**Page 1 of 5**



### Public Meeting for Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies July 16th, 2007 – Washington, DC



### Issues for Stakeholder Comment **The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a document on its website in conjunction with this public meeting:**  Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies **. While DOE invites comments from stakeholders on all aspects of the material presented in this document, there are several issues in particular on**  **which DOE seeks comment. These are highlighted in issue boxes throughout the document and the associated public meeting presentation.**  **The list of issues to be presented during today’s public meeting is reproduced below, grouped according to the session at which they will be discussed. Within those groupings, the issues are**  **numbered according to their appearance in the framework document. Unnumbered items are additional issues that do not appear in the Framework Document.** 



### 1. Welcome **[No Issues]** 

### 2. Introduction and Agenda Review **[No Issues]** 

### 3. Regulatory Overview **[No Issues]** 

### 4. Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking **[No Issues]** 

### 5. Stakeholder Comments **[No Issues]**



### 6. Scope of Analysis Additional Item DOE welcomes comments on the scope of the rulemaking. Item 6 DOE requests comment on its interpretation of the definition of “detachable battery,” and the impact on EPSs excluded from Class A.

### Issues for Comment

**Page 2 of 5** Item 5 DOE welcomes comment on any products with detachable batteries that are not motor operated, the wall adapters of which should also be excluded from Class A EPS standards. Item 4 DOE seeks comments on including DC-powered battery chargers within the scope of the BC standards rulemaking. Item 13 DOE is seeking input on these and any additional criteria it should consider in determining the presence of wall adapter charge control functions. Item 10 DOE welcomes comment on additional functionality provided by some wall adapters for battery chargers that may impede their ability to meet the same standards as comparable wall adapters for other applications (considered EPSs). Item 9 DOE seeks comments on the four approaches to interpreting the BC and EPS definitions to resolve ambiguities in the scope of the analyses. Item 11 DOE welcomes comment on the manufacturer burden of compliance with current EISA Class A EPS standards under each of the four approaches and seeks information on how DOE can minimize this burden while ensuring that the standards are being met consistently by the industry. Item 12 DOE also welcomes comment on the likely manufacturer burden of compliance with possible future EPS and BC standards under each of the four approaches. To this end, DOE also seeks information from the industry regarding how the monitoring of compliance with these standards can be accomplished.



### 7. Test Procedures Additional Item The Department invites stakeholder comments on changes to the standby and off mode measurement period. Additional Item The Department invites stakeholder comments on changes to the single-voltage EPS test procedure to accommodate USB-compliant wall adapters. Additional Item The Department invites stakeholder comments on the above changes to the previously proposed multiple-voltage EPS test procedure. Item 22 DOE seeks comments on how DOE should amend its BC test procedure to measure energy consumption in active mode. Additional Item The Department invites stakeholder comments on directly measuring charger output energy versus battery output energy. Additional Item The Department invites stakeholder comments on categorizing BC usage profiles using capacity characteristics. Additional Item The Department invites stakeholder comments on shortening of active and maintenance mode testing periods, in particular regarding typical charging times for consumer products that use rechargeable batteries. Additional Item The Department invites stakeholder comments on representative depths-of-discharge for common end-use consumer product applications.

### Issues for Comment

**Page 3 of 5** 

### 8. Market Assessment Item 56, 57 DOE welcomes comments on its lifetime estimates and data for all applications that use EPSs and BCs. Item 17 DOE seeks comments and input on BC and EPS shipments. Additional Item DOE seeks data on the distribution of BC and EPS efficiency across the market. Additional Item DOE seeks comment on drivers of BC and EPS efficiency, such as technological advances, consumer demands for portability, or international agreements and standards.



### 9. Product Price Determination Item 52 DOE seeks comments on the methodology for calculating the product price for BCs and EPSs, including assumptions about the percent of shipments passing through each distribution channel and the markups associated with each channel.



### 10. Energy Use and End Use Load Characterization Item 46 DOE requests comments on the use of 24-hour charge cycles for estimating energy consumption for BCs in active mode. Additional Item DOE seeks input on methods for separating active mode time from maintenance mode time. Item 45 DOE seeks alternate sources, databases or methodologies with which to develop BC usage profiles. Additional Item DOE requests comments on its working assumption that the highest active mode application state requires 80 percent of nameplate output power and that the lowest active mode application state requires 15 percent of nameplate output power. Additional Item DOE requests alternative sources for application state loading points. Item 50 DOE requests comments on its proposed methodology for calculating energy consumption at output levels below 25 percent of nameplate output power.



### 11. Technology Assessment Additional Item DOE seeks comment on the above impacts of energy type, capacity, and performance-related features on topology. Item 23 DOE seeks comments on BC product class divisions, including whether battery voltage is the appropriate product classification criterion, and/or whether DOE should take into account other factors, such as charge rate, battery capacity, or battery chemistry.

### Issues for Comment

**Page 4 of 5** Item 26 DOE seeks comments on how to consider output voltage in developing product classes, and how the low-voltage division should vary with EPS output power. Item 27 DOE seeks comments on the possible approaches discussed concerning EPS product classes, and invites interested parties to propose alternative approaches and/or other factors DOE should consider in developing product classes for the preliminary analyses Item 30 DOE seeks comments on the preliminary technology options identified in this section and whether there are other technology options it should consider.



### 12. Screening Analysis Item 31 DOE seeks comments on how the four screening criteria might apply to the technology options discussed in section 3.7 in the Framework Document, as well as any additional technology option(s) that an interested party recommends to DOE.



### 13. Engineering Analysis Item 34 DOE invites comments on the identification and selection of representative product classes and on models that may serve as good representative units within each product class. DOE also seeks comments on appropriate scaling relationships among product classes for both BCs and EPSs. Item 35 DOE seeks comments on representative product classes and selection of representative units from those representative product classes. Item 33 DOE seeks recommendations on possible candidate standard levels to use when analyzing EPSs and BCs. Item 38 DOE seeks comments on methods for normalizing cost and efficiency data for EPSs with output power and output voltage that differ from those of the representative units. Item 37 DOE invites manufacturers to work with DOE in the interviews to help develop aggregated curves of manufacturer selling price versus efficiency for the various representative units. Item 36 DOE seeks comments on the scaling of findings from representative product classes to other product classes that DOE may not explicitly analyze.



### 14. Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis **[No Issues]**

### Issues for Comment

**Page 5 of 5** 

### 15. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Item 53 DOE seeks comments on its intention to focus its preliminary LCC analysis on the residential sector, and not the commercial or industrial sectors Item 54 DOE seeks comments on the use of the EIA national average electricity price and the AEO forecast of electricity prices over the analysis period.



### 16. National Impact Analysis **[No Issues]**



### 17. Next Steps and Closing Remarks **[No Issues]**