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 2nd , 2012

Victor Petrolati
2 | 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 Lunch
3 | 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 Remarks
5 | 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 Participants
6 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Public Meeting Agenda

2

3

4

Background and Legal Authority

5

2 Market Assessment 

3 Tech Assessment, Screening, and Engineering

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

8
7 | 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 Energy
8 | 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 Efficiency
9 | 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 Procedures
10 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Background and Overview

Rulemaking Schedule

BC/EPS Standards

Other BCEPS Rulemaking Activities
11 | 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 analysis
12 | 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

Analysis
13 | 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 

Standards
14 | 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 rates
15 | 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.html
16 | 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 EDT
17 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

• Opening Statements

Opening Comments from Participants
18 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Public Meeting Agenda

2

3

4

Background and Legal Authority

5

2 Market Assessment 

3 Tech Assessment, Screening, and Engineering

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

8
19 | 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 performancerelated features. 

Separate standards must be set for each class.

Market Assessment

Product Classes
20 | 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 Definition
21 | 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

Overlap
22 | 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

Mains EPS

BC Batt.

Other parts 

of the 

Application

Application

Figure 1. EPS that can directly power the application –

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

Mains EPS BC Batt.

Other parts 

of the 

Application

Application

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

Product Class N
24 | 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 E
25 | 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

Yes
26 | 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 Classes
27 | 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 Definition
34 | 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 AVR
35 | 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 Definition
36 | 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 consumption
38 | 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 Assessment
39 | 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 N
41 | 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 10
42 | 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 10
43 | 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 

BREAK
46 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Public Meeting Agenda

2

3

4

Background and Legal Authority

5

2 Market Assessment 

3 Tech Assessment, Screening, and Engineering

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

8
47 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Technology Assessment

Purpose

– Examine factors that affect the efficiency of BCs and EPSs

Outputs

– Technology options for improving efficiency
48 | 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 Metrics
49 | 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 Efficiency
50 | 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 Interference
51 | 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 

efficiency
53 | 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 Out
55 | 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 Efficient
56 | 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 Analysis
57 | 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 costefficiency 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 conversion
59 | 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 CSLs
60 | 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

#949 #118

#941

#604

#645

#805

#809 #814

#818

#891

#900

#903

#906

#912

#915

#918

Intermediate

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

75% 78% 81% 84% 87% No-Load Power [W]

Scaled Average Active-Mode Efficiency [%]

Selected Test 

Units

Additional 

Test Units

Intermediate

Max Tech

CSL0

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

CSL4

Max Tech

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

More Efficient
62 | 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 Efficient
63 | 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

Original 

Efficiency

Original Cost

Scaled Efficiency 

and Cost

Scaling for 

Cord Length

Scaling for 

Output 

Power

Scaling for 

Output 

Voltage

Scaling for 

Cord Length

Scaling for 

Output 

Power

Markups

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 Markups

Bill of 

Materials 

(BOM)

Labor and Utilities

Manufacturer 

Production Cost 

(MPC or “Factory 

Cost”)

Original Equipment 

Manufacturer (OEM)

Manufacturer 

Selling Price 

(MSP)

Retail Price

Consumer Components

Integrated 

Circuit (IC)

Others

EPS Manufacturer 

“Original Device Manufacturer” (ODM)

Retailer
65 | 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 Analysis
68 | 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 Methodology
69 | 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 Analysis
72 | 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 costefficiency 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 AVR
74 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Battery Chargers 

Representative Units

Rep. 

Unit # Product Class VoltageV

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 UPS
75 | 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 experts
76 | 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)

0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 2 0 2 2 2 4 Input Power (Watts)

Time (Hours)

24 Hour Metered Charge Test

24 Hour Energy = Area under the dark 

blue curve (including the red box) 

Battery Energy = Red Box

(Value comes from discharge 

Average Maintenance Mode Power 

= Average input power of the last 4 

hours of the 24 hour metered charge

Charge Time = Time 

when BC enters 

maintenance mode

(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:

•E24 = 24 hour energy 

•Ebatt = Measured battery energy

•Pm = Maintenance mode power

•Psb = Standby mode power

•Poff = Off mode power

•t

c = 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 Calculation
78 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Battery Chargers 

UEC Calculations

Where:

•E24 = 24 hour energy 

•Ebatt = Measured battery energy

•Pm = Maintenance mode power

•Psb = Standby mode power

•Poff = 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 Part 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 Teardowns
82 | 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 Interviews
83 | 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 1.6
84 | 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 (E24)

– Maintenance Mode Power (Pm)

– Standby Mode Power (Psb)

• 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 energies
85 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

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

Battery Energy (Wh)

UEC vs Battery Energy

Product Class 4

UEC_CSL 0

UEC_CSL 1

UEC_CSL 2

UEC_CSL 3

Test Data_Li ion

Test Data_Ni based

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 functionality
87 | 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 3 
88 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Illustration - Basic Pm Adder for UPS

-

0.1 

0.2 

0.3 

0.4 

0.5 

0.6 

0.7 

0.8 

0.9 

1.0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Maintenance Power (W)

Battery Energy (Wh)

P_Maintenance Vs Battery Energy

BIP

Pm - Basic (CSL 2)

Pm - Basic (CSL 3)

Test Data - Basic

Test Data - Basic (OLD)

Rep Unit Battery Energy

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 3
89 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov -

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

3.0 

3.5 

4.0 

4.5 

5.0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Maintenance Power (W)

Battery Energy (Wh)

Proposal for Basic UPS

P_Maintenance Vs Battery Energy

Pm - Basic (CSL 0)

Pm - Basic (CSL 1)

Pm - Basic (CSL 2)

Pm - Basic (CSL 3)

Test Data - Basic

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 10
91 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Public Meeting Agenda

2

3

4

Background and Legal Authority

5

2 Market Assessment 

3 Tech Assessment, Screening, and Engineering

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

8
92 | 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

Overview
93 | 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 Analysis
94 | 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 Approach
95 | 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 26.60
97 | 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

ActiveMode 

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 B
98 | 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 Inputs
99 | 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 4.25
100 | 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

Steps
101 | 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 3.5
104 | 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 rates
106 | 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.

$10.00 

$15.00 

$10.00 

$15.00 

$2.00 

$2.30 

$-

$2 

$4 

$6 

$8 

$10 

$12 

$14 

$16 

$18 

$20 

MSP Retail Price MSP Retail Price

Baseline Markup = 1.50 Incremental Markup = 1.15

$12.00

$17.30
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 1.43
110 | 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 - LUNCH
112 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Public Meeting Agenda

2

3

4

Background and Legal Authority

5

2 Market Assessment 

3 Tech Assessment, Screening, and Engineering

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

8
113 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Life-Cycle Cost and 

Payback Period Analysis

Consumer Life 

Cycle Cost

(Baseline and Standard)

LCC impacