, that's why I'm raising the issue

. You're doing this to 22

save energy, but if the 23

product's not plugged in, you can't save energy. 24142

MR. RIVEST: Let me

-- 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 2

MR. RIVEST: Thank you for commenting on 3

the difficulty

. Literally, you understand it. 4

I appreciate it. 5

Let me tell you what we did in 6

the technical support documents, which will provide 7

information to the Department as it, you know, gets 8

into the mode of making Decisions. 9

So, we 10

created ten product classes, and even having done 11

that, within certain product classes there are 12

applications that have very different usage 13

profiles, probably very different sets of 14

economics, we report the economic results of the 15

product class

. But, if you dig deep into the 16

TSD you will see that we also reported application 17

by application. 18

And, you know, we are at 19

the point now of presenting information, not of 20

making decisions. But, perhaps you can look at 21143

that, this aggregate of information. 1

And I hope it's in the TSD. It is? 2

Okay. And maybe you can make 3

recommendations and say, "Well, maybe the Country 4

would be better off if things that are currently 5

not contemplated as being regulated weren't, because 6

the net effect would be to increase the energy 7

savings, or at least increase the NPV of the 8

Country

. A lthough they fit under the 9

statutory criteria, you know, they weren't 10

regulated." 11

So, this is the first time it happens, 12

this situation. And I don't know what the legal 13

constraints would be, but we always do what's 14

called a subgroup analysis, looking how different 15

types of consumers might be impacted differently 16

from the average. 17

We always do that. So, this just takes 18

it to a whole new level. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional 20

questions? 21

Wayne. 22

MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris with 23144

AHAM . Just a quick comment. 1

Ric Erdhei m's point is a very well

- taken 2

one, but I also think it's dealt with in the 3

government impact model, the GRIM analysis that is 4

done, where you would look at the effect of 5

Regulation on the marketplace as well, and the 6

manufacturers. 7

And so I agree with you, Michael, that I 8

think that it's taken up in some of the economic 9

cases as well as in the GRIM , where it would look 10

at, for instance, products would drop off the 11

marketplace with that compacted number of 12

players and a particular product segment. 13

Would that then have an impact on sort 14

of an antitrust kind of situation with regard to 15

loss of competitiveness and all of which is 16

important to consider, especially on these very 17

high

- volum e but very small

- price type products. 18

Michael. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Kido. 20

MR. KIDO: Yeah. I ’ll just point out that 21

as part of the analysis, once we do issue those 22

part s of the rulemaking, once Justice gets involved, 23145

we look at potential antitrust situations. 1

I just want to ask a quick follow

- up 2

question to the individual from Wahl. With respect 3

to your example where you have the situation where, 4

le t's say, you have one kind of shaver and then, 5

you're offering now at a certain price point, and 6

then because of the new Standards you have to 7

increase that price point, are you anticipating 8

that there would be any kind of actual feature of 9

perfo rmance changes to that particular model, aside 10

from the energy consumption aspects, or would it 11

still be pretty much the same, with the key 12

difference in the consumer being, I guess, the 13

energy consumption and the price? 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Ric k

. 15

MR. HABBEN : In our particular product 16

category, in most cases there would not be a user, 17

the user would not see any potential benefit. And just taking that down 18

further, 19

instead of just taking my word for it, is that, you 20

know, are things to, especially like beard and 21

mustache trimmers. 22

You know, the usage on them is, you 23146

know, five minutes once a week. So, you 1

don't have to have that much capacity in 2

the battery, and you don't have to have a 3

supe r

- quick charge for the customer to get the same 4

utility as if it takes, you know, 15 hours to 5

charge the battery. 6

So that's where I'm directing 7

my answer from. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay? We should probably 9

note for the Record that both of the gentlemen 10

speaking about clippers have beards. 11

MR. ERDHEIM: And it took me a lot of 12

preparation to get this beard for this Hearing. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: And you're looking good, 14

too. 15

MR. ERDHEIM: Looking good. Wasn't my 16

beard put into the Record earlier? 17

MR. BROOKMAN: We need a video here. 18

MR. ALBERT: Larry Albert. What drove 19

my question with respect to utility and price was 20

a little different than what Mike mentioned before. 21

That is specifically one of the things we're 22

looking at, is that the changes that have occurred 23147

over the long period of time that we've been 1

discussing energy efficiency, battery chargers, and 2

so on, is a shift from our market,

-- Right?

-- 3

from almost completely nickel

- based chemistries, to 4

a combination now of nickel

- based and 5

lithium

- ion

- based chemistries. 6

Lithium

- ion

- based represent 7

efficiencies with respect to the gra vimetric 8

efficiency, and also with respect to 9

self

- discharge, which are desirable features in the 10

end product. They also offer a benefit with 11

respect to energy consumption. 12

So, one of the concerns here is that as 13

you look at the da ta,

-- And we recognize that 14

there may be distinctions between some products 15

that have one chemistry, or another chemistry that 16

might offer a benefit with respect to energy 17

efficiency.

-- can it automatically be presumed 18

that better, if you were to treat that as better 19

utility , that improvements in utility would 20

automatically be considered a desirable trait, and 21

therefore not a restriction with respect to 22

investigating energy efficiency? 23148

So, it was really directed in that il k, 1

right? And since that, frequently that the utility 2

advantage associated with lithium

- ion comes at a 3

premium,

-- Right?

-- there's a price associated 4

with the utility as you might often expect to 5

be the case. 6

Right? But, the pe rceived utility there 7

is that the consumer's buying that 8

because it's lighter and because it sits on the 9

shelf longer, not because of the energy efficiency. 10

So that's the reason why I 11

was going down the avenue that's generated a bunch 12

of other discussion that wasn't necessarily 13

associated with my intent at that point, but it was 14

good. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, let's return to 16

the slides. 17

Michael. 18

MR. VLADIMER: Excellent. Thanks for 19

that discussion of these different, the product class 20

characteristics. 21

Now I'd like to examine them in a little 22

bit more detail, first for external power supplies. 23149

So, after reviewing the table I just presented, DOE 1

settled on four characteristics that it used to 2

characterize EPS product classes: Class A versus 3

non

- Class A; output power, output voltage; type of 4

power conversion. 5

Output power. I'll discuss all four of 6

these in detail in a moment, but what matters is 7

down here. 8

You can see the Class A EPS product 9

classes. Essentially they're divided between basic 10

voltage and low

- voltage output, as well as AC/DC 11

and AC/AC conversion. 12

You'll note that I mentioned output 13

power, but you don't see it because it's included in the Standard. 14

Let's take a look at these four criteria. 15

So, first EISA called out Class A EPS s as 16

a specific type, so that's why we 17

have Class A on its own. Second output power , high 18

output tends to be more efficient than low output power

. 19

So, DOE's going to have to account for 20

that in the Standard. High output voltage also 21

tend s to be more efficient. 22150

And DOE is intending to use ENERGY STAR 1

as a criteria to define what "low voltage" means. 2

DC

- output EPSs tend to be able to reduce their 3

no

- load power consumption more so than the AC output 4

EPS s , and that's why they’re broken out. 5

Any questions? Thoughts? 6

(Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m. ET, no 7

response was had.) 8

MR. VLADIMER: Excellent. So, moving on 9

to the non

- Class A product classes, so, essentially 10

for medical and MADBs, the same crite ria apply as 11

for Class A. 12

So, it has the same product class 13

structure. For the other two non

- Class A EPS s, 14

multiple voltage and high power, DOE is adopting 15

the structure that comes primarily from the determination 16

analysis where it had two different product classes for 17

multiple voltage EPS s

. A nd one 18

product class for high power because that only has 19

one major application. 20

Going on to battery chargers, again, 21

after reviewing all the different criteria, DOE 22

settled on these five, and I'll examine them in 23151

detail in a moment. But, we were looking at 1

battery energy, battery voltage, inductive chargeability, 2

input voltage, and output voltage of the battery 3

charger or product. 4

So, here you can see there's ten 5

different battery charger product classes. One is 6

for products that are low

- energy with inductive coupling

. 7

Product classes 2 through 7 are 8

different combinations of battery energy and 9

battery voltage. And then finally, 8 and 9 are for 10

battery chargers that have DC input power. 11

And then the last product class, 10, is 12

for 13

uninterruptible power supplies that provide AC 14

output power. So, let’s look at the basis for 15

these different divisions. 16

So, first and foremost, battery energy 17

has the largest impact on utility

. 18

Battery voltage affects battery chargers' 19

efficiency and utility. 20

Inductive battery chargers, as we've 21

been mentionin g, have a unique utility, and so 22

that's why they're called out separately. And for 23152

battery chargers with DC input power, they don't 1

that have an AC/DC conversion stage, so they should be 2

more efficient than AC

– input BCs

. 3

And then fi nally, these uninterruptible 4

power supplies may have a DC/AC converter 5

which has its own overhead. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne Morris. 7

MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris, with AHAM

. 8

Michael, if you could, go back one 9

slide. Appreciate it. 10

The example applications inside are 11

illustrative. I assume they're not meant to be in 12

any way comprehensive of the types of products 13

that are shown in those categories. 14

MR. VLADIMER: That is corr ect. 15

The idea is just so people have something to refer 16

to with the number. 17

MR. MORRIS: Exactly. And 18

appreciate that. 19

I would mention that there are some 20

categories where, even within a category, it may 21

lop over betw een more than one of these 22

horizontal type categories. There are some 23153

floor

- care appliances, for instance that 1

are in either the low

- energy/medium

- voltage, 2

or low

- energy/low

- voltage, depending upon the 3

number of battery cells, essentially,

-- 4

MR. VLADIMER: Yes

. 5

MR. MORRIS:

-- Is what they are 6

very dependent upon. 7

And so your battery voltage, 8

and especially in the nickel

- based 1.2 volts per 9

cell, I mean, you have three cells, you have 3.6; 10

you have four, you have 4.8, et cetera. You spill 11

over into some of these other categories. 12

And there are some of them that are 13

certainly upwards of 12 volts, in that range. 14

So, even within a particular product line, you may 15

have p roducts that, that differentiate. 16

You may have a category like a 17

hand

- held vacuum cleaner that may range all the way 18

in these. So, it makes it more difficult than when 19

you try to show that spread as you get 20

into the actual life

- cycle analysis of 21

to drive that down to an individual product 22

category. 23154

So, I just wanted to make sure we 1

understood that. Thank you. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 3

MR. VLADIMER: I'll continue. 4

Excellent. 5

So, DOE seeks 6

comment on the product classes for battery chargers, 7

comment on these product classes; of course, for 8

the EPS product classes that I've presented, as 9

well. In particular, some of the product classes 10

, as we've mentioned, combi ne different 11

types of product s

. 12

And, DOE would welcome opinions and 13

comments on that. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on 15

this? 16

MR. MORRIS: Just one. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Wayne Morris. 18

MR. MORRIS: W e 19

would agree with the comments that Ric Erdheim made 20

that we would like to ask that the infrequently 21

charged be considered in here. Inductive has 22

certainly been considered as a separate product class 23155

because of essentially its utility function. 1

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 2

MR. MORRIS: I'd also note that, that in 3

Regulations for things like standby power, that 4

infrequently charged or infrequently plugged in 5

is a common ty pe of situation. For instance, 6

vacuum cleaners, standard, ordinary, upright AC 7

vacuum cleaner wouldn't really be much use in terms 8

of a standby power Regulation, since I would assume 9

that 99.9 percent of people don't leave them plugged 10

in every day. 11

And so when you have a situation, as we 12

have with many of these personal

- care products that 13

are not left plugged in and may only be plugged in, 14

you know, once a week or once every two weeks or 15

three weeks or four weeks, the energ y 16

savings is going to be significantly reduced on 17

those candidate standards levels from where we are. 18

Now, I know that the 19

Department had to sort of use integers in terms of 20

its measurement. 21

It's pretty hard to get down to showing 22

a usage pattern of 0 .0001, something like that. 23156

But even estimating the one hour a day is a 1

gross over

- exaggeration of most of these situations. 2

So, I think that that might fix that 3

situation and help us through the issue if 4

the life

- cycle analysis could have 5

a consideration on that type of class. Thanks. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 7

Yes, Larry. 8

MR. ALBERT: Larry Albert. 9

So, Mike, your question up there 10

spe cifically points to PC4

, -- Right?

-- which has 11

come up several times where we have the same product 12

class for both power tools and notebook computers. 13

And I understand the dilemma here where, 14

you know, you can't have a hundred product classes, 15

right? So, necessarily you're going to have some 16

product classes that are going to contain in them 17

some divergent categories of products 18

that have some differences in how they're used, 19

both technologically and how they're used, and so 20

on. 21

And so fundamentally I don't know if the 22

issue here for us is that one 23157

product class contains both categories, but then 1

some of the derivative analysis that was done on 2

that basis, fo r example, tracking averages of 3

characteristics between the two, because laptops 4

have, you know, a much larger quantity. 5

When you do a weighted average 6

of some of those characteristics you get results 7

that are highly skewed towards the laptops, and not 8

necessarily representative of both 9

categories. And that's where the problem 10

is. 11

You know, surprisingly I have less of an issue 12

with the usage pattern and probably more of an issue with 13

some of those weighted averages that were used for 14

the basis of the CSLs and other things. Seems more 15

of an issue of how you're handling the data once 16

it's in the product classes, and less of how you establish 17

product classes that have to contain sometimes 18

divergent products. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: All right. Thank you, 20

Rick

. 21

Please. 22

MR. HABBEN : I have an issue regarding the less

- than

- four

- volt 23

product class, Product Class 2. You state in there 24158

that you know battery voltage affects the battery 1

charger efficiency and utility , and I guess I 2

would bring up the point that currently we have 3

several products that are single

- cell application 4

in a nickel

- base d chemistry. 5

So, they' re at 1.2 volts. With this, it 6

brings some challenges when you start to bring in 7

charge control

. 8

you're going to deal with a microprocessor or 9

whatever, because at this current time the 10

voltage coming into the product is much less than 11

what it takes to maybe run an IC chip to cut it 12

off. 13

So, I guess I would just urge maybe 14

consideration for a product class with a 15

single

- cell application. And the single

- cell 16

applications are important to

-- Again, 17

I don't want t o belabor the thing on price, but 18

you, to keep the costs down not buying 19

multiple cells for your product when the utility of 20

the product doesn't require it

. 21

So, you can be able to keep the price 22

down and still give the consumer the pr oduct that 23

functions properly, and 24159

does the job for when it's needed. So 1

that's all. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 3

Okay. Additional comments on these 4

matters? 5

(Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m. ET, no 6

response was ha d.) 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 8

MR. VLADIMER: Okay, I'll continue on to 9

Efficiency metrics, and then technology options. So, it's external

, 10

it's operation and power supplies

. They operate 11

consume r loads . F or external power sup plies 12

there's essentially two modes, no

- load mode and 13

active mode. 14

No

- load mode is when an EPS is not 15

plugged into its application, and active mode is 16

when it's plugged in. So, in no

- load mode, all of 17

the power that goes into the EPS is just consumed 18

by the EPSs. 19160

For no

- load mode 1

power is being provided to the application. 2

So, we look at the average efficiency. 3

For battery chargers we have active or charge mode, 4

mai ntenance modes, standby mode, and off mode. 5

So, "Active Mode," when you're actually 6

charging up the battery. "Maintenance Mode ," 7

when the battery's topped up, just making sure that 8

it stays there. 9

"Standby Mode," the batt ery is out of the 10

battery charger. And "Off Mode," the battery charger 's 11

actually turned off. 12

So, for Active Mode we're looking at 24

- hours energy 13

hours' consumption. Of course, many battery 14

chargers are going to charge well within that 15

24

- hour energy consumption, but that's the metric. 16

I should note that this is not yet 17

codified in the battery charger test procedure. 18

I'm referring to what was proposed most recently in 19

the battery charger test procedure NOPR. 20

So, as Vic mentioned earlier, that will 21

be finalized towards the end of the year. So, this 22

is what DOE intends to do, based on that NOPR. 23161

"Maintenance mode," just power into the 1

battery charger. S ame with 2

"Standby" and "Off." 3

And the last point I want to make, and 4

everyone sees this, UEC: unit energy consumption 5

is the metric that DOE used to analyze battery 6

chargers. There's going to be a full discussion of 7

that in the "Energy Use Analysis," but for now I 8

just want to let everybody know that's what we're 9

going to talk about. 10

And in the engineering, we'll mention it . But, 11

please, when it comes to discussing how it was 12

derived, that's t he discussion we're going to have 13

during "Energy Use Analysis." 14

Excellent. Then on to technology options. 15

So, battery 16

chargers and power supplies, so there's a lot of 17

the technologies that are applicable to both. To 18

na me a few, you can improve the transformer, you 19

can use better diodes and synchronous 20

rectification

. And then there's a couple unique battery 21

charger technologies, such as eliminat ing the 22

maintenance current and the no

- battery current. 23162

And now I'll just request some 1

comments. 2

So, if anyone has comment on the 3

technology options I just mentioned, there's a full 4

discussion in the TSD. But, anything you want to 5

add? 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne Morris. 7

MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris, with AHAM

. 8

Michael, you all did an excellent job 9

of both surveying the industry and 10

manufacturers and technical experts and I 11

commend you and your staff for all the work 12

you did looking at all of the technology options 13

that exist. And it's excellent and very, very 14

timely to be considered in your report. 15

The one thing that I guess we were a 16

little bit concerned about was: Were intellectual 17

property issues considered in some of these 18

technology options ?

-- Is there a particular 19

application possibly within the inductive 20

coupling that will, in order to hit certain levels 21

in the candidate standard levels, this may encroach 22

upon intell ectual property Patents that are out 23163

there? 1

And I have not run across this 2

before, so maybe this is a question for Mr. Kido, 3

is that my understanding is that the Department 4

doesn't necessarily choose candidate 5

standards levels if i t requires encroachment upon 6

intellectual property that would be the only 7

way to achieve that particular CSL. Is that 8

correct? 9

MR. KIDO: That's generally 10

correct. And, like I said earlier, as part of the 11

analysis that's done duri ng the NOPR phase, it's 12

exactly those types of issues, I believe, that are 13

typically considered

-- 14

MR. MORRIS: Exactly. 15

MR. KIDO:

-- at that point. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Michael. 17

MR. KIDO: If you're aware of 18

particular issues that we should be aware of and 19

that you want us to consider, I'd suggest that 20

you identify those in written comments. 21

MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris again. 22

I'd say w e won't deal with that 23164

in our comments. However, it may be something that 1

individual companies are going to have to divulge 2

to you because in order to tell you where the 3

encroachment is, they're going to have to tell you 4

where their current tech nology is. 5

And that's a very proprietary piece of 6

information. So, they may need to work with you on 7

divulging proprietary information to you or to your 8

consultants through NDAs or whatever in order to 9

tell you where the rub is. 10

You see my point with all this. So, 11

it's not something that the Association can deal 12

with, but individual companies may 13

have need to deal with that. 14

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne, will the 16

Association send out a message

-- 17

MR. MORRIS: Yes. 18

MR. BROOKMAN:

-- laying those out for 19

your consideration? 20

MR. MORRIS: Yes. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, Mike. 22

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah, Michael. We've 23165

not run into this issue, have we, on any of our 1

manufacturers on EPSs? 2

MR. VLADIMER: As far as I know, no, 3

we've not run into that. 4

The other thing, Wayne, specifically in 5

Chapter 2 of the TSD there was a comment from the 6

framework document addressing this exact question. 7

And the answer is consistent with what Michael Kido 8

just said in addressing that comment. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 10

Larry. 11

Then , Ric. 12

Larry. 13

MR. ALBERT: Mike, I think I have a 14

couple of questions regarding the technology 15

options that you looked at. In looking at the 16

technologies there, a lot of those are related to 17

power con version efficiency

-- Right?

-- in terms 18

of control options. 19

Were those also considered? And also, I 20

guess, did you consider, for example, moving your 21

charge time from a slower charger to a faster 22

charger as a way of achieving a bet ter CSL, or one 23166

cell chemistry to another cell chemistry to achieve 1

a better CSL? 2

Was that discussed in there? 3

MR. VLADIMER: Excellent question. And 4

the slide I'm showing is abbreviated, but, yes, 5

pretty much everything you've said is in the TSD. 6

So, here we mentioned low

- volt age , they're 7

the main circuits in these. And in the TSD we talk 8

about having better algorithms that can charge more 9

efficiently. 10

You know, we ’ve see n some resonant switching, 11

for instance. And as far as the other thing 12

you mentioned,

-- 13

MR. ALBERT: One of the points was 14

control termination versus non

- terminating. 15

Termination under differential r equirements, and so 16

on. 17

And charge time, which is related. 18

MR. VLADIMER: Exactly. That, that I 19

was going to mention as well. 20

So, charge time. Similarly, you can go 21

from a slow charge r to a fast charge r bec ause there's 22

no, not only would you be more efficient, but you 23167

don't negatively affect the utility

. 1

So, people aren't going to wait eight 2

hours for their battery to be charged. It gets 3

charged in one. 4

MR. ALBERT: Right . But, higher utility 5

gets a higher price, and so that was baked into your 6

cost analysis. 7

MR. VLADIMER: Exactly. 8

MR. ALBERT: And then saying from 9

nickel, you consider chemistry as well, didn't you, 10

as an option? 11

MR. VLADIMER: Yes. 12

MR. ALBERT: So, from a nickel

- based chemistry

, 13

or, rather, chemistries that permit overcharging 14

versus one such as lithium

- ion that do not,

-- 15

and require s special protection circuitry, 16

the cost of c ells as well as the cost of the 17

technology to manage those cells. 18

MR. VLADIMER: Exactly. 19

MR. ALBERT: Okay. 20

MR. VLADIMER: And it's all, all 21

detailed in Chapter 5, which it

-- 22

MR. ALBERT: And, again, the argument 23168

would be the higher utility is, it is in 1

lithium

- ion and is similar, you didn't violate one 2

of those rules. 3

MR. VLADIMER: Yeah. There's no 4

trade

- off between efficiency and utility

. 5

You increase efficiency and you increase 6

utility. Thank you. 7

MR. ERDHEIM: I just want to clarify a 8

point, Vic, in response to what you said about the 9

meetings that you've had with industry. And we've 10

had an NDA with you, and we've had at least two, 11

two people from Philips, and maybe, maybe even more 12

who have talked to your staff. 13

So, there's no problem in giving you 14

the information. The concern that's been expressed 15

to me is: 16

Gee. If they come up with a CSL that 17

requires use of a patented technology, we may not 18

be able to get the technology award. That may 19

significantly increase the cost. 20

Or, if the technology is from one of our 21

competitors . So, that's what the concern is. 22

It's not providing you information. And 23169

we don't want to

-- We're not interested in saying, 1

"Take our technology and run with it." 2

What the concern is

, is that from the CSL 3

-- And, again , people are

-- There's so much 4

information, people are poring over this. 5

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 6

MR. ERDHEIM: But, we want to make sure 7

that there isn't something that is underl y ing the 8

assumptions of one or more of the h igher

- level CSLs 9

that was a patented technology. 10

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah, Ric. And we're 11

certainly concerned that there is something out 12

there, but nobody has mentioned this to us, to the 13

best of my knowledge. 14

And in our m anufacturer interviews we 15

asked them, "What will it take in terms of 16

technology improvements and cost to reach these 17

various CSLs?" 18

So, the question has been framed in a 19

manner where, if there was a proprietary 20

technology, then that should have probably been 21

mentioned by a, certain manufacturers because he's 22

given us his best estimates, whatever it consists 23170

of, and what technology would have been used to 1

reach those various CSLs. 2

MR. VLADIMER: I'll just add one more 3

thing to what Vic is saying. And this is 4

all in Chapter 15. 5

We're jumping the gun into 6

the engineering analysis, but one of things it says is 7

during manufacture interviews a common theme is 8

manufacturers would specify different efficiency 9

points and consequent costs. 10

And when they detailed the technologies 11

used to get there, they were often different. One 12

way had one way of designing a circuit because that 13

wa s their experience, and another manufacturer had 14

a different way. 15

So, at the end of the day the numbers 16

came out similar, but they had different paths. 17

So, I definitely agree with what you're saying 18

with these proprietary technologies , but no one has 19

said

-- When we said, you know, "We found this 20

efficiency in the market. How would you get this 21

and what would the cost be?" nobody said, "I 22

couldn't do that." 23171

They all had their own way of 1

getting there, and the c osts were not wildly 2

different. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Let's move to the comment 4

box. 5

Comments? The comment box you see 6

there. 7

DOE requests comment and data regarding 8

the designs that can increase the range of 9

considered efficiency improvements for either BCs 10

or EPSs, including design options that may not yet 11

be found in the market. 12

So, comment on that? Because we're 13

going to keep moving on here rapidly. 14

(Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m. ET, no 15

response was had.) 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, so screening. 17

MR. VLADIMER: On to the screening 18

analysis. So, as I mentioned, we just finished the 19

technology assessment. 20

We reviewed all those different technologies 21

options, and before DOE wants to try to associate 22

costs with them, it does a screening 23172

analysis. 1

So, the role of the screening analysis 2

is to take a look at the technology options, and 3

there's four statutory criteria that DOE 4

applies to see whether it can examine the four for 5

engineering. These are technological feasibility, 6

practicability to manufacturer, install, and 7

service, impacts on product utility or availability 8

to c onsumers, and impact on health or safety. 9

So, after looking at those four criteria 10

and the different technology options I just 11

mentioned, there were no screened

- out technologies 12

for EPSs, but there were three for battery 13

chargers. And those three were lowering 14

the charging current or 15

increasing the voltage, because that can have 16

adverse impact on utility; and capacity, use, a 17

capacity reactance and use of non

- inductive chargers for a wet 18

application. Either of those might have 19

adverse impact on safety. So, those are the 20

only three that didn't make it forward into the 21

engineering. 22173

And this is pretty much the last slide 1

for the screening. So, if there's any questions, 2

we can take them no w

. -- 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Larry. 4

MR. ALBERT: Sorry to delay lunch. 5

Again to get back to the lithium

- ion 6

question here, at least in the appliance area there 7

have been no, there's been no safety standards 8

established for a battery

- charging system for 9

lithium

- ion

- based appliances. 10

The standard UL 2575 is due to be 11

released probably within four weeks

-- 12

which details very specific and stringent 13

requirements for lithium

- ion

- based batter y systems 14

because of additional concerns about safety of 15

these systems, right? 16

Many of the products, and also at 17

the same time in the marketplace

-- and maybe 18

your analysis has shown this.

-- is that it 19

doesn't seem to be any uniform means of managing 20

from manufacturer to manufacturer, you know, the 21

safety of these systems. 22

There's a lot of different approaches 23174

that take place. The concern here is 1

you know, once we have what we b elieve to be a 2

good safety standard in place,

-- Right?

-- there 3

may be, obviously, additional, you know, overhead 4

with respect to energy associated with these 5

systems; additional costs as well. 6

Right? Which, you know, may affect 7

these products in the marketplace

-- It's

-- 8

since that will change the, may change the analysis 9

at that point. 10

And so while the technology option 11

moving to lithium does not directly affect safety 12

if there is the proper controls put i n place,

-- 13

Right?

-- the fact that some of the analysis 14

may have been done on systems that were not 15

adequately protected, you know, might 16

have influenced some of the results that you may 17

have. 18

Right? 19

MR. BROOKMAN: W ayne Morris. 20

MR. MORRIS: Just to follow on that 21

comment, the comment period for 2575 has just recently 22

opened, and so some of the interviews that 23175

you all may have had would come with companies 1

that, in many cases, may not have been a ware of 2

changes that are necessary within that Standard. 3

So, now that it's out, companies

-- And 4

we just recently had a meeting with our 5

manufacturers to bring them all up to speed and to 6

help them be aware of what these new changes to the 7

Standard are going to be.

-- this could affect, 8

the initial types of meetings that they've 9

had, now that they've had an opportunity to see the 10

CSL situation, what's been forecast outward, and as 11

well as to now understand the safety standards 12

associated with it. 13

That doesn't mean it

-- I don't know. I 14

don't want to make it seem as if the products that 15

are out in the marketplace today are unsafe. 16

That's not what it means. It means that 17

we're trying to design for wide range of tolerances 18

in manufacturing, different companies now entering 19

the manufacture of both the power supply 20

situation as well as the battery itself. 21

It's necessary for the safety Standards 22

to tighten a bit to make sure that that we 23176

capture all of this. We continue to maybe 1

pertain and have the best safety record on 2

these that is possible, and this endeavor to 3

change the safety Standards was not done by some 4

outs ide force. 5

It was done by Industry asking for more 6

tests and more evaluation. But, until you finally 7

see the final document, you don't know what you've 8

got to design to. 9

And now that the manufacturers have that 10

document, with all the tests put in by everybody 11

and his brother to o , as suggestions now it 12

becomes a baked cake. And you can actually go 13

to the design phase and design around it with 14

the circuitry necessary. 15

So, that's why, unfort unately, it wasn't 16

available for the earlier designation, and why it 17

may be necessary now to go back and revisit some of 18

that where lithium 19

chemistries are the requ ired solution to 20

the problem. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: I see. Thank you. 22

MR. KIDO: Just quickly, is there anyone 23177

from UL in the room by any chance? 1

(Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m. ET, no 2

response was had.) 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 4

Additional comments? 5

MR. VLA DIMER: I just want to clarify w hat this 6

fellow here was saying. So, Larry, I very much 7

appreciate what you're saying. 8

I just want to make sure that it's clear 9

that the analysis did account for all the overhead 10

circuitry. I think yo u raise an interesting point 11

that it, not all the safety systems were designed at the 12

same stringency, and it's great that UL is 13

now going to have a standard to do that. 14

But, to make sure it's 15

hundred

- percent clear, the increase in cells 16

and increase the circuitry and the increase in the 17

energy savings, this, that was all part of it. 18

MR. ALBERT: Thank you. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments on this? Because I think we're 20

about ready to go to 21

lunch. 22

Yes, lunch. So, we made really good 23178

progress; covered a lot of ground. 1

And I appreciate the back

- and

- forth. 2

It's now 12:15, 12:16. 3

Let's take an hour for lunch, which 4

mea ns we'll be back here at 1:15. 5

(Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m. ET, those 6

present took a brief recess and returned at 1:22 7

p.m. ET, after which the following occurred:) 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Please take your seats. 9

We're going to begin, or I should say resume. 10

So, then we are going pick up where 11

we left off. Thanks for making it back here on 12

time. 13

We're going to continue with Michael 14

Vladimer. 15

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS 16

MR. VLADIMER: Excellen t. Hello, once 17

again. 18

Michael Vladimer, with Navigant 19

Consult ing , once again. Thank you. 20

21

So, let's just use this figure to recap. 22

Now we're getting in the mid

- stage analysis, so we 23179

already talked about the market and the technology. 1

We know that the products that are out 2

there and what the major applications are. The 3

tech told us what are the technology options; how 4

DOE will divide these products into product 5

classes. 6

We screened out a couple of the 7

technology options because they didn't meet 8

statutory criteria, and now we're going to 9

talk about the engineering analysis. 10

And the engineering analysis is really 11

the workhorse o f the analysis. It's where we define the relationship 12

between cost 13

and efficiency. 14

And so these two graphs try to tell that 15

story very succinctly. So, on the left we have 16

just a generic cost efficiency curve. 17

This is wha t we're trying to create as 18

an output from the engineering output. So, on the X 19

axis we have efficiency; on the Y axis we have cost. 20

What that graph shows, when you're 21

inefficient, you tend to be cheap for the first 22

price, and when y ou get more efficient it's going 23180

to cost a bit more money. So, what that translates 1

to, there's a number of downstream increases that 2

use that, but just to give people a sense, I have a 3

graph here that shows when the

-- And in the case 4

-- Can yo u can see that, the low efficiencies? 5

And even though the product was actually 6

cheap, it's going to cost a bunch of money because 7

the operati ng costs are high. And when you go to 8

a very high efficiency, your operating costs wasn't 9

so high, but the purchase price was originally 10

quite high. 11

And so you're paying for that. So, 12

somewhere along in that curve there is an 13

optimum. 14

And DOE will probably set the Standards 15

based on that curve, or these types of curves. 16

But, this is really the overview of what the 17

engineering analysis is about and why we're doing 18

it. 19

Any questions? 20

(Whereupon, at 1:24 p.m. ET, no response 21

was had.) 22

MR. VLADIMER: Excellent. So, how do we 23181

get here? 1

Well, actually, before we jump into the 2

exact structure, I just want to point out that 3

there's, you're going to see two types of curves 4

coming up. So, one, the hockey

- stick

- s haped curve 5

that I showed the first time, and that relates to 6

EPS efficiency. 7

We're increasing efficiency by 8

increasing cost. But, this might be 9

counterintuitive

, 10

s o I wanted to call it out for EPS no

- load 11

power cons umption and battery charger unit 12

energy consumption. 13

In both of those cases, "lower" means 14

more efficient. So, that's why it's, the shape is 15

flipped. 16

Okay. So, I think it's really important 17

to establish that i t's a 18

preliminary analysis meeting. 19

We really want to focus on inputs and 20

methodology into the engineering analysis. The 21

inputs to this are public comments, the

-- There's 22

another public comment s DOE received for the 23182

framework document.

-- manufacturer interviews, and 1

test and teardown data. 2

So, interviews, methodology section

-- 3

I'll go to each of these different in detail.

-- 4

representative product classes, representative 5

units, candidates standard lev els of efficiency, or 6

CSLs, data scaling, price analysis, and CSL 7

scaling. 8

The output s of all this are cost 9

e f ficiency curves, but at this point we're not 10

going to focus on that. We don't want to get too 11

detailed on what the result s are, because, based on 12

what everyone's comments are today and in 13

writing, DOE will adjust. 14

So, once that changes th e s e outputs 15

change. So, it's not that important at this phase. 16

So, let's really focus on inputs and 17

me thodology. So, we're going to look at the three 18

different types of products separately. 19

So, I'm first going to look at a section 20

entitled " Class A External Power Supplies ." And then we'll talk about the 21

non

- Class A external power supplies, and then I'll 22

hand off to Matthew Nardotti to take us through 23183

the battery charger engineering analysis. 1

So, originally the tech assessment, I 2

mentioned that there are four product classes. Of 3

these four prod uct classes, DOE chose to focus 4

specifically on Product Class A1. 5

DOE believes that by focusing the 6

analysis on this product class it's able to then extrapolate

, 7

because the other product classes are related, and 8

I'll explain how it could extend the analysis 9

to all the different EPS product classes. 10

So, within product Class A1 DOE focused 11

on four representative units. Those units are 2.5 12

watt output power , 18 watt, 60 watts, and 120 watts. 13

And I should really stress, a 14

representative unit is a theoretical tool. There's 15

no physical thing as a representative unit. 16

It doesn't exist. You can't hold it in 17

your hand. 18

But, it's a theoretical tool. Th at's 19

where you define the characteristics of the product 20

in every single way except cost and efficiency, 21

because that's what we're trying to analyze. 22

So, you define all those 231 84

characteristics, and then you pick certain 1

efficiencies t o examine. And then you look at the 2

resultant costs. 3

We're a little tight on time so I'm not 4

going to go too much into the criteria, but if 5

anybody has any detailed questions, just stop me 6

and I'm happy to examine in more detail. 7

So, as I was mentioning, DOE looked at 8

specific points of efficiency. Essentially, 9

you know, efficiency is a continuum. 10

But, DOE can't analyze continuum at 11

specific levels, so what it does, it creates CSLs 12

candidate Sta ndard levels. That is where we 13

consider setting a Standard. 14

All of these, these four levels have 15

come from having a basis, CSL0, is a baseline 16

that's the current EISA Standard

. 17

The next one, CSL1, that comes 18

from is ENE RGY STAR. And intermediate was based on 19

manufacturers' data points. 20

Best in market, that's the best units 21

that DOE found in the market. And then max tech, 22

that's again manufacture rs’ data. 23185

Max tech is another kind of con ceptual 1

thing. You're not going to find

-- Typically 2

you're not going to find a max tech type of market 3

out in the marketplace. 4

The idea is that the max tech is so 5

efficient it might not be cost effective. In some 6

cases it might be, but the idea of you've really 7

pushed the technology as far as it can go in every 8

single way. 9

So, these graphs just show you what, how 10

the CSLs work visually. So, the 11

main thing here for EPSs to call out is that EPSs 12

were regulated in what DOE terms "matched pairs." 13

And what that means is the EISA Standard 14

and the analysis following from it, it doesn't have 15

a single metric for efficiency. It has t wo 16

metrics, like I mentioned, average e f ficien cy and 17

no

- load power. 18

And efficiency has to meet both of those 19

Standards. So, to do the cost efficiency analysis, 20

DOE focused on matched pairs of efficiency and 21

no

- load. 22

A nd what's really important about the 23186

matched pairs is to note that the metric doesn’t decrease 1

in stringency . So, by always increasing 2

in strength, you can maintain the 3

cost efficiency of that relationship. 4

If you were to not have th at, it makes 5

it much harder to analyze. That make sense? 6

Any questions? 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Ric, go ahead. 8

MR. ERDHEIM: I'm sorry. I feel a 9

little bit ignorant here. 10

But, could you kind of go throug h that 11

maybe a bit slower? I'm not understanding the 12

matched

- paired concept yet. 13

MR. VLADIMER: Sure. Sure. 14

So, again, you know, the

-- Coming back 15

to that original graph I showed where we had this 16

cost efficiency relationship, the idea is 17

typically, you know, as you increase efficiency, the 18

results are an increase in cost. And here we have two 19

different metrics. 20

So, if you were 21

to trade off one metric against another , then you 22

lose the relationship between efficiency and cost 23

if you do that. 24187

I'm trying to, trying to think of how I 1

can answer that best. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Larry, do you want to say 3

something? 4

MR. ALBERT: But, you could

-- Here, for 5

example, no

- load consumption

, -- Right?

-- and vary 6

another one. You just don't want one going 7

negative while the other one goes positive, right? 8

MR. VLADIMER: Exactly. That's what we 9

mean by saying it never dec reases in efficiency. 10

MR. ALBERT: Right. Right. Right. 11

MR. VLADIMER: For instance, you can see 12

that I'll just point

-- 13

MR. REEVES: Michael, could I make one 14

clarification? So, you say it never could have 15

decreased as you move from lower 16

to successively higher CSLs? 17

MR. VLADIMER: Yes. Yes. 18

MR. REEVES: If you want to point to 19

that, use this. I'm right with you. 20188

MR. VLADIMER: Excellent. 1

So, what you're seeing over here

-- 2

MR. ALBERT: Matched pairs. 3

MR. VLADIMER: Yeah. So, I'll just 4

point out exactly what I mean by "matched pairs." 5

MR. MORRIS: They've got it. 6

MR. V LADIMER: We have all these 7

different columns. The green lines refer to EISA. 8

So, EISA, right now it's 500 milliwatts 9

in no

- load, no matter what. And, you know, there's 10

that curved green line that's flat above 50 watts. 11

And so if you look at how EISA

-- So, 12

that's our baseline. So, now let's say we 13

increase in efficiency. 14

So, CSL 1 for some of these EPSs, 15

it's still 500 milliwatts. So, we haven't 16

decreased in efficiency. 17

But, you can see over in the 18

efficiency ground that the bar's gone up a bit. 19

And so, you know, now let's put some numbers on 20

there just to make this a tangible stamp, which he 21

thinks will help answer your question. 22189

So, l et's say it cost s a dollar to build 1

the product. Now we go to CSL1, which is the 2

ENERGY STAR level,

-- And now it costs 3

$1.50. 4

So, we know that by increasing our 5

efficiency, even though the no

- load power 6

stayed the same, you know t hat that 50

- cent 7

increase came from increases in efficiency. But, 8

let's say, okay, let's say we didn't have this 9

matched

- pairs result. 10

Then we might result in something 11

totally different. We might have, you know, a 12

dollar at the baseline, and then we save money by 13

making the no

- load power worse. 14

Let's say it's just one watt, and now 15

it's still a dollar. So, it's, you lose the value 16

of the analysis because it's not 17

holding constant that floor efficiency. 18

MR. ALBERT: Right. Okay. 19

MR. RIVEST: I think I can

-- 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Rivest. 21

MR. RIVEST: Michael Rivest. I think 22

the concept EISA has put in it a situation where 23190

we're reg ulating two metrics. We 1

have some suggestions, but we don't know if, in 2

fact, they were independent variables. 3

So, if they were completely independent 4

variables we could see the cost of going from this 5

requirement on Metric A, to, to a more stringent 6

additive, to, you know, to increasing stringencies 7

on the others. But, you know, we suspect that 8

the re a re, in fact costs that are joint costs. 9

So, by creating these matched pairs and 10

then going, increasing the stringency on both 11

metrics simultaneously, we're creating a single 12

cost efficiency curve and we're capturing all of 13

the joint costs by doing that. 14

MR. ALBERT: So, you're not

-- Larry 15

Albert again. 16

So, you don't feel the necessity to do 17

essentially a sensitivity analysis with respect 18

to one metric or another with respect to cost? In 19

other words, if you were just vary no

- load and you 20

left the efficiency alone,

-- 21

MR. RIVEST: Right. 22

MR. ALBERT:

-- would that have more 23191

impact than just holding the no

- load constant 1

during the efficiency? 2

MR. RIVEST: That's 3

analysis that could be done, but I don't know how 4

you'd ever hold somethi ng constant because as soon 5

as you modify the circuitry to improve one, you may 6

have to make the other worse to maintain its 7

efficiency. So, it just compounds the problem. 8

And I don't see the benefit, whereas 9

doing it this way, creat ing a matched

- pair 10

requirement and just figuring the cost of going 11

from this matched

- pair requirement to this match, 12

we can create the continuous function. 13

Also, the benefit of, and the reason why 14

we are moving both in tandem in strin gency is that 15

assumption, but how the use of one mode versus the 16

other could potentially reverse the cost 17

relationship, the life

- cycle cost. And what we 18

were looking for is a relationship which shows 19

constant energy savings regardless if it's 20

loaded 80/20 or 20/80. 21

And that's why we chose this 22

concept, essentially. Now, battery chargers, it's 23192

a completely different situation, because our 1

metric is a joint metric. 2

So, we're immediately, you know, 3

creating t hat single metric. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne? 5

MR. MORRIS: And I'm glad you mentioned 6

that, Michael,

-- Wayne Morris.

-- because you 7

know that is, in fact, very much the case that 8

we've been stating, is that on a pure EPS 9

situation, many of the battery chargers spend 10

extremely very minimal amounts of time in a 11

no

- battery mode. 12

I mean, you can think of a cordless 13

rechargeable vacuum cleaner. I mean, you spill a 14

couple of Cheerios. 15

You p ull it out of the base. You suck 16

up the Cheerios. 17

How long was it in a no

- battery mode? A 18

minute? Two minutes? 19

You know, versus 12,000 hours in a year. 20

When you extrapolate that out, you're talking about 21

extremely sma ll amounts. 22

So, where's your gain to be made? The 23193

gain primarily is in the active or maintenance 1

mode. 2

So, in relationship to the two, probably 3

the longer period of time in maintenance mode than 4

in active mode. So, you know, so while we 5

consistently agreed to have active mode included in 6

this, when you start into these matched pairs, if 7

you're treating a battery charger as an EPS, you're 8

really wrongfully tagging one particular 9

charac teristic, in this case the no

- battery mode, 10

and emphasizing it even though, in fact, you see 11

very little of it in gain because the product never 12

sees that time period in the usage factor. 13

And that's why the usage factor becomes 14

so imp ortant. And you get to the battery chargers 15

and you begin to approximate those usage patterns. 16

Now, you're, in fact, getting to the way 17

that the consumer actually sees the savings and 18

energy. So, it's

-- I agree with you totally. 19

Thank you. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Suzanne. 21

MS. PORTER: Suzanne Porter from ECOS. 22

I just wanted to say that PG&E generally 23194

support s the approach of considering the standby 1

metric and the active

- mode metric, a nd the matched 2

pairs is a good approach to dealing with the two 3

separate metrics. Specifically we support the idea 4

that regardless of how the power supply is used, 5

whether it's used primarily in active or 6

primarily in no

- load, that you would get energy 7

savings in either case with the various CSL levels. 8

So, given the wide range of duty 9

cycles for these products, the matched pairs seems 10

like a, a reasonable solution. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 12

MR. PETROLATI: If I could also

-- Vic 13

Petrolati, Department of Energy. 14

We are using the matched

- pairs approach 15

because Congress, obviously, in the original 16

legislation, established Standards for both active 17

mode and no

- load mode. And in consideration of 18

future standards, we would not be able to deviate, 19

I believe, from that approach and maintain that we 20

have not made the Standard less stringent in some 21

manner. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Um

- hum. 23195

M R. PETROLATI: So, the way that 1

Congress established the original legislation 2

presents a constraint for us in moving forward in 3

any other manner. And it wasn't necessarily our 4

decision that this was the best approach, but it 5

was the manner that fit within the legislative 6

requirement. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We're moving on, 8

okay? 9

MR. VLADIMER: Excellent. So, you can 10

see that there's equations and, that define those 11

curves. 12

So, let me present those equations. 13

Here we're looking at the average efficiency 14

requirements. 15

Essentially there's three divisions, 0 16

to 1 watts, 1 to 49 for most of these, and then 49 17

and greater. Similarly, on the no

- load side 18

there's two divisions, 0 to 50, and then 50 and 19

greater. 20

Any questions or thoughts on the, the 21

numbers? 22

MR. BROOKMAN: You're asking for comment 23196

on the way you divided this up, the way you split 1

it? 2

MR. V LADIMER: Sure. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Larry. 4

MR. ALBERT: No, this is actually more 5

of a general point. In this particular area

-- 6

Sorry. 7

In this particular case, with the EPSs, 8

once you establish when you take a look at one of 9

these candidate Standards levels, you consider any 10

particular EPSs

-- Right?

-- that would fall under 11

that product class, right? 12

You can evaluate whether it complies or 13

doesn't comp ly, regardless of what its voltage is 14

or anything else, because you have a 15

curve to compare it to, right? 16

MR. VLADIMER: Exactly. So

-- 17

MR. MORRIS: Right. 18

MR. VLADIMER: Here you take your 19

20

- watt EPSs. Yo u can see that you'd fit between 1 20

to 49. 21

But, plug it, it in and find, you'll 22

figure out whether you're above or below the curve. 23197

MR. ALBERT: And I know this is looking 1

forward, but when we get to the battery chargers, 2

it's different, right? Or is it not different? 3

MR. VLADIMER: We're not there yet. 4

MR. ALBERT: Okay. I just wanted

-- 5

MR. VLADIMER: It's complicated 6

MR. ALBERT: Depends. 7

MR. VLADI MER: Right. And, Larry, just 8

an overall point, because I see where you're going 9

there. 10

The first line, that's EISA. 11

Battery chargers don't have those 12

Standards yet, so that's why it's a bit fuzzier. 13

And we'll see whe re we go with that. 14

MR. ALBERT : Right. 15

MR. VLADIMER: So, I wanted to move on 16

to show you exactly what this means for our units. 17

So, I originally started by saying DOE 18

examined four representative units, 2.5 to 120 19

watt s, and by applying those output powers, the 20

output powers to these equations, you can get these efficiency 21

requirements

. 22198

Now, we're really talking about matched 1

pairings between, of efficiency and no

- load for any 2

of these units at any of the CSLs. And, as we were 3

mentioning, for instance, at the 120 watt, you go 4

from 500 milliwatts at CSL0 to 500 watts, 5

at CSL 1. 6

And that maintains matched pairings 7

because you're increasing efficiency from 85 to 87 8

percent. 9

So, request for comment. Any thoughts 10

on the representative units and the CSLs? 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Suzanne. 12

MS. PORTER: This is Suzanne Porter from 13

ECOS. 14

PG&E research suggests that a lot of the 15

variation, although there's a wide variation of the 16

duty stations, a lot of the variation, at least 17

with the initial Standards that were proposed in 18

California, were focused on the acti ve

- mode 19

efficiency. So, I don't have a specific comment. 20

We probably won't issue a specific 21

comment on levels in the CSLs, but I would just 22

encourage DOE to take a look at those very low 23199

no

- load values and ensure that we're not sort of 1

pricing out savings that would otherwise be had in 2

the active mode, as our numbers suggest. 3

Our initial research suggested that's 4

where the big savings were. So, I'm all for 5

more stringent Standards, but I want to make sure 6

that we're focusing on the right place. 7

And I don't have a, a turn

- key solution, 8

but just maybe looking a little bit at your own 9

duty cycle assumptions and see how that plays out. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 11

You see the comment box there. 12

Additional comments or questions? 13

MR. VLADIMER: Excellent. So, we were 14

just looking at these representative units where 15

DOE focused in its analysis. 16

And so now I want to talk 2.5 watts, for 17

instance. Where do we go from here? 18

Well, the first slide said that DOE 19

looked for inputs in terms of manufacturing and 20

costing. So, this data is just illustrative. 21

So, under an NDA, manufacturers provide d 22200

cost

- efficiency data. Again, we're dealing with 1

data like say sometimes, in three 2

dimensions , average efficiency, no

- load power, and 3

costs. 4

So, we have two axes. C ost is 5

crossing both of them. 6

So, this pretty much tells the story of 7

what we're looking at. You know, it was 8

normalized. 9

Everyone gave data at the same baseline. 10

And often manufacturers rather than 11

giving data exactly to the CSLs, they said , "I 12

have a product in that range. Let me tell yo u 13

about that product." 14

And so this was an example 15

of what the data trend might look like. And so what DOE 16

did with the data was it took all that data and 17

aggregated it into an equation, and then for each 18

CSL you have a n average eff iciency and a 19

no

- load. 20

When you apply to the equation, 21

you can derive the average cost, or the aggregate 22

costs, I should say. In the TSD there's a detailed 23201

discussion of the three

- dimensional equation, and 1

how that was developed. 2

I don't have time to get into that too 3

much right now, but definitely want to encourage 4

comment on it. Okay. 5

So, manufactur er inter views were one 6

point, and testing and teardowns were the other. 7

And so here what you're looking at is a plot of the 8

test results for the 18

- watt units that were used 9

to try to characterize that 18

- watt representative 10

unit. 11

Every single dot is a n external 12

power supply that DOE purchased and tested its 13

efficiency. And you can see that's graphed here in 14

terms of both the efficiency metrics. 15

The colored lines there indicate 16

the pairing of no

- load power and efficiency. So, 17

every time you're following those arrows 18

toward more effici ent, higher efficiency, 19

you're going to increase in your CSLs. 20

And one thing you might note is that the 21

max tech point, there is no unit there. Again, 22

that's because manufacturers describe d 23202

that max tech point. 1

They sa y "If we were to beat 2

the best unit in the market, Number 941, this is 3

how we would do it," and so on. 4

So, that was the test 5

data. As far as the teardown goes, iSuppli is a 6

company that specializes in costing electronics, 7

and they did the teardown to evaluate, I think, 8

every single component. 9

And the costs, here we talk about the 10

bill of materials versus manufacturing costs. 11

I'll get into the differences on that in a couple 12

more slides. 13

But, what's important is that iSuppli 14

provided those costs. DOE thinks that they're 15

reasonable, and, of course, encourages comment on 16

the stakeholders' views of the 17

manufacturer data. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne. 19

MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris with AHAM

. 20

A couple of questions for you, Michael. 21

When you say, you know, iSuppli did a sort of a 22

reverse engineering analysis of this and they 23203

looked at the bond and labor costs, did they also 1

look at, at capital cost s? 2

MR. VLADIMER: I'm, I'm pretty 3

sure that's not included. 4

MR. MORRIS: Did they look at 5

engineering time and engineering costs associated 6

-- 7

MR. VLADIMER: I don't think so. 8

MR. RIVEST: I don't, either. So, let 9

me anticipate where we're going. 10

So, if the bill for materials, raw costs 11

were marked up,

-- And a typical markup is a markup 12

that will cover SG&A and, and overhead. And within 13

overhead you'd have depreciation. 14

So, to the extent that depreciation 15

represents, on average, say, six percent of 16

material bond costs, it's incorporated in the 17

price. So, that is, in fact, taken into account. 18

What's

-- The observation that, that, 19

that we made, and you'll see when we have the 20

results of the teardowns, is the results are 21

counterintuitive because more efficient products 22

cost less. And, you know, we can speculate about 23204

why that is, and we would li ke to have you, we 1

would like to have you comment on why, why you 2

think that the results are the way they are. 3

We have our ideas. I don't know if you 4

want to share them, or that just

-- 5

MR. ALBERT: Larry Albert. 6

In the TSD there's a paragraph here 7

where it says DOE believes that the results from the 8

test and teardown method are inconclusive because 9

they do not show a clear relationship. And it goes 10

on to say, therefore, DOE chose to use only 11

manuf acturer data in the LCC , in Class A EPS s. 12

Right? And that was based on that 13

result that you saw where you saw negative trends, 14

right? 15

MR. RIVEST: Right. 16

MR. ALBERT: So, are you still 17

considering the teardown analysis, or have you sort 18

of discounted that data? Because it seems to be 19

contradictory. 20

MR. RIVEST: I think we're open to 21

interpretations of, of what that data means. As I 22

said, we certainly have our opinions, personal 23205

opinions. 1

The Department doesn't have an official 2

opinion at this time. Does anyone care, care to

-- 3

MR. PETROLATI: Well, I'd also like to 4

add that we haven't, at this tim e, decided that 5

we're not going to do any more teardowns for EP Ss. 6

We are going to continue to do teardowns on, for 7

EPSs , and add it to the data we have to see if we 8

have any more conclusive cost

- efficien cy curves. 9

So, we haven't, by any means, determined 10

that it is unacceptable to do teardowns at this 11

point to evaluate a cost

- efficiency curve. 12

MR. ALBERT: But, you had a problem with 13

the data, correct? 14

MR. RIVEST: Right. We had a problem 15

with the data. Right. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: That was Larry, and now 17

