## Scoping Workshop Public M eeting on Plans for D eveloping Energy Conse rv ation Standards for B atte ry Chargers and External P ow er Supplies January 24 , 2007

- Washington, DC



## Issues for Stakeholder Comment= The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published two documents on its website in conjunction with this public meeting: Plans for Developing Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies and The Current and Projected Future_ Market for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies. While DOE invites comments from stakeholders on all aspects of the material presented in these documents, there are several issues in particular on which DOE seeks comment and that are identified in issue boxes. The list of issues is reproduced below, grouped according to the session today at which they will be discussed. Within those groupings, the issues are numbered according to their appearance in the documents (1-16 from the Plans document and 17-54 from the Future Market document). For each issue, the page number on which it appears in one of the supporting documents is indicated.


## 1. Introduction [No Issues] 

## 2. Regulatory Process Overview [No Issues] 

## 3. Determination Analysis Analytical Steps Issue 2. DOE invites stakeholders to recommend baseline models from each of the product classes that would constitute good representative units for analysis. 3-3 Issue 3. For each product class, DOE welcomes information on design options and incremental manufacturing costs for several efficiency levels above the baseline, one of which would be max tech. Detailed information on the product performance and the incremental manufacturing costs (e.g., material costs, labor costs, overhead costs (excluding depreciation), building conversion capital expenditures, tooling/equipment conversion capital expenditures, research and development (R&D) expenses, and marketing expenses) would be welcome. 5-1 Issue 4. DOE welcomes comments on the above-described approach to determining the relationship between manufacturer selling price and device efficiency. Stakeholders are invited to provide data to support their comments where appropriate. 5-2

Page 1 of 5

### Issues for Comment

Issue 5. DOE welcomes comments on the markup approach proposed for developing estimates of manufacturer selling prices. 5-2 Issue 6. DOE welcomes comments as to whether there are proprietary designs that DOE should be aware of for BCs or EPSs under consideration by this rulemaking. 5-3
Issue 7. DOE welcomes comments as to whether there are outside issues that DOE should consider in its analysis of BCs and EPSs and the impact of such issues. Stakeholders are invited to provide data to support their comments where appropriate. 5-3 Issue 8. DOE welcomes recommendations on sources of data that would provide end-use operating profiles for BCs and EPSs covered under this rulemaking. 6-1 Issue 9. DOE welcomes comments on the distribution channels for BCs and EPSs, the key stakeholders in those distribution channels, the typical markups applied by those stakeholders, and the overall markup from manufacturer selling price to retail shelf. 7-1 Issue 10. DOE welcomes input on the proposed methodology for estimating current and future electricity prices. 8-2 Issue 11. DOE welcomes input on the proposed approaches for estimating discount rates for consumers of BCs and EPSs covered under this rulemaking. 8-2 Issue 12. DOE welcomes comments on appropriate product lifetimes for BCs and EPSs. 8-2 Issue 13. DOE welcomes comments on, and any information concerning, the four factors described above for projecting over time annual shipments of BCs and EPSs. 9-2 Issue 14. DOE welcomes comments on how standards for BCs or EPSs might impact BC and EPS shipments. DOE also invites input on the expected impacts of market-pull programs that promote the adoption of more efficient BCs or EPSs. 9-3 Issue 15. DOE welcomes input on BC and EPS shipments forecasts. See issues 28 and 29 in the Current and Projected Future Markets document for related invitations for comment. 9-3 Issue 16. DOE welcomes comments on the NES spreadsheet models used for estimating national impacts of energy conservation standards. 10-1


## 4. E nergy Conse rvation Standards Analyses [No Issues] 

## 5. S co p e of C overa g e and Product C lasses Issue 43: DOE invites comment on this preliminary differentiation of the BC and EPS markets, based on the ENERGY STAR definitions, including whether this interpretation is different from other national or international standards or voluntary programs. 4-3 Issue 44: DOE invites comment on these and any other factors it should take into consideration in determining how to classify devices appropriately. 4-5 Issue 45: DOE invites comment on whether it would be appropriate to classify products that serve two major functions in a separate product class and evaluate those products considering two energy conservation standards, one addressing each major function. DOE was recently granted authority to establish two standards for one product that serves to major functions by

