1 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Public Service of Colorado Ponnequin Wind Farm 

# BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

Energy Conservation Standards Proposed Rulemaking for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy bc&eps_ecs@ee.doe.gov May 2 nd , 2012 

### Victor Petrolati2 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Welcome and Introduction 9:00 – 9:05 am Welcome, Introductions, Ground Rules 

## 9:05 – 9 :15 am Opening Remarks, Background, Regulatory History 9:15 – 9:45 am Opening Comments from Participants 9:45 – 10:30 am Market Assessment Including Product Definitions



## and Scope 10:30 – 10:45 am Break 10:45 – 11:45 am Technology Assessment, Screening and



## Engineering Analyses 11:45 – 12:15 pm Energy Use and Markups Analysis 12:15 – 1:15 pm Lunch3 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Welcome and Introduction 1:15 – 2:15 pm Life Cycle Cost, Shipments, National Impact,



## Regulatory Impact, and Manufacturer Impact Analyses 2:15 – 2:30 pm Utility Impact, Employment Impact, and Environmental

Impact Analyses 

## 2:30 – 2:45 pm Break 2:45 – 4:15 pm Summary of Results and Proposed Standards 4:15 – 4:30 pm Labeling 

## 4:30 – 4:55 pm Closing Comments from Participants 4:55 – 5:00 pm Closing Remarks5 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • Purposes

– To invite comment on proposed energy conservation standard levels;

– To present methodologies and characterize results of the rulemaking 

## analyses;

– To discuss specific issues related to each analysis;

– To seek input from interested parties on methodologies, assumptions, data sources, and results from the analyses; and

– To describe next steps in the rulemaking. 

# Purpose of the Public Meeting and 

# Comments From Participants6 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Public Meeting Agenda

2 3 

## 4 Background and Legal Authority

5 Market Assessment 2 

## Tech Assessment, Screening, and Engineering 3 4 

## 1 Overview

5 Energy Use; Markups Analysis Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 

## 6 Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis Environmental Impacts Results and Proposed Standards 7 87 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Background and Overview Statutory Authority



# • The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) amended the 

# Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), adding battery chargers (BCs) and external power supplies 

# (EPSs) to the appliance standards program.

• The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) further amended EPCA resulting in the current rulemaking. Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) 

## Department



## of Energy8 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



## Nameplate Output 

## Active Mode Required Efficiency (decimal equivalent of a percentage) < 1 Watt 0.5*(nameplate_output) 1 – 51 Watts 0.5+ 0.09*ln(nameplate_output) > 51 Watts 0.85 Nameplate Output No- Load Mode Maximum Consumption ≤ 250 Watts 0.5 Watts 

# Background and Overview Standards for Class A EPSs

• EISA -mandated Class A EPS Standards, Compliance Date: July 1, 2008

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Nameplate Output (W) 

### Active Mode Required Efficiency

Active Mode Required Efficiency9 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • Test procedures are codified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 430, Subpart B

– Battery chargers in Appendix Y

– External power supplies in Appendix Z


# • Test Procedure Final Rule:

– Standby and Off Mode procedures published on March 27, 2009. 74 FR 13318.

– BC Active Mode procedures published on June 1, 2011. 76 FR 31750. 

# Background and Overview Test Procedures10 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2013 2007 2016 2015 2014 

# Background and Overview Rulemaking Schedule BC/EPS Standards

Other BCEPS Rulemaking Activities11 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Background and Overview Criteria for Selecting Standard Levels
• EPCA directs DOE to consider seven factors when setting energy 

## conservation standards

EPCA Factor DOE Analysis 

## 1. Economic impact on consumers and manufacturers 

## Life-cycle cost analysis Manufacturer impact analysis 

## 2. Lifetime operating cost savings Life-cycle cost analysis 3. Total projected energy savings National impact analysis 

## 4. Impact on utility or performance 

## Engineering analysis Screening analysis 

## 5. Impact of any lessening of competition 

## Manufacturer impact analysis 6. Need for national energy conservation 

## National impact analysis 7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant Environmental assessment Utility impact analysis Employment impact analysis12 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Market & Technology Screening Analysis Engineering

Analysis Energy Use &

End Use Load Characterization Shipments Analysis National

Impact Analysis Markups for Equipment Price Determination Life - Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

# Standards NOPR Stage

Framework Document Preliminary

Analysis 

## NOPR Final Rule Regulatory

Impact Analysis Employment Impact Analysis Utility Impact Analysis Environmental Impact Analysis13 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE is proposing:

– Amended standards for Class A EPSs

– New standards for certain non -Class A EPSs

– New standards for battery chargers 

# Proposed Energy Conservation 

# Standards14 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## EPSs Battery Chargers National Energy Savings 

## (quadrillion BTU) 0.99 1.36 Net Consumer Benefits* (2010$ billions) 0.79 – 1.87 6.04 – 10.96 

## Net Social Benefits* (2010$ billions) 1.80 – 2.89 7.41 – 12.37 

# Summary of Proposed Rule Impacts

*Ranges represent net present values at 3% and 7% discount rates15 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Issue for Discussion Issue Box: DOE welcomes comments, data, and information concerning its NOPR for battery chargers and external power 

## supplies . Issues that correspond to those raised in DOE’s published material will be numbered in accordance with that 

## material. Whether invited by an issue box or not, comments are welcome on any part of DOE’s analysis. Issue box numbering corresponds to the list of issues published at the 

## end of the NOPR, available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/ battery_external_nopr.html16 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • In all correspondence, include all of the following:

– NOPR for Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies



## – Docket Number: EERE -2008- BT - STD-0005 and

– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN):1904–AB57


## • Contact Information: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov 

## Email : BC&EPS_ECS@ee.doe.gov 

# DOE Requests Feedback

Postal Mail : Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE -2J 

### 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585-0121 Courier : Ms. Brenda Edwards 

### U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program 950 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W. 

### Suite 600 Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 586-2945 

## Comment period closes: Friday, May 25th 

## , 2012, midnight EDT17 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • Opening Statements 

# Opening Comments from Participants18 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Public Meeting Agenda

2 3 

## 4 Background and Legal Authority

5 Market Assessment 2 

## Tech Assessment, Screening, and Engineering 3 4 

## 1 Overview

5 Energy Use; Markups Analysis Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 

## 6 Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis Environmental Impacts Results and Proposed Standards 7 819 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Where merited, DOE sets standards based on: (1) the type of energy used; or 

## (2) Capacity or some other performance - related feature. Consumer utility is one factor considered with respect to performance related features. Separate standards must be set for each class. 

# Market Assessment Product Classes20 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Statutory Definition: • A circuit that is used to convert household electric 

# current into DC current or lower-voltage AC current to operate a consumer product (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A)) 

# Key Features: • Is outside (external to) the product it operates 

# • Attaches to, and obtains power from, mains • Outputs DC current or lower-voltage AC current • Powers a consumer product 

# Market Assessment External Power Supply Definition21 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS: • Wall adapter considered an EPS only if it lacked charge 

# control. • Charge control proved elusive. 

# PROPOSED APPROACH: • DOE considers all wall adapters to be EPSs. 

# • DOE proposes to give special treatment to those EPSs that cannot operate an end - use consumer product directly. 

# Market Assessment Overlap22 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# 1. Charge the battery. 2. Disconnect the EPS from the product. 

# 3. Turn on the product and note how long it takes to start. This is the “normal startup time”. 4. Continue operating the product until it stops functioning. 

# 5. Connect the EPS to the product. 6. Turn on the product and note how long it takes to start. This is the “dead battery startup time”. Then compare the two startup times: 

# Dead Batt. ST ≤ Normal ST + 5 seconds ► direct operation Dead Batt. ST > Normal ST + 5 seconds ► indirect operation 

# Market Assessment Overlap 

# Protocol for distinguishing direct from indirect operation EPSs:23 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Market Assessment Indirect Operation F igure 1. EPS that can directly power the application – 

## Product Classes B, C, D, E, X, and H

F igure 2. EPS whose power all flows to the battery charger – 

## Product Class N24 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Market Assessment EPS Product Classes Multiple Voltage Product Class X High Power Product Class H Indirect Operation Product Class N AC- DC Basic Voltage Product Class B AC- DC Low Voltage Product Class C AC-AC Basic Voltage Product Class D AC-AC Low Voltage Product Class E25 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Market Assessment EPS Product Classes

Does the EPS output AC or DC? Can the EPS deliver more than one AC or DC output voltage at a time? Can the EPS deliver an output greater than 250 watts? No
No Multiple Voltage Product Class X High Power Product Class H Yes
Yes Can the EPS directly operate a consumer product? Yes Indirect Operation Product Class N No Does the device meet the definition of an EPS ? No Not an EPS Yes26 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Does the EPS output AC or DC?

AC- DC Basic Voltage Product Class B Does the EPS meet both of the low voltage output criteria (output voltage <6 volts and output current >550 milliamps)? AC Does the EPS meet both of the low voltage output criteria (output voltage <6 volts and output current >550 milliamps)?

AC- DC Low Voltage Product Class C AC-AC Basic Voltage Product Class D AC-AC Low Voltage Product Class E No Yes No Yes DC 

# Market Assessment EPS Product Classes27 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Market Assessment EPS Product Classes 

# Total U.S. EPS Market in 2009 345 million units/yr.28 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Market Assessment EPS Product Classes

EISA 2007 Standard (IV) High- Power (0.003 million) Multiple-Voltage (8 million) Medical (2 million)

MADB (49 million)

Class A (286 million or 83%) Non-Class A (59 million) 

## EISA 2007 set standards for Class A EPSs.29 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov CEC Std (IV) 

# Market Assessment EPS Product Classes

EISA 2007 Standard (IV)

Class A (286 million or 83%) Non-Class A (59 million) 

## California has a standard for “state - regulated” EPSs.

MADB (49 million) Medical (2 million) High- Power (0.003 million) Multiple-Voltage (8 million)30 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov EISA 2007 Standard (IV) CEC Std (IV) 

# Market Assessment EPS Product Classes
EPS is not part of a battery charger (64 million) EPS is part of a battery charger (280 million or 81%)

Class A (286 million or 83%) Non-Class A (59 million) 

## Most EPSs are components of battery chargers.

MADB (49 million) Medical (2 million) High- Power (0.003 million) Multiple-Voltage (8 million)31 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov EISA 2007 Standard (IV) CEC Std (IV) 

# Market Assessment EPS Product Classes

Class A (286 million or 83%) Non-Class A (59 million) EPS is not part of a battery charger (64 million) EPS is part of a battery charger (280 million or 81%)

Indirect Operation (Product Class N) 

## Many EPSs cannot operate an end - use consumer product directly.

MADB (49 million) Medical (2 million) High- Power (0.003 million) Multiple-Voltage (8 million)32 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Direct Operation 