Ric k

. 18

MR. HABBEN : When iSuppli did the 19

teardowns and they did the costs of those 20

particular boards and stuff, and maybe it was in 21

the TSD, and if it wasn't, sorry, if it was 22

supplied in this TSD. But, what were the 23206

quantities that were quoted, or the quantities that 1

the components were based on? 2

MR. VLADIMER: Excellent question. It 3

is in the TSD. 4

I don't remember 5

offhand. Is it about a million units per year, 6

depending on which

-- I have here some were annual 7

production and lifetime production value. 8

And those values are detailed in the 9

TSD. So, you could specifically provide comment. 10

MR. HABBEN : So, I guess I'd encourage, 11

if it was based on a million, you know, there's 12

going to be a, a lot of different categories where 13

a million is much higher than what many, many of 14

the manufacturers would be making, especially when 15

you have multiple different product variations 16

within in a category. 17

So, you know, I think that if you're 18

going to use this data, then maybe some additional 19

cost analysis should be done where you're taking 20

volumes, you know, as low as probably, you know, in 21

the,

-- I don't know

-- 22

20,000

- piece range, where maybe it would have some 23207

lower

- volume

- type units that you'd be supplying. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 2

Wayne. 3

MR. MORRIS: This is Way ne Morris. 4

Yes, I would concur with Ric k , that based 5

on your experience, you're talking about external 6

power supplies. You're talking about not all 7

together, but largely a commodity item that a 8

manufacturer, one of, you know, a dozen or so large 9

manufacturers manufacture EPSs. 10

They make a particular series of 11

catalog numbers. Very often there's slight 12

differences between them in the catalogs that will 13

give them slightly d ifferent output. 14

So, you can, as you, design your 15

computer speakers or whatever, you go to the 16

catalog and look for the input wattage that is 17

necessary, and you pull that up. And so that 18

company that is making that particular externa l 19

power supply is making a very high volume of those, 20

and selling them in, in very high volumes to 21

multiple users of that. 22

The battery chargers, it's different. 23208

And we've emphasized this in a number of occasions, 1

that a battery char ger is uniquely designed 2

according to the output, the design, the chemistry, 3

the usage patterns, the charger, the time 4

periods, and lots of other factors that, that 5

dictate the type of charger that, that is 6

necessary, which all translates to mean when you 7

talk about Company X's shavers, that may represent 8

20 different models of shavers, having different 9

outputs in terms of their charge times and their 10

batteries and the run times and all those 11

configurations, which means a different charg er for 12

every one of them. 13

Therefore, the quantities are going to 14

be much smaller, and the differences between those 15

are going to be significant. And so we do believe 16

that, that the analysis has got to be run at much 17

smaller quantities than a million units per year, 18

probably even less than 100,000 units per year, in 19

order to get a true picture of what the cost is. 20

Because a company is not going to buy 21

based on they're going to use that MOS FET 22

or that IC chip on multiple different models. They 23209

may not. 1

They may have to use different IC chips, 2

in which case they're buying small quantities of IC 3

chips. You know, it's not that they're building a 4

battery charger for everybody i n the world. 5

They're building it only for their 6

particular product. So, I think the scaling 7

presentation is quite different for each of these 8

products, which makes it, again, like I said, Mike, 9

this whole rulemaking becomes significa ntly more 10

complicated than other ones. 11

I think that we've got to look at the 12

effect, particularly on small and medium

- sized 13

manufacturers. And, and even then, when you were 14

talking about a large company, cordless 15

rechargeable produ cts may be a very small quantity 16

of their overall product line. 17

A company may have a vacuum cleaner 18

and that may be one of the biggest vacuum 19

cleaner companies in the United States, or the 20

world. But, cordless rechargeab le products 21

actually make up a very small quantity of their volume

-- 22

So, they have to make it pay for itself on that 23210

particular product or they might as well as not be 1

in that business, in which they may, in fact, find 2

themselves not being able to compete in that 3

business. 4

So, I think that's one of the reasons in 5

this situation. The other I would mention in terms 6

of doing future teardown analysis, you know, I 7

really believe that, that there's a number of 8

things that need to be conside red that I'm not sure 9

were considered in the earlier stages. 10

Many of these teardown analyses, from 11

what I can tell, involve the use of fairly 12

significant amounts of, of electronic circuits, 13

and, and more complex, and, in fact, larger and 14

larger as you go up the CSL levels, more and more 15

complicated; printed wiring boards with more and 16

more circuitry involved, which means more and more 17

heat got to dissipate in some cases, which means 18

the size of these enclosures of these power 19

supplies have got to grow. 20

That means

-- Translated into two 21

things. One, it means new production. 22

Excuse me. Plastic injection molds that 23211

the companies have got to invest i n, which is a 1

significant investment these days. Those things 2

don't come cheap. 3

And secondly, if you increase the size 4

of these power supplies, in some cases you've got 5

to increase the size of t he carton that it comes in. 6

And now you can fit four cartons on the same skid 7

and fewer in the container when you're shipping it. 8

So, your transportation costs go up a 9

unit. And I know that that's not something you 10

traditionally look at in a lot of these initia l 11

analyses, but I do think that at the very least the 12

engineering costs associated with redoing the 13

designs of every single one of the models has got 14

to be factored in. 15

It's not six percent r aw costs 16

in a depreciation overhead equa tion, because you're 17

going to take out every single model back through 18

and redesign the situation. 19

And for small and medium

- sized 20

enterprises, that's an enormous amount of their 21

engineering assets, if they even have that many. 22

And t he second thing is that the capital 23212

costs involved as you begin to grow the enclosures 1

that are necessary I don't think are considered in 2

this, and I think they need to be in order to be 3

fair. 4

Thanks. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay

. 6

MR. RIVEST: Well, I'd like to draw your 7

attention to,

-- 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 9

MR. RIVEST:

-- to the different 10

situation we're in here in EPSs and BCs. So, EPSs 11

have been regulated, all right, and battery 12

chargers have not. 13

And for those of you who have been 14

involved in these rulemakings for a long time, you 15

may remember where we did the first ballast 16

rulemaking where we took the technology from 17

magnetic to electronic. That there was 18

significant, noticeable change in technology, and 19

you could quantify, you know, on one hand 20

pounds of magnetic steel, and on the other there 21

were electronic pumps. 22

Now we're regulating ballast again, and 23213

we're going to, from one electronic ballast to 1

another electronic ballast. So, I would

-- So, on 2

BCs we're going from, like, magnetic to electronic 3

ballast, and on EPSs we're going from one 4

electronic ballast to another. 5

Now, it's not as restricted as the 6

pharmaceutical industry, but the bond, I mean, the 7

raw material costs are practically nothing. It's 8

all AP. 9

And the cost, you can save costs through 10

better engineering. And also when 11

you find that some of these EPSs also may have been 12

designed three years ago, and others six weeks ago, 13

the more recently designed may have incorporated 14

technologies that weren't available before. 15

And in this world it's possible that 16

you're going to have better and cheaper. That 17

doesn't mean that the guy who's got a two

- year

- old 18

design who's still producing a million a year is, 19

you know, he can, can produce and sell the product 20

at that cost. 21

They have to amorti ze their investments. 22

MR. MORRIS: True, Mike. So, it, it's 23214

important that they have sufficient lead time and 1

capital to make the, a transition to the new 2

levels and the new designs, but it's not on its 3

face impossible to see that t here would 4

be a slope if the one that is cheapest, has 5

actually got all new tooling, involved the greatest 6

IP. 7

So, that, that's what, you know, what 8

we've heard as one possible explanation of what's 9

going on. It doesn't mean that there's a free 10

lunch there; that there was no cost to get there. 11

It just means the costs have just been 12

made and show up. 13

MR. RIVEST: And so what to conclude 14

about that? On BCs, definite ly the transition is 15

more noticeable. 16

You'll see that the grades of steel are 17

getting better. The steel is being completely 18

eliminated. 19

There's a wide variety of product out 20

there. So, it's an upward

- sloping curve. 21

It makes sense. It's like refrigerators 22

and all our other products. 23215

But, EPSs, I mean,

-- And then think of 1

the gap efficiency we're looking at. It's thin. 2

It's tiny, right? BCs , it's, we're 3

really improvi ng things, but we're not doing that 4

much on EPSs. 5

So, those are thoughts. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 7

MS. PORTER: This is Suzanne Porter from 8

ECOS. I just want to make one comment, which is 9

based on the research w e did on external power 10

supplies and batteries. 11

We tended to find that the most 12

efficient products were also the smallest. And 13

there's some reasons for that. 14

Part of it is what Mike Rivest just 15

mentioned, was the move f rom steel to electronics. 16

But, more importantly, as efficiency increases

, 17

less heat is created. 18

So, you can go to a smaller case, not 19

larger. I can't speak to this analysis where 20

you're pushing beyond the EISA levels because we 21

hav e not done that. 22

And it could be the case where you 23216

actually need more components. But, at least 1

historically, moving from where the market was in 2

2003, to where the market is today, you know, 3

external power supplies that are more efficient 4

were smaller. 5

Also, our observations today of the 6

battery charger market are that the more efficient 7

battery chargers tend to be small. And, in 8

fact, one of the reasons why we, you expect those 9

chargers are efficient is because of the drive for 10

portability in what they're associated with. 11

So, I have to respectfully disagree 12

with, with Wayne's comment about size, based on our 13

observations independently of the two markets. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 15

MR. PETROLATI: I'd like to ask Mike

-- 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Vic Petrolati. 17

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah, Vic Petrolati. 18

DOE

. On the manufacturer interviews , I seem 19

to remember a distinction between EPSs and BCs

, 20

that the manufacturers for EPSs did not identify 21

any retooling costs as their cost for achieving the 22

various levels. Is that correct? 23217

MR. V LADIMER: I think that we, we 1

touched on that lightly . I think it's more of a MIA 2

question, Manufacturers' Impact Analysis question. 3

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 4

MR. VLADIMER: But, up front I think 5

their main concerns were mor e about stock than 6

retooling. So, I think what you're saying 7

is correct, but I think that the best place to 8

answer that in detail would be in this round of 9

manufacturer's interviews that we're going to do as 10

part of it, the MIA, because that's when it's 11

really going to be a focal

- point question. 12

And up until now it's been more of a 13

tangential question. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne Morris? 15

MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris, with AHAM

. 16

Probably true, but did you ask them and 17

tell them they were going to be expected as an 18

EPSs? That may be a different answer. 19

MR. PETROLATI: Actually, it should be 20

the same, based on our definition. But, I don't 21

think so. 22

MR. MORRIS: No, I don't think so. 23218

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. 1

MR. VLADIMER: And also, I’d like to 2

echo what Suzanne said

. T he EPSs I've seen 3

torn down, we've seen that more efficient, means less 4

heat means smaller case sides. And again, that 5

means more utility. 6

So, it helps the consumer. We're not 7

going to look at it as a negative part of the 8

analysis. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments before we 10

move on? 11

MR. VLADIMER: Well, we've 12

kind of jumped the gun a bit, but I'll talk briefly 13

about how we did some scaling, and go to the 14

results. So, as far as the scaling goes, you'll 15

notice in the T S D that there's two discussions of 16

scaling. 17

As far as taking the data, DOE did some 18

really in

- depth scaling of manufacturer s’ data and test and 19

teardown data, and the issue is that, again, as I 20

said, the representative units are defined in terms 21

of their output cord lengths, th eir power, their 22

voltage. And we also wanted to have the output 23219

from the engineering be the manufacturer selling 1

price. 2

And that's where we started, but we 3

weren't always

-- That's where we wanted to end, 4

but we didn't always start there. So, DOE, you 5

know, if the cord length needed to be 6

lengthened, DOE would theoretically lengthen the 7

cord length and reduce the effective 8

efficiency of the EPS. 9

EPSs with higher output power , they 10

tend to be more efficient. So, DOE, in many cases, 11

slightly raised the EPS ’s efficiency

. 12

Higher output voltage, again, more 13

efficient. And all of the methodologies to do that 14

are very detailed in the TSD. 15

And then with costs, longer cords cost 16

more. So, the cost would have gone up. 17

Higher output power tends to cost more. 18

Again, cost would have gone up. 19

And then markups, this is what we're 20

going to look at in a bit more detail. So, jus t so 21

we're all speaking the same language, I know we 22

were just talking about different types of 23220

overheads and what not, but the key thing here that 1

I want to stress is we're looking at how we go 2

from the components to the final purchaser 3

of the product. 4

And from the engineering analysis perspective, 5

what we really care about is the EPS manufacturer, 6

or what people sometimes refer to as the ODM, 7

original design manufacturer, who then sells that 8

power supply to the OE M, the original equipment 9

manufacturer. 10

So, you know, when you go to buy your 11

Dell laptop, you're going to see "Dell" written on 12

your EPS, even though it might have been made by 13

Astec or Phihong . So, the different system OEM is 14

the guy who has his name on the product. 15

And along this chain is the three 16

specific curves that we looked at: bill of 17

materials, the raw materials, manufacturing 18

production costs, factory costs, what's going out 19

of the factory, and the n finally manufacturer's 20

selling price, which would then account for things 21

like Wayne was talking about, research and 22

development costs and that type of thing. 23221

And that's what the ODM sells to, to, 1

price at which the ODM sells the EPS to the 2

OEM. Lot of acronyms there. 3

Okay. And so now, now that we have all 4

of our data scaled and it's all equivalent, look at 5

our unit and see its cost

- efficienc y relationship

. 6

MR. ALBERT: Excuse me, Mike. I'm Larry 7

Albert. 8

So, did you then also consider the 9

markup to the consumer? 10

MR. VLADIMER: Yes, but that wasn't at 11

this point in the analysis. 12

MR. ALBERT: Oh. 13

MR. VLADIMER: So, you know, the 14

engineering analysis gets it up in this MSP, and 15

later on we have in the presentation, we have a 16

product price determination that's going to come up. 17

And they'll explain how you get from this to the 18

fi nal price. 19

MR. ALBERT: All right. Sorry. 20

MR. VLADIMER: Good question. Okay. 21

So, just looking at the final outputs 22

from the e ngineering analysis , because 23222

DOE generated two output results and 1

welcomes comm ent on them. And one thing I just 2

want to point out, actually, before we get too far 3

into this

. B efore, people were talking about 4

negative slopes, and what that means. 5

So, the first slide we showed that 6

hockey

- stick shaped curve , you know, increasing 7

efficiency tends to increase cost. And 8

what they were referring to was this relationship 9

from the test and teardowns that you see here, 10

where the increased in efficiency actually results 11

in a decrease in cost. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. This is 13

Mike Rivest. 14

MR. RIVEST: I wouldn't say results

-- 15

MR. BROOKMAN: This is, this is what

-- 16

MR. RIVEST: If it's causing a spike, 17

spike the outputs, the engine ering

-- 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Mike, this is what you 19

were referring to earlier, right? 20

MR. RIVEST: Right. So, it's not less 21

expensive because it's more efficient, but those 22

two, those two traits came hand in hand in our 23223

tear downs. And we're looking for reasons for that. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. 2

Dan first. 3

MR. TENINTY: Yeah. The first thing 4

that I notice here is that the manufacturer 5

interview data doesn't match the theory based on 6

the teardown. 7

And that would seem to suggest that your 8

theory doesn't match the data, and that perhaps you 9

need to modify your, your model. 10

MR. VLADIMER: Any suggestions how? 11

MR. TENINTY: Well, there are so me 12

assumptions made in the teardown that you've, 13

you've stated, and also in your scaling, that 14

perhaps are inconsistent with

-- I mean, it shows 15

very consistently that there's, there's a diametric 16

opposition in the directions the curves are going

. 17

MR. VLADIMER: Yes

. 18

MR. TENINTY: The manufacturers, because 19

they're in the business with, I would tend to 20

believe that their data most accurately reflects 21

the, the costs or the price information, and that 22

the testing and teardown by the third party, it 23224

seems as if they're missing something, because, 1

again, the curves go in opposite 2

directions. That's the inference. 3

MR. RIVEST: I think that the third 4

dimension that's missing is time . So, a 5

manufacturer that's looking at today ’ s costs of 6

making this product more efficient, you know, is, 7

is working on today's technologies, and our, our 8

test and teardowns were buying products over a 9

period of a year which may have been designed, you 10

know, over several life

- cycles of EPSs, and, you 11

know, reflect the best thinking at the time that it 12

was designed. 13

And the factories keep making those 14

design s until, you know, they have the 15

money to invest in a new 16

design. At some point the variable cost penalties 17

might exceed the available cost requirement. 18

So, so

-- And that's completely 19

different in this industry than in 20

air

- conditioning, where, to make it more efficient, 21

you add more pounds of steel. This is very 22

life

- cycle driven, and very short life

- cycles. 23225

And, and I think, you know, this is the 1

reality of electronics. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: So, the fact that you did 3

teardowns over the span of a year or more, are 4

those, those cost reductions will be reflected? 5

MR. RIVEST: I believe that, you know, 6

the most, the most efficient product was the one 7

that was designed most recently. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Okay. 9

MR. PETROLATI: And we did

-- Vic 10

Petrolati, Department of Energy. 11

And we did get comments from the 12

manufacturer interviews in terms of what potential 13

things we would want to control in terms of our 14

teardowns in the future, specifically. Mike, I 15

think you wanted to have some of those, but 16

reliability of the EPSs. 17

In some cases we tested an EPS that 18

might have been for a laptop computer within that 19

product class, versus an EPS from a different 20

product. They felt, from the standpoint of making 21

sure that all the costs were normalized and that 22

the product had been designed to the same 23226

reliability, that we would have to test EPSs 1

specifically for laptop computers to get similar 2

reliability characteristics built into those 3

products. 4

So, we did get some comments from the 5

manufacturer interviews already that we haven't 6

gone over here in terms of why our cost efficiency 7

curves may have shown some inappropriate results. 8

MR. VLADIMER: Again, it's 9

detailed in the TSD. And I definitely appreciate 10

your input. 11

And maybe I wasn't clear in the scaling, 12

because you were talking about how the scaling 13

might have affected if the same scaling operations 14

were performed on the manufacturing 15

data. So, for instance, you know, if manufacturers 16

talked about a 20

- watt EPS, and gave us data, we 17

tore down and we had to normalize it back to 18 watts

. 18

It was the same techniques in both 19

cases. 20

MR. TENINTY: Okay. Dollars per watt, 21

or

-- 22

MR. VLADIMER: Exactly. Same cost 23227

scalings, same efficiency scalings, same , same 1

everything. 2

MR. TENINTY: I mean, it seems an 3

obvious disconnect that, that would seem to imply 4

that there is a, something missing in the model. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: So, let me reiterate that 6

the Department's inviting a dditional thoughts on

-- 7

MR. PETROLATI: Right. 8

MR. BROOKMAN:

-- these curves and how 9

this phenomenon might happen or might not happen; 10

what's missing. And Dan has a start on it. 11

I'm hoping that some other ma nufacturers 12

can help. 13

MR. ALBERT: Just a question for Mike. 14

Larry Albert. Sorry. 15

MR. VLADIMER: You r mic

. 16

MR. ALBERT: Sorry. I'm sure your 17

answer's going to be it's in the TSD, but I'm going 18

to ask the question anyway. 19

The iSuppli analysis, they must have had 20

an exemplar unit that they were essentially 21

creating to achieve the target CSLs, I assume. 22

MR. VLADIMER: I'm not sure what you 23228

mean by "exemplar unit. " 1

MR. ALBERT: In other words, when you 2

asked them to do a teardown analysis, was a 3

teardown of an existing product, or was it a 4

teardown of this sort of theoretical

-- 5

MR. VLADIMER: It is in, in the TSD, but 6

I'll show you. 7

MR. ALBERT: Thank you very much. 8

MR. VLADIMER: So, like I said, every 9

unit here was a unit that DOE tested. The three 10

units that are in bold and green, 949, the 118, and 11

941, those units were sent to iS uppli. 12

So, DOE's test lab measured their 13

efficiency, and then iSuppli opened them up and 14

calculated their costs. 15

MR. ALBERT: Okay. So, they costed out 16

existing units, right? 17

MR. VLADIMER: Yeah. 18

MR. ALBERT: Right. And is that 19

information protected, or

-- So I, I would imagine 20

it is, right? 21

That's not detailed, that's not detailed 22

in the TSD. 23229

MR. VLADIMER: The cost for all of 1

these is definitely detailed in the TSD, the 2

per

- component BOM costs. 3

MR. ALBERT: Yeah. 4

MR. VLADIMER: I don't think that's 5

published. 6

MR. ALBERT: Okay. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Ric. 8

MR. P ETROLATI: Yep. 9

MR. ALBERT: So, I just want to make 10

sure I'm clear. So, when they tore these down, 11

they got the, each individual component, and then 12

they called those component manufacturers, and 13

based on a million pieces, they got the price for 14

each of those components to build that EPS back up; 15

is that correct? 16

MR. VLADIMER: So, I don't 17

know how

. You said that they called the component 18

manufacturers. I don't know. 19

MR. ALBERT: Well, how would y ou get the 20

costs if you didn't ask? 21

MR. VLADIMER: Sure. They have a 22

database. 23230

Their job, as they say, is that they 1

have a bunch of people in China and elsewhere that 2

are constantly researching market values for each 3

component, and in which volume. So, their 4

proprietary contribution is this database they have 5

of all these components and their costs. 6

During the manufacturing interviews, 7

manufacturers had generally said that they had seen iSuppli’s 8

teardowns and that they were generally in the 9

ballpark. So, I mean, exactly how they got the 10

numbers, you'd have to

-- 11

MR. RIVEST: Yeah. iSuppli is in the 12

business of supplying part of the components' costs 13

to manufacturers, you know, as a benchmarking tool. 14

And, and it's a service. 15

You pay, like, $20,000 a year. So, they 16

don't necessarily have to make a call specifically 17

on the product. 18

They would make the call, I suppose, if 19

there was an IC chip that was not proprietary. And 20

they have to make their own estimates when it's a 21

proprietary chip. 22

MR. ALBERT: And I guess I just want to 23231

make a comment that, you know, we have run into 1

this in the actual real world, that when y ou get a 2

chip that has a certain feature that provides a 3

certain function, you pay for that chip. I mean, 4

you pay more than the going rate of what that 5

standard chip would cost because you're paying 6

something for intellectual property, something 7

that's been developed. 8

And I'm hoping that that was taken into 9

account, and I'm hoping that some of the disconnect 10

from the curves here is that there were 11

intellectual property costs that were tacked onto 12

that which would otherwise be a standard type of IC 13

that, that you're not capturing in these costs. 14

I don't know that. That's just an 15

assumption. 16

MR. VLADIMER: Sure. I think that 17

iSuppli definitely knows that silicon is not just silicon 18

; that there's costs for IP. 19

That's what their job is. I think 20

everyone's focused on the disconnect between the 21

two curves, and I think that fundamentally the 22

theory is if you hold everything 23232

constant except for cost and efficiency, you should 1

have a certain response. 2

And the question for the 3

stakeholders is: Is something not being held 4

constant? Mike was mentioning time. 5

Vic has mentioned reliability. Wha t 6

might

-- What factors might not, might not be held 7

constant that are giving these results? 8

Or, are the results 9

just valid on their face? You know, that's another 10

possibility. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Larry. 12

MR. AL BERT: Mike, did you, did you 13

attempt to validate their process by taking the 14

existing EPS for which you did know the 15

cost of the end product, and asking them to cost it 16

out as a validation of their process? 17

MR. VLADIMER: Short answer 18

is no. But, the, the thing, the problem with EPS 19

is, is that we could look at the end products. 20

And so if we want, we could go buy a 21

replacement power adapter. But, the problem is, 22

you know, you pay 25, 50 bucks for a power adapter, 23233

and that price, even if you follow our markup 1

chain is not going to get you back to the 2

original BOM

. 3

MR. ALBERT: I was really speaking about 4

the case where you had NDAs with manufacturers 5

where they shared with you their factory costs, and 6

therefore you had a, a pretty accurate benchmark. 7

And then, sort of like, again, R&R for the process 8

or something. 9

MR. VLADIMER: I see what you're saying. 10

MR. RIVEST: That's actually what the 11

manufacturer data is. 12

MR. ALBERT: So, that's for the same 13

units? 14

MR. RIVEST: Yes. No, not the same 15

units, but

-- So, the people we interviewed 16

manufacture, you know, power supplies. 17

And, and some provided extremely 18

detailed information on their costs. And, and they 19

were aggregated, depending on the product class. 20

There was anywhere from four to eight, 21

maybe, manufacturers that provided data. We look ed 22

at the spreads. 23234

I mean, there was definitely a spread in 1

costs, but there's a central tendency. It's not 2

even a central tendency. 3

It's, it's, like, a lot of people are 4

about the same, and then there's a few outliers 5

higher. There's

-- Nobody's ever low. 6

So, it's either, like, they really know 7

their costs or they're not taken the time to answer 8

the questions. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Larry. 10

MR. ALBERT: Yes, but the question 11

rea lly was about validating the process

-- Right? 12

-- by taking essentially the same unit and pricing 13

it through a manufacturer, manufacturer, and 14

pricing it through iSuppli to find out what the 15

correlation was, like a gauged R&R consideration 16

study, right? 17

So,

-- 18

MR. RIVEST: I think that's 19

something we could do right now. That's a great 20

idea. 21

MR. VLADIMER: Yes. It was not done, 22

and it is a great idea we could do. 23235

MR. RIVEST: Go back t o

-- Go back to 1

that manufacturer who, who supplied the teardown, 2

and bring it, it to them and say

-- 3

MR. ALBERT: Or vice

- versa. It doesn't 4

matter the one that, you know, detailed 5

manufacturing on, but is pretty high efficiency. 6

So, that depends on iSuppli. 7

MR. RIVEST: That's a good idea. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Vic is

-- 9

MR. MORRIS: Could I

-- Same thing of 10

thought, and then ask them for the same analysis at 11

several different q uantities so they could, you 12

know, validate it at the quantity that the 13

manufacturer told you they were building, which is 14

your baseline, or your, you know, essentially your 15

gauge and RR base. 16

And then, then gauge it at different 17

quantities going downward will give you a 18

range, and it will tell you what that 19

curve looks like that begins to approximate 20

that relationship of quantity to 21

the actual manufacturing cost. 22

Because I think that would be a real 23236

impor tant

-- And I would also, in fact,

-- Back to 1

the original question that was asked.