Page 2 of 5

### Issues for Comment

EPACT 2005, section 135(c)(3) which amended section 325(o)(5) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(5)). 4-5 Issue 46: In the context of the definition of a "consumer product" contained in the United States Code (42 USC 6291(1)), stakeholders are invited to provide detailed comments on DOE's scope, including identifying any preferred approach, and the advantages and disadvantages of other approaches. Stakeholders are invited to identify and explain justification for specific products that DOE should address or omit from its determination analysis. 4-11 Issue 47: DOE invites comment on differentiating product classes by battery chemistry; specifically on addressing different chemistries currently in the market: nickel-cadmium (NiCd), nickel-metal-hydride (NiMH),lead-acid, and lithium-ion (Li-ion). 4-14 Issue 48: DOE invites comment on its proposal of having one or multiple product classes for BCs, and the use of a curve-fit equation to establish the required energy ratios. 4-15 Issue 49: DOE invites comment on whether it may be necessary to have separate product classes for continuous BCs and terminating BCs. 4-15 Issue 50: DOE invites comment on whether EPS below 10 watts should be classified separately into regulated and unregulated product classes. 4-17 Issue 51: DOE invites comment on differentiating EPS product classes by output voltage. 4-18 Issue 52: DOE requests comment on accounting for power factor correction (PFC) in EPSs as a separate product class, an adjustment to any possible future standard or not at all. 4-18 Issue 53: DOE is soliciting comments from stakeholders on appropriate product classes to use for EPSs. 4-19 Issue 54: DOE is also soliciting comment on whether it should treat EPSs that also operate BCs embedded in consumer products in a separate product class. 4-19 

## 6. Preliminary Market Assessment Issue 17: DOE invites comment on whether BCs that use input power from USB ports should be included in the scope of this determination. 2-6 Issue 18: DOE invites comment on technical issues and consumer preferences that may drive market shifts toward or away from BCs and EPSs shipped with consumer electronics. 2-6 Issue 19: DOE invites comment on the initial consumer product groupings and ranges of maximum rated wattages of EPS shipped with those products: See Table 2.1. 2-12 Issue 20: DOE invites stakeholder comment on shipments of power tools, digital cameras, plasma TVs, flat-panel computer monitors, scanners, camcorders, printers, electronic musical instruments, hand-held global positioning system (GPS) receivers, and portable digital music players. DOE is also interested in understanding the type of power conversion system with which these products are typically sold. 2-12 Issue 21: DOE invites stakeholder comment on shipments between 2000 and 2005 for power tools, document scanners, LCD TVs under 23 inches, flat-panel computer monitors, portable digital video disc (DVD) players, electronic musical instruments, wireless local area network (LAN) and cord-connected local area network equipment, and portable gaming hardware. 2-12

Page 3 of 5

### Issues for Comment

Issue 22: DOE invites stakeholder comment on projected changes in shipments for products using a BC and/or an EPS, especially beyond 2010. 2-12 Issue 23: DOE invites comment on the digital camera market, including proportion of shipments associated with the type of power conversion device supplied with the camera (if any). 2-16
Issue 24: DOE invites stakeholder comment on the differences between homeowner and professional cordless power tool usage patterns. 2-17 Issue 25: DOE welcomes input on the types of portable digital music players that use BCs or EPSs, historic data on shipments for 2000-2005, relevant design trends, and shipment forecasts. 2-18 Issue 26: DOE welcomes comment on the proportions of flat-panel monitors, flatbed scanners, printers, camcorders, digital cameras, and portable audio players that are shipped with BCs and/or EPSs. 2-25 Issue 27: DOE welcomes comment on how the respective market shares of linear and switching EPSs have changed historically. 2-25 Issue 28: DOE invites comment on usage patterns of consumer products that use a BC and/or an EPS. 2-25 Issue 29: DOE invites comment on forecasted growth of EPS shipments, particularly for the time period after 2010. 2-25 Issue 30: DOE invites comment and data on historical and forecasted BC shipments. 2-27 Issue 31: DOE invites comment on future and historical shipments of universal battery chargers and the percentages of different consumer products that use a BC. 2-27 Issue 32: DOE invites stakeholder comment on factory prices of BCs by battery chemistry type and on retail prices of universal BCs. DOE also invites stakeholder comment on the factory prices and forecasted average factory prices presented in this section for EPSs. 2-30 Issue 33: DOE invites comments on names, quantities, and manufacturing activities of BC and EPS manufacturers worldwide. 2-37 Issue 34: DOE requests comment on the impact of various State standards and regulations on the market for BC and EPS. 2-44


## 7. P reli m inary Techn o l 

# o g

# y Assessment Issue 35: DOE invites comment on power consumption and consumer use patterns of BCs and EPSs. 3-27 Issue 36: DOE invites comment on the quantities and different types of EPSs in the market, especially unregulated line frequency EPSs and switching regulated EPSs. 3-29 Issue 37: DOE invites comment on different types of BCs in the market. 3-37 Issue 38: DOE invites comments on which efficiency levels are common in the market and whether the median values listed in Table 3.3 are representative of the market. 3-42 Issue 39: DOE invites comments on the relationship between cost and efficiency for EPSs at different output power ratings. 3-42

Page 4 of 5

### Issues f o r Comment

Issue 40: DOE invites comments on which power consumption levels are common in the market and whether the median values listed in Table 3.4 are representative of the market. 3-44 Issue 41: DOE invites comments on how to develop a single metric that combines active mode efficiency and no-load mode power consumption. 3-45 Issue 42: DOE invites comments on these component technology options and would welcome input on other approaches to improve efficiency through the components. 3-50

Page 5 of 5