# Market Assessment EPS Product Classes

Indirect Operation (Product Class N) EPS is not part of a battery charger (64 million) EPS is part of a battery charger (280 million or 81%)

Class A (286 million or 83%) Non-Class A (59 million) 

## DOE proposes to handle indirect operation EPSs separately from direct operation EPSs.

MADB (49 million) Medical (2 million) High- Power (0.003 million) Multiple-Voltage (8 million)33 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Statutory Definition: • A device that charges batteries for consumer products, 

# including battery chargers embedded in other consumer products (42 U.S.C. 6291(32)) 

# Key Features: • May obtain power from mains or another source 

# • May have an EPS as a component 

# Market Assessment Battery Charger Definition34 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Market Assessment Battery Charger Product Classes Product Class Input / Output Type Battery Energy Special Characteristic or Battery Voltage ID Description 1 Low Energy, Inductive AC In, DC Out < 100 Wh Inductive Connection 2 Low Energy, Low Voltage < 4 V 3 Low Energy, Medium Voltage 4– 10 V 4 Low Energy, High Voltage > 10 V 5 Medium Energy, Low Voltage 100–3000 Wh < 20 V 6 Medium Energy, High Voltage ≥ 20 V 7 High Energy > 3000 Wh - 8 Low Energy, Low Voltage DC

Input DC In, DC Out - < 9 V Input 9 Low Energy, High Voltage DC

Input ≥ 9 V Input 10a AC Output AC In, AC Out - Without AVR 10b With AVR35 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Statutory Definition: • Any article (other than an automobile, as defined in 

# section 32901(a)(3) of title 49) of a type which in operation consumes, or is designed to consume, energy... and 

# which, to any significant extent, is distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals without regard to whether such article of such type is in fact distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by an individual... (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)) For further guidance, see: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/cce_faq.pdf 

# Market Assessment Consumer Product Definition36 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Market Assessment Issues for Comment Item 6. DOE seeks comment on its proposed approach to classifying EPSs that indirectly operate consumer products. Item 9. DOE requests information on the existence of any battery chargers or EPSs that do not appear to fit cleanly into a single 

## product class. Item 33. DOE seeks comment on solid -state lighting EPSs (drivers), specifically on whether there are any unique features that might warrant treating them as a separate product class, market size, proportion of SSL luminaires that use EPSs, the efficiency of those EPSs, and usage patterns. 

## Item 34. DOE requests information on the existence of any battery chargers that can only be operated on 12V input, whether a device that can be powered only from a 12V power outlet can be assumed to be designed solely for use in RVs and other mobile equipment, and whether there are battery chargers with DC inputs other than 5V and 

## 12V.37 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Market Assessment Overview 

# Purpose

– Analyze the consumer end - uses of BCs and EPSs to characterize the markets for BCs and EPSs 

# Outputs

– Shipments, lifetimes, and efficiency distributions for BCs and 

## EPSs

– Identifies market trends that may affect unitary or aggregate BC or EPS energy consumption38 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Market Assessment The Importance of Applications



# • BCs and EPSs are typically packaged with end use consumer products.

– Understanding the BC and EPS markets requires analyzing the 

## markets for BC and EPS applications.



# • Characteristics of the application directly affect BC and EPS analyses:

– Shipments

– Lifetime



## – Power requirements


# • DOE identified approximately 80 applications that use BCs and/or EPSs.

– See Appendix 3-A for a list of applications that have been identified. Market Assessment39 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Market Assessment EPS Shipments in 2009

B 193.3 C 58.8 D 8.0 E 2.3 X 7.7 H 0.003 N (Non-Class A) 40.4 N (Class A) 34.4 

## Total EPS Shipments by Product Class (345 million)

B C D E X H N (Non -Class A) N (Class A)40 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Market Assessment EPS Shipments in 2009

9.4 28.0 4.1 11.5 18.6 16.9
13.2 9.3 8.7 2.2 6.5 5.9 7.9 33.0

10.3

1.7 2.0 7.7 4.7 6.2

15.0 13.9

6.5 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 Mobile Phones Notebooks Smartphone Video Game Consoles LAN Equipment Answering Machines Rechargeable Toothbrushes Bluetooth Headsets Cordless Phones Digital Picture Frames

Netbooks Shavers Portable Video Game ... VoIP Adapters MP3 Speaker Docks

Shipments of Top Applications by EPS Product Class (millions)

B C D E X H N41 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Market Assessment BC Shipments in 2009

Product Class 1 15.1 Product Class 2

249.0 Product Class 3 23.1

Product Class 4 60.9
Product Class 5 4.9 Product Class 6 0.6 Product Class 7 0.2 Product Class 8 65.2
Product Class 9 9.6 Product Class 10 8.0 

## Total Battery Charger Shipments by Product Class

(437 million)

Product Class 1 Product Class 2 Product Class 3 Product Class 4 Product Class 5 Product Class 6 Product Class 7 Product Class 8 Product Class 9 Product Class 1042 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Market Assessment BC Shipments in 2009

15.0 75.4

41.2 4.0 21.1 16.9 12.5 13.2 3.2 11.0 10.4 8.7 28.0

11.7
8.7 18.8

36.1 5.3
1.4 9.5 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 Mobile Phones Smartphone MP3 Players Notebooks Digital Cameras Answering Machines Rechargeable Toothbrushes Bluetooth Headsets Cordless Phones In -Vehicle GPS Professional Power Tools Consumer Two-Way Radios Portable Video Game Systems

Netbooks Shavers Shipments of Top Application by BC Product Class (millions)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1043 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Application Lifetime (in years) Application Lifetime (in years) Mobile Phones 2.0/4.0* VoIP Adapters 5.0 

## Notebooks 3.3 Inkjet Imaging Equipment 5.0 Cordless Phones / 

## Answering Machines 5.2 MP3 Speaker Docks 4.0 

## LAN Equipment 4.0 Digital Picture Frames 5.0 MP3 Players 4.0 Digital Cameras 6.0 

## In -Vehicle GPS 5.0 Netbooks 3.5 Portable Video Game 

## Systems 3.0 Baby Monitors 4.0 

## Video Game Consoles 5.0 Home Security Systems 7.3 Power Tools 5.5 Camcorders 4.9 

## Portable DVD Players 4.0 Computer Speakers 5.0 

# Market Assessment Product Lifetimes

*Lifetime for typical mobile phone is 2 years, however DOE assumed that EPS will last for four years (the lifetime of two phones ) as a result of industry standardization around the Micro- USB charger technology. Application- and product class- level shipment and lifetime estimates and sources are available in bceps_nopr_market.xlsx.44 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Market Assessment Issues for Comment Item 4 . Market Data DOE seeks comments on its estimates of BC and EPS shipments and lifetimes for each application and product class. DOE is especially interested in receiving comment on its 

## assumptions that EPSs for mobile phones and smartphones are likely to standardize around a common connection standard and, as a result, remain in use beyond the lifetimes of 

## their associated applications. Item 5. Use in the Commercial Sector DOE seeks comment on which BC and EPS applications are 

## used in the commercial sector, what fraction of shipments are to the commercial sector, and how product lifetimes and usage may differ between residential and commercial settings. Item 27. DOE seeks comment on its estimates of the proportions of certain applications that ship with EPSs designed to directly operate the application versus indirectly operate the application.45 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • Break 10:30- 10:45 AM 

# BREAK46 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Public Meeting Agenda

2 3 

## 4 Background and Legal Authority

5 Market Assessment 2 

## Tech Assessment, Screening, and Engineering 3 4 

## 1 Overview

5 Energy Use; Markups Analysis Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 

## 6 Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis Environmental Impacts Results and Proposed Standards 7 847 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Technology Assessment Purpose

– Examine factors that affect the efficiency of BCs and EPSs 

# Outputs

– Technology options for improving efficiency48 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • EPS Modes of Operation

– No- Load Mode, Instantaneous Power consumption [W]

– Active Mode, Average efficiency [%]



# • BC Modes of Operation

– Active or Charge Mode, 24-hour energy consumption [Wh]

– Maintenance Mode, Instantaneous Power consumption [W]

– Standby Mode, Instantaneous Power consumption [W]

– Off Mode, Instantaneous Power consumption [W]



# • DOE analyzed BCs based on their unit energy consumption (UEC), which is a weighted combination of each mode of 

# operation with units of kWh/yr. 

# Technology Assessment Modes of Operation and Efficiency Metrics49 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • Technology options applicable to both EPSs and BCs:

– Improved Transformer Core Material

– Low- Power Integrated Circuits

– Schottky Diodes and Synchronous Rectification

– Low- Loss Transistors



# • Technology options unique to BCs:

– Elimination/Limitation of Maintenance Current

– Elimination of No - Battery Current

– Battery Chemistry
Fully detailed in Chapter 3 of the TSD.

. 

# Technology Assessment Technology Options to Improve Efficiency50 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE examined the impacts of Electromagnetic Interference 

# (EMI) in the non -Class A Determination Analysis (75 FR 27170).

• DOE believes there is no impact on consumer utility in moving from linear to SMPS technology largely because of other requirements set by the FCC and the inclusion of EMI filters.

Input EMI Filter 

# Technology Assessment Electromagnetic Interference51 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Technology Assessment Electromagnetic Interference Item 10. EMI in External Power Supplies for Communication Products DOE seeks comment on possible issues of electromagnetic interference and/or radio frequency interference associated with switch - mode power supplies (SMPS) used with amateur radios, including design options for reducing or eliminating interference.52 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Screening Analysis Purpose

– Screen out technology options that should not be considered 

## in the engineering analysis 

# Outputs

– A list of design options that can be used to achieve higher 

## efficiency53 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### Screening Analysis



## Impacts on health or safety Impacts on product utility or availability to consumers 

## Practicability to manufacture, install and service

Technological feasibility

See Appendix A to Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 430 (4)(a)(4) and (5)(b ). 

# Screening Analysis Approach



# • DOE evaluated each technology option based on the following criteria:54 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • EPSs

– No EPS technology options were screened out of this analysis



# • BCs BC Technology Option Failed Screening Criterion Lowering charging current or increasing

voltage Adverse impacts on product utility to consumers Capacitive reactance Adverse impacts on safety Non - inductive chargers for toothbrushes and other wet applications Adverse impacts on safety 

# Screening Analysis Technology Options Screened Out55 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Engineering Analysis Purpose

– Establish the relationship between cost and the energyefficiency of EPSs and BCs. 