-- that, 2

Michael, I think you're right about time 3

being an important variable. 4

I know that when 5

you say you, you have to do these you can't base it 6

on price because price comes in at another level in 7

this equation, but price has an inverse 8

relationship to this situation as well, because if 9

you're building a power supply for a $250 10

MP3 player, and you're building an EPS for a $17 product , your engineering 11

cost reflected 12

in that gives a lot more flexibility in terms of 13

out put, do I put 50 engineers on this, or do I put one 14

guy half

- time on this? 15

I mean, I think that the 16

relationship to, to small companies is such that 17

they, in many cases, don't have that. And so they 18

may not be able to design the most efficient power 19

supply at the same ratio of cost structure to them, 20

because they, they simply don't have the 21

capability. 22

They don't have the time and the 23237

effort involved in this. So, I think that that, 1

while, while certainly time and time in 2

marketplace, I think engineering ability of that, 3

of that small firm has to play a part in this 4

situation. 5

How in the world you, you ca lculate that 6

or equate that into these two curves, I'm not 7

sure you can. I think the other element in this is 8

that we're in a new world. And you spoke about it 9

earlier. 10

You know, with a refrigerator, if you go 11

to more efficient, you go to two compressors and we 12

can add up the costs of two compressors pretty 13

simply, pretty easy. Everybody knows how to do 14

that. 15

You call up a, compressor manufacturer. 16

I ask them two versus one. 17

Not too much of a rocket science. You 18

probably wouldn't need 30 people from Navigant. 19

Now we're in a whole in a new world. 20

Now we see why we've got so many consultants, 21

because it is complicated. 22

And it is something that takes a lot 23238

more brain power to do these situations. And 1

that's probably why we were seeing

-- 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Vic Petrolati, comment? 3

MR. PETROLATI: No, I'm going to defer 4

my commen ts. But, I want to mention that we're 5

still not even halfway through the engineering 6

analysis and we're completely impacting our 7

schedule for finishing by 5:00 o'clock. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Right. Okay, we'll keep 9

moving. 10

Ok ay. 11

MR. VLADIMER: Excellent. Well, thanks, 12

everybody, for those very valuable comments. 13

So, I'll continue, and try to be quick. 14

So, as I mentioned earlier, there's a relationship 15

between voltage and efficiency, and AC or DC output 16

and efficiency. 17

And so, in brief, the idea was, you 18

know, product classes A1 and A2 have the same AC/DC 19

output, but A2 is low

- voltage, so let's have the no

- load 20

requirements be the same as A1, but make its 21

efficiency requ irement less stringent. 22

And I think you can see how that 23239

extrapolates to A3 and A4. So, here we have A1 and 1

A2, or, I'm sorry, A2 and A4. 2

These are the lower, less

- stringent 3

efficiency requirements. Essentially the idea was 4

ENERGY STAR for 2.0 provided an offset. 5

They slightly reduced the inefficiency 6

standard for their low

- voltage EPSs, so DOE 7

used that same offset for CS1 and all the higher 8

CSL s

. Similarly, for no

- load power, ENERGY STAR, 9

rather than having a tiered no

- load Standard, they, 10

they have just a flat Standard that was the 11

least

- efficient Standard out of that tier, and 12

that's what you see here as well. 13

Okay. So, cos t estimates, I want, 14

probably want to open this up to comments, but I 15

think you guys have just given us a lot of 16

comments. 17

The key thing that this is trying to say 18

is that because of the CSLs for A2, 3, and 4 are 19

slightly reduced in stringency, as opposed to A1. 20

DOE thinks that their incremental costs for 21

achieving the CSLs would then be the same. 22

So, what that means is, you know, for a 23240

60

- watt power supply, we're saying before, to meet 1

for CSL1, it has to be 87 percent. If it's 2

low

- voltage, now it only has to be 86 efficient. 3

So, you know, before, it cost you a 4

quarter to get to that 12 volts. You would be at 5

87. 6

Now that you're only at five volts we 7

appreciate it's harder, but spend that same 8

quarter, but you only have to get up to 86. So, 9

the engineering costs are the same. 10

That's the idea. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Let's just speak quickly, 12

keeping moving on, 13

MR. VLADIMER: Okay. Keep 14

moving me on. 15

Non

- Class A, essentially there was a 16

determination analysis that we're building on, 17

for this analysis. So, the inputs for 18

multiple

- voltage and high

- power EPSs are going to 19

come from the determination. 20

A nd inputs for medical and MADBs are 21

going to come from Class A EPSs, but the 22

methodology is going to be the same for both. It's 23241

going to be consistent with Class A. 1

So, for instance, in the Determination 2

Analysis, DOE only looked at the costs of 3

efficiency

- related components. But, now, for Class 4

A, it looks at the cost for all components. 5

So, looking at non

- Class A again, 6

it will be consistent with Class 7

A. 8

Informally we've talked a lot 9

about MADBs, so we'll get through that quickly. 10

So, again, just, same engineering structure as in 11

the Determination Analysis. The idea would be to 12

generate the cost

- efficiency curves for these three 13

representative units, take the data, the origi nal 14

data from the determination, apply it to the 15

methodology for Class A, and get your outputs. 16

Okay. And for medicals and MADBs, the 17

idea is that by using the, at least by using the 18

ENERGY STAR criteria, and DOE has that as a 19

proposed method for right now, and I think there's 20242

a lot of good discussion about that, this. 1

So, we don't have to go into it right 2

now, but if DOE were to follow that path, 3

then essentially the cost efficiency curves for 4

medical an d MADBs DOE believes are the same as 5

those of Class A. So, for instance, for a med ical 6

EPS where the safety requirements are more 7

stringent, it will have a thicker plastic 8

case . T he costs of the components, when 9

you have to look at the increment al 10

costs of going from one efficiency level to 11

another, maybe the absolute costs are a little bit 12

higher, but the incremental costs are going to be 13

the same. 14

That's what this says. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Larry. 16

MR. ALBERT: I'm sorry, Michael. I'm 17

still not clear. 18

So, are you suggesting that, that we can 19

use the same curve for the Class A EPSs and apply 20

it to the MADBs straight up? Right? 21

MR. VLADIMER: Yes. 22

MR. ALBE RT: Without

-- All right. But, 23243

even though

-- But, have you done any analysis on 1

MADB supplies

-- Right?

-- to provide a baseline 2

population? 3

Because you're talking about incremental 4

costs, correct? 5

MR. VLADIMER: I'll give 6

you the thinking behind this. The 7

thinking, I think, is straight

- forward. 8

So, let's get through 9

that. So, the idea is: How do we identify MADBs ? 10

We identify them by using 11

ENERGY STAR criteria. And if you believe that you 12

applied that criteria and that criteria's valid and 13

that's the whole assumption

. 14

But, if that's valid and you have a MADB 15

that, according to this, does not have charge 16

control, then DOE believes it has the same circuit 17

as a

-- 18

MR. ALBERT: I see. 19

MR. REEVES: I don't think so. The 20

question really is: If the Department goes 21

back and reevaluates the criteria that they use for 22

MADBs, which I thought I heard might be a 23244

possibility this morning,

-- Right?

-- and they 1

come to some other, this conclusion that they're, 2

the only difference for them is not a switch in the 3

indicator, then would that warrant using a 4

different methodology, perhaps, f o r M ADBs? 5

Or, do you believe that no matter what 6

the criteria is for establishing it, it shouldn't 7

matter? 8

MR. VLADIMER: No, I think there was a 9

great discussion this morning. And I can't tell 10

you how DOE's going to go forward in the future, 11

but all this says is if, if we look at the power 12

supply and it doesn't have charge control, and it 13

happens to power an MAD B product, 14

then its cost efficiency curve is going to be the 15

same, becaus e as far as DOE can tell, its guts, its 16

circuitry is the same. 17

For anything else, I'd actually probably 18

defer to Vic. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Ric. 20

MR. ERDHEIM: This here comment's 21

related to medical. And you, did yo u study medical 22

products that would have higher

- efficiency EPSs 23245

versus ones that didn't? 1

And the reason I bring that up is 2

because the medical device Standard UL 3

requirements, they're much more stringent linkage 4

current, linkage current requirements. And so I'm 5

not all for sure what that's going to entail when 6

you potentially switch from a linear supply to a 7

switch mode. 8

So, so was any of that looked at when 9

you were making this determinat ion in the medical 10

area arena? 11

MR. VLADIMER: We didn't look at 12

specifically going from linear to switch mode, but 13

I can tell you that we interviewed manufacturers 14

that do make medical app lication s, and the story that I got from them was 15

there's 16

design factors that affect efficiencies. 17

There's design factors that affect 18

medical compatibility, and once you have your 19

medical compatibility taken care of, be it leakage 20

or otherwise, that once you start ratcheting up 21

efficiency, you're not going to have, it's not 22246

going to necessarily affect the medical side. 1

If that's not the case, I highly 2

welcome comment , or even tell somebody from DOE 3

who they should speak with and they can do a 4

manufacturer i nterview. But, as far as our input 5

at this point, we think that's the case. 6

MR. PETROLATI: What about our test 7

results, Mike? 8

MR. VLADIMER: So, 9

we did two test and teardowns for medical EPSs , and both of those 10

exceed ed the Standards. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 12

MR. VLADIMER: Okay. So, the last 13

point, just to mention, is that because medical and 14

MADB EPSs are not currently covered under EISA, as 15

noted in the market assessment, there's a cha nce 16

that some of those products in the market might, 17

just that some of the products might be below 18

statutory efficiency levels. 19

But, as far as conducting this analysis 20

for the, for the NOPR is considering not analyzing 21

those lower than EISA EPSs, and, say, just grouping 22

them in with EISA

- compliant EPSs as a simplifying 23247

alternative. 1

Excellent. So, any thoughts on that 2

would be welcome. 3

Probably best in writing at this point. 4

So, let me hand off to my colleague, Matthew 5

Nardotti, who's doing the industry battery chargers 6

engineering. 7

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS 8

MR. NARDOTTI: Good afternoon. I'm 9

Matthew Nardotti, from Navigant Consulting, and I'm 10

going to pr esent the engineering analysis for 11

battery chargers. 12

As with the engineering analysis for 13

external power supplies, the purpose of the BC 14

engineering analysis is to evaluate design options 15

that improve efficiency and characterize 16

man ufacturing costs versus efficiency for higher 17

efficient equipment. 18

To begin this analysis, DOE reexamined 19

the product classes that it developed in the market 20

assessment. For easy reference, the ten product 21

classes are reproduced righ t here. 22

From each of these product classes, DOE 23248

selected a representative unit which it would analyze 1

in more depth. As the name suggests, 2

representative units are meant to character

- , to be 3

characteristic of the product class that t hey 4

represent. 5

Therefore, when selecting representative 6

units, DOE attempted to identify the combination of 7

battery voltage and battery energy most common for 8

each product class. The results of these 9

selections are presented on this table. 10

Subsequently, DOE focused its 11

engineering analysis on these representative units, 12

which ultimately means that DOE produced a curve 13

for cost versus efficiency for each of these units. 14

DOE requests any feedback on the appropriateness of 15

its choices. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Larry. 17

MR. ALBERT: Thank you. Larry Albert. 18

Just, just to clarify the process here 19

so I understand it, so, this was somew hat similar 20

to the EPS thing where you picked the 21

representative unit and you looked for actual units 22

that were close to if not right on

-- Right?

-- 23249

those characteristics? 1

MR. NARDOTTI: Exactly. 2

MR. ALBERT: Then you costed those out 3

in the same, same manner? 4

MR. BROOKMAN: (Nodded yes.) 5

MR. ALBERT: And so for products that 6

are, say, a higher voltage or a higher watt

- hour 7

capacity or something like that, where, where did 8

they fall, and how would they have been treated? 9

MR. NARDOTTI: So, that is 10

something that we're going to get into, product 11

scaling within a product class. But, in a couple 12

of slides. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne? 14

MR. MORRIS: Well, maybe I'll wait, too. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Okay. 16

MR. NARDOTTI: For each representative 17

unit, DOE examined the impacts on costs of 18

improving the efficiency by characterizing four 19

candidate standard levels. The first three of 20

these CSLs that DOE examined were based on units 21

available in the market. 22

The analysis starts with CSL 0, which is 23250

representative of the least

- efficient products on 1

the market. That increased to intermediate, CSL 1, 2

and ultimately CSL 2 reached the best in market. 3

CSL 3 was representative of the max tech 4

efficiency level, and this level was usually 5

characterized by manufacturers, and represents a 6

level of efficiency not curre ntly available on the 7

market because of the high costs associated with 8

designs. 9

The metric that DOE used to characterize 10

each of these CSLs was a term called "Unit Energy 11

Consumption," "UEC." Or UEC is a, a (sic) 12

aggregation of, of non

- useful energy consumed by a 13

battery in all modes, annualized over a one

- year 14

period. 15

To calculate it, DOE calculates outputs 16

from the BC test procedure that it's currently 17

working on, and assumption s about product usage. 18

Through four different tests, DOE obtains five 19

values that are needed to calculate UEC. 20

Three of those values are, are obtained 21

through two tests that are represented graphically 22

on this slide. The two tests are metered charge 23251

test and a metered discharge test. 1

For the metered charge test, one begins 2

with a completely depleted battery and monitors 3

input power to a battery charger for a 24

- hour 4

period. At some point during the test, the battery 5

charger switches into maintenance mode and stays 6

there for the remainder of the test. 7

On this graph, that transition occurs 8

right around hour 15 of the test. 9

(Whereupon, at 2:37 p.m. ET, Mr. Albert 10

and Mr. Erdheim conferred, out of the he aring of 11

others and off the Record, during which the 12

following occurred:) 13

MR. NARDOTTI: The input power for the 14

final four hours of the test can then be used to 15

calculate the average maintenance mode power. 16

Additionally, the integr al of the input power over 17

the 24

- hour period gives us an output of the test 18

called 24

- hour energy consumption. 19

(Whereupon, at 2:37 p.m. ET, Mr. Kido 20

and Mr. Petrolati conferred, out of the hearing of 21

others and off the Record, during which the 22

following occurred:) 23252

MR. NARDOTTI: Finally, for the metered 1

discharge test you start with the, the fully 2

charged battery and monitor the discharge current, 3

and integrate power during that discharge to 4

get the useful battery energy that was consumed 5

during the 24

- hour meter charge test. 6

The two other tests that DOE conducts, 7

if applicable, are a no

- battery mode test and an 8

"Off" mode test. And for those tests it's simply 9

an average power, input power for a specified 10

duration of time that gives you the average power 11

in those modes of operation. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Larry? 13

MR. ALBERT: One other question. You 14

have the charged time up there as o ne of the values 15

that you, you have. 16

The NOPR for the test procedure, does 17

that

-- No, I don't think that had the charge time 18

in there as one of the outputs from the test 19

procedure. 20

MR. NARDOTTI: I, I believe that the 21

NOPR test procedure has had a term called "steady 22

state time" which is similar to what this, what 23253

"charge time" was getting at. 1

MR. ALBERT: And, and, and that's where 2

you got that number, from whatever

-- 3

MR. NARDOTTI: Right. So, also for NOPR 4

test procedure, DOE proposed shortening the, the 5

24

- hour charge, the 24

- hour meter charge test when, 6

when the base, when the battery charger was seen to 7

go into maintenance mode. 8

However, there was push

- back that 9

determining charge time can be difficult at times, 10

so I've illustrated it just for proof of concept on 11

this graph. But, it's no longer really a relevant 12

output of the test procedure that, that is nee ded. 13

MR. ALBERT: Okay. Thank you. 14

MR. NARDOTTI: So, the outputs of the 15

test, the five outputs of the test procedure : 16

24

- hour energy, battery energy, maintenance mode 17

power, no

- battery mode power, and off

- mode power, 18

are combined with average hours per day in each of 19

those modes to obtain an estimate for unit energy 20

consumption. 21

The actual calculation that DOE is using 22

is shown here. We will get into the details of the 23254

usage profiles during the e nergy use section. 1

We welcome any comment on this 2

calculation. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Larry. 4

MR. ALBERT: Yeah, again. So, I see 5

you've got, and as your number of charge per day 6

but, then it shows up again at 24 times then in the 7

second curve. 8

What's happened there? I mean, it's

-- 9

MR. LAMBERT: Michael Lambert. 10

So, in the beginning, when I first 11

mentioned tech assessment, and now t he thing is at 12

the bottom of the slide, these are all good. But, 13

we want to wait to discuss them in detail in the 14

energy analysis. 15

MR. ALBERT: Okay. 16

MR. RIVEST: And now, just to

-- We think 17

that these terms are combined. We'll see exactly 18

how these got there. 19

But, now, what's the relationship 20

between UEC and cost, is the, what we're trying to 21

find. 22

MR. ALBERT: All right. Thank you. 23255

MR. NARD OTTI: I guess, to answer your 1

question, though, the meter charge test assumes 2

some time in, in, in charge mode and in maintenance 3

mode. So, to account for that, we have to 4

calculate for that in our maintenance per day in 5

maintenance mode and ch arge mode. 6

MR. ALBERT: Yeah, right. Yeah. 7

MR. NARDOTTI: So, the next two slides 8

contain UEC values that DOE calculated for each CSL 9

and for each product class. And as you'll notice, 10

a higher candidate standard level me ans a lower 11

energ y consumption. 12

Also note that these candidate standard 13

levels are only applicable to the representative 14

unit. In other words, not all products that fall 15

within one of these product, product classes would 16

need to be bound to the UECs that are shown here. 17

Scaling these CSLs to levels appropriate 18

for other units is something that we're going to 19

get into, and we're hoping to get feed back on today. 20

So, to generate costs versus energy consumption, 21

just like in UPSs, DOE used two approaches. 22

The first was speaking directly to 23256

manufacturers. So, during the preliminary, 1

preliminary analysis, contractors for DOE entered 2

into a nondisclosure agreement with several bat

- , 3

several m anufacturers of, of battery chargers. 4

Subsequently, the contractors visited 5

manufacturers and discussed costs for designs that 6

had specific performance parameters. For each of 7

the product classes, as discussed, the data from 8

manufacturers was aggregated and regressed to 9

obtain one equation that describes how cost would 10

change with regards to unit energy consumption. 11

This equation was then used to estimate 12

the cost to reach each, each CSL for a given 13

pro duct class. So, as mentioned, DOE based its 14

calculations of UEC on performance parameters that 15

come directly from the test procedure. 16

To ensure that UEC decreased with each 17

subsequent CSL, regardless of usage profile 18

assumptions, DOE made sure that the parameters in 19

each mode of operation improved from one CSL to the 20

next. The chart on this slide, slide shows 21

aggregate performance perimeters. 22

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. 23257

That

-- The, the chart on this slide 1

shows aggregate performance parameters taken from 2

the data discussed with manufacturers. I would 3

like to highlight a couple of columns here, the 4

estimate, estimated time in active mode, and 5

active

- only system efficiency. 6

Because the concept of UEC and 24

- hour 7

energy is not something that battery charge r 8

designers and manufacturers are used to dealing 9

with, it was often necessary to talk about these 10

parameters when we met to discuss specific designs. 11

MR. ALBERT: So

-- Sorry. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Larry. 13

MR. ALBERT: Larry. 14

I've noticed the estimated time in 15

active changed as you went from CSL to CSL. Isn't 16

that one of those things that you're suppos ed to be 17

holding constant, or is that these happen to be the 18

case in specific units you looked at? 19

MR. NARDOTTI: Right. So, these would 20

be specific designs that manufacturers discussed 21

from us, discussed with us. 22

MR. A LBERT: And so

-- But, you're not 23258

sure, for example, if you were to have a longer 1

active, time in active mode, what effect that that 2

would have upon the UEC? 3

MR. NARDOTTI: It would be, like ly , to 4

increase the, the 24

- hour charge energy, 24

- hour 5

energy consumption, but

-- 6

MR. ALBERT: So, the concern here is if 7

a manufacturer has a charger right now that, for 8

the utility of the product,

-- Right?

-- needs to 9

be three hours, no faster, six hours, no faster, 10

then as they go from CSL to CSL is there an 11

assumption that they're going to have to basically 12

go to shorter charge times to achieve the higher 13

efficiency, and, and therefore, you know, provide 14

a, a faster charger than the application would 15

demand? 16

MR. NARDOTTI: Do I

-- 17

MR. RIVEST: Excuse me. Mike Rivest. 18

I don't know that we can, you know, that 19

we can make conclusions about the impact of charge 20

time on the UEC because of the way the equation is 21

written. 22

MR. MORRIS: But, you did, Mike. And, 23259

you know, and you see the 24

- hour energy and the 1

way it's calculated, unless you know for a fact 2

that, all things being equal, that a faster charge 3

time means a better UEC, you know, I don't know how 4

we can conclude anything. 5

The idea was simply to show that these 6

were actual units being purchased, being sold. And 7

also what it, it does show is that there are many 8

ways that you can design your product, and that it 9

will contain the same UEC so you have the ability 10

to optimize your design at the lowest cost to meet 11

that UEC through any of a these parameters, active, 12

active energy, maintenance energy, stand y powers. 13

MR. ALBERT: So, at Standby 2 were you 14

able to find a 13

- hour charger to meet those? 15

MR. RIVEST: Is a 13

- hour

-- Why would 16

that matter? I don't understand? 17

MR. ALBERT: Well, it depends on the 18

chemistry to some extent, but it can matter. 19

MR. RIVEST: But, isn't faster always 20

better? 21

MR. MORRIS: No. 22

MR. ALBERT: Well, it might be better, 23260

but consider it better or not, it's not equivalent. 1

Right? 2

I mean, the question here is

-- This is 3

to the earlier question about utility and, utility 4

and price versus performance and price versus 5

efficiency, and whether indirectly you were 6

directing a, certain utility

-- Right?

-- by 7

sugge sting that any improvement in utility is 8

automatically justified if it's accompanied by 9

efficiency. 10

MR. RIVEST: You know, I see it as a 11

dependent vari able. So, we're not regulating 12

time, but we are taking into account all the costs, 13

you know, that are represented by going up, going 14

down, the UBC. 15

If it happens that there is also a, an 16

additional benefit, I call it a benefit, assuming 17

that less time is better,

-- Wayne is, is nodding, 18

"No, no, no." But, if, if

-- I cannot conceive of 19

an application where I would want to take more time 20

to charge my battery unless it was cheaper to do it 21

that way. 22

And what I'm saying is cost is, is 23261

embedded in this calculation. There's no need to, 1

to, to, to draw

-- 2

MR. ALBERT: So, let me make comparison 3

between CSL 0 and CSL 2, a 13

- hour to a one

- hour 4

charger. 5

MR. RIVEST: Um

- hum. 6

MR. ALBERT: Obviously, for the same 7

capacity battery

-- Right?

-- you need to have a 8

higher output power, power pad, right? 9

Was that factored into the cost 10

analysis? I think I asked the question before and 11

Mike said, "Yeah." 12

Is that correct? 13

MR. RIVEST: I guess I'm not 14

understanding. 15

MR. ALBERT: In other words, if you take 16

a 13

- hour charger and go through the calculation 17

with a 20

- watt battery pack,

-- Okay?

-- and so 18

that's roughly

-- What does that work out to be? 19

It's, it's

-- You

- - In the, in the CSL 20

2 case you need to have a minimum of 20 watts, 21

20

- watt output power source, right? In the other 22

case you need about three

- quarters of a watt

-- 23262

Right?