# Outputs

– Cost-efficiency curves (three variations)

EPS Average Efficiency [%] Mfr Selling Price [$]



### EPS No- load Power Consumption [W] BC Unit Energy Consumption [kWh/yr] Mfr Selling Price [$]



## More Efficient More Efficient56 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# DOE will present the Engineering Analysis for

− External Power Supplies (PCs B, C, D, and E)



# − External Power Supplies (PCs X and H)

− Battery Chargers 

# Indirect Operation EPSs were not isolated within the Engineering Analysis 

# Engineering Analysis57 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# External Power Supplies (B , C, D, and E ) Engineering Methodology Choose Representative Product Classes

Testing Representative Units Conduct Manufacturer Interviews Scale Cost and Efficiency Data Generate Final CostEfficiency Curves Select Representative Units 

#  Select specific “representative units” using market survey data.



#  Conducted testing of representative units to corroborate the Candidate Standard Levels. 

#  Choose representative product classes based primarily on market volumes and existing standards.



#  Scale cost and efficiency data to normalize data and account 

## for varying features (e.g. cord length) . 

#  Apply markups and aggregate results to generate final cost 

## efficiency curves for all representative units and product classes. Develop Candidate Standard Levels 

#  Discuss initial cost and efficiency data with manufacturers and

gather additional information on their costs for improving 

## efficiency . 

#  Develop efficiency levels based on benchmark levels of performance including a maximum technologically feasible 

## efficiency level .58 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • There is one representative product class for direct operation EPSs. 

# • DOE developed one set of candidate standard levels (CSLs) for product class B based on four representative 

# units. • DOE scaled the CSLs from product class B to the other 

# product classes. 

# External Power Supplies (B, C, D, and E ) Representative Product Classes

Product Class 

## Type Description B Representative Basic voltage, AC- DC Conversion C Scaled Low-voltage, AC- DC Conversion 

### D Scaled Basic voltage, AC-AC conversion E Scaled Low-voltage, AC-AC conversion59 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# External Power Supplies (B, C, D, and E) Representative Units

Representative Unit Nameplate

Output Power 

### [watts] Nameplate

Output Voltage 

### [volts] Example Application 1 2.5 5 Mobile Phone 2 18 12 Modem 3 60 15 Laptop Computer 4 120 19 Laptop Computer 

# • DOE selected four representative units based on:

– Selecting units within product class B

– Identifying popular products according to a market survey

– Ensuring that there would be many test units

– Selecting enough units to curve fit the CSLs60 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# External Power Supplies (B, C, D, and E) Candidate Standard Levels

CSL Reference Basis 0 EISA 2007 EISA 2007 equations for efficiency and no- load power 1 Energy Star 2.0 Energy Star 2.0 equations for efficiency and no- load power 2 Intermediate Curve fit to manufacturer data points 3 Best in Market Curve fit to test unit data points 4 Max Tech Curve fit to manufacturer data points 

# • DOE characterized EPSs at five Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs) of efficiency. 

# • EPS CSLs were developed using “matched pairs” of efficiency metrics. 

# • The CSLs consist of efficiency and no - load equations that never decrease in stringency in either metric.61 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE measured the efficiency of EPSs that closely matched the nominal ratings of the representative units. • DOE used those test results to develop CSLs above the known 

# industry standards. 

# External Power Supplies (B, C, D, and E) Testing Representative Units More Efficient



## No- Load Power vs. Scaled Efficiency for 18 -Watt Units

More Efficient62 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • Manufacturers provided costs for matched pairs of efficiency and no - load power, under an NDA. 

# • Manufacturer data often did not align exactly with CSLs. 

# External Power Supplies (B, C, D, and E) Manufacturer Interviews

Graphs are illustrative only. They contain no actual manufacturer data. 

## More Efficient

More Efficient63 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE scaled manufacturer cost data to align with 

# representative unit specifications:

– Output cord length



## – Output power

– Output voltage

– Markups to manufacturer selling price (MSP) 

# External Power Supplies (B, C, D, and E) Cost and Efficiency Scaling

Additional details in TSD chapter 5.64 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE estimated EPS markups as:

– MPC to MSP is 35.5% or 1.355 (range of 1.2 to 1.85)

– BOM to MSP is 62.5% or 1.625 

# External Power Supplies (B, C, D, and E) Cost Markups65 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# External Power Supplies (B, C, D, and E) Aggregation Methodology

*The graph is for illustrative purposes only. It does not contain any actual manufacturer data. 

# • The resulting equation was used to generate the 

# costs exactly at the proposed CSLs. 

# • DOE developed a best fit line in 3D using the cumulative cost, efficiency, and no- load data obtained from 

# manufacturers. Manufacturer Selling Price ($)66 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE scaled product class B CSLs to generate CSLs for 

# product classes C, D, and E. • Low-voltage EPSs have less stringent average efficiency requirements. 

# • AC-AC EPSs have less stringent no - load requirements. 

# External Power Supplies (B, C, D, and E) Product Class Scaling

Basic Voltage 

### Output Low-Voltage Output AC- DC Conversion B C More stringent no-load requirements 

### AC-AC 

### Conversion D E Less stringent no-load requirements More stringent efficiency requirements Less stringent efficiency requirements Additional details in TSD chapter 5.67 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# DOE will present the Engineering Analysis for

− External Power Supplies (PCs B, C, D, and E)



# − External Power Supplies (PCs X and H)

− Battery Chargers 

# Engineering Analysis68 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE applied the same analytical structure to non -Class A (NCA) EPSs as the direct operation EPSs.

• DOE used results from the determination analysis as inputs (75 FR 27170).

• Only multiple -voltage and high power EPSs were 

# analyzed, while medical and MADB EPSs were rolled into the direct operation analysis. 

# External Power Supplies (X and H) Engineering Analysis Methodology69 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# External Power Supplies (X and H) Representative Units

Product 

## Class Representative Unit Example 

## Application Nameplate Output Power 

## [W] Nameplate

Output Voltage 

## [V] Second

Nameplate Output Voltage 

## [V] X 203 5 12 Video Game Console H 345 13.8 N/A Amateur Radio 

# • DOE analyzed one representative unit for multiple -voltage EPSs and one representative unit for high power EPSs.

• DOE found that high power EPSs can increase efficiency while reducing costs in some cases.70 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE created its CSLs for high power EPSs by using a combination of test data, manufacturer data, and scaling 

# from direct operation product class B.
• DOE scaled its 120W CSLs to the 345W representative unit to generate new best- in - market and max-tech CSLs 

# with associated MSPs. 

# External Power Supplies (X and H) High Power EPS CSLs

Item 12. CSLs for High Power External Power Supplies DOE seeks comment on its methodology for generating CSL3 and CSL4 for high - power EPSs.71 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# DOE will present the Engineering Analysis for

− External Power Supplies (PCs B, C, D, and E)



# − External Power Supplies (PCs X and H)

− Battery Chargers 

# Engineering Analysis72 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Battery Chargers Engineering Methodology Choose Representative Product Classes

Test and Teardown Representative Units Conduct Manufacturer Interviews Scale Cost and Efficiency Data Generate Final CostEfficiency Curves Select Representative Units 

#  Select specific “representative units” using market survey data.



#  Evaluate the typical material costs associated with the representative units and characterize associated efficiencies. 

#  Choose representative product classes based primarily on market data and volumes.



#  Scale cost and efficiency data based on range of battery 

## energies for each product class 

#  Apply markups and aggregate results to generate final cost 

## efficiency curves for all representative units and product classes. Develop Candidate Standard Levels 

#  Discuss initial cost and efficiency data with manufacturers and

gather additional information on their costs for improving 

## efficiency . 

#  Develop efficiency levels based on benchmark levels of performance including a maximum technologically feasible 

## efficiency level .73 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Battery Chargers Product Classes Product Class 

### Input / Output Type Battery Energy Special 

### Characteristic or Battery Voltage ID Description 1 Low Energy, Inductive AC In, DC Out < 100 Wh Inductive Connection 2 Low Energy, Low Voltage < 4 V 3 Low Energy, Medium Voltage 4– 10 V 4 Low Energy, High Voltage > 10 V 5 Medium Energy, Low Voltage 100–3000 Wh < 20 V 6 Medium Energy, High Voltage ≥ 20 V 7 High Energy > 3000 Wh - 8 Low Energy, Low Voltage DC

Input DC In, DC Out - < 9 V Input 9 Low Energy, High Voltage DC

Input ≥ 9 V Input 10a AC Output AC In, AC Out - Without AVR 10b With AVR74 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Battery Chargers Representative Units Rep. Unit # Product Class Voltage V 

### Battery Energy Wh Applications Examined 1 Low Energy,

Inductive 3.6 1.5 Toothbrushes 2 Low Energy,

Low Voltage 3.6 3 Mobile Phones, Cordless Phones, Power Tools, Digital Cameras 3 Low Energy,

Med. Voltage 7.2 10 Power Tools 4 Low Energy,

High Voltage 10.8 20 Power Tools and Notebook Computers 5 Med. Energy,

Low Voltage 12 800 Marine Chargers 6 Med. Energy,

High Voltage 36 384 Lawn mowers, Wheelchairs 7 High Energy 48 3750 Golf Cars 8 Low Energy,

5V DC Input 3.6 2 MP3 Players 9 Low Energy,

12V DC Input 3.6 5 GPS 10 Low Energy,

AC Output 12 70 UPS75 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • CSLs were based on:

– Efficiencies available in the market

– The maximum technologically feasible level indicated by 

## manufacturers and technical experts



# • DOE combined outputs from the test procedure into a 

# metric called unit energy consumption (UEC) in kWh/yr. 

# Battery Chargers Candidate Standard Levels

CSL Reference Basis 0 Baseline Least efficient units in the market 1 Mid Market Efficiency in the middle of the market (where possible) 2 Best in Market Most efficient test unit data points 3 Max Tech Manufacturer max tech data points and technical experts76 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE used metrics from the test procedure to calculate unit energy consumption. 

# Battery Chargers Test Procedure Outputs

(value comes from discharge test) (Value comes from discharge test)77 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE calculated unit energy consumption with the equation:

Parameters in blue are outputs from the test procedure and those in red are assumed Where: 

### • E 24 

### = 24 hour energy • E batt 

### = Measured battery energy 

### • P m 

### = Maintenance mode power • P sb 

### = Standby mode power • P off 

### = Off mode power •tc 

### = Time to completely charge a fully discharged battery • n = Number of charges per day • t a&m 

### = Time per day spent in active and maintenance mode • t sb 

### = Time per day spent in standby mode • t off 

### = Time per day spent in off mode[1]
[ 1] Those values shown in italics are parameters assumed in the usage profile and change for each product class. Further discussion of them and their derivation is found in IV.E. The other values should be determined according to section 5 of Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430 . 

# Battery Chargers UEC Calculation78 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Battery Chargers UEC Calculations

Where: 

### • E 24 

### = 24 hour energy • E batt 

### = Measured battery energy 

### • P m 

### = Maintenance mode power • P sb 

### = Standby mode power • P off 

### = Off mode power 

### •tcd = Time to completely charge a fully discharged battery • n = Number of charges per day • t a&m 

### = Time per day spent in active and maintenance mode 

### • t sb 

### = Time per day spent in standby mode • t off 

### = Time per day spent in off mode[1] [ 1] Those values shown in italics are parameters assumed in the usage profile and change for each product class. Further discussion of them and their derivation is found in IV.E. The other values should be determined according to section 5 of Appendix Y to Subpart B of Pa rt 430. Parameters in blue are outputs from the test procedure and those in red are assumed 

# • DOE calculated unit energy consumption with the equation: For charge and maint 24 hrs: For charge and maint over 24 hrs:79 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Battery Chargers Candidate Standard Levels

* For some product classes, manufacturer interviews did not yield any cost -efficiency data at the max-tech CSL. Unit Energy Consumption by Representative Unit kWh/yr PC 1 2 3 4 5

Low Energy, Inductive Low Energy,

Low Voltage Low Energy,

Medium Voltage Low Energy,

High Voltage Med. Energy,

Low Voltage CSL # 1.5 Wh,

3.6 V 3 Wh,

3.6 V 10 Wh,

7.2 V 20 Wh,

10.8 V 800 Wh,

12 V 0 8.73 8.66 11.90 37.73 84.60 1 6.10 6.47 4.68 9.91 56.09 2 3.04 2.86 0.79 4.57 29.26 3 1.29 1.03 0.75 3.01 15.35 4 - 0.81 - - - 

# • Each representative unit CSL was characterized by a 

# specific UEC:80 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Battery Chargers Candidate Standard Levels

* For some product classes, manufacturer interviews did not yield any cost-efficiency data at the max-tech CSL. Unit Energy Consumption by Representative Unit kWh/yr PC 6 7 8 9 10

Medium Energy, High Voltage High Energy Low Energy, Low Voltage, DC input Low Energy,

Low Voltage, DC input Low Energy,

AC Output CSL # 384 Wh,

36 V 3750 Wh,

48 V 2 Wh,

3.6 V 5 Wh,

3.6 V 70 Wh,

12 V 0 120.60 255.05 0.90 0.79 19.27 1 81.71 191.74 0.66 0.26 6.13 2 38.33 131.44 0.24 0.13 4.0 3 16.79 - 0.19 - 1.5 

# • Each representative unit CSL was characterized by a 

# specific UEC:81 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE purchased several battery chargers at various rated 

# battery energies and voltages.

• Each unit was tested according to the DOE test procedure for 

# battery chargers.

• After calculating UEC for each unit tested, DOE selected those units closest to the representative battery energy and 

# voltage for teardowns.

• iSuppli subsequently created a BOM by tearing down and inventorying all components of the battery charger that affect battery charging. 

# Battery Chargers Testing and Teardowns82 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • After entering into an NDA, manufacturers provided costs for designs with specific performance parameters.

• For product classes 1 and 10, manufacturer data on costs and product performance was aggregated and 

# used to develop a cost versus efficiency relationship. For all other product classes test and teardown data was 

# used.

• Input from manufacturers was also used to help develop max-tech CSLs. 

# Battery Chargers Manufacturer Interviews83 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE applied average markups to the BOM costs in order to obtain an MSP. 

# Battery Chargers Cost Model

Product Class 

### Product Class Description Average BC Manufacturer Markup 1 Low Energy, Inductive 1.18 2 Low Energy, Low Voltage 1.18 3 Low Energy, Med. Voltage 1.18 4 Low Energy, High Voltage 1.46 5 Med Energy, Low Voltage 2.11 6 Med. Energy, High Voltage 2.11 7 High Energy 2.11 8 Low Energy, Low Voltage DC Input 1.18 9 Low Energy, High Voltage DC Input 1.18 10 Low Energy, AC Output 1.684 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Battery Chargers UEC Scaling Methodology


# • UEC is scaled by observing the behavior of three 

# performance parameters relative to battery energy

– 24 Hour Energy (E 24

## )

– Maintenance Mode Power (P m

## )



## – Standby Mode Power (P sb

## ) 

# • The parameters are combined to obtain UEC as a 

# function of battery energy using the usage profile assumptions for each product class • Boundary Condition:



# • For all CSLs of PCs 1& 8, UEC is constant for all battery energies85 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Battery Chargers UEC versus Battery Energy

TSL 1 Proposed 

### "



## '" 

## " 

# .,. • • • " 

## •

# , I 

# • 

# •

" " lI( 

## " 

## • • lI( 

## " 

# • •86 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Battery Chargers Scaling of Product Class 10

• The Max Tech level (CSL 3) has been selected as the proposed standard level • DOE was unable to find and test products that performed as well as manufacturers stated was possible (specifically for CSL 2&3) • DOE assumes that the manufacturer data received was not exactly equivalent to DOE test procedure inputs, but instead was based on the power supplied directly to the battery • In order to account for this discrepancy DOE tested more UPSs 

## and obtained the battery input power to develop an “adder” for both basic UPSs and UPSs with AVR functionality87 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Battery Chargers Scaling of Product Class 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Pm/BIP (W) 

## Maintenance Power & Battery Input Power

Vs Battery Energy Pm BIP CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 388 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Illustration - Basic Pm Adder for UPS

0.5 (CSL 2 - BIM) 0.9

0.4 0.4

0.2 (Proposed Std) 0.6 Best In Market (BIM) – CSL 2
Max Tech Proposal – CSL 389 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Battery Chargers Proposal for Basic UPS

TSL 3 Proposed 

# • • 

# • • • • 

# • •90 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Issue for Comment: 

## DOE seeks comment on its methodology for 

## generating Product Class 10 CSLs based on battery input power and input from manufacturers. 

# Battery Chargers Product Class 1091 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Public Meeting Agenda

2 3 

## 4 Background and Legal Authority

5 Market Assessment 2 

## Tech Assessment, Screening, and Engineering 3 4 

## 1 Overview

5 Energy Use; Markups Analysis Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 

## 6 Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis Environmental Impacts Results and Proposed Standards 7 892 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Purpose • To estimate annual energy consumption of BCs and EPSs at 

## each efficiency level for use in the LCC and NIA 

# Output • Average unit energy consumption (UEC) in kWh/yr of BCs and EPSs in each product class at each candidate standard level of efficiency 

# Energy Use Analysis Overview93 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • Primary changes were to usage profile assumptions:

– Developed usage profiles for residential and commercial users



## – Incorporated newly available data and stakeholder input



# • Empirical data available for 40% of applications, which 

# together represent about 80% of energy consumption.

• Complete list of assumptions available in energy use 

# workbook on DOE’s website:

– http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/doc 

## s/bceps_nopr_energyuse.xlsx 

# Energy Use Analysis Key Changes from Preliminary Analysis94 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • Consumed energy is the difference between the energy that flows into the BC or EPS and the energy that flows 

# out to the application or battery.
• BC and EPS energy use is a function of:

– Power requirements of battery or application

– Consumer usage patterns

– Efficiency of the BC or EPS


# • Assumed usage profile does not change with BC or EPS efficiency, i.e., no “take back” or “rebound effect”. 

# Energy Use Analysis Overall Approach95 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • For example, DOE identified six application states for 

# notebook computers based on product testing: 

# EPS Energy Use Calculation Application States and Loading Points

Application State Loading Point 

### (Percent of Nameplate Output Power) Charging the battery and operating 66% Operating – High 60% Charging the battery 38% 

### Operating 28% Sleep 1.6% Off 0.6%96 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE identified two types of residential notebook users:

– Usually plugged - in: 40% of users



# – Usually unplugged: 60% of users 

# EPS Energy Use Calculation Example Usage Profiles – Residential Notebooks

Application State Usually plugged-in (hrs/wk) Usually unplugged (hrs/wk) Weighted Average

Profile (hrs/wk) Percent of Users 40% 60% 100% Charging the battery and operating 1.73 5.75 4.14 Operating – High 5.18 5.18 5.18 Charging the battery 1.13 5.75 4.14 Operating 43.08 13.01 25.03 Sleep 45.43 5.98 21.76 Off 67.87 89.99 81.14 No- Load 0 0 0 Unplugged 2.99 42.35 26.6097 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE selected efficiency and no - load output power 

# values for each candidate standard level (CSL) in the engineering analysis. 

# EPS Energy Use Calculation Example Engineering Outputs

Efficiency Level CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 Active

### Mode Efficiency 85% 87% 87% 88% 92% No- Load Power (W) 0.50 0.50 0.20 0.07 0.05 

## Example: Efficiency metrics for a 60 Watt EPS in Product Class B98 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# 1. EPSs are categorized by nameplate output power. 2. Multiplying this output power by loading points yields the power requirements of the EPS in each application state. 

# 3. The EPS’s efficiency determines the level of power loss due to the EPS, which is essentially the power 

# consumption of the EPS. 4. Usage profiles determine the time the application 

# spends in each application state. Multiplying by time in use yields energy consumption. 

# EPS Energy Use Calculation Summary of Inputs99 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### Application State 

### UEC (kWh/year) CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 

### Charging the battery and operating 

### 1.52 Operating – High 1.63 Charging the battery 0.87

Operating 3.88 Sleep 0.69 Off 2.33 No- Load - Unplugged - Total UEC 

# EPS Energy Use Calculation Total UEC from Application State Consumption Application State 

### UEC (kWh/year) CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 

### Charging the battery and operating 

### 1.52 Operating – High 1.63 Charging the battery 0.87

Operating 3.88 Sleep 0.69 Off 2.33 No- Load - Unplugged - Total UEC 10.93 Application State 

### UEC (kWh/year) CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 

### Charging the battery and operating 

### 1.52 1.28 1.28 1.17 0.73 Operating – High 1.63 1.38 1.38 1.26 0.78 Charging the battery 0.87 0.74 0.74 0.67 0.42

Operating 3.88 3.29 3.29 3.00 1.86 Sleep 0.69 0.67 0.35 0.20 0.13 Off 2.33 2.29 1.05 0.51 0.34 No- Load - - - - - Unplugged - - - - - Total UEC 10.93 9.65 8.09 6.81 4.25100 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# 1. For each application, DOE estimated:

– Number of charges per day



## – Time per day spent in active, maintenance, no battery (standby), and off modes. 

# 2. DOE combined the usage profiles with performance 

# metrics from the engineering analysis to calculate BC energy use at each efficiency level. 

# BC Energy Use Calculation Steps101 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# BC Energy Use Calculation Example Usage Profile

Weighted Average Usage Profile Full Charges (#/day) 0.3 Active + Maintenance (hrs/day) 20.5 No Battery (hrs/day) 1.5 Off (hrs/day) 0 Unplugged (hrs/day) 2.0 

# • Notebook BC usage profile was provided via stakeholder comment and is consistent with the usage profile used 

# for EPSs:

Note: Full data set in Energy Use Analysis Spreadsheet , available on DOE website.102 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### Efficiency Level CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 24 Hour Energy [Wh]: 167.5 52.6 39.1 27.2 Charge Time [hr]: 

### 0.6 0.9 1.5 0.6 Battery Energy [Wh] 16.3 13.4 19.1 14.9 Maintenance Power 

### [W]: 5.9 1.4 0.5 0.4 Power, No Battery [W]: 

### 2.2 1.4 0.3 0.4 

# BC Energy Use Calculation Example Engineering Outputs for PC 4 

# In the engineering analysis DOE identified performance metrics for each candidate standard level (CSL).

Note: Efficiency values based on output metrics from the BC test procedure. Values presented are for BC product class 4 (AC - DC, <100Wh, >10V)103 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# BC Energy Use Calculation Example: Notebook Computers

Mode UEC (kWh/year)

CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 Charge 1.3 0.6 0.8 0.3 Maintenance 43.9 10.6 3.9 3.0 No Battery 1.2 0.8 0.2 0.2 Off 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total UEC 46.4 12.0 4.8 3.5104 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Energy Use Analysis Issues for Comment Item 22. Usage Profiles DOE seeks substantiated estimates, with supporting data, of 

## usage profiles for battery chargers, EPSs, and the applications they power. Item 23. Loading Points 

## DOE seeks comment on its EPS loading point estimates, as well as test results that would allow it to improve the accuracy 

## of those estimates.105 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Markups Analysis Overview 

# Purpose

– To derive the markups used to determine end- user (consumer) prices of BCs and EPSs 

# Outputs

– Composite markups for each BC and EPS product class



## – Sales tax rates106 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Markups Analysis Key Assumptions

• Analysis focuses on markups applied by the OEM and Retailer.