-- to achieve

-- Right? 1

MR. RIVEST: But, but these are actually 2

units that, that were purchased or specified by the 3

manufacturer. So, we didn't, like, reverse 4

engineer these things. 5

I mean, we didn't. So, okay, that would 6

all be embedded. 7

MR. ALBERT: You took the costs of those 8

units, right? 9

MR. RIVEST: Right. 10

MR. ALBERT: You compared them to the 11

efficiencies. 12

MR. RIVEST: Right. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne. 14

MR. MORRIS: But, you're making the 15

assumption

-- You're making the assumption, though, 16

on a couple of things here. One, you're making the 17

assumption that, that just because you've chosen 18

this representative, and then that's what's going 19

to be for everybody in that class of product. 20

MR. RIVEST: No, this is, this is 21

illustrative. If you, if you look at our, our 22

engineering interviews, for example, we, in fact, 23263

got all sorts of design paths. 1

And so this is liter ally illustrative. 2

The only thing that matters here is the UEC that we 3

specify. 4

How you get there, you know, can be done 5

all sorts of different ways. And that's the beauty 6

of the UEC. 7

So, it, it's not prescriptive. You 8

don't have to meet any one of those individual 9

metrics. 10

MR. MORRIS: But, yeah. I want

-- And I 11

want to go back to the, the other point that you 12

raised earlier about faster being better. 13

It's not. I mean, because in many 14

cases, "better" means now that I've got to charge 15

more for that because you're assuming that that's a 16

feature that somebody would, in fact, pay for. 17

But, they don't, because if I have my 18

electric razor and it runs down to here, to the 19

point where this little light comes on that says 20

"Time to charge it," okay. So, after I finish 21

shaving on that particular day, put in a new 22

charger. 23264

I'm not going to go shave in another 1

five minutes. 2

MR. RIVEST: Okay, faster is not better, 3

but faster is never worse 4

MR. MORRIS: It's, it's, it's, it's an 5

unworthy response. It, it doesn't, it doesn't 6

be nefit you anything if nobody wants it. 7

MR. RIVEST: I know. But, in our 8

cost

- benefit analysis we're not saying, "Okay, now 9

we will monetize the increased utility of faster 10

charge." 11

If I was doing that, then definitely I 12

wouldn't

-- You know, I'd have to examine whether, 13

in fact, that shorter is better. But, I'm not 14

assuming

-- We're not calculating additional 15

benefits. 16

It's, it's a side benefit for some 17

people, and it comes with the economic analys is of, 18

of

-- 19

MR. MORRIS: But, if it's a side benefit 20

that nobody wants,

-- 21

Sorry. It's Wayne Morrison. 22

-- that you can't sell it in the 23265

marketplace,

-- 1

MR. RIVEST: Right now it's assumed that 2

nobody wants. Right now it's a side benefit that 3

nobody wants and we don't give a value to. 4

MR. LAMBERT: This is Michael Lambert. 5

Just to focus on the real key thing 6

here, it's, the idea is that somebody's going to 7

bu y that shaver and spend however much money. And 8

when they buy it, they're committed to paying 9

whatever the energy costs. 10

And by going to higher CSL, they're 11

spending more money. And if DOE were to set a 12

Standard, what we're talking about here, and the 13

focus is saving money over the life

- cycle of the 14

product, the fact that it charges faster, Mike is 15

trying to say that's a side benefit, but it's not 16

what we're driving at. 17

But, you know, it's how things

-- 18

MR. RIVEST: If "more efficient" meant 19

slower, then we would be reducing utility and then 20

setting up a class. 21

MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris. 22

And I agree. And, Michael, if that were 23266

all that we were doing here, I would agree that 1

there's no problem to that. 2

The difficulty is, is that we're using 3

representative $2,000 notebook computer situations 4

to represent an entire class of product that's, in 5

fact, include products that are $20 and operated in 6

completely different characteristic, but because of 7

the voltage range or the output range, we've lumped 8

them into one class or category. 9

MR. RIVEST: Right. And

-- 10

MR. MORRIS: And that is what my problem 11

is. My problem is not that you've got this data 12

and there's great people out there at Sony or Dell 13

designing fast laptop computers. 14

My problem is that we're making the 15

assumption that everybody w ho makes a cordless 16

rechargeable vacuum cleaner wants to then put the 17

same amount of effort into designing a charger for 18

purposes of doing it just because we meet a 19

candidate Standards level, when, in fact, you get 20

no side benefit from it and the consumer doesn't 21

realize anything. 22

And, in fact, if I'm only plugging this 23267

in for a couple of minutes or hours in an entire 1

year, I probably won't spend $1 a year. 2

MR. RIVEST: So, I think what you're 3

saying, there's tw o different things that are 4

really valid and interesting. So, one thing is the 5

cost efficiency analysis, the engineering analysis. 6

And the point which you just said is 7

true. You could have what an engineer does for a 8

laptop, and have another engineer do that for the 9

vacuum. 10

And the point

-- And the key thing, and 11

this relationship that Matt's about to describe, it 12

holds true. You know, if they were to do that, 13

that would happen. 14

B ut, I think your, the problem is not 15

that this combination of possibilities is invalid. 16

The problem is when we lump them in together in 17

terms of usage and shipments and all that other 18

stuff. 19

So, I think it's important to 20

distinguish of: Could this happen? Could somebody 21

go from U E C of the 34 by taking a battery charger 22

and applying it to a power tool? 23268

Yeah, they could. And it would cost a 1

bunch of money. 2

Does it make economic sense, b ecause the 3

profiles are so different? That's a separate

-- 4

MR. BROOKMAN: We need a move on. 5

MR. ALBERT: Yeah. Final question just 6

to be sure here. 7

In these cases here where you identified 8

actual cases tha t reached CSL, were they able to 9

find a motor

- operated appliance that filled CSL 2, 10

for example, or

-- 11

MR. NARDOTTI: We’ ll get into that. 12

Couple sentences. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Just a note. It's a 14

aspiration to give us a break in the span of ten 15

minutes, so keep going. 16

MR. TENINTY: Could I ask one clarifying 17

question? Dan Teninty. 18

Is it the intention of the, the DOE to 19

eventually require a particular CSL for a 20

particular type of product? 21

MR. RIVEST: A particular product class, 22

so not a particular

-- 23269

MR. TENINTY: So, if you're inferring 1

that particular class and the DOE then says, "Okay, 2

now as of this date you have to be CSL 2,"

-- 3

MR. RIVEST: Yeah. And that would apply 4

to the drills and the laptop. 5

MR. TENINTY: So, I understand now the 6

pushback a lot better, because the significance is. 7

MR. RIVEST: Is significant. 8

MR. TENINTY:

-- large. 9

MR. MORRIS: Huge. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: So, Matt, keep going. 11

MR. NARDOTTI: Sure. Sure. 12

So, DOE purchased several battery 13

chargers with a variety of energies and voltages in 14

that product class. Each unit was then tested 15

according to the proposed DOE test procedure for 16

battery chargers. 17

After compiling the test results and 18

calculating the UEC for each unit, DOE selected 19

units with varying efficiencies and ratings similar 20

to the representative units for further 21

examination. First, these units were evaluated to 22

determine the presence of any energy

- efficient 23270

design options, and then they were physically torn 1

down in order to develop a b ill of m aterials. 2

The evaluation of energy

- efficient 3

design options was done by one of DOE's 4

subject

- matter experts, and was in

- , and included 5

exam

- , examination of a general design of the 6

battery charger . After the evaluations were 7

complete, they were torn down by another DOE 8

contractor, iSuppli. 9

For each, each teardown, iSuppli 10

categorized components into one of three groups. 11

One, those components intended solely for battery 12

char ging, such as the battery itself. 13

Two, those components intended for both 14

battery charging and non

- battery

- charging functions 15

such as a power supply. And three, those 16

components not intended for battery charging such 17

as a user interf ace component. 18

Components from Groups 1 and 2 were then 19

used to calculate a b ill of m aterials. As with the 20

manufacturer data, the UEC for the test units was 21

calculated using the outputs of the test procedure, 22

and when DOE selected it s units for evaluation and 23271

teardown, it was again sure to choose units that 1

demonstrated improved performance in all modes of 2

operation. 3

Again, this was in order to ensure 4

that decreased UEC happened regardless of usage 5

profile assumptions. The table on this slide shows 6

some example test results that DOE obtained for 7

Product Class 4 during the preliminary analysis. 8

So, to answer your question, Larry, we 9

did find some power tools that demonstrated a UEC 10

as good as notebook computer for CSL 2 for this 11

product class. 12

MR. RIVEST: Yes. Mike Rivest. 13

So, as we saw, laptops tend to be all 14

clustered around the low UECs, and po wer tools are 15

in a range. 16

MR. NARDOTTI: And those test results 17

are in the Technical Support Document. 18

Once DOE obtained a b ill of m aterials 19

from iSuppli, it then translated that b ill of 20

m aterials into a manufacturer sel ling price. For 21

battery chargers, MSP, or "Manufacturers' Selling 22

Price," is the selling price to the OEM and is 23272

alternatively known as the OEM's assembly or 1

factory price. 2

To translate the b ill of m aterials into 3

a MSP, DOE used th ese. These numbers were actually 4

also given to us during manufacturer interviews. 5

I'd like to ask for any comment or 6

feedback on these numbers. 7

(Whereupon, at 2:59 p.m. ET, no response 8

was had.) 9

MR. NARDOTTI : So, finally, DOE 10

graphically depicted the results of manufacturer 11

interview data and its test and teardown data. 12

This slide shows the results for representative 13

unit for Product Class 4. 14

The results of the remaining product 15

classes can be found in the TSD. And, again, DOE 16

welcomes any comments on those results. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Wayne. 18

MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris, with AH A M. 19

I guess I'm, you know, trying to 20

appreciate where you 're coming from, and I, I 21

understand the difficulties because this Product 22

Class 4 is such an enormously wide range of, of 23273

products. 1

And I know you can't go out and buy a 2

hundred products and tear them all down and do that 3

thing. I know there's a limit to what you can do. 4

But, I think that I would ask that, in 5

the next run to analysis that you're going to do, 6

particularly as you go through a further 7

engineering analysis, and as you go into the MIA, 8

y ou know, for GR I M and so forth, we really need to 9

look at a, a better range of product than, than 10

what we've got in this Class 4. 11

You know, it's great to be looking in 12

$100 to $2000, but we're missing the, the $29 to, 13

to $100 product, and, and the impact. 14

So, I think that,

-- If you could back 15

up for a second, if we can.

-- I think it would be 16

important to show a range of the products at these 17

different candidate levels so that we can find 18

products out there that operate down at the ten, 19

15, $20 range, all the way upward to show that 20

there is, in fact, a

-- so that you go ahead one or 21

two

-- Well, either way.

-- that, that the 22

relationship of that markup price is, in fact, 23274

holds constant regardless of whether we're talking 1

about $2,000, $100, or, or $29 product. 2

I think that that's what

-- To me, this 3

is what this is, is all about, is trying to get 4

that relationship so that when you, that you know 5

from the m anufacturer's data, the test/teardown 6

data, and others, that your, your relationship 7

curve is, is roughly the same. 8

And, and all I'm asking is: Can we 9

increase the range of products in order to make 10

sure that this holds true at the b ottom end just as 11

well as is it does at the top end? 12

So, thanks. 13

MR. NARDOTTI: Thank you. 14

Finally, DOE is interested in obtaining 15

any suggest

- , suggestions on how to approach 16

scaling within a product class. Because each 17

product class includes a range of battery voltages 18

and/or battery energies, DOE must scale its 19

candidate standard levels that it's obtained for 20

each candidate unit to account for these. 21

This shows for all of the units th at DOE 22

and ECOS tested in Product Class 2 for the pre

- 23275

analysis. One approach that DOE is contemplating 1

using specifically for this product class would 2

utilize the test results of universal battery 3

chargers that were tested. 4

MR. MORRIS: If I could ask you a 5

question? Wayne Morris again. 6

Back up a slide. There. 7

That's wonderful that we have all that 8

data from ECOS, but if I remember seeing ECOS' 9

data, every one of those data po ints represented by 10

one of those gray triangles is, in fact, in the 11

ECOS data, is identified as what the product is, 12

isn't it? 13

I mean, it's not just a lumped mass of 14

little specks. Every one of those has a different 15

individual. 16

MR. NARDOTTI: Exactly. This chart is, 17

or this graph is just to illustrate the, the 18

products that DOE tested, and distinguish those 19

from the ECOS

- tested data. 20

So, yes, you're right. Each gray 21

triangle is not necessarily t he same product or 22

product type. 23276

MR. MORRIS: Thank you. 1

MR. NARDOTTI: So, as I mentioned, 2

universal battery chargers were among the, the 3

units tested in this product classes (sic), in this 4

product class, and these batt ery chargers typically 5

are capable of charging one, two, or four double

- A 6

or triple

- A batteries. 7

The graph on this slide shows how unit 8

energy consumption varied when these universal 9

battery chargers were tested at varying capacities. 10

So, DOE believes that these results could 11

potentially be aggregated and used for scaling UEC 12

with respect to battery energy. 13

This would be specific to this product 14

class, and DOE welcomes any comments. 15

MR. ALBERT: Did you also

-- These 16

chargers are not capable of charging different 17

voltages, so you aren't able to assess the effect 18

of battery voltage post efficiency. 19

MR. NARDOTTI: Right. 20

MR. ALBERT: This is Larry, by the way. 21

MR. NARDOTTI: This is simply a change 22

in en er g y. 23277

Forward to the comments. You can see 1

that DOE is seeking comment on suggested 2

methodologies to scale CSLs from representative 3

units to all units within each BC product class. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Of all units within each 5

PC product class. Comments on that? 6

MR. NARDOTTI: Actually, Doug, I have a 7

bit more. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Oh, you have a bit more. 9

The supplemental slides. 10

MR . NARDOTTI: Yes. There was the 11

supplemental slides, and were, that were handed 12

out. 13

MR. ALBERT: What does it look like? 14

MR. NARDOTTI: It was just the smaller 15

slides that was handed out. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Toby's got it. 17

Okay. 18

It's colorful. 19

MR. NARDOTTI: So, s ince

-- The 20

publication of the preliminary TSD DOE has 21

developed another proposed approach to scaling that 22

it would like to, to d iscuss today. This, this 23278

approach is a combined approach that could be used 1

for Product Classes 2 through 6, those product 2

classes that don't have any special characteristics 3

such as inductive charges, extremely high energies, 4

DC input, or AC ou tput. 5

This approach relies on the test results 6

of program performance, the test results of the 7

performance parameters needed to calculate UEC. 8

The end result is a separate equation for UEC as a 9

function of battery charge, or as a func tion of 10

battery energy for Product Classes 2 through 6. 11

So, to begin, DOE plotted its test 12

results of 24

- hour energy, maintenance mode power, 13

and standby mode power, versus battery energy, and 14

calculated a linear trend line. These tr end lines 15

were then combined with assumptions about usage. 16

And, again, we'll discuss those later. 17

But, they were then combined to give an equation 18

for UEC as a function of battery energy. 19

So, this graph shows all of the test 20

results of 24

- hour, 24

- hour energy for Product 21

Classes 2 through 6. And, as you can see, that 22

there was strong correlation between battery energy 23279

and 24

- hour energy, ranging all the way from the 1

smallest battery energy up to the largest battery 2

energy. 3

This, this slide shows maintenance mode 4

power versus battery energy for each of these 5

product classes. The correlation for this equation 6

was not as good. 7

Howeve r, if you notice, slope of this 8

equation is much smaller than the previous slope 9

for 24

- hour energy, meaning that a change in 10

maintenance mode power, or a change in battery 11

energy has less of an effect on the maintenance 12

mode power. 13

You'll also not ice that there are 14

clusters of, of points at the higher energies that 15

are capable of reaching low maintenance mode powers 16

at as low of maintenance mode power as the lowest 17

battery energy. 18

MR. ALBERT: The Y axis

-- Thi s is 19

Larry. 20

The Y axis is not the same in both 21

charts, right? So, if you superimpose

-- 22

MR. NARDOTTI: Right. So, the relative 23280

of that cluster of dots in the bottom left corner 1

versus the cluster around 400 watt hours, versus 80 2

watt hours, you can see that there was not much 3

change in, as you increase along the X axis, 4

specifically for this parameter. 5

MR. ALBERT: So, your, your argument 6

here would be that even though the correlation's 7

weak, the overall impact is insignificant because 8

you have almost two orders of magnitude of 9

difference in the m value, in the sl o p e value; 10

right? 11

MR. NARDOTTI: Right. 12

MR. ALBERT: Okay. 13

MR. NARDOTTI: Similarly, for the 14

standby mode power, again there was a weak 15

correlation for the trend line, but again, this 16

slope of this line is even more or is even less, 17

less dependent upon battery energy, showing less of 18

a chan ge. 19

So, as I mentioned, DOE combined the 20

trend lines of these equations with assumptions 21

about product usage to obtain an equation for UEC 22

as a function of battery energy. 23281

So, the, the three equations that you 1

see, E_24, P_ maintenance and P_ standby, 2

those are all functions of battery energy. Those 3

equations could then be plugged into the equation 4

that you see here for unit energy consumption where 5

those

-- So, so E_ 24 would then be plugged into E_24 6

here, an d then those functions could be placed 7

into, to where those parameters are. 8

And then the, the assumptions about 9

usage would then be plugged in for their, their 10

variables, and you are left with the function of 11

UEC with regards to just battery energy. 12

P_ unplugged would obviously fall out of 13

the equation because the power in unplugged mode is 14

zero, and then the power in "Off" mode is virtually 15

negligible because we have our assumption about 16

usage as minimal time in that mode

. 17

So, the next two slides we present the 18

generalized equations for UEC for each of the 19

product classes, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. DOE requests 20

any feedback on, on this proposed approach. 21

MR. B ROOKMAN: This is a new approach, 22

Matt? 23282

MR. NARDOTTI: This is a new approach 1

that has, that was not published in the Technical 2

Support Document. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: I'm going to suggest we 4

take a break now; give you, give yo u time to think 5

on this, and then we'll return for the final 6

comment. 7

Before we go, Mike Rivest? 8

MR. RIVEST: Thank you. 9

Would you come back to the previous 10

slide? Just a few observations I'd like to make. 11

So, like to make

-- These are product 12

classes for 2, 3, and 4. They span the same 13

battery energies. 14

They, they are slightly different 15

voltages, but the, the end lines are significantly 16

different because assumptions about operation are 17

significantly different. And what

-- Right. 18

And what you'll notice, if you can come 19

back, is that the slope is greatest where the 20

number of charges is greatest. And, and also, the 21

absolute value of energy use is greater because of 22

the number of, of, of, of, of, of charges. 23283

And the idea with these lines is that 1

you would

-- The intersect is not what's important 2

here. It's the slope. 3

So, you would mo ve that line in parallel 4

through the CSL point of your representative unit, 5

and read off that line to see what this, what the 6

Standard would be at a different battery energy. 7

MR. ALBERT: This is Larry Albert. 8

Just to clar ify, do you apply, do you 9

apply the scaling factor to the quantities coming 10

from the test procedure first, or you do it after? 11

MR. RIVEST: After. 12

MR. ALBERT: Afterwards. 13

MR. RIVEST: So, to the UEC. So, if y our 14

UEC at CSL, you know, if your UEC at CSL 1 is 5, 15

then you would go up to the line. And then if you 16

wanted to know what your budget was at a greater 17

energy, you would just move up, up, or up on that 18

line and read off your UEC budget. 19

MR. ALBERT: And, so, for high

-- 20

Larry Albert again. 21

So, for each product class, the 22

coefficient would be different, right? 23284

MR. RIVEST: For, for, for each product 1

class the slope would be different. And for every 2

CSL, the intercept, the, the constant would be 3

different. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, let's take a break. 5

You've got these slides. 6

You can confer with them and consult 7

with t hem while we're on the break. Let's do it 8

just for ten minutes, and we'll now resume

-- So, 9

it's now 3:14. 10

We'll resume at 3:25. I think we can 11

actually get through this by 5:00 today if we keep 12

pushing. 13

So, as Vic articulated, that's our goal. 14

See you back here in ten minutes

. 15

(Whereupon, at 3:14 p.m. ET, those 16

present took a brief recess and returned at 3:25 17

p.m. ET, after which the following occurred:) 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. As promised, it's 19

3:25. 20

Dan, do you want to join us up here? 21

MR. TENINTY: I just want to ask him a 22

-- 23285

MR. BROOKMAN: So, there was a lot of 1

content in that last segment. I was fairly much 2

boggled myself. 3

MR. MORRIS: You're boggled. Imagine 4

what a rest of us are. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: My

-- The point is, I 6

wanted to give you a chance to think through this. 7

It may be that this content is dense enough that 8

you require time to think about it and provide more 9

detailed written comments. 10

However, I do want to provide an 11

opportunity at this juncture to make whatever 12

comments you think are especially useful at this 13

time. So, let's start wi th that. 14

Suzanne, do you want to start? 15

MS. PORTER: I had a clarifying 16

question, which was for the scaling relationships. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: I think

-- Wait just one 18

moment. 19

I think, Matt, we need yo u back up here. 20

Okay. So, Suzanne. 21

MS. PORTER: Was the scaling method 22

focused on 2 through 6, and I was wondering why 7 23286

was excluded from this proposal, the rationale for 1

that. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: And there was a duplicate 3

copy of this somewhere. Can you pass that over to 4

me? Because I didn't get one. 5

Mike Rivest. 6

MR. RIVEST: Because we didn't have 7

enough data. I mean, we're, we're still in an 8

ongoing program of tests and t eardowns. 9

And the data, I mean,

-- And we've been 10

incorporating the data as the test results are 11

coming in. We hope to be able to do scaling on, 12

on all the product classes. 13

MS. PORTER: Thank you. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Dan, did you want to 15

comment? 16

MR. TENINTY: No, I had a question for, 17

for Vic. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, Larry. 19

MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. Just a question, 20

Matt. 21

You did this an alysis on the basis of 22

battery capacity. Did you consider any other 23287

parameters, such as battery voltage or something 1

like that? 2

MR. NARDOTTI: Not as of yet. 3

MR. RIVEST: I think so. Several of the 4

product classes are already set up by voltage, so 5

the Product Classes 2, 3, and 4, are on voltage. 6

Are you suggesting that there might be a 7

need to, even within those ranges of the Product 8

Class 0 to 20 volts? 9

MR. ALBERT: To be very honest, this is 10

new, you know. I just want to think. 11

We've been thinking about these issues, 12

as I'm sure you have, all along, right? How you're 13

going to actually implement this when you get to 14

something other than ten points, right? 15

So, it's a question. 16

MR. RIVEST: Right. I think the intent 17

was to not scale on voltage because we had set up 18

the product classes with multiple voltage 19

categories. 20

MR. ALBERT: Right. Right. 21

MR. RIVEST: And just to

-- I think we 22

can certainly examine the data to see if any trends 23288

emerge that would justify it. 1

MR. ALBERT: Well, one of the questions 2

for us, in the cases where you have multiple 3

voltage charge s,

-- Right?

-- the measurements are 4

made, if I remember correctly, at both the high and 5

low measured voltages, right? 6

And then the, then in that case, what 7

happens? Right? 8

Because now you're looking at the 9

battery that you took the measurement with as a 10

reference point to establish where you are in that 11

line. You pick off two points in the line, when 12

you've had to perhaps design the battery charger to 13

handle now what is ultimately a range of 14

cap acities, right? 15

So, that's one of the

-- This proposal, 16

we would have to really go back and take a really 17

close look at it and see. 18

MR. RIVEST: Right. And I think those 19

are good. 20

We just haven't gone that f ar. Right. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Philips. Yes, Wayne. 22

MR. MORRIS (To Mr. Erdheim): You want 23289

to go? 1

Wayne Morris. 2

I'm obviously trying to understand this 3

a little bit, but a couple of quick questions come 4

to mind. It looks

-- 5

Is it possible to back up to the slope 6

of those, those Classes 2, 3, and 4 for a minute? 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Seven. Slide 7 8

MR. MORRIS: Ye ah, I guess 7 of the

-- 9

There you go. Yeah. 10

The, the lower termination of this seems 11

to be around five volts. Is that not really true, 12

in that you can extend this slope downward from 13

there, or is that a cutoff? 14

MR. NAR DOTTI: Five watt hours, you're 15

talking about? 16

MR. MORRIS: Yeah. Because there are 17

product classes below five. 18

MR. RIVEST: Yeah. I think they fall 19

into other classes, I think. 20

MR. MORRIS: No, they actual ly fall into 21

Class 2. 22

MR. RIVEST: They do? Then I guess we 23290

just didn't go all the way. 1

MR. MORRIS: Some of your one

- celled and 2

two

- celled products that are running 1.2 and 2.4 3

volts are going to fall down in that rang e. I 4

mean, they're operating at milliamps of input 5

current to your watt, our measurements. 6

Very small. So, I guess that would be 7

the question, is: Can we

-- I mean, is this a 8

slope that begins and ends at a certain value, or 9

can you continue the slope on down? 10

MR. RIVEST: I think the intent was to go 11

all the way. 12

MR. MORRIS: Okay. The other question, 13

I guess, that I've got is that this, it would seem 14

to me that this makes and uses a funct ion

-- I was 15

going to say something else, but I'll try using 16

"function."

-- on the, on the previous slide to 17

this one, within a product class. 18

It makes an assumption about charges per 19

day, and factors that in. 20

MR. RIVES T: Yes. 21

MR. MORRIS: Sort of quotability into 22

the function renewing of the equation. But, what 23291

if the charges per day are widely different that, 1

than that? 2

What happens? I mean, you, you, you, 3

for instance, in Product Class 2 you've got .56 4

charges per day. But, what if my actual charges 5

per day is, like, .013, something like that? 6

I mean,

-- 7

MR. RIVEST: So, so the equation is to 8

give you what the Standard is, not to be used with 9

y our actual usage. And so it's, I guess it's not, 10

it's not relevant how you actually use the product. 11

The, the usage assumptions there are the 12

average for all products in that category. Those 13

are the ones that

-- 14

MR. MORRIS: That's the problem that I 15

had, is that taking an average within an extreme 16

range may not necessarily

-- I mean, even taking a 17

median, or taking a shipment

- weighted average is 18

not going to be reflective of the, the, the 19

extremes of, within that range. 20

And if they could, it would 21

significantly impact some of the companies, 22

particularly

-- We talked earlier today about those 23292

that are, quote/unquote, infrequently charged. 1

That, that really hurts those. 2

MR. RIVEST: Yep. 3

MR. MORRIS: I mean, Class 2 is probably 4

overwhelmed by things like cell phones. And, you 5

know, when you put an electric shaver in with a 6

cell phone, I mean, you can shoot the weighted 7

average. 8

I mean, you

-- The shaver doesn't even 9

appear on the scale. But, you know, it, it, the 10

charges per day is significantly different. 11

And same thing within Class 4. You add 12

those products which charges per day, I mean, what 13

you, what you could, in effect, encourage a company 14

to do is build a, a bigger charger in order to meet 15

the efficiency ratio. 16

So, they would, in fact, possibly use 17

more energy than they would normally. 18

MR. RIVEST: Well, the equa

- , the 19

equation is sort of efficiency neutral, so that 20

incentive shouldn't be there. There might be some 21

incentive to switch product classes, and especially 22

if there's one constant. 23293

The one ne xt door is less stringent 1

because it's not with the cell phones; it's with 2

the what

- else. But, there should be incentive to 3

slide on the EVC within the product class. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ric. 5

MR. ERDHEIM: Yes. And I wan t to just 6

concur with what Wayne just stated, that while I 7

haven't had a lot of time to, to look at this, you 8

know, the concept, you know, tentatively looks 9

favorable. 10

But, where I have an issue is when 11

I fall into product Class 2 w ith my beard trimmers 12

and shavers, and because cell phones are lumped 13

into that product class, now my charges per day are 14

way skewed from actual use. And, in effect, that, 15

that does have a big issue, because you guys are 16

factoring it into your s lope. 17

So, currently use does affect your 18

slope, which is what you're setting your Regulation 19

on. So, either you need to

-- 20

MR. RIVEST: Interesting thing. So, is 21

it that it would help you because the slope being 22

steepe r means you would get a break for units that 23294

are smaller than the represented? You should plug 1

those into the equation. 2

MR. ALBERT: Okay. 3

MR. REEVES: This is Ari Reeves at DOE. 4

It also depends on what the actual 5

equation is that DOE gives you to determine what 6

your products is to compare against this allowable 7

energy consumption. 8

So, what we're talking about here is a 9

formula to determine, to determine what the CSL is, 10

what the allowable energy consumption is. So, for 11

your infrequently used product, if the, if the 12

usage profile or whatever

-- 13

MR. RIVEST: No, no. 14

MR. REEVES: No? 15

MR. RIVEST: No, no. Within a product 16

class there's only one profile that matters. 17

It's the one we specify. How much they 18

use their appliances, and that's, that's a problem. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Larry, for a final 20

c omment, and then we're going to move on. 21

MR. ALBERT: I just wanted to clarify 22

that the, the charges per day that are listed there 23295

are from the average usage profile for that product 1

labs. 2

MR. RIVEST: Absolutely. 3

MR. ALBERT: They're not different for 4

establishing this line. It was just

-- It showed 5

up here just because when you calculated what the 6

slope was, you had to account for that, right? 7

So, it's no different than it would be 8

for the product class usage profile that you 9

applied for everything. 10

MR. RIVEST: It's identical. It's the 11

only one that matters. 12

The Application's specific profile

-- 13

Right?