– ODM markups calculated as part of the Engineering Analysis (chapter 5)



## • Distribution can be complex – but the price is set by the most common path to market (illustrated above).107 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Markups Analysis How Were Markups Calculated?



# • Limited data available on markups.

• Obtained data on corporate gross margins from public financial filings of 83 end - use product manufacturers, 

# retailers, and other distributors.

• Used average markups for these companies as a proxy for BC/EPS markups.



# • For each application, combined markups of typical companies at each stage in the distribution chain to 

# arrive at a composite markup.108 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Markups Analysis A Hypothetical Example

Baseline Product (CSL 0) Efficient Product (e.g., CSL 1) 

## Baseline Markup:

- Relates the MSP to the retail price prior to a change in efficiency. 

## Incremental Markup:

- Relates the increase in MSP that results from an efficiency improvement to the retail price.

-Only covers costs that 

### increase with an increase in efficiency.

- Labor and occupancy 

### costs do not scale, so these are not marked up further.109 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Markups Analysis Average Markups Baseline Markup Incremental

Markup OEM 1.48 1.18 Retailer 1.47 1.13 Sales Tax 1.07 1.07 Composite 2.33 1.43110 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Markups Analysis Issues for Comment Item 18. DOE seeks comment on its treatment of the market path, markups, and MSP estimates. Item 29. DOE seeks comment on the accuracy of its 

## distribution models for battery chargers and EPSs, as well as its estimates of battery charger and EPS markups. To the 

## extent that these models and estimates can be improved, DOE seeks specific suggestions and supporting data.111 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • Break 12:15- 1:15 PM 

# BREAK - LUNCH112 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Public Meeting Agenda

2 3 

## 4 Background and Legal Authority

5 Market Assessment 2 

## Tech Assessment, Screening, and Engineering 3 4 

## 1 Overview

5 Energy Use; Markups Analysis Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 

## 6 Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis Environmental Impacts Results and Proposed Standards 7 8113 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Life-Cycle Cost and 

# Payback Period Analysis

Consumer Life Cycle Cost (Baseline and Standard) 

## LCC impacts (difference between baseline and standard) 

## Operating Cost (Sum & discount to present value) 

## Installed Cost (Consumer Price & Installation) 

# • Purpose

– Assess the net LCC and PBP impacts on a consumer due to energy conservation standards.



# • Method

– LCC equals consumer price plus the sum of annual operating costs discounted to a particular base year.



## – Results expressed as LCC difference (baseline minus standard level).



## – Simple Payback (years) is also calculated and reported.114 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Changes from Preliminary Analysis • A weighted average of residential and commercial 

# sectors was used as the reference case, rather than the commercial sector being a sensitivity 

# • Base case market efficiency distributions specific to each application were derived and included in the analysis 

# Life-Cycle Cost and 

# Payback Period Analysis115 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • External Power Supply Results

Representative Unit Average LCC Savings (2010$) 2.5W AC- DC, Basic Voltage 0.04 18W AC- DC , Basic Voltage 0.69 60W AC- DC, Basic Voltage -0.45 120W AC- DC, Basic Voltage 0.61 203W, Multiple Voltage 2.07 345W, High- Power 129.08 

# Life-Cycle Cost and 

# Payback Period Analysis116 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Product Class Product Class Description Average LCC Savings (2010$) 1 Low Energy, Inductive 1.52 2 Low Energy, Low Voltage 0.16 3 Low Energy, Med. Voltage 0.35 4 Low Energy, High Voltage 0.43 5 Med Energy, Low Voltage 33.79 6 Med. Energy, High Voltage 40.78 7 High Energy 38.26 8 Low Energy, Low Voltage DC Input 3.04 9 Low Energy, High Voltage DC Input --- 10 Low Energy, AC Output 8.30 

## • Battery Charger Results 

# Life-Cycle Cost and 

# Payback Period Analysis117 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Public Meeting Agenda

2 3 

## 4 Background and Legal Authority

5 Market Assessment 2 

## Tech Assessment, Screening, and Engineering 3 4 

## 1 Overview

5 Energy Use; Markups Analysis Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 

## 6 Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis Environmental Impacts Results and Proposed Standards 7 8118 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • Purpose

– To forecast the number and efficiency of BCs and EPSs which 

## would be shipped between 2013 and 2042, both with and without standards, for use in the national impact analysis



# • Outputs

– Shipments Forecast: the number of BCs and EPSs in each product class shipped each year between 2013 and 2042

– Efficiency Forecast: the percent of shipments in each product class each year at each efficiency level 

# Shipments Analysis Overview119 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • Account for changes from 2009 to 2013, when standards are assumed to take effect

– Shipment volumes

– Efficiency improvements due to exogenous factors



# • Account for changes after standards take effect

– Base case can change due to changes in shipments and product efficiency (independent of federal standards)

– Standards case will shift efficiency distributions and may impact product shipments. 

# Shipments Analysis Basic Structure120 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • Several adjustments to account for major market trends occurring between 2009 and 2013

• Growth rate of 0.75 percent annually after 2013 (mirrors 

# population growth)

• No change over time in the mix of applications

• No difference between base case and standards cases

– Functionality of BCs and EPSs limit options for substitution

– Incremental price increases induced by standards generally very small relative to the total cost of the end - use product 

# Shipments Analysis Assumptions121 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • Modest improvement in EPS efficiency due to standards in Europe • Beginning Feb. 1, 2013, consumer battery chargers sold in California 

## will need to meet CEC’s BC efficiency standards

– Less efficient products will remain on the market outside of CA



## – 13 percent of U.S. market will shift to meet CEC standards (corresponding to CA’s share of GDP) 

# Shipments Analysis Short Term Efficiency Forecast Assumptions

BC Product Class CSL that Best Approximates the CEC Standard 1 CSL 0 2 CSL 2 3 CSL 2 4 CSL 2 5 CSL 3 6 CSL 3 7 CSL 1 8 CSL 0 10 CSL 3122 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Shipments Analysis EPS Base Case Market Efficiency Distributions PC B (2.5W) : 2009 PC B (2.5W) : 2013 PC B ( 1 8W) : 2009 PC B ( 1 8W) : 2013 PC B (60W) : 2009 PC B (60W) : 2013 PC B ( 1 20W) : 2009 PC B ( 1 20W) : 2013 PC C: 2009 PC C: 2013 PC D : 2009 PC D : 2013 PC E: 2009 PC E: 2013 PC X : 2009 PCX: 2013 PC H : 2009 PC H : 2013 3 % 3 %

• CSL 0 D CSLl D CSL 2 • CSL3123 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Shipments Analysis BC Base Case Market Efficiency Distributions PC 1: 2009 PC 1: 2013 PC 2: 2009 PC 2: 2013 PC 3 : 2009 PC 3 : 2013 PC 4: 2009 PC 4: 2013 PC 5: 2009 PC 5: 2013 PC 6: 2009 PC 6: 2013 PC 7: 2009 PC 7: 2013 PC 8 : 2009 PC 8: 2013 PC 10: 2009 PC 10: 2013 • CSL 0 D CSLl D CSL 2 • CSL3 3 % 3 %124 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Year Scenario Percent of Market at Each Efficiency Level (BC Product Class 2) 

## CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 2009 Current Market 21% 26% 51% 3% -
2013 Base Case (No Standard) 18% 22% 57% 3% -

Standards Case CSL 1 - 40% 57% 3% - 

### Standards Case CSL 2 - - 97% 3% - Standards Case CSL 3 - - - 100% - Standards Case CSL 4 - - - - 100% 

# Shipments Analysis Roll - Up Market Response to Standards

• Products below standard will “roll - up” to comply with standards. 

## • Products at or above the standard will be not be affected. • Efficiency assumed not to change between 2013 and 2042.125 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Shipments Analysis Issues for Comment Item 19. DOE seeks comment on its use of a roll - up market response to 

## standards. Item 20. DOE seeks comment on whether, and to what extent, battery charger efficiency would be likely to improve in the absence of standards. Item 21. DOE seeks comment on its assumptions about the extent to which, if at all, EPS efficiency will improve for product classes B, C, D, E, X and H in the absence of mandatory standards, both prior to and after 2013. Item 24. DOE seeks comment on its estimate that shipments of EPSs and 

## battery chargers are inelastic and on other elasticity assumptions DOE has made. Item 25. DOE seeks comment on its assumption that substitution impacts for EPSs and battery chargers are negligible.126 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • Purpose

– To estimate the national impacts of standards for BCs and EPSs 

## shipped between 2013 and 2042


# • Outputs

– National Energy Savings (NES) – Primary energy savings



## – Net Consumer Benefits (NCB) – Energy cost savings less incremental product cost increases



## – Net Social Benefits (NSB) – Consumer benefits plus social benefits of avoided emissions 

# National Impact Analysis Overview127 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# National Impact Analysis Inputs Input Source Unit Energy Consumption at each Efficiency Level Energy Use Analysis Unit Cost at each Efficiency Level Engineering Analysis and Markups Analysis Shipment Forecast Shipments Analysis Lifetime Market Assessment 

## Efficiency Forecast Shipments Analysis Electricity Prices EIA , Annual Energy Outlook through 2030 (Extrapolated for years after 2030) 

## Site-to- Source Conversion Factor EIA , Annual Energy Outlook 2010 Value of Emissions Reductions Environmental Assessment Discount Rate 3% and 7% 

## (OMB Regulatory Analysis Guideline A-4)128 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# For each product class in each standards case: 1. Calculate the per- unit cost increase and the per- unit energy savings due to a standard 

# 2. Calculate the number of units in use and energy savings each year from 2013 to 2052

– 30 years of shipments between 2013 and 2042

– Maximum lifetime of 10 years 

# 3. Combine the above to determine NES and NCB 

# National Impact Analysis General Approach129 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## EPS Product Class B (AC- DC, Basic Voltage), 2.5W Rep Unit (3% discount rate) 

# National Impact Analysis Net Consumer Savings Example130 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# National Impact Analysis National Energy Savings in Context

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Direct Heating Equipment (2011) External Power

Supplies Battery Chargers Small Electric Motors (2010) Water Heaters

(2010) Residential

Furnaces & Boilers (2011) Residential

Refrigerators & Freezers (2011) Fluorescent

Lamp Ballasts (2011)National Energy Savings (quads)131 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • Price elasticity of demand

– Explored an alternative scenario in which shipment volume 

## decreases in response to price increases induced by standards



# • CEC standards as de facto national BC standard

– Efficiency distributions adjusted to reflect this scenario



# • Alternative electricity price trend forecasts

– Two alternative scenarios analyzed based on AEO indexes: low and high economic growth



# • Product price trends

– Assumes incremental product costs decrease over time 

# National Impact Analysis Four Sensitivity Analyses132 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# National Impact Analysis Issues for Comment Item 26. DOE seeks comment on the methodology employed for conducting the National Impact Analysis, including the 

## calculations of National Inventory, National Energy Savings, and Net Present Value.133 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# As directed by Executive Order 12866, DOE evaluated non 

# regulatory alternatives to proposed standards: • Consumer Rebates • Consumer Tax Credits 

# • Manufacturer Tax Credits • Voluntary Energy Efficiency Targets 

# • Early Replacement • Bulk Government Purchases None were found to be as beneficial as standards. See Chapter 17 of the TSD for methodology and results. 

# Regulatory Impact Analysis Evaluation of Policy Alternatives134 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • Purpose

– To assess the impacts of standards on manufacturers;

– To identify and estimate impacts on manufacturer subgroups that may be 

## more severely affected than the industry as a whole; and

– To examine the direct employment, product competition, manufacturing 

## capacity, and cumulative regulatory impacts on the industry.



## • Methodology

– Analyze industry cash flow and industry net present value (INPV) through use of the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM); and

– Interview manufacturers to refine inputs to the GRIM, develop subgroup analyses, and address qualitative issues. 

# NOPR Manufacturer Impact Analysis Overview135 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • Phase 1

– DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the market and identify 

## important issues that require further investigation. 

## • Phase 2

– DOE prepares an industry cash flow model and an interview questionnaire to guide subsequent discussions with manufacturers. 

## • Phase 3

– DOE interviews manufacturers and assesses the impacts of standards 

## both quantitatively (using the GRIM) and qualitatively (impacts on employment, competition, manufacturing capacity, and regulatory burden). 

# NOPR Manufacturer Impact Analysis Methodology

Industry profile Develop

straw- man GRIM Develop

interview guide Interviews

& industry subgroup analyses Assess

employment, competition , capacity, & regulatory burdens 

### Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 1136 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • Product Groupings

– Some manufacturers expressed concern that requiring different applications within a product class to meet the same standard could be disadvantageous 

## to some applications relative to others.



# • Competition for Substitutes

– Standards could push consumers to choose close substitutes of applications that are alternatively powered (e.g. gasoline, disposable batteries, power cord).



# • Test Procedures Concerns

– For some applications, manufacturers expressed concerns about the test procedure’s ability to separate the battery charging function from the other functions (e.g. UPSs). 

# NOPR Manufacturer Impact Analysis Key Issues (1 of 2)137 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • Separate Regulation of Battery Chargers and EPSs

– Applications shipped with both a battery charger and an EPS could be subject to regulations for both components.



# • Profitability Impacts

– Cost increases could be partly absorbed by the OEMs and could reduce 

## their overall profitability.

– Similarly, conversion costs may not be recouped through higher selling 

## prices.



# • Potential Changes to Product Utility

– Some manufacturers expressed concern that standards could pressure them to remove energy consuming features. 

# NOPR Manufacturer Impact Analysis Key Issues (2 of 2)138 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • In general, DOE evaluated application manufacturers in the 

# battery charger MIA.

– DOE believes application manufacturers would be the party most directly 

## financially impacted by any energy conservation standards.

– Also, OEMs typically design the battery charger and would certify compliance with any DOE regulations .


# • DOE assigned all battery charger applications to one of four i ndustry subgroups and collected financial parameters specific to 

# each in order to better characterize the differential impacts among the subgroups. 

# NOPR Manufacturer Impact Analysis Battery Charger Industry Subgroups

All Covered Battery Charger Applications Small Appliances Consumer

Electronics Power

Tools High

Energy139 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE modeled several p rofitability (markup) scenarios.

– Two profitability scenarios were included in the EPS analysis: • flat markup and preservation of operating profit markup.



## – Three profitability scenarios were included in the battery charger analysis: • flat markup; pass through markup; and constant price markup. 

# NOPR Manufacturer Impact Analysis Markup Scenarios Analyzed

Lower Bound Profitability Scenario (Most Severe for Manufacturers) Upper Bound Profitability Scenario (Least Severe for Manufacturers) EPSs Preservation of Operating 

### Profit Markup Scenario Flat Markup Scenario Battery Chargers Constant Price Markup Scenario Flat Markup Scenario140 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • In addition to the markup scenario selected, three main factors drive the standards case INPV at each TSL.

– The application’s current efficiency distribution;



## – The conversion costs;

– And the relative incremental increase in the battery charger compared to the 

## application MPC (for battery chargers).


# • DOE’s assumptions about conversion costs were driven by three main factors.

– The share of products within each application that fall below the standard level (based on the application efficiency distribution);



## – The magnitude of the technology change from one CSL to a higher CSL (based on feedback from manufacturer interviews);



## – And the normal research and development and capital expenditure costs in the base case (based on financial inputs from the MIA). 

# NOPR Manufacturer Impact Analysis Main Factors Driving INPV141 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# NOPR Manufacturer Impact Analysis External Power Supply INPV Results (1 of 2)



# • EPS Product Classes B, C, D, & E (Lower – Upper Bound) Units Base Case Trial Standard Level 1 2 3 INPV (2010$ millions) 231.9 169.4 – 193.0 150.5 – 196.7 108.4 – 249.8 Change in INPV (2010$ millions) - (62.5) – (38.9) (81.4) – (35.2) (123.5) – 17.9 (%) - (26.9%) – (16.8%) (35.1%) – (15.2%) (53.2%) – 7.7% Product Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 29.1 34.5 36.3 Capital Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 32.2 38.1 40.1 Total Investment Required (2010$ millions) - 61.4 72.6 76.4 Proposed TSLs142 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# NOPR Manufacturer Impact Analysis External Power Supply INPV Results (2 of 2)



# • EPS Product Class X (Lower – Upper Bound)

• EPS Product Class H (Lower – Upper Bound) Units Base Case Trial Standard Level 1 2 3 INPV (2010$ millions) 44.1 43.4 – 43.7 31.4 – 32.2 26.3 – 39.6 Change in INPV (2010$ millions) - (0.7) – (0.4) (12.8) – (12.0) (17.9) – (4.6) (%) - (1.7%) – (1.0%) (28.9%) – (27.1%) (40.5%) – (10.3%) Product Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 0.3 6.9 6.9 Capital Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 0.4 7.6 7.6 Total Investment Required (2010$ millions) - 0.7 14.4 14.4 Units Base Case Trial Standard Level 1 2 3 INPV (2010$ millions) 0.11 0.06 – 0.07 0.06 – 0.07 0.06 – 0.08 Change in INPV (2010$ millions) - (0.05) – (0.04) (0.05) – (0.04) (0.05) – (0.03) (%) - (45.5%) – (32.7%) (44.0%) – (33.8%) (47.3%) – (24.4%) Product Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 0.02 0.02 0.02 Capital Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 0.02 0.02 0.02 Total Investment Required (2010$ millions) - 0.05 0.05 0.05143 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# NOPR Manufacturer Impact Analysis Battery Charger INPV Results (1 of 3)


# • Battery Charger Product Class 1 (Lower – Upper Bound)



# • Battery Charger Product Classes 2, 3, & 4 (Lower – Upper Bound) Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 INPV (2010$ millions) 43,808 – 44,492 38,911 –

44,506 37,752 –

44, 625 32,944 –

45,020 29,246 –

45,467 Change in INPV (2010$ millions) - (4, 897) – 15 (6,055) – 134 (10,863) – 528 (14,562) – 975 (%) - (11.2%) – 0.0% (13.8%) –

0.3% (24.8%) – 1.2% (33.2%) – 2.2% Product Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 7.1 25.5 160.8 294.5 Capital Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 1.3 6.1 45.4 60.5 Total Investment Required (2010$ millions) - 8.4 31.6 206.2 355.0 Units Base Case Trial Standard Level 1 2 3 INPV (2010$ millions) 491 450 – 492 390 – 493 51 – 520 Change in INPV (2010$ millions) - (41) – 1 (101) – 1 (441) – 29 (%) - (8.4%) - 0.1% (20.6%) - 0.3% (89.7%) - 5.9% Product Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 0.8 1.9 4.3 Capital Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 0.0 1.8 2.0 Total Investment Required (2010$ millions) - 0.8 3.7 6.3144 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# NOPR Manufacturer Impact Analysis Battery Charger INPV Results (2 of 3)


# • Battery Charger Product Classes 5 & 6 (Lower – Upper Bound)

• Battery Charger Product Class 7 (Lower – Upper Bound) Units Base Case Trial Standard Level 1 2 3 INPV (2010$ millions) 1,549 – 1,584 1,226 – 1,589 1,324 – 1,543 235 – 2,275 Change in INPV (2010$ millions) - (327) – 6 (225) – (40) (1,314) – 692 (%) - (21.0%) – 0.3% (14.5%) – (2.5%) (84.8%) – 43.7% Product Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 1.8 9.8 16.3 Capital Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 0.0 2.1 4.6 Total Investment Required (2010$ millions) - 1.8 11.9 20.9
Units Base Case Trial Standard Level 1 2 INPV (2010$ millions) 1,034 – 1,039 1,030 – 1,086 903 – 1,057 Change in INPV (2010$ millions) - (4) – 47 (136) – 23 (%) - (0.4%) – 4 .5% (13.1%) – 2.2% Product Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 0.6 2.6 Capital Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 0.2 1.5 Total Investment Required (2010$ millions) - 0.7 4.1145 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# NOPR Manufacturer Impact Analysis Battery Charger INPV Results (3 of 3)


# • Battery Charger Product Class 8 (Lower – Upper Bound)

• Battery Charger Product Class 10 (Lower – Upper Bound) Units Base Case Trial Standard Level 1 2 3 INPV (2010$ millions) 5,703 5,628 – 7,002 5,707 – 5,781 5,642 – 5,672 Change in INPV (2010$ millions) - (75) – 1,300 4 – 78 (61) – (30) (%) - (1.3%) – 22.8% 0.1% - 1.4% (1.1%) – (0.5%) Product Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 13.2 35.8 79.5 Capital Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 0.0 6.1 6.8 Total Investment Required (2010$ millions) - 13.2 41.9 86.3
Units Base Case Trial Standard Level 1 2 3 INPV (2010$ millions) 612 – 614 532 – 614 512 – 612 487 – 609 Change in INPV (2010$ millions) - (81) – (0) (100) – (2) (126) – (5) (%) - (13.2%) – (0.1%) (16.4%) – (0.4%) (20.5%) – (0.9%) Product Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 0.7 2.2 4.5 Capital Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) - 0.0 0.4 1.5 Total Investment Required (2010$ millions) - 0.7 2.6 6.0146 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE searched several publicly available databases to identify 

# any potential battery charger or EPS domestic small business manufacturers.

– These included the Small Business Administration (SBA), DOE’s Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS), various trade association lists, Hoovers, and Dun & Bradstreet.


# • DOE’s small b usiness screening process: 

# NOPR Manufacturer Impact Analysis Small Business Impacts



# > 1000 ~300 38 1 Initial list of potential battery charger



## and EPS manufacturers Manufacturers with fewer than 500 

## employees selling covered products US owned and operated manufacturers Actual small business ODMs based on calls and further analysis147 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • DOE found no significant impact on employment based on its 

# domestic employment and small business searches.

– DOE believes there are fewer than 100 US employees that could be affected 

## by battery charger standards.

– There are no EPS manufacturers with domestic manufacturing.

– There is only one battery charger manufacturer with domestic manufacturing. 

# NOPR Manufacturer Impact Analysis Employment Impacts

Issue for Comment: Direct Employment & Small Business Impacts DOE requests comment on any known domestic EPS manufacturers and any 

## additional domestic battery charger manufacturers, and whether they qualify as a small business.148 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Public Meeting Agenda

2 3 

## 4 Background and Legal Authority

5 Market Assessment 2 

## Tech Assessment, Screening, and Engineering 3 4 

## 1 Overview

5 Energy Use; Markups Analysis Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 

## 6 Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis Impacts Summary Results and Proposed Standards 7 8149 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Employment Impact Analysis Purpose • Assess the overall impact on national employment from the 

## considered efficiency levels. • Focus on indirect employment impacts.

– Indirect employment impacts result from shifting consumer expenditures among goods and services and changing equipment and energy costs.



## – Direct employment impacts are estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis. 

## Method • DOE used the Impact of Sector Energy Technologies (ImSET) 

## model for the evaluation of indirect employment impacts. (Note: ImSET is an update of IMBUILD)150 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Employment Impact Analysis

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3

Thousands Product Class B 2015 

### 2020 -04 to 0.5



### -0.1 to 0.7 - 1.1 to 0.5



### -0.8 to 1.0 -5.1 to 0.4



### -4.4 to 1.2 Product Classes B, C, D, and E 2015 2020 -0.6 to 0.4

-0.2 to 0.9 - 1.4 to 0.6

-0.9 to 1.2 -5.6 to 0.5

-4.8 to 1.6 Product Class X 2015 2020 0.0 to 0.1 0.1 0.0 to 0.1

0.1 -0.7 to 0.0

-0.6 to 0.1 

### Product Class H 2015 2020 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 

## • Example: Net Increase in Jobs from Indirect Employment Effects Under External Power Supply TSLs.151 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Utility Impact Analysis Purpose • Assess selected impacts on energy supply that would result from the 

## imposition of standards.

• The Department used the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) - Building Technologies (BT), a variant of the NEMS used by EIA for 

## their AEO report, as the basis of the Utility Impact Analysis. • DOE modeled the energy savings impacts from the considered 

## standard levels using NEMS - BT to generate forecasts that deviate from the AEO reference case. 

## • Outputs of the utility impact analysis include forecasts of electricity generation and avoided capacity resulting from the considered 

## standard levels. Method152 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Utility Impact Analysis

• Example: Reduction in Electric Generating Capacity in 2042 Under 

## Considered External Power Supply TSLs TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3

Gigawatts 

### Product Class B 0.255 0.404 0.734 Product 

### Classes B, C, D, and E 

### 0.326 0.510 0.893 Product Class X 0.035 0.040 0.082 Product Class H 0.001 0.001 0.001153 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Emissions Analysis Purpose • To report environmental impacts resulting from amended energy conservation standards, including changes in power plant emissions as well as site emissions from the use of gas and oil 

## furnaces. Method • DOE assessed the environmental impacts using NEMS - BT.

– The result is an estimate of national emission reductions of CO2 

## , NOx

## , and mercury.

– Estimates site SO 2 

## and NOx 

## emitted by fossil -fuel fired appliances using emissions factors.154 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Emissions Analysis

• Example: Cumulative Emissions Reduction for 2013 - 2042 Under External Power Supply TSLs TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 Product Class B CO2 

### (Mt) 

### NOX 

### (kt) Hg(t) 21.7 

### 17.9 0.115 34.3



### 28.4 0.182 62.5



### 51.6 0.331 Product Classes B, C, D, and E CO2 

### (Mt) NOX 

### (kt) 

### Hg(t) 27.5 22.7 

### 0.145 43.0

35.5 

### 0.227 75.4

62.3 

### 0.398 Product Class X CO2 

### (Mt) 

### NOX 

### (kt) Hg(t) 2.95 

### 2.43 0.015 3.38



### 2.79 0.018 6.92



### 5.71 0.036 Product Class H 

### CO2 

### (Mt) NOX 

### (kt) Hg(t) 

### 0.054 0.045 0.000 

### 0.058

0.048 0.000 

### 0.065

0.053 0.000155 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Monetization of Emission Reductions Purpose • To estimate the potential monetary benefit of reduced power plant 

## emissions resulting from the considered standard levels. Method 

## • DOE used the most current Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) values developed through interagency reviews.

– SCC is intended to be a monetary measure of the incremental damage resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including but not 

## limited to agricultural productivity loss, human health effects, property damage from rising sea level, and changes in the ecosystem. 

## • At present, the most recent interagency estimates of the potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO 2 

## emissions in 2010 are $4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton in 2010 dollars. • For emission reductions that occur in later years, these values grow in real terms over time.156 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Monetization of Emission Reductions

• Example: External Power Supply Product Classes B, C, D, and E: Estimates of Global Present Value of Cumulative CO 2 

## Emissions Reduction

Estimates of Present Value of Cumulative NO X 

## Emissions Reduction

TSL $4.9/t $22.3/t $36.5/t $67.6/t Million 2010$ 1 116 572 960 1,746 

### 2 182 895 1,501 2,731 3 319 1,568 2,631 4,785 

### TSL $450/t $2,537/t $4,623/t Million 2010$ 

### Discount rate 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 1 6 4 37 20 67 37 

### 2 10 6 57 32 104 54 3 18 10 100 56 183 102157 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# • Break 2:30-2:45 PM 

# BREAK158 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Public Meeting Agenda

2 3 

## 4 Background and Legal Authority

5 Market Assessment 2 

## Tech Assessment, Screening, and Engineering 3 4 

## 1 Overview

5 Energy Use; Markups Analysis Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 

## 6 Shipments, NIA, RIA, and MIA Analysis Impacts Summary Results and Proposed Standards 7 8159 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards EPS Product Class B AC-DC, Basic Voltage External Power Supplies
TSL 2 Proposed
Nameplate Output Power [W] Maximum Power in No- Load [W]

EISA TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 0 to ≤49 watts 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.039 >49 watts 0.23 0.21 0.089160 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards EPS Product Classes B, C, D, and E External Power Supplies in Product Classes B, C, D, and E

TSL 2 Proposed

Nameplate Output Power [W] Maximum Power in No- Load [W]

CSL 0 TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 AC- DC AC-AC AC- DC AC-AC AC- DC AC-AC AC- DC AC-AC 0 to ≤49 watts 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.23 0.1 0.21 0.039 0.089 >49 watts 0.23 0.21 0.089161 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards EPS Product Class B Average Life-Cycle Costs (2010$) Total Shipments: 193 million • N ot e b ooks

LA N E q ui p m e n t • A n swe rin g Mac hin es • Co rd l ess Ph o n es • V i deo Game Co n so l es • Mob il e Ph o n es • Di g it a l Pi ctur e Fra m es • Oth e r App li ca ti o n s Efficiency Distributions 2.SW 49% 60 2 %



# - 1 8W ·2 0 % =» ci. 

## " 60W 0:: 17° 1 % 1 20W - --''''''''= - 3% $1 .8 $1 .6 $1 .4 $1 . 2 $1 .0 $0 .8 $0 .6 $0 .4 $0 . 2 $0 .0 2.5W Rep. Unit

- Avg . Installed Price AVQ. Operating Cost $7 .0 $6 .0 $5 .0 $4 . 0 $3 .0 $2 .0 $1 .0 $0 .0 60W Rep. Unit

- AvQ . Installed Price AVQ. Operating Cost $ 70 $ 60 $5.0 $4.0 $ 3 .0 $ 2 .0 $ 1 .0 $0 .0 18WRep. Unit

- AvQ . Ins t alled Price AVQ . Operating Cost $ 120 $10 .0

$80 $60 $4.0 $ 2 .0 $0 .0 120WRep.Unit

CSL 0 CSL 1

- AvQ . Ins t alled Price AVQ . Operating Cost162 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards EPS Product Class B

Projected National Impacts of Proposed Standard (TSL 2) National energy savings 0.7246 quads Consumer NPV $1,138 million (3% discount rate) Change in industry NPV $81 million to $35 million CO2 emissions savings $710 million (3% discount rate) Net Social Benefits $1,894 million (3% discount rate) TSL 2 represents CSL 3 in product class B.163 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Product Classes B, C, D, and E

CSLs in product classes C, D, and E were scaled from product class B. Net social benefits are still maximized at TSL 2 when product classes B, C, D, and E are considered as a whole. Product Class B Net Social Benefits (2010$ millions)

1 ,89 4
TSL1 TSL2
-1 ,920

- 3% di sco unt rate - 7 % di sc ount rate B, C, D, and E Combined Net Social Benefits (2010$ millions)
2 ,47 8

TSL1 TSL2 -1 ,3 1 5

- 3% di sco unt rate - 7% di sco unt rate164 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards EPS Product Classes X and H Multiple-Voltage and High Power External Power Supplies

TSL 2 Proposed



# Multiple-Voltage High Power Maximum Power in No- Load [W] Efficiency Levels

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 Multiple-Voltage 0.4 0.3 0.3 High Power (<250W) 0.5 0.5 0.266165 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards EPS Product Class X Product Class X: Multiple Voltage 

### Annual Shipments : 7.7 million video game consoles

TSL 2 represents CSL 2 in product class X. Projected National Impacts of Proposed Standard (TSL 2) National energy savings 0.0718 quads Consumer NPV $330 million (3% discount rate) Change in industry NPV $12.8 million to $12.0 million CO2 emissions savings $70 millions (3% discount rate) Net Social Benefits $405 million (3% discount rate)166 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards EPS Product Class H Product Class H: High Power (>250W) 

### Annual Shipments : 3,000 amateur radios

TSL 2 represents CSL 3 in product class H. Projected National Impacts of Proposed Standard (TSL 2) National energy savings 0.0014 quads Consumer NPV $9.7 million (3% discount rate) Change in industry NPV $0.05 million to $0.04 million CO2 emissions savings $1.3 million (3% discount rate) Net Social Benefits $11.1 million (3% discount rate)167 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 1

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 UEC ( kWh/yr )

Battery Energy (Wh)



## UEC vs Battery Energy Product Class 1 TSL 0 TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3



### PC 1 Low- Energy, Inductive 3.04 kWh/yr TSL 2 Proposed168 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 1 AC input/ DC output, battery energy <100 Wh , inductive connection169 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 1

Projected National Impacts of Proposed Standard (TSL 2) National energy savings 0.596 quads Consumer NPV $4,648 million (3% discount rate) Change in industry NPV $225 million to $40 million CO2 emissions savings $127 million (3% discount rate) Net Social Benefits $5,264 million (3% discount rate) TSL 2 represents CSL 2 in product class 1.170 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 2

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

0 5 10 15 20 UEC ( kWh/yr )

Battery Energy (Wh)



## UEC vs Battery Energy Product Class 2 TSL 0 TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4



### PC 2 Low- Energy, Low-Voltage = 0.2095(Ebatt*) + 5.87 TSL 1 Proposed171 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 3

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 UEC ( kWh/yr )

Battery Energy (Wh)



## UEC vs Battery Energy Product Class 3 TSL 0 TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3

PC 3 Low- Energy, Medium -Voltage For Ebatt < 9.74 Wh, = 4.68 For Ebatt ≥ 9.74 Wh, = 0.0933(Ebatt) + 3.77 TSL 1 Proposed172 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 4

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 UEC ( kWh/yr )

Battery Energy (Wh)



## UEC vs Battery Energy Product Class 4 TSL 0 TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3

TSL 1 Proposed

PC 4 Low- Energy, High-Voltage For Ebatt < 9.71 Wh, = 9.03 For Ebatt ≥ 9.71 Wh, = 0.2411(Ebatt) + 6.69173 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Classes 2, 3, and 4 AC input/ DC output, battery energy < 100 Wh , non-inductive connection174 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Classes 2, 3, and 4

Product Class 2 Product Class 3 Product Class 4 Average Life-Cycle Costs (2010$)

Projected National Impacts of Proposed Standards (TSL 1) National energy savings 0.309 quads Consumer NPV $1,255 million (3% discount rate) Change in industry NPV $5 million to $15 million CO2 emissions savings $302 million (3% discount rate) Net Social Benefits $1,576 million (3% discount rate) TSL 1 represents CSL 1 in product classes 2, 3, and 4.175 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 5

PC5 Medium - Energy, Low-Voltage For Ebatt < 355.18 Wh, = 20.06 For Ebatt ≥ 355.18 Wh, = 0.0219(Ebatt) + 12.28 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00

100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 UEC ( kWh/yr )

Battery Energy (Wh)



## UEC vs Battery Energy Product Class 5 TSL 0 TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3

TSL 2 Proposed176 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 6

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 UEC ( kWh/yr )

Battery Energy (Wh)



## UEC vs Battery Energy Product Class 6 TSL 0 TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3

PC 6 Medium - Energy, High-Voltage For Ebatt < 239.48 Wh = 0.37 For Ebatt ≥ 239.48 Wh = 0.0495(Ebatt) + 18.51

TSL 2 Proposed177 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Classes 5 and 6 AC input/ DC output, battery energy 100 – 3000 Wh178 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Classes 5 and 6 Product Class 5 Product Class 6 Average Life-Cycle Costs (2010$)

Projected National Impacts of Proposed Standards (TSL 2) National energy savings 0.596 quads Consumer NPV $4,648 million (3% discount rate) Change in industry NPV $225 million to $40 million CO2 emissions savings $580 million (3% discount rate) Net Social Benefits $5,264 million (3% discount rate) TSL 2 represents CSL 2 in product classes 5 and 6.179 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 7

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 450.00

3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 UEC ( kWh/yr )

Battery Energy (Wh) 

## UEC vs Battery Energy Product Class 7 TSL 0 TSL 1 TSL 2

PC 7 High- Energy = 0.502(Ebatt) + 4.53 TSL 1 Proposed180 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 7 AC input/ DC output , 

## battery energy >3,000 Wh Annual Shipments : 210,000 golf carts181 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 7

Projected National Impacts of Proposed Standard (TSL 1) National energy savings 0.0067 quads Consumer NPV $119 million (3% discount rate) Change in industry NPV $4 million to $47 million CO2 emissions savings $6.4 million (3% discount rate) Net Social Benefits $126 million (3% discount rate) TSL 1 represents CSL 1 in product class 7.182 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 8

8 Low-Voltage DC Input 0.66 kWh/yr

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 UEC ( kWh/yr )

Battery Energy (Wh)



## UEC vs Battery Energy Product Class 8 TSL 0 TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 1 Proposed183 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 8 DC input/ DC output, battery voltage <9V184 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 8

Projected National Impacts of Proposed Standard (TSL 1) National energy savings 0.0096 quads Consumer NPV $2,780 million (3% discount rate) Change in industry NPV $75 million to $1,300 million CO2 emissions savings $9.4 million (3% discount rate) Net Social Benefits $2,790 million (3% discount rate) TSL 1 represents CSL 1 in product class 7.185 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 10a

- 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 UEC (kWh/yr)



### Battery Energy (Wh)



## UEC vs. Battery Energy Product Class 10a TSL 0 TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3

10a AC Output (w/out AVR) For Ebatt < 37.2 Wh = 2.54 For Ebatt ≥ 37.2 Wh = 0.0733(Ebatt) – 0.18 TSL 3 Proposed186 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 10b

- 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 UEC (kWh/yr)



### Battery Energy (Wh)



## UEC vs. Battery Energy Product Class 10b TSL 0 - AVR TSL 1 - AVR TSL 2 - AVR TSL 3 - AVR

10b AC Output (w/ AVR) For Ebatt < 37.2 Wh = 6.18 For Ebatt ≥ 37.2 Wh = 0.0733(Ebatt) + 3.45

TSL 3 Proposed187 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 10 AC input/ AC output Annual Shipments : 8 million 

## uninterruptible power supplies (UPS)188 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results and Proposed Standards Battery Charger Product Class 10

Projected National Impacts of Proposed Standards (TSL 3) National energy savings 0.3124 quads Consumer NPV $1,550 million (3% discount rate) Change in industry NPV $126 million to $5 million CO2 emissions savings $298 million (3% discount rate) Net Social Benefits $1,866 million (3% discount rate) TSL 3 represents CSL 3 in product class 10.189 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Proposed Standards Issues for Comment Item 1. DOE requests interested party feedback, including any substantive data, regarding today’s proposed standard levels and the potential for lessening of utility or performance related features. Item 8. DOE seeks comment, information, and/or data on whether the 

## proposed standards would impact any features in the regulated products or in their associated complimentary applications. If so, DOE seeks comment as to whether these impacts would impact the utility of either the product or the application, and on whether, how, and to what degree consumer welfare might be impacted by the proposed 

## standards. Item 36. DOE is interested in receiving comments from industry, states, and other interested parties on the best ways to ensure a 

## smooth transition from the battery charger standards established in California to the national standards addressed in this proposed rule. 

## Additional Item. DOE seeks input on the length of the compliance period for battery chargers.190 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Battery Charger Product Class Typical Application Proposed DOE Standard Level (CSL) CSL that Best

Approximates the CEC Standard 1 (low-energy, inductive) Toothbrushes 2 0 2 (low-energy, low-voltage) Mobile and Cordless Phones 1 2 3 (low-energy, medium -voltage) Camcorders, Portable DVD Players 1 2 4 (low-energy, high -voltage) Notebooks, Large Power Tools 1 2 5 (high -energy, low-voltage) Marine Chargers 2 3 6 (high -energy, high -voltage) Scooters, Lawnmowers 2 3 7 (high -energy) Golf Cars 1 1 8 (DC input < 9 V) MP3 Players, Mobile Phones 1 0 10 (AC output) Uninterruptible Power Supplies 3 3 

# Comparing DOE’s Proposed 

# Standards to CEC Levels191 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Comparing DOE’s Proposed 

# Standards to CEC Levels Battery charger product classes 2, 3, and 4192 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Comparing DOE’s Proposed 

# Standards to CEC Levels Battery charger product classes 5 and 6193 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Type of EPS Labeling Requirements Direct 

## Operation All (or higher) 

## Indirect Operation* 

## “Class A” (or higher) 

## “ACME Model No. XXXXXX” (if sold 

## separately) “Non - Class A” 

# Labeling DOE’s Proposal for External Power Supplies

* An indirect operation EPS that meets the more stringent standard required of an 

## otherwise comparable direct operation EPS may follow the marking requirements for direct operation EPSs.194 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Labeling DOE’s Proposal for Battery Chargers



# Denotes compliance with DOE standards 

# Other markings reserved for battery chargers that: BC-I Meet no established standard BC-II Meet a standard less stringent than the DOE standard 

# BC-IV Meet a standard more stringent than the DOE standard195 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Battery Charger Form Factor Location of Marking One housing Any visible location on that housing Three separate housings Component that contains charge control Power supply and charge control together, battery separate Component that contains power supply and charge control Charge control and battery together, power supply separate Component that contains charge control and battery 

# Labeling Other Considerations for Battery Chargers 

# NRDC’s p roposal specifies location of marking:196 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Labeling Issues for Comment Item 35. DOE welcomes comment on any and all issues related to efficiency markings for battery chargers and EPSs.197 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## In all correspondence, please refer to the Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies Energy Conservation Standard 

## Docket Number EERE -2008- BT - STD-0005 and Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904-AB57 

## Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov Email : BC&EPS_ECS@ee.doe.gov 

# Closing Remarks

Postal Mail : 

## Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE -2J 1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

## Washington, DC 20585 -0121 Courier : 

## Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program 950 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W., 6 th 

## Floor 

## Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 586 -2945 Comment period closes May 25th , 2012