-- is not, is not, it's not relevant to the 14

Standard because it's been taken into account with 15

the aggregation. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: With your permission 17

we're going to move on. Let's go. 18

ENERGY USE ANALYSIS 19

MR. SWOPE: Hi, everyone. 20

I'm Toby Swope, and I'm going to talk 21

about the energy use analysis. And now that 22

we straightened everything about energy use and 23296

usage, this will be quick. 1

But, so, the purpose of the Energy Use 2

Analysis is basically to build the foundation for 3

energ y calculation savings. And this is where we 4

start to talk about the costs and benefits. 5

And this is the benefits side, about 6

improving efficiencies because we would use less 7

energy. And we were trying, we're trying to fish 8

out what their unit energy savings would be. 9

But, we first need to establish what the 10

energy consumption is at each CSL. So, just a 11

couple of notes on the general approach for 12

protecting energy use. 13

The first is slightl y different from 14

other rulemakings where we talk about energy 15

consumed and we talk about energy consumed for a 16

particular application, like a refrigerator or 17

dishwasher. It's what it actually uses. 18

But, in this case, with EPSs and BCs, 19

it's to provide energy. So, when we're talking 20

about "energy consumed," we're really talking about 21

energy in versus energy out. 22

The next are just some assumptions that 23297

we made for s implification. First is the 1

estimated use of BCs or EPSs is closely tied to the 2

consumer application that they power. 3

We assumed that the energy and power 4

requirements of those applications was fixed for 5

our analysis. So, we know th at laptops may be 6

getting more efficient, or printers may be getting 7

more efficient, but for our intents we don't 8

know what efficiency improvements are going 9

to be made to those. 10

So, we held them fixed. So, if a laptop 11

uses 60 watt s to operate, it's going to require 60 12

watts to operate for our analysis. 13

And the other assumption that we made is 14

that there's no change in the usage of the 15

application based on the efficiency of EPS or BC. 16

So, I'm going to go quickl y through EPS energy use 17

because I think that seems to be less 18

controversial. 19

(Whereupon, at 3:39 p.m. ET, Mr. Kido 20

and Mr. Petrolati conferred, out of the hearing of 21

others and off the Record, during which the 22

following occurred:) 23298

MR. SWOPE: And, we can spend a little 1

more time on BCs, but, really, for EPSs, we just 2

really need to know how much power is required and 3

how much time is spent in, for various different 4

application states. And I'm going to discuss a 5

low

- controversy product. 6

So, we're going to talk about laptop 7

computers, of course. So, from testing, these are 8

the loading points that we've identified in the 9

design application states that the laptop could be 10

in. 11

The top six are really the application 12

states, but we're including no

- load mode and 13

unplugged there just for completeness. 14

(Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m. ET, Mr. Erdheim 15

left the room, after which the following occurred:) 16

MR. SWOPE: And from an NRDC report we 17

have two different types of notebook users. We 18

have those that usually have their laptop plugged 19

in. 20

That's about 40 percent of the user 21

base. And then those that usually have their 22

l aptops unplugged, and that's about 60 percent. 23299

And we can see each of the times spent 1

in each of the application states, a nd, again, no

- load, plugged and 2

unplugged. We build a rating based on those 3

ratings of 40 an 60 percent. 4

These are the efficiency metrics we got 5

from the energy analysis. These are for a 60

- watt 6

EPS. 7

They would be different for a 120

- watt 8

EPS, and notebook computers fall in both those 9

categories. This slide is really to s how the 10

relationship between the power consumption of the 11

EPS, and the output power that it's providing. 12

This is what we covered back in the 13

framework document. We have a relationship for all 14

the measurement points between 25 and 100 percent 15

of the loading of the nameplate output power. 16

But, we don't have it below, so we have 17

them interpolated . If you have any questions about 18

that I can provide that later. 19

But, essentially, the UEC becomes just a 20

s um of the power and the time spent. So, 21

for notebook computers, these are the results that 22

we get if we combined those loading points, the 23300

efficiency metrics, the usage pro file for the UEC 1

in kilowatt hours per year for each CSL for each of 2

those application states. 3

And the total's at the bottom. So, we 4

can see, as we improve in efficiency, we get lower 5

UEC, which is what we would expect. 6

And then that w alk through t hat we 7

just did for notebooks, we would repeat for all the 8

applications within this particular product class. 9

So, in this case, this would be product Class A1. 10

We're showing the top applications by 11

shipments. There are more. 12

Those are contained in the usage 13

workbook. But, you can see that for notebooks we 14

did the calculation for UECs. 15

We would repeat it for video game 16

consoles, ink

- jet imaging equipment, notebook 17

computers. And we would do a shipment

- weighted 18

average UEC for the enti re product class. 19

And I'd like to point out that the 20

individual application UICs are used in the LCC

. 21

The weighted average is what we would use in the 22

NIA. 23301

And I mentioned

-- 1

MR. ALBERT: Just repeat that. 2

MR. SWOPE: Sorry. So, going back, so 3

we have on each line

-- So, notebook computers have 4

a particular UEC associated for them for each CSL

, 5

and same applies for video games. 6

And when the LCC does its analysis

-- 7

And Matt will cover this in more detail.

-- they 8

look at individual applications. 9

So, they would use the individual 10

application UECs . Otherwise we would use the 11

shipment

- weighted average UEC. 12

Does that

-- 13

MR. ALBER T: But, but isn't it true that 14

for CSLs for which there weren't already 15

levels established through some other process

-- 16

Right?

-- where you were trying to determine sort 17

of best in class or something like that, you used 18

weighted averages there as well

-- Right?

-- to 19

actually establish the CSL? 20

MR. SWOPE: Well, the establishment of 21

the CSL is what happens in the engineering 22

analysis. This is really just taking those outputs 23302

and combining them wi th the usage profile and 1

loading points to figure out what an average 2

UEC would be for each application. 3

So, if we looked at the typical notebook 4

user, we would want to say, well, use based on a 5

particular usage profile, "How much ene rgy does 6

that notebook consume in a year, given all those 7

inputs?" 8

And we would repeat that for every 9

application. And so the LCC though, cares about 10

what those given applications are. 11

But, in the National Impact Assess ment 12

we really say, "Well, on average, what would a unit 13

within product Class A1 look like?" 14

So, that's where the weighted average 15

comes in. And hopefully when we do the LCC 16

explanation and the NIA walk

- through it will make 17

more se nse. 18

MR. ALBERT: Right. 19

MR. TENINTY: This is Dan Teninty from 20

Fulton again. Just a real quick clarification 21

question. 22

If you have one manufacturer that makes 23303

the primary side of a power supply, and another 1

manufacturer that makes the secondary side that's 2

built into an end product, a cell phone or laptop, 3

so that Company ABC could make a, a transmitter, if 4

you will, or a power source, it wouldn't have any 5

efficiency because there wouldn't be anyth ing 6

connected to it until you put an end product up 7

next to it within range. 8

And then the end product has a secondary 9

coil and rectification and power control circuit 10

that would power the circuit inductively, unlike 11

the toothbrush t hat is made by one manufacturer. 12

How would you classify this into CSLs or 13

product categories? Because that's the, that's the 14

fundamental question here with the WPC, is that we, 15

we are like this but we're not, because there will 16

be di fferent manufacturers for end products and 17

transmitters, and they won't

-- The 18

interoperability standard that requires that they 19

work harmoniously with each other

-- 20

MR. SWOPE: That's a good question. 21

It's not something that we covered in the 22

preliminary analysis, but we are, we would like 23304

input on how we would consider that product 1

category. So,

-- 2

MR. TENINTY: Yeah, we need to know if 3

we are included in this Regulation or req uirement 4

or not, and that's the fundamental question. 5

MR. SWOPE: I would have to defer to Vic 6

or Mike on that. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 8

MR. KIDO: I think what would be helpful 9

to the Department is when you do submit written 10

comments, go into some detail about how that works, 11

because I think we would have to take a closer look 12

at that. 13

MR. TENINTY: Would an interoperability 14

standard help you? 15

MR. KIDO: What does that mean? 16

MR. TENINTY: That's, describes the 17

technical details of how this wireless family of 18

products, whether it's laptops, cell phones, how a 19

transmitter works with a receiver, what's required 20

to be complia nt with that Standard. So, all of the 21

technical questions are answered. 22

MR. KIDO: I certainly don't think 23305

that would hurt. 1

MR. TENINTY: Okay. That's publicly 2

available, so I can make that available as part of 3

th is

. 4

MR. SWOPE: Okay. So, I mentioned that 5

we had tested the loading points for laptop 6

computers. 7

We tested them for some other 8

applications as well, but for applications where we 9

didn’t test loading points, we used loading 10

profiles based on those tested points. So, this 11

is just covering those. 12

And then the same applies for usage 13

profiles. For most applications we had specific 14

usage profiles. 15

For other applications, we developed 16

generic usage profiles. The top would apply to 17

applications that don't contain a BC. 18

The ones below are for applications with 19

a BC, and so we're asking for any input on the 20

usage profiles, the loading points. And this 21

carries also over to the BC profiles, which I'll 22

cover in a second. 23306

And so for battery chargers, essentially 1

it's the same process. We really just need to know 2

the time spent in each mode. 3

So, number of charges, time spent in 4

maint enance, no battery, "off" modes. And then we 5

would combine those with the efficiency analysis 6

from the Engineering Analysis. 7

So, same walk

- through f rom a BC 8

perspective. We have a number of charges per day, 9

time spent in active and maintenance, 10

no

- battery mode, "off" mode, unplugged mode, and 11

the weighted

- average use profile. 12

These are the efficiency metrics that I 13

mentioned. These are the formulas for each of 14

those, those modes in application states. 15

So, we have the charge energy, 16

maintenance energy, no

- battery energy, "off" 17

mode energy. And then the total UEC would be 18

the combination. 19

This, in this example, all those 20

energies are the daily , then we're multiplying by 365 21

to see the annual. And the concern was raised 22

earlier about this time spent charging. 23307

And just sort of going back to the 1

formulas, when we combine all these together, we 2

get the top formula. And you can check the math 3

later, but i f you combine these terms, the time 4

charged actually drops out because we have it 5

subtracted in, or, yeah, subtract, subtracted,

-- 6

I'm sorry.

-- added in before. 7

But, then we subtract it out later. So, 8

we get the simplified formula down below. 9

So, the time spent charging doesn't 10

actually factor into the analysis side for the UEC. 11

And, like I said, we can check the math, and let us 12

know how

-- 13

MR. ALBERT: Okay. 14

MR. SWOPE: But, the results if we 15

combined all those metrics together, we get the 16

following UEC by CSL. We repeat the process for 17

all the applications based on shipments. 18

So, this would be in Product Class 4. 19

And

– we c an see the differing results 20

between notebooks and power tools, notebooks, 21

hand

- held vacuums, and the weighted average at the 22

bottom. 23308

And, again, the LCC uses those 1

individual rows, and the NIA uses the bottom row. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 3

MR. ALBERT: So, again, when you look at 4

the Sample CSL 2,

-- Well, even if you look at CSL 5

0, which is probably more meaningful,

-- Right?

-- 6

when you look at the weighted average there, 39.4, 7

it's, definitely skews more towards the notebook 8

values

-- Right? 9

MR. SWOPE: Um

- hum. 10

MR. ALBERT:

-- because of the, the 11

large volume of users that are considered, and the 12

weighted average, right? 13

That's what you 're proposing, what you'd 14

propose for CSL 0 for the entire product class, 15

though, right? 16

MR. SWOPE: Yeah. And I guess, just to 17

clarify, is the, you've raised the concern about 18

this weighted average, and

-- 19

MR. ALBERT: Right. 20

MR. SWOPE: For the compliance side I 21

can't speak to how we're going to approach that, 22

but from the analysis side it's less of a concern 23309

because, really, we just want to figure out on 1

average what these units would be saving. So, 2

we're not

-- In this table here I'm not speaking to 3

whether you're in compliance or not, or what the 4

formula would be. 5

I'm just saying this is what we 6

calculated for average use for when we do our 7

evaluation of whether efficien cy standards would be 8

warranted. 9

MR. ALBERT: I appreciate your comment, 10

but once, obviously, once you establish one for 11

your analysis,

-- Right?

-- then now there's 12

a large incentive to move forward with that number 13

as your CSL for Regulation

-- Right?

-- because 14

now you've justified its existence at that level, 15

right? 16

MR. SWOPE: Um

- hum. 17

MR. ALBERT: And so, you know, again, 18

what it does here is it takes, 19

you know, as Wayne men tioned before, $2,000 20

laptops, you know, has those with all the attendant 21

technology, set the standards for everything else, 22

right? 23310

MR. SWOPE: Um

- hum. 1

MR. ALBERT: And so

-- But what you're 2

saying is that you could have a CSL that's 3

different. Would you then have to adjust your 4

analysis afterwards? 5

MR. SWOPE: Yeah. The way we would 6

approach it in the analysis side, the 7

life

- cycle cost would look at notebooks and then 8

look at power tools. 9

And Matt Hartley will cover that in more 10

detail about how it does that. The National Impact 11

Assessment looks at the whole product, and so there 12

the differences between the two are awash because, 13

really, what we care about is the weighted

- a verage 14

user. 15

So, without knowing what the, you know, 16

without knowing where the specific users fall, we 17

know this is in aggregate what the product class 18

looks like, and so that, that would be our 19

weighted

- average UEC for the product class. Now, 20

this is all based on assumptions about how we group 21

products by product class. 22

It's based on assumptions about usage. 23311

So, if you have comments on, on those, we 1

definitely would welco me them, because obviously 2

this is part of the end result of all of those 3

assumptions. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne Morris. 5

MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris with AHAM

. 6

Toby, I agree with you in principle, and 7

certainly that's the difference between an LCC and 8

a National Impact. But, essentially what you're 9

also caring about is the difference between 39.4 10

and 10.5, or the difference between 10.5 and 6.1. 11

I mean, that's, that's a critical 12

element in this, because that is what then you role 13

up to essentially show the justification, if you 14

will, or,

-- 15

MR. SWOPE: Um

- hum. 16

MR. MORRIS:

-- or you use for figuring 17

carbon data and all the other things. And you look 18

at them, the number of power plants you avoid, and 19

on and on and on, okay? 20

The skies get bluer. So

-- But, you 21

know, the, the bigger the spread that is there, the 22

more that you then justify that, the Standards 233 12

levels. 1

And it, it compounds itself. So, while 2

I totally appreciate what you're saying about don't 3

look at the individual numbers, the fact is that 4

even, even a

- tenth of a point on here can roll up 5

to be, you know, millions of metric tons of carbon 6

dioxide kind of signatures, to where, you know, 7

when you, when you have these enormous spreads in 8

these, in these categories, it does matter. 9

I mean, I, I appreciate what you're 10

saying about don't look at the individual number s, 11

but it's, it, it's important. 12

MR. SWOPE: Um

- hum. 13

MR. MORRIS: And I wish there was a 14

multi

- variant way. I mean, you guys use

-- What's 15

the, what's the software package that you guys use 16

to

-- 17

MR. RIVES T: Crystal Ball. 18

MR. MORRIS: Crystal Ball? Love that 19

term. 20

-- to, to do all this. 21

I mean, you would think within Crystal 22

Ball you'd be able to do a multi

- variant to do 23313

this, rather than just the aggregate. 1

Do you? 2

MR. SWOPE: Yeah, I think when Matt goes 3

you'll see that he does. 4

MR. MORRIS: Or even the NIA

. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Or even in the

-- Let's 6

let Matt address your basic point and see 7

whether that gets to it. 8

Keep going. 9

MR. SWOPE: Yeah. Yeah. 10

Yeah. So, the last slide I have is, 11

really, just looking at usage profiles for battery 12

chargers. Where we had sources, we used them, and 13

where we didn't, we used this generic

- usage 14

profile. 15

And all of this is covered in depth in 16

the usage notebook as well as, you know, the TS D

. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne, you're next. 18

MR. MORRIS: Excuse me. Wayne Morris. 19

Where is that usage workbook? 20

MR. SWOPE: The usage workbook, it's now 21

-- It's on the web site under the public meeting. 22

There's the technical documents, and it's one of 23314

the workbooks. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Mike. 2

MR. RIVEST: If you want to download it

, 3

i t ' s the, there is a tiny button at the top of the 4

web page. There's a bunch of these. 5

And the bottom of the web page just go 6

back to slide and plug that in. 7

MR. BROOK MAN: We're about to move on. 8

Questions and comments before we move? 9

(Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m. ET, no response 10

was had.) 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, we're moving on. 12

Daniel Lauf. 13

PRODUCT PRICE DETERMINATION 14

MR. LAUF: So, again, my name is 15

Daniel Lauf and I'm with D&R International. 16

So, now I'm going to talk to you about 17

the product price determination, which is how DOE ultimately determines 18

the consumer 19

price for BCs and EPS s. The inputs to the product 20

price determination are both the market assessment 21

and the engineering analysis, and the outputs are 22315

used in the life

- cycle cost analysis. 1

So, the purpose of the product price 2

determination is to estimate the prices paid by 3

consumers for B Cs and EPSs. So DOE analyzes B C and 4

EPS distribution channels in order to estimate the 5

markups applied to B Cs and EPSs. 6

So, here we have DOE's estimate of the model 7

for distribution. This was based both on 8

stakeholder comment and DOE's research. 9

The n DOE made the assumption that 10

the most common path to market sets the final 11

product price or the consumer price. This is 12

indicated by the central line of gray arrows. 13

And this is what Michael 14

Vladimer also presented earlier as the 15

distribution channel that DOE used to determine 16

consumer prices

-- 17

the engineering analysis outputs, the selling price 18

of BCs and EPSs. 19

And that, in this model here, that comes 20

just after the BC or EPS manufacturing stage. 21

Yes. 22

MR. ALBERT: Larry Albert again. 23316

If you choose to have 1

wall adapters that are part of battery chargers 2

considered to be EPSs, then there's 3

obviously another stage that might take place 4

there, because now the OEM battery manufacturer

-- 5

Right?

-- is now a supplier to the OEM end

- product 6

manufacturer, and so therefore there's another 7

stage of the degradation, if you will, as you go 8

up, and another level and another markup

-- Right? 9

-- that you may not that have factored in. 10

I think this is true if you're 11

talking about a true EPS that's marketed that's 12

sold within product, oka y? And even in the case of 13

perhaps the wall adapters might be a part of 14

an integral product. 15

But, if, for example, you have a wall 16

adapter that is permanently wired into a charger 17

base

-- All right?

-- that becomes a charger. 18

That then becomes sold to the next level 19

up, that, let's say

, a power tool with a battery pack. 20

And now the charger right

-- There's a whole 21

'nother level that's not even represented there, 22

right? 23317

MR. LAUF: Um

- hum. 1

MR. ALBERT: Right? But, it's 2

contingent upon the fact whether or not 3

the wall adapters are considered to be EPSs in the 4

definition, again. 5

MR. LAUF: And you're 6

right, that's something that's not explicitly taken 7

into account, again because of the assumption that 8

it's the most simplified, common path to market 9

that sets prices. But, it's something that DOE 10

will consider looking at down the 11

line. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: So, your comments that 13

would reflect those differentiating points, that 14

would be helpful to the Department. 15

MR. PETROLATI: Right. Right. 16

MR. LAUF: Right. And any comments with 17

regards to this distribution model that we have 18

that would help us refi ne it and make it, or would 19

help DOE refine it and make it more accurate would 20

be helpful. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: And just to be more 22

specific, any of these key supplements that you 23318

could elaborate on how you would understand you 1

would dive rse from them, that's especially helpful. 2

Go ahead. 3

MR. LAUF: Sure. And where I left off 4

was where the engineering analysis output is, 5

EPSs. And DOE, with the product price 6

determination, resumed the markup, resumed the 7

pricing analysis at that step, and assigned markups 8

at the OEM and at the, at the end

- use product 9

retailer levels. 10

So, as, as soon as BCs or EPSs are 11

integrated into an end

- user consumer product, the 12

price of the BC or EPS is effectively hidden or 13

buried under the price of the consumer product. 14

To estimate the markups applied to that 15

BC or EPS, DOE assumed that any markup tied to an 16

end

- use consumer product would be applied equally 17

to all o f that product's 18

individual components. 19

So, if the power tool is marked up, say, 50 20

percent, the power charger for that tool would be 21

marked up 50 percent. Now, end

- use product price 22

markups also are not readily apparent, because 23319

t hey're typically highly confidential. 1

So, DOE assumed that any markup that 2

could be derived via publicly available gross 3

margin information, or revenue and cost information 4

that it gathered from SEC 10(k) filings, DOE 5

assumed that tho se markups could then be 6

applied equally across all of the company's product 7

offerings. 8

And, once again, all the markups 9

that I'll be discussing in this analysis were, 10

again, derived from publicly available information. 11

DOE looked a t approximately 80, I believe it was 83 12

retailers and OEMs, the largest players 13

in these industries, to determine these markups. 14

So, markups relate the final product 15

price to the price that the OEM pays for the BC or 16

EPS

. F or products more efficient tha n the 17

B aseline

, or CSL 0, DOE estimated two markups. 18

The first is known as the baseline 19

markup, and this relates price to cost prior to any 20

change in efficiency. Baseline markups cover all 21

of an OEM or retailer's expenses, including that 22

OEM or retailer's profits. 23320

Now, incremental markups relate product 1

price to cost for the incremental cost increase 2

that results from an increase in efficiency. To 3

calculate increment markups, DOE assumes that as 4

the MSP increases due to efficiency, some costs 5

remain fixed, such as direct labor and overhead, 6

while others vary with that increase in efficiency. 7

So, incremental markups allow OEMs and 8

retailers to cov er these variable costs and 9

maintain profit margins. And this graph behind me 10

gives an example of how that would work. 11

So, this is a hypothetical product with 12

a $10 baseline MSP, which you can see on the left. 13

And there's a hypotheti cal 50

- percent baseline 14

markup applied to it, which would step that $10 15

price up to, or $10 MSP up to a $15 retail price. 16

Now, should the product be made more 17

efficient, let's say the MSP increases by $2, that 18

would be the incremental cost. That initial $10 19

baseline cost would still have that 50

- percent 20

mark

- up applied to it, so that would still be $15. 21

However, the $2 incremental cost that 22

you see, again, not all of that OEM or retailer's 23321

cost would have scaled with the increase in the 1

MSP, so it only has a hypothetical 2

15

- percent increment markup applied to it. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Larry. Larry, please. 4

MR. ALBERT: Yeah. So, the

-- I would 5

expect it to be $ 3, right? 6

That would be the same markup that went 7

from MSP to

-- Because some of those arguments that 8

you make are maybe appropriate in a manufacturing 9

environment, but I don't know if they're 10

necessarily true in the commercial settin g

-- 11

Right?

-- where these are really based 12

upon margins and things like that are independent of where the markup came 13

from, 14

right? 15

I mean, to go from the, the markup, 16

perhaps in going from bottom cost to the MSP, you 17

know, maybe t hat's legitimate, to 18

some extent. 19

But, with respect to the MSP to the 20

retail, what do these fixed

- costs columns mean? 21

Are they

-- Go ahead. 22

MR. LAUF: Where do the 23322

fixed

- costs

-- 1

MR. ALBERT: Your argument is it's not a 2

percent, right? The markup on the increment is not 3

the same as the markup on the base cost, right? 4

MR. LAUF: Yes, because when 5

the increment al cost increase, when the MSP 6

increases from standards,

-- 7

MR. ALBERT: Right. 8

MR. LAUF:

-- the retailer would, of 9

course, have that increased MSP, which would get 10

passed along to the consumer. But, the idea is 11

that not all of the overhead or direc t labor, 12

indirect labor expenses would increase, 13

necessarily, because the cost of the product 14

increased due to efficiency. 15

So, the same markup wouldn't necessarily 16

need to be applied, because not all of those costs 17

scaled with the i ncrease. 18

MR. ALBERT: Just to clarify, MSP is the 19

-- ? 20

MR. LAUF: It's the manufacturer's 21

selling price. It's the price of the unit coming 22

out of an EPS manufacturer , or it's what they would pay for it. 23323

MR. ALBERT: Okay. So, no more 1

manufacturing costs after that; correct? 2

MR. LAUF: I'm sorry? 3

MR. ALBERT: No more manufacturing 4

occurs after that point; correct? 5

MR. LAUF: To the BC, or the EPS. 6

MR . ALBERT: Right. 7

MR. LAUF: It's then integrated to an 8

end

- used product by the OEMs and sold by

-- 9

MR. ALBERT: Okay, what's in between 10

there? There was a manufacturer. 11

What's the OEM efficient product's 12

manufacturer ' s output? 13

MR. LAUF: Right. They manufacture the 14

consumer's application, so that would be the power 15

tool, the laptop computer, the mobile phone. 16

And the assumption is that it comes 17

prior to them, the manufacturer of the actual BC or 18

EPS. 19

MR. ALBERT: I guess I'm not seeing 20

where the fixed costs come in and, and dilute this. 21

You're saying fixed costs essentially remain the 22

same and dilute the markup

-- Right?

-- such that 23324

instead of having 50

- percent markup which you would 1

presume based on your baseline product cost, it 2

should only be 15. Right? 3

MR. LAUF: Right. Again, this is 4

hypothetical, but it's somewhat

-- 5

MR. BROOKMA N: Let's

-- Quick 6

commentary. 7

MR. REEVES: Ari Reeves, DOE. 8

Larry, I just want to interject. We 9

could spend a long, long time discussing this, and 10

this is consistent with other DOE rulemakings. 11

I just want to point out that there was 12

a Notice proposed on refrigerators that goes into 13

quite some detail that shows why DOE

-- So, in the 14

interest of time,

-- 15

MR. ALBERT: I apologize. I'm obviously 16

not an appliance person. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to let Wayne 18

go, and then I'm, I, I'll come back to you? 19

MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris for AH A M. 20

I understand that, Ari, but we're 21

dealing with a component, not a refrigerator. And 22

it really is critical that we get it right. 23325

And I also think that we're

-- In the 1

case of an EPS I might agree with you that there's 2

no manufacturing, quote/unquote, that occurs 3

afterward, but not with a battery charger because a 4

battery charger's got to be integrated with the 5

product. 6

There's got to be some way to actually 7

wire that thing in. If you're seeing an 8

external power supply as a part of a battery 9

charging system, there very much is manufacturing 10

that ha s to go on, and that has to be accounted 11

for. 12

MR. LAUF: So, just to make sure that I 13

understand what you're saying, are you saying this 14

approac h might be appropriate for EPSs

-- 15

MR. MORRIS: Right. Might be. 16

MR. LAUF:

-- through the distribution 17

cha i n , but not necessarily for the OEM

-- 18

MR. BROOKMAN: And to finish up, the 19

manufacturers in the room do not get the meaning of 20

the full mark

- up. 21

Rick ? 22

MR. HABBEN : Again, I come from the 23326

retail, not the sale s side, but I get the idea of 1

it. But, if the terms are correct, you're talking 2

the manufacturer sales price. 3

That would be our selling it to our 4

customer, correct? 5

MR. MORRIS: No, no. 6

Go ahead. 7

MR. LAUF: No, t hat's MSP. 8

That

-- Michael Vladimer discussed earlier, that's 9

the power supply manufacturer selling its

-- 10

MR. BROOKMAN: It's the finished product 11

as sold to

-- 12

MR. LAUF: Right. The product in 13

question is the battery charger or power supply. 14

And then it's integrated or bundled 15

into another consumer product. 16

MR. ALBERT: Okay no further comment. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: We're going to keep 18

moving along. You've been given plenty to consider 19

here. 20

MR. LAUF: And so on this slide we just 21

have the average results that were found 22

for markups. As you can see, DOE calculated 23327

baseline incremental markups at the OEM stage, at 1

the retailer stage, and population

- weighted sales 2

tax was then determined; and the product of those 3

three yields the composite markup. 4

So, the typical composite, base line 5

markup, was 2.33, while the composite incremental 6

markup was 1.43. And those are multipliers. 7

So, 1.43 would be equivalent to 8

43

- percent markup. And those were the 9

numbers that were then used in the LCC analysis. 10

And DOE does seek comment on the 11

assumptions and methods that were used in this 12

analysis, both in terms of the analysis in general, 13

but also as they relate specifically to battery 14

chargers and external power supplies. 15

MR . BROOKMAN: Comments? 16

(Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m. ET, no response 17

was had.) 18

MR. LAUF: Thank you. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Move on. 20

We've already had a break, so we're 21

going to just keep plugging along until it gets 22

considerably late. So, just so you know. 23328

So, if you need a comfort stop you can 1

just excuse yourself and we'll just keep going 2

here. 3

LIFE

- CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSES 4

MR. HAR T LEY: My name is Matt Har t ley with 5

Navigant Consulting . I'll be talking about the 6

life

- cycle cost and payback period analysis, and 7

I'll try and do it quickly. 8

So, the purpose of life

- cycle cost and 9

payback is to assess the impacts on consumer s due to 10

energy conservation standards. I t's conducted 11

from the consumer's perspective and shows the cost 12

of owning and operating the product over its 13

lifetime. 14

As indicated in this diagram, it considers two components: 15

“ First cost, ” which 16

is purchase price and installation; and then 17

“ operating costs ” discounted to a present value. 18

This allows DOE to calculate the total 19

life

- cycle cost for each standard level considered. 20

Results are then expressed as LCC savings, or the 21

baseline LCC minus the standard level LCC , and a 22

payback period is also calculated and reported. 23329

So, I'll now discuss a couple of key 1

inputs and the methodology DOE took to derive these. 2

So, as we just mentioned, the LCC has total 3

installed price and total operating cost , and that’s discounted to a 4

present value

. 5

The total installed price is made up of a 6

purchase price, which includes the product price, 7

with baseline and incremental markups like Dan just 8

mentioned, and also installation cost, which 9

DOE assumes is zero for these products. 10

Then we look at the operating costs, 11

which are made up of the unit energy consumption 12

that Toby discussed, the energy cost, and then also 13

any mainte nance and repair costs, which DOE also 14

assumed are zero for these products. 15

Then we have to look at present value 16

factors to discount any future cash flows to present 17

value. So, we use a discount rate to calculate the 18

present value o f any of these cash flows over the 19

lifetime of the product. 20

T he discount rate is calculated 21

separately for the residential and commercial 22

sector, and the lifetime we use is specific to the 23330

application being analyzed in the LCC. And I'll go into 1

the applications in just a few slides. 2

So, looking at energy prices and trends, 3

to calculate operating costs we have to multiply 4

the unit energy consumption by energy prices. 5

DOE calcula tes average electricity prices for 13 6

different geographical areas by examining electric 7

utility data. 8

This data is available from the Energy Information 9

Administration Form

- 861, and that allows DOE to 10

calculate the current electrici ty price for both the residential and 11

commercial sector s . So, DOE then uses this current 12

electricity price to project any future electricity 13

price s , which uses the Annual Energy Outlook, published 14

annually. 15

DOE applies the trend see n in the AEO to 16

the current electricity price to project any future 17

electricity prices. I'm now going to talk about 18

discount rates. 19

So, once all the cash flows are 20

determined, DOE uses a discount rate to calculate 21

the present value of expenses over the product's 22

lifetime. D iscount rates are based on the 23331

interest

, or “ finance cost ,” to purchase and operate 1

products. 2

This finance cost can either be the cost 3

of debt, or the opportunity cost of equity used to 4

purchase and operate battery chargers and external 5

power supplies. In the commercial sector, the 6

discount rate is calculated as a weighted

- average 7

cost of capital for a commercial entity. 8

And you can see here the discount rates. 9

The average is the one shown here, although in the 10

life

- cycle cost analysis, DOE samples from a 11

distribution of discount rates, with this being the 12

average. 13

Okay. Efficiency distributions in the 14

base case. 15

So, we, we talked before about the 16

base

- case market distribution. When calculating 17

LCC savings, DOE will consider the difference in 18

total LCC between the baseline and the potential 19

standard level. 20

But, as we saw for battery chargers and 21

exter nal power supplies, many consumers already 22

purchase products that are more efficient than the 23332

baseline efficiency. 1

So, DOE characterizes the status quo 2

distribution efficiencies as the base case market 3

distribution. The table here pr esent s the base 4

case market distribution that was used for 5

EPSs. 6

So, in conducting the analysis, DOE 7

considered this base case market distribution 8

to determine the impact of standards on a consumer. 9

U sing the example here, you can s ee at CSL 3, 10

best in market, 3.3 percent of customers 11

already purchase products that are that efficient. 12

So, that means that 3.3 percent of the 13

market would be unaffected by a standard set at 14

CSL 3, because they already purchase these 15

products. 16

Similarly, when we calculate LCC savings 17

at CSL 4, we compared a difference in life

- cycle 18

costs between CSL 3 and CSL 4 for those 3.3 percent 19

of customers

, not looking at the difference between 20

CSL 4 and the baseline. 21

Okay, application sampling. So, as 22

we've seen, each representative unit and product 23333

class has multiple different applications that fall 1

within it, and each of these applications have 2

unique input values, like lifetimes, markups, and 3

u sage profiles. 4

So, the LCC considers two 5

different types of analyses, and first of all 6

I'll talk about the Monte Carlo analysis , which uses 7

the Crystal Ball software that was 8

mentioned earlier. 9

So, to account for differ entiation among 10

the different applications, DOE samples a distinct 11

application during each trial in Monte Carlo analysis. 12

I'll go over an example once I'm finished with this 13

slide, but for now we'll just talk in, kind of in 14

theory. 15

So, all the applications are given a 16

shipment

- weighted probability. An application is 17

then sampled based on that probability. 18

When an application is sampled, the LCC and 19

payback period are calculated with the inputs that are 20

specific to that application. On the other hand , the 21

sample calculation uses a shipment

- weighted average value for each 22

input from the selection of applications

, rather than the 23

application

- specific

, to do the calculations. 24334

So, we’re going to look at an example. 1

Here we have battery charger product class 6, 2

which is medium

- energy, high

- voltage

. We have five 3

different applications that we see here. So, in 4

the life

- , in the Monte Carlo analysis you can see 5

-- I don't know if you guys can see the laser 6

pointer.

-- here there's a "Probability" column 7

right here. 8

So, what we're saying is , that electric 9

scooters, based on the number of shipments that 10

they have, have a 27

- percent chance of being 11

sampled whe n the Monte Carlo simulation is run

. 12

This entire row of inputs would be used to do the 13

LCC and payback calculations

. 14

So, the UEC would be 66 for CSL 0, 39 15

for CSL 1, and so on. Now, that's just one trial, 16

and the Monte Carlo analysis looks at 1,000 17

different trials. 18

So, over here's how it will sample each 19

one of these applications in proportion, based on 20

its probability. And the end result is that it 21

will average out to about what we have here for 22

weighted totals. 23335

Now, I mentioned the sample calculation, 1

and when we do that calculation we'll pull it 2

directly from this bottom line of weighted totals, 3

which are shipment

- weighted totals for each of 4

these inputs. 5

(W hereupon, at 4:18 p.m. ET, Mr

. Kido 6

and Mr. Petrolati conferred, out of the hearing of 7

others and off the Record, during which the 8

following occurred:) 9

MR. BROOKMAN: When you get to the right 10

spot you get to try to answer the questions that 11

were raised earlier. 12

MR. HAR T LEY: I'm hoping that as I talk 13

I'll answer them, but

-- 14

MR. BROOKMAN: I thought you were 15

getting at them just right there, but just to the 16

extent you can. 17

MR. HAR T LEY: And please stop me if your 18

question doesn't get answered. 19

MR. ALBERT: Do you mind just rolling 20

back one slide? In the measurements of the 21

weighted totals, what are they used for? 22

MR. HAR T LEY: The weighted total is used 23336

in what we call a sample calculation. Now, the 1

results that you will see presented in the chapter 2

all use Monte Carlo simulation, so it's not 3

using this weighted total. 4

It's using an avera ge of 1,000 trials 5

for each of those , not a sample 6

calculation. 7

The sample calculation is kind of a 8

quick and dirty way to look at the net impact for 9

that product class or represented unit. The reason

-- And 10

I'll touch on this in the next few slides, but the 11

reason that the Monte Carlo analysis is so useful 12

to DOE is that it shows a distribution of impact s

. 13

So, you can see that even if the, the 14

average impact is, say, a savings of 13 cent s, some 15

consumers will save more and some will save less. 16

And we get that kind of insight from Monte Carlo, 17

whereas with the weighted total we would just have 18

the 13 cents. 19

MR. ALBERT: But, but that's only within 20

the product class, right? So, you don't get that 21

application by application, right? 22

In other words, you're not

-- 23337

MR. HAR T LEY: Correct. The weighted 1

total would only be across the class, because the 2

application, we would be using the 3

application

- specific data. 4

Is that what the question was? 5

MR. ALBERT: Yes. What I'm saying is 6

that distribution of variation and, and benefit, 7

cost benefit

-- Right?

-- occurs as a result of 8

your sampling routine acro ss the different 9

applications, not across different users made 10

within the same application, right? 11

So, some users will derive benefit; some 12

will not. Right? 13

MR. HAR T LEY: Exactly there's a slide, 14

the

-- Actually, the very next slide, we're going 15

to talk about some of the variables that do, some 16

of the inputs that do vary with the Monte Carlo. 17

MR. ALBERT: Right. 18

MR. HAR T LEY: And it's not all tied into 19

the applic ation. So, let me do this next slide, 20

and let me know if the question is unanswered. 21

Or, are there any more questions on this 22

slide? 23338

MR. BROOKMAN: Keep going. 1

MR. HAR T LEY: So, the distribution of 2

results f or the Monte Carlo simulations illustrate 3

the varying impacts that a population of users will 4

experience. So, for each representative unit or product class, 5

DOE examined 1,000 sampling trials, and each trial 6

represents a different consumer with sp ecific 7

inputs. 8

I nputs were varied based on four 9

different factors here. O ne is the application 10

selection, which determines the lifetime, the 11

markups, and unit energy consumption. 12

And that's the slide we just looked at. 13

One of the other inputs that varies is the starting 14

CSL. 15

And this is the base case market distribution

, 16

where some of the purchasers are already purchasing 17

products at an efficiency level above baseline. 18

Next is geographic region, which determines what 19

electricity price and sales tax rate we use, 20

which is specific to that geographic region. 21

Lastly, the discount rate is selected 22

from a distribution of discount rates where we have 23339

an average, but within a given trial it would 1

select a number within that distribution. 2

Does that answer your question? 3

MR. ALBERT: Well, not really, because 4

when you say you select the, the trial at 1,000 5

trials, you say it represents a different consumer, 6

is it a recognition that not all consumers use the 7

product in that application the same way? Right? 8

So,

-- 9

MR. HAR T LEY: So, currently

-- No. 10

Currently what we look at is

-- And I'll go b ack to 11

this slide. 12

When we select electric scooters

-- 13

MR. ALBERT: Right. 14

MR. HAR T LEY:

-- we're looking at these 15

discrete inputs for the application

- specific 16

data. One thing we did look at as a sensitivity 17

analysis is what we call a low sensitivity and high 18

sensitivity, where we assumed certain different, 19

different high

- or low

- usage profiles and other 20

inputs. 21

MR. ALBERT: Okay, so you

-- 22

MR. HAR T LEY: But, within the reference 23340

case we did not look at distributions. And 1

the logic behind that is that there was in 2

many product classes so many different applications 3

that we're already accounting for somewhat of a 4

distribution of input values by sampling these 5

different application s

. 6

MR. ALBERT: Okay. So, so that 7

information is available. 8

But, that's done, that's not done within 9

the product class. That's done for individual 10

applications, right? 11

High or low sav ers are within a product 12

class? 13

MR. HAR T LEY: That's done on the product 14

class, not,

-- 15

MR. ALBERT: All right. 16

MR. HAR T LEY:

-- not on an individual,

-- 17

MR. ALBERT: All right. Thank you. 18

MR. HAR T LEY:

-- although I'll take this 19

opportunity to say that one of the things that DOE 20

plans to look at are the application

- specific results. 21

Likely that would be done using the 22

sample calculations, since there are so many 23341

applications. I mean, there's, there's 80 or more. 1

But, that would give us an indication of 2

application

- specific results, potentially, for 3

different user profiles. 4

MR. ALBERT: Okay. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Let ’ s let him keep going. 6

MR. HAR T LEY: So we've covered this. 7

Okay. 8

I want to show this chart as an example, 9

where we look at life

- cycle cost savings. And this 10

is looking at the 2.5 watt EPS if DOE were to set the 11

standard level at CSL 3. 12

And this kind of helps illustrate the 13

distribution of impacts that you see from a certain 14

standard level . The technical support document presents similar results 15

as 16

the box and whisker plot which is shown at the 17

bottom horizontally in this chart

. 18

In this chart, the 19

X axis represents the LCC savings , and the Y axis represents the 20

portion of consumers with those impacts. 21

Here the red shaded area , or it may look tan 22

here, are consumers who experience negative 23342

life

- cycle cost impacts from a standard set at CSL 3. The 1

blue is where consumers have a positive LCC impact. 2

So, I show this because I want to show 3

that there's a distribution of results. And these 4

are based on some of the varying inputs we just 5

discussed. 6

Also,

-- When you see 7

these box and whisker plots in the write

- up, you can 8

know that this bottom whisker represents the fifth 9

percentile , versus the 10

twenty

- fifth and the fiftieth and the 11

ninety

- fifth. And the bottom of the box means that, for example, 12

this is the twenty

- fifth percentile. 13

That means that at CSL 3 , we expect that 25 percent of 14

consumers experience LCC savings of nega tive eight cents or less. So, 15

they're losing eight cents or worse. And that just kind of helps to give a n 16

indication of results here. 17

So, consumers whose 18

savings equal their added costs will have an 19

LCC savings of $ 0. Additionally, consumers who already 20

purchase a product at a given standard level or 21343

higher will have an LCC savings of $ 0 because 1

they'll face no impact for a standard set at that level. 2

And then lastly I just want to point out 3

here where we have the mean, 13 ce nts. So, when we did the sample 4

calculation, 5

we get this. 6

But when we do the Monte Carlo, we can 7

see that the answer is still 13 cents, but it 8

allows DOE to see what proportion of consumers 9

would benefit, versus what proportion would perhaps 10

lose money on this. This chart is, is just to put 11

that box and whisker plot in context. So, the shaded one 12

right here is what we were just looking at. And a 13

chart like this is available in the chapter

, which 14

shows th e distribution of results for every CSL for every 15

product class. 16

One last thing I want to note for this 17

diagram here is that for CSL 1 you can see that 18

there's no blue box in the bottom, and there's 19

nothing below zero. That means that no consumers 20

would have negative impacts by a standard set at CSL 1. 21

Similarly, we can see that the red bar 22344

here is at zero, meaning that the median 1

is at zero LCC savings. And the reason for this is 2

if we think back to the base case market distribution

, 3

only 34 percent of the consumers currently purchase 4

below CSL 1

. 5

The remaining 66 percent are purchasing 6

at this level or higher, and therefore would have no 7

impact. So, you already have over half the marke t 8

that would have no impact, which is why we have 9

a median value of zero. 10

This is also just in here as an example 11

to walk through the way that we present LCC results 12

in Chapter 8. So, here again we're looking at the 13

2.5watt EPS rep resentative unit. 14

The section here on the left is kind of 15

descriptive items. It shows each CSL, the efficiency

, 16

and the no

- load power

, which we derived from the 17

engineering analysis. 18

Next we're looking at life

- cycle cost. 19

So, the "Average Installed Price" is essentially 20

the price that the consumer would have to purchase 21

the product for. 22

"Operating Cost" is the total operating 23345

costs over the product's lifetime, and the average 1

LCC would be the sum of those two. When we look at 2

the weighted

- average savings, this is the net 3

effect of moving from one CSL to a higher CSL for 4

the consumer. 5

And it's important to note that for this 6

weighted

- average LCC savings, it's not equal to the 7

difference between the average life

- cycle cost of 8

the two CSLs, and that's because DOE accounts for 9

the percentage of impact ed consumers using the 10

base case market distribution. 11

So, it's not as simple as, as 12

subtracting these two numbers, because you have to 13

weight by how many consumers are at each of those 14

CSLs. Then here we look at the consumers with no 15

impact or net benefit, and that's the red of the 16

table, versus the blue

-- And finally is a 17

m edian payback period. 18

So, lastly I just wanted to discuss 19

these two sensitivities that DOE performed. So, 20

these are where DOE would simultaneously 21

vary several key inputs to the life

- cycle cost 22

savings calculation. 23346

We c all these the high savings and low 1

savings sensitivities, and the results for these 2

sensitivities can be found in Appendix 8B of the 3

TSD. For these sensitivities, DOE simultaneously 4

adjusted the inputs listed in this table below. 5

Eac h input was adjusted to a reasonable 6

value based on alternat ive source data, different 7

assumptions, or different confidence intervals . So, when 8

we were discussing before the differences of 9

light versus heavy users , we would use an alternate 10

usage profile to create these. 11

So, since each representative unit had so many 12

possible inputs due to the applications, DOE wanted to 13

see how LCC results might change if alternate inputs were 14

used . So, DOE varied these inputs simultaneously, but 15

only varied each individual input to an extent that 16

was reasonable. 17

So, with that I'd just like to ask for 18

any comment s here on the sensitivity analysis and the 19

methodology, or any other aspect of the life

- cycle 20

cost and payback period analysis. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Lot of contents there. 22

Any comments before we proceed? 23347

(Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m. ET, no response 1

was had.) 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, I think we're going 3

to keep pre ssing on then. 4

SHIPMENTS AND NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSES 5

MR. SWOPE: Hi, again. Toby here. 6

And we're going to skip the break and 7

move on the, on the Shipments Analysis. And, 8

really, the Shipments Analysis is an input to the 9

NIA

. 10

And just as Matt described, the LCC 11

looks at groups. It's looking at individual user 12

level. 13

The NIA just really needs to look at the 14

aggregate impact of what Standards who have over 15

all the shipments of products over a 30

- year 16

lifespan. So, we're just talking about how many 17

BCs or EPSs would be affected, how the Standards 18

would affect the number of units, and also how 19

Standards would affect the efficiencies of those. 20

And so we're talking about the aggregate 21

total. And for efficiencies we're talking about 22

the weighted average; so, the two outputs of the 23348

shipments analysis. 1

It's the number in the shipments forecast, and 2

then the effic iency with the efficiency forecast. 3

So, the general assumptions around the shipments 4

analysis, we tried to account for all the major 5

known market trends. 6

As Dan talked about earlier today, we 7

know that there are going to be some facto rs that 8

affect shipments of EPSs for cell phones, so we 9

look at those types of trends. 10

In terms of projecting the number of 11

shipments out for 30 years, this is pretty 12

difficult because the mix of applications will 13

admittedly change over time. Products that use BCs 14

or EPSs today didn't exist 30 years ago, and we're 15

going out 30 years from 2013. 16

So, so, as far as the growth rate and 17

mix of applications, we hold the growth steady so 18

that the per

- capita use of EPSs and BCs remains 19

what it is today. So, we're holding it at the .75 20

annual growth rate, which is the population growth 21

rate. 22

And then as far as those mix of 23349

applications, a simplifying assumption that we just 1

have to make is that th e mix today will be the mix 2

over 30 years. And, again, some products will come 3

along. 4

New products will come in, and some 5

products may be phased out. But, we just don't 6

know what those products are yet. 7

So,

-- And then the last assumption is 8

that there's really no difference in shipments 9

between the base case and the Standards case. 10

People will continue to use the applications that 11

use the EPSs or BCs, without regard to the change 12

in efficiency of the EPS or BC. 13

And then for the efficiency forecast, we 14

do similar. We look in the short

- term, what 15

efficiency improvements might occur through 2013. 16

When the Standard hits, we use a roll

- up 17

marketing response. And I'll cover this a little 18

bit in the next slide, but just that only the units 19

that don't meet the Standard will be changed to meet 20

the Standard. 21

Units above are not affected, and we 22

don't foresee any changes in efficiency after 2013. 23350

So, just to

-- So, what's going on in terms of that 1

efficiency forecast,

-- This is for Class A EPSs. 2

We talked about it changing through 3

2013, and so we start with our current market 4

distribution of efficien cies. We know that there's 5

European Standard coming out that would affect most 6

class A EPSs, and that class would be at ENERGY 7

STAR. 8

So, our assumption is that half of the 9

units between now and 2013 would be moved up just 10

as a side product of that new standard in 11

Europe. So, 34 percent of the, of the shipments 12

are moving from CSL 0 to CSL 1, and then we have 13

our four standard cases below. 14

So, in that first row, or the third row, 15

the standard case in CSL 1 since the Standard is 16

now there, we would take all that distribution at 17

CSL 0 and roll it up to CSL 1. So, we have 34. 18

And f ifty

- one gives us 85. And same would 19

repeat for all the other Standards. 20

So, what we're s eeking for comment is 21

just on those assumptions that I outlined. The 22

first is that there would be no change in shipments 23351

of EPSs or BCs due to the Standard. 1

One I didn't mention specifically, but 2

just substitution effect, we assume t here's none for 3

EPSs or BCs. And then a, what I just covered in 4

the base case, that efficiency forecast, those 5

assumptions there. 6

So, if there's no questions, I'll move 7

on to the National Impact Assessment. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Let's just pause. 9

(Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m. ET, no response 10

was had.) 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Nothing at this point? 12

Okay, nothing additional. 13

MR. SWOPE: Okay. All right. 14

So, as I mentioned, the National Impact 15

Assessment functions similar to the LCC. That's 16

just estimating , how many 17

savings would the U.S. enjoy? 18

That's the national energy savings. And then 19

the net present value is the net possible effects 20

on all consumers. 21

So, what would the consumers experience 22

in aggregate in terms of the value of those 23352

savings? So, essentially the process is this, is 1

simple in concept. 2

We just need to know how much on average 3

for each product class a unit cost would be, and 4

how much the energy savings would be. And then we 5

just need to know how many units would be affected. 6

So, so the shipments there, the 7

shipme nts analysis is those 30 years' of shipments. 8

We continue our analysis out ten years. 9

The ten years is just based on the 10

maximum lifetime for products that use EPSs or BCs. 11

If they lasted longer, we would continue until 12

those 30 years ' of shipments had all been retired. 13

And we look at the increments i n costs. 14

The energy savings from that would accumulate from 15

those Standards. 16

And just visually, this is, this is sort 17

of what's going on, is you start wit h the shipments 18

in the left. The yellow bars on bottom represent 19

the costs, the increased costs due to those 20

shipments, due to efficiencies being increased. 21

But, then the green bars are the savings 22

that those units produce. And these are in the 23353

2009 dollars, so that accounts for the decrease. 1

It's just we're discounting back to the 2

present date. And the net present value is the 3

difference between the two, so that blue line. 4

And in this case we can see that's 5

positive, and this would be for Product Class A

- 1 6

with the CSL 1. These are the inputs for the N I A. 7

I won't talk about them. Well, 8

actually, the only one I will cover is the discount 9

rate. 10

We don't use the same process as the 11

LCC. Here we're instructed by OM B to use two 12

discount rates, three percent and seven percent. 13

And just like the with the LCC, we 14

evaluate low savings

, reference

, and high savings 15

cases. And the variables in those cases for the 16

NIA are the manufacturer's selling price, the UEC, 17

and the lifetime. 18

And I think we can, we're going to skip 19

over the results, because the results of the N I A 20

are preliminary, so they 'll change, necessarily, as 21

we change the inputs. And so then we can just move 22

on to the next set of analyses. 23354

So, I'm just going to skip through 1

those. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: We'll just pause there if 3

there are questions and c omments on that series of 4

slides. 5

MR. ALBERT: Yes. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Larry. 7

MR. ALBERT: Just

-- Larry Albert. 8

Just a couple of general

-- The 9

Department's selection of using the CSL is based on 10

the market analysis or the LCC for that particular 11

category and CSL? 12

MR. PETROLATI: Larry, the simple answer 13

is the Department takes into account all of the 14

information, and it wi ll depend on the particular 15

decision

- maker as to how all that information's 16

weighted. So, I think it would be impossible for 17

me to give you an answer that would be typical for 18

every decision. 19

Does that make sense? 20

MR. A LBERT: I hear what you're saying, 21

but

-- 22

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. 23355

MR. ALBERT:

-- there must be some 1

criteria where you're not

-- If you get a negative 2

LCC, would you consider it if the National Impact 3

Analysis was

-- 4

MR. PETROLATI: Let's put it this way: 5

We see some negative LCCs under certain levels for 6

certain product classes, all right? 7

Would the decision

- maker take that into 8

account if the total of all of the savings from the 9

St andard was still positive? Would they accept the 10

fact that certain product classes had negative LCCs 11

associated with it? 12

My understanding is, yes, those 13

decisions can be made by that decision

- maker, all 14

right? Which, in the past, may not have been the 15

way that traditionally the program was looked at. 16

But, anyway, I haven't been on the, in 17

every meeting where these decisions have been made, 18

but my understanding is as long as, for the 19

Standard in total, that there are positive benefits 20

to the consumer in some manner, either through 21

energy saved or through cost savings, there would 22

be justification for going forward with that 23356

Standard, even if within a certain product class 1

there may be negative impacts. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 3

MR. KIDO: I think the bottom is there's 4

going to be a balancing of all of these 5

considerations. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay? Okay. 7

Let's proce ed. Thank you. 8

PRELIMINARY MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS 9

MR. CARMICHAEL: Good afternoon. My 10

name is Rob Carmichael. 11

I'm with Navigant Consulting. I'm going 12

to go briefly over the Manufacturing Impact 13

Analysis. 14

So, the, the Preliminary Manufacturing 15

Impact Analysis has already taken place. It's in 16

conjunction with the Engineering Analysis. 17

Obviously the purpose of the MIA is 18

to assess the impacts of Standards on 19

manufacturers of the covered products. DOE 20

traditionally does this both quantitatively and 21

qualitatively. 22

Q uantitatively

, DOE use s the 23357

Government Regulatory Impact Model, the GR I M, which 1

is an industry cash

- flow model. And it's a 2

comparison of the industry net present value, the 3

value of all the manufacturers that 4

are producing this product in the base case . S o, 5

so that's without Standards

. A nd then in the 6

Standards case

, it's the change in the net present 7

value that's the key output for the 8

MIA. So, traditionally, as the Standard gets 9

higher, that change becomes greater. 10

And there are two other more qualitative 11

components of the MIA I want to touch on because 12

they've been raised a little bit alre ady here 13

today. We look at what's called a subgroup 14

analysis

-- subgroups of manufacturers. 15

In this case, maybe subgroups of 16

manufacturers of particular applications that are 17

in some way differently or more severely impacted 18

than oth er groups of manufacturers, t ypically they'll be small businesses 19

or smaller 20

or low

- volume manufacturers. 21

And then another characteristic that DOE 22

takes into account is cumulative regulatory burden. So, 23

that's going to be the impact of all 24358

Regulations, from Department of Energy or other federal agencies on 1

manufacturers of these 2

products. 3

And here are the three phases of 4

the MIA. I'm not going to go through them each in 5

detail, but at this stage we're beginning the 6

interview process, which is the beginning of Phase 7

3. 8

I'll just say that the interviews are 9

like the engineering interviews and are conducted 10

under NDA s . They're a critical input into this 11

analysis as they are to all of the analys es. 12

And we're starting to contact 13

manufacturers and begin that process at this point. 14

(Whereupon, at 4:43 p.m. ET, Mr. Albert 15

and Mr. Morris conferred, out of the hearing of 16

others and off the Record, during which the 17

fo llowing occurred:) 18

MR. CARMICHAEL: So, looking back at the 19

engineer ing or preliminary MIA interviews, there were 20

several salient concerns that came across from 21

manufacturers. And they're highlighted here. 22

We've touched o n them before, and this 23

is combining both 24359

EPSs and BCs

. C onversion costs. So, those are 1

taken into account, as was discussed earlier, both 2

in terms of capital and R&D, or product development 3

costs. 4

These are the one

- time costs 5

associated with the Standard. It's a critical

-- 6

It's a critical component of the discounted 7

cash

- flow analysis. 8

Obviously, the higher conversion costs 9

you have the greater the impact on the 10

manufacturer. Efficiency was a selling point ; 11

that was another concern. 12

Manufacturers noted that it's 13

not something that they can sell up to. T herefore

, 14

it's harder to 15

pass on the incremental costs associated with the 16

Standard, leading to margin compression, which was 17

a concern for manufacturers. 18360

This is something that DOE typically 1

looks at as another one of the key inputs into 2

the cash

- flow model. And then lastly was regulatory burden. 3

So, looking at different international 4

standa rds for BCs and for EPSs, and looking at 5

the different costs of compliance that comes 6

with a lack of harmonization. So, at this 7

point we're asking for comments 8

two issues. 9

One is how we capture the key 10

issues, and

, second

, on othe r aspects of regulatory 11

burden facing manufacturers. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Maybe you could go back 13

to Slide 191. Wayne Morris, okay. 14

MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris, AHAM

. 15

Just a couple of quick comments on this, 16

and one would be that if you need contact 17

information for any of the people in our industry 18

who make battery chargers, we're more than happy to 19

help you. There are a number of companies that are 20

in this business that weren't in the business, say

, 21

three or four years ago, and we'd be glad to, to 22361

give you contact information for those companies at 1

any point in time. Just drop me a line. 2

Secondly, I note that on

-- Let's 3

see. I've got Slide 191, I think. 4

Is that right? Yeah. 5

Your top one there in terms of 6

conversion costs mentions the significant cost in 7

time required for testing and safety approvals. I 8

would mention that for a true EPS

- type of product, 9

that, that cost in time happens one time. 10

But, if you're viewing this as a, as a, 11

as a wall adapter for a battery charger, and seeing 12

that as a external power supply, that, then 13

that has to go through testing multiple times. So, 14

that cost is not once; it's every single time that 15

that wall adapter is designed and used. 16

So,

-- And that would be for every 17

single model. So, it's, you know it's a 18

significant difference when you look at it from one 19

to the other. 20

I mean, if you truly, you, you make that 21

conversion once by the manufacturer of that EPS. 22

The battery charger, it's significantly more in, 23362

more of an increase. 1

That's, that's all I have. Thanks. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 3

Comments on this series of issues, 4

Preliminary Manufacture r Impact Analysis? 5

Yes, Michael. 6

MR. VLADIMER: Michael Vladimer, 7

Navigant Consulting. 8

I just want to t hank Wayne for offering 9

those, and just wanted for everyone present in the 10

room, and, and Navigant, and working with DOE, and 11

anyone who wants to step forward, we would be very 12

amenable to contact and pass those on. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: So, that was that. Thank 14

you. 15

We're going to move on. 16

NOPR ANALYSES 17

MS. IYAMA: Good afternoon. I'm Sanaee 18

Iyama, with the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, and 19

I'm going to present four of the sections that 20

constitute th e NOPR stage analysis, starting with 21

the Utility Impact Analysis. 22

So, the purpose of this analysis is, 23363

to assess the impact of 1

Standards on domestic electricity suppliers. And 2

the method that DOE has used in the past, and that 3

is g oing to, that we're going to use in this 4

rulemaking, is to use a modified version of NEMS, 5

which is a model, which is called NEMS

- BT, and 6

which will allow to assess the effects of 7

Standards. 8

NEMS is the model that, that is 9

currently used by the EIA to develop the energy 10

forecast that you see in the annual, Annual Energy 11

Outlooks Reports. So, the inputs that we're going 12

to use for, in this model are the national energy 13

savings that come from the National Impact 14

Analysis. 15

And the outputs will be expressed in 16

terms of forecast of electricity generation, as 17

well as in terms of avoided capacity resulting from 18

the considered Standard level compared to a base 19

case. 20

And next, we hav e the Employment Impact 21

Analysis. The purpose of this analysis is just to 22

assess the impact of Standards on national 23364

employment. 1

And Robert has been talking about the 2

direct employment. Here we are looking at indirect 3

employment i mpact. 4

And the method used here is to use the 5

ImSET model, which is the acronym for Impact of 6

Sector Energy Technologies. And DOE has been using 7

this model for quite some time now. 8

It, it allows to assess the change in 9

employment by segment, by, as consequence of new 10

Standards. And I'll move on to the Environmental 11

Assessment. 12

The purpose of the Environmental 13

Assessment is to assess the impact of Standards on 14

air emissions from electricity power plants. Here 15

we'll be using the NEMS BT model, which is the same 16

one used as in the Utility Impact Analysis. 17

And it allows to estimate the national 18

emission reductions of different emissions. We'll 19

be looking at c arbon dioxide, mercury, nitrogen 20

oxide for the 22 States where these emissions are 21

not capped. 22

For the States where these emissions are 23365

capped, as well as for sulfur dioxides where we 1

have an existing legislation capping these 2

emiss ions, DOE states that appli ance Standards do not 3

have an impact on an emission. And so we'll, in 4

the end, we’ll only be reporting carbon, mercury, and NOx 5

in the 22 States where they are not capped. 6

In recent rule

- makings DOE has started 7

to monetize the emission reductions. And the way 8

to do this is DOE is using the most current social 9

cost of carbon values developed by interagency 10

review. 11

The social cost of carbon is intended to 12

represent a monetary measure of the incremental 13

damage resulting from greenhouse gases emission. 14

And here on this slide you have an approximation of 15

the values that we'll be using to implement it. 16

And we'll be also be monitoring Nox 17

emissions resulting from the different considered 18

Standards. 19

Issues for be comments are here. We 20

will welcome comments related to any benefits 21

resulting from improved efficiency of these 22366

standard for EPSs that have not been captured directly 1

by the products end users. 2

And second, we also invite comments on 3

possible approaches to monetize the emission 4

reductions. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Wayne Morris. 6

MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris with AH A M. 7

Just a quick question. Is the 8

determinant in these analyses using full

- cycle fuel 9

cycle, or just site energy? 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 11

MR. KIDO: I think in this it's just

-- 12

I do n't think we've initiated a full field. That's 13

something that's currently underway right now. 14

MR. MORRIS: Okay. Thanks. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Any thoughts on these two 16

comments? One's about monetizing, and also ways to 17

captur e these effects. 18

Yes, Larry. 19

MR. ALBERT: Just more of a, more of a 20

question. I am this close to think selecting for 21

only the benefits that might be accrued that are 22

not already analyzed, right? 23367

There might be, in fact, some 1

disadvantages associated with this that have not 2

been analyzed as well. Are those also of interest 3

to the Department? 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Like what, Larry? 5

MR. ALBERT: For example, you know, for 6

example, life

- cycle analysis of, of alternate 7

technologies that may have much greater impact 8

environmentally than some older technologies that, 9

you know, may at first blush seem to be less 10

eff icient. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: I see. 12

(Whereupon, at 4:53 p.m. ET, Mr. Kido 13

and Mr. Petrolati conferred, out of the hearing of 14

others and off the Record, during which the 15

following occurred:) 16

MS. IYAMA: Sure. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on 18

these comment boxes? 19

(Whereupon, at 4:53 p.m. ET, no response 20

was had.) 21

MR. BROOKMAN: We don't have any 22

comments at this point. 23

MS. IYAMA: I'm 24368

going to move on to the last section that we'll be 1

covering today. Thanks for hanging on all day with 2

us. 3

So, it it's the Regulatory Impact 4

Analysis. And the purpose of this analysis is to 5

investigate the national impacts of non

- regulatory 6

alte rnatives compared to mandatory Standards. 7

Some of the regulatory alternative s that 8

we might consider include the following: Consumer 9

rebates, consumer and manufacturing tax credits, 10

voluntary efficiency targets, early 11

replacement and bulk government procurement. 12

The method that we'll be using is 13

basically we're going to develop a 14

separate spreadsheet for each of the non

- regulatory 15

scenarios, and we'll be estimating their impacts 16

based on previous experience with the considered 17

policies. 18

The outputs are similar to the ones that 19

we had for the National Impact Analysis. They're 20

expressed in terms of national energy savings and 21

net present value of the non

- , a nd net present 22

value for the non

- r egulatory alternatives. 23369

I don't have a place for comments, but 1

any comments on this aspect of the analysis 2

are welcome ? 3

MR. BROOKMAN: On regulatory impact 4

analysis; comments? 5

(Whereupon, at 4:54 p.m. ET, no response 6

was had.) 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 8

So, now, as promise early this morning, 9

there's an opportunity for any additional comments. 10

Any other issues that individuals wish to r aise as 11

points that haven't been covered sufficiently? 12

Because we're, we're drawing to a close 13

here. 14

MS. PORTER: This is just a housekeeping 15

item, but I think there were some sheets

-- This is 16

Suzanne Porter.

-- that were passed around with 17

business cards on them, right? 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 19

MS. PORTER: I don't know. I didn't get 20

one. I don't know. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: I just handed 22

out an Evaluatio n Form. 23

Did everybody

-- I see it's circulating 24370

back. Did everybody get a copy of that? 1

And the title is correct. 2

So, then, no final comments at this 3

point? We have Wayne Morris. 4

MR. MORRIS: Ma ke a couple. 5

Thanks first to

-- I think it's important that we 6

appreciate all the work that's gone into this. 7

This is a tremendous amount of 8

engineering and technical time, business time, 9

staff time, consultant time. And I think that 10

speaks to the complexity of the product 11

that we're dealing with here. 12

We still

-- I know the Department is 13

pretty much finished with it, at least, so we'll 14

know the exact extent of the test procedure yet. 15

And it's important that we finish that up. 16

And we're certainly hoping that we'll 17

see that in the next couple of weeks. But, in any 18

case, I certainly, I do want to appreciate a number 19

of things that the Department has done in this 20371

analysis, and assure you that, first thing, is 1

that we've encouraged the Department to do 2

a rulemaking on battery chargers for a long time. 3

And we're pleased that it's 4

moving through th e system. It is 5

complicated, and so we are very much 6

appreciative of the fact that the Department is not 7

taking a one

- size

- fits

- all approach to battery 8

chargers, and not one formula that's used for 9

everything. 10

There's not one case that's used for 11

everything. You're not trying to lump all battery 12

chargers into one or two, or even three classes of 13

product. 14

It's very important that we 15

see these in terms of the way that they're actually 16

used. Lastly, I think th at

-- Or not lastly, but 17

next I would say that one of the things that 18

we emphasized at the last workshop is 19

the usage; that the product has to be evaluated in 20

this system according to the way that the consumer 21

actually uses it. 22

And so the usage profiles that the 23372

Department is working with are really critical, I 1

think, both to the thoroughness of the 2

evaluation, and also to be able to give the right 3

picture to the consumer, and to the Country, for 4

that matter, of what the savings will be. 5

It would be, you know, 6

inappropriate to build a case for an energy 7

efficiency if we are looking at usage patterns 8

that don't reflect the way that the product is 9

used. And, in fact, the law tells us that we have 10

to do that. 11

We have to look at the product the 12

way that it is actually used. "Representative," I 13

think is the way that they term it. 14

We appreciated, and stated a number 15

of reasons why we believed that external power 16

supplies and battery chargers are not the same. 17

I'm not going to go over that ground again. 18

I think that you get that. I think that 19

we also are studying the two

- year implementation 20

pr oposal that the Department has made. 21

Some of that does depend upon the 22

candidate standards level that's chosen. You know, 23373

it

-- At this point in time the Department is 1

looking to us to say, "Okay, how's a two

- year 2

implementation?" 3

Now, we recognize that within the 4

boundaries of the law, the Department has 5

the ability

-- This is not NASA, and so we, we

-- 6

The Department has the ability to set an effective 7

date, basically; you know, X to Y. 8

I mean, th ere's zero to 9

whatever. Unfortunately, 10

the needed amount of time is very much dependent 11

upon the candidate Standards level, or actually not 12

candidate, but final Standards level that's chosen, 13

because the more complex it is, the more time it 14

takes for a manufacturer to change over. 15

I would say that we do appreciate the 16

two years. I would think that we will study 17

that and take that in earnest. 18

We have spoken in the past, and 19

encouraged something in that rang e, but now that 20

we're looking at a system where the Department 21

tends to be leaning toward, not final yet, but 22

leaning toward a possibility that a wall 23374

adapter would be both, this puts a much greater 1

burden on manufacturers, and may create a situa tion 2

where greater time will be needed for 3

implementation. 4

We'll certainly give that thought, every 5

thought, and respond to that. But, we do want to 6

make it as soon as possible. 7

We understand the need to have the 8

savi ngs accrue for the, for the country and for 9

consumers, but we also don't want it to be at the 10

cost of having manufacturers go out of business. 11

And I know the Department shares that, and that's 12

why the analysis is so complete and, and so 13

carefully done. 14

To the extent that we in our industry 15

can help in any way, as we've said before, we 16

certainly are willing to do more, and do it 17

with you, as we always have done. Just want to 18

appreciate all the time that you took to have 19

this workshop today, the ability to have a web 20

broadcast. 21

Looking forward to the day when the web 22

broadcasts are two

- way instead of just one

- way, and I 23375

know you're working on that. And we do 1

appreciate that. 2

And so th anks very much. Look forward 3

to getting some of these other documents 4

electronically, as well. 5

Thanks. Thanks to all of the people 6

from Navigant and D&R, and all the other 7

people that worked on this as well. 8

Thanks. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 10

Other closing comments here? 11

Suzanne Porter 12

MS. PORTER: Suzanne Porter. 13

I just wanted to echo Wayne's comments 14

regarding the effort that was put forward to 15

create this technical support document. It's 16

Herculean, and I just want to comment from the 17

perspective of someone who has 18

looked at these types of analyses before. 19

I really admire your efforts, and I 20

think a lot of good work has b een done. The main 21

thing I just want to highlight in my closing 22

comments is that, you know, even though the DOE has 23376

got a lot of good direction in the Technical 1

Support Document, we feel that the 2

biggest weakness is the lack of information on duty 3

cycles. 4

And I think we've been talking about 5

that a lot today. And PG&E recommends that without 6

empirical data on duty cycle, or even with duty 7

cycle data that would exist and wou ld have a very 8

wide standard of deviation, that a better 9

approach would be to use a single, more simple 10

approach that could be, you know, based on common 11

sense, where the product is either charged some of 12

the time, or it's never charged, or very rarely 13

charged because it's an emergency backup product. 14

And we feel that this approach would 15

lead to a more transparent Standard, a Standard 16

that DOE could stand firm on because they wouldn't 17

be relying on assumptions associated with duty 18

cycles and the unit energy consumption that's shown 19

in the battery charger Standards analysis. 20

And I'm speaking specifically to the 21

battery Standard status here. So, PG&E ’s comments 22

will give more detail around why we think this is a 23377

good approach. 1

But, from our perspective, 2

that's the one thing I'd like to highlight as an 3

opportunity for going forward with the next round. 4

So, thanks to everyone here, and appr eciate the 5

opportunity to participate 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 7

Final comments? Additional comments? 8

Larry? 9

MR. ALBERT: Again I'd like to 10

compliment in Agency, the Department upon the work 11

that's been done here. It's all been very 12

detailed, very thoughtful. 13

And I'm also very appreciative of the 14

kind of dialogue that we were able to have here and 15

in other meetings that I think has resulted 16

in improvements, or at leas t, you know, sincere 17

consideration of the point of view of our industry. 18

Going forward, I think that, you know, 19

many things are very good about what we see so far. 20

Obviously the consideration given to the 21

classifications of products a nd differentiating 22

them based upon what are some pretty clearly 23378

discernable criteria, and also upon some 1

recognition as to that those products 2

represent different categories with respect to 3

technology and efficiency, and also an appreciation 4

fo r the recognition that 5

the usage profiles is a key component to both 6

determining the benefit to consumers, 7

and also what the right sorts of technical 8

solutions might be to improving real efficiency, 9

and therefore real benefit. 10

It e ncouraged, I would submit, any 11

number of comments during the meeting. 12

And, and obviously there's some areas, you know, 13

where we have some key issues. 14

And, and notably of those is the 15

determination of when an EPS is an EPS or a battery 16

charging system, and also the difficulty in, in 17

creating what we think is sort of a fairer CSL 18

assessment, CSLs for power tools within the 19

category of BC 4, when the dominant contributor 20

there is laptop power supplies. 21

And so I think, you know, with those 22

issues, you know, if we can work on those issues, I 23379

think what would result would be something that, 1

you know, we might be able to move forward with. 2

The only other consideration I thin k we 3

need to give to is the emergence of lithium

- ion 4

batteries in motor

- operated appliances, which has 5

been relatively recent with 6

respect to the length of time that the entire 7

consideration of battery charging system efficiency 8

has taken place

. 9

And, and so that has an effect upon 10

both technologies that are available, some of the 11

results that are there, and also some of the 12

technical solutions. 13

So, anyway, thanks again. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Right. 15

MR. ALBERT: And I was glad to be a 16

participant in the activities today. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Other closing remarks? 18

Ric. 19

MR. ERDHEIM: Yes. I want to echo what, 20

what Larry just said regarding the amount of 21

documentation, the work that went into it. 22

Suzanne said it. It's huge. 23380

And I do appreciate all the 1

work you guys did. Just a few comments here. 2

You know, I turned right to the 3

Executive Summary in the begin ning of 4

the TSD document. You know, it says by Statute the 5

U.S. Department of Energy must establish energy 6

conservation standards that are technologically 7

feasible and economically justified, and would 8

achieve a maximum improvement in energy eff iciency. 9

And I want to emphasize the, you 10

know, "economically justified" in that for some of 11

the products that we were discussing today

-- I'm 12

not going to go and rehash the issues 13

that we've already discussed, but as far 14

as, you know, the usage profiles and stuff, I think 15

that all plays into some of the products 16

with the low price points, and that 17

are economically feasible. 18

Regarding the battery definition, or the 19

definition for EPS versus battery c harger, I 20

think there was some good discussion on that. We 21

-- I think that there's, can be a solution obtained 22

where EPSs for battery chargers would not be duly 23381

regulated under both. 1

And I hope that we can come to a 2

consensus defin ition to accommodate 3

that. Thanks. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments? 5

Additional comments? 6

(Whereupon, at 5:08 p.m. ET, no response 7

was had.) 8

MR. BROOKMAN: So, then for my part I'm 9

going to turn it back to Vic Petrolati for closing 10

remarks. I want just to say thanks to all of you. 11

This has been a very positive meeting. 12

Lot of back

- and

- forth. 13

Very useful. Very productive, thanks to 14

all of you. 15

Vic Petrolati. 16

CLOSING REMARKS 17

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah. Thanks, Doug. 18

Late Thursday afternoon I hit the "Print" button 19

on our Technical Support Document and realized for 20

the first time it was 580 pages, not including the 21

Ap pendices. 22

MR. MORRIS: Not including; 88. 23382

MR. PETROLATI: I realize what kind of 1

commitment it takes to be a stakeholder in this 2

process, especially with all the other commitments 3

you have for other products and other Regu lations. 4

Like I say, the time that you've spent here I think 5

was very valuable for us. 6

We are certainly appreciative of the 7

time you've spent as part of this process. We need 8

your comments. 9

We need your written comments as part of 10

this process to make improvements and to handle all 11

of the issues that we've discussed today. 12

Again, informally, we'll have a Federal 13

Register Notice indicating that the comment period 14

will be extended to the twenty

- ninth, the end of 15

the month, but we need your written comments by 16

that point in time to cover many of these issues 17

and many of the solutions that you have proposed to 18

us today. 19

Again, I thank you. I realize how 20

difficult it is in terms of time commitments with 21

this process, as well as the California process, to 22

be actively engaged in all of these areas. 23383

That's about it. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: There's all the 2

information surrounding how to submit your 3

comments. You all have that in your packet. 4

That's good. 5

(Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m. ET, the above 6

Public Meeting was concluded.) 7

I certify the foregoing, as 8

submitted to the U.S. Department 9

of Energy on this date in WORD 10

.rtf format, and before editing by 11

others, to be a true transcript 12

from my notes. 13

E

- signature: D. I. Bunn 14

CSR CP RPR 15

CERTIFICATION 16

I, D. I. Bunn, a Registered 17

Professional Reporter, Certified Conference 18

Reporter and Notary Public, do hereby certify that 19

the foregoing was duly taken and reduced to writing 20

before me at the place and time therein mentioned. 21

I further certify that I am neither related to any 22

of the parties by blood or marriage, nor do I have 23384

any interest in the outcome of the above matter. 1

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set 2

my hand and affixed my official seal, at 3

Washington, D.C., USA, this 15th day of October, 4

2010. 5

6

E

- signature : D. I. Bunn

7

Notary Public

8

My Commission expires January 5, 2012. 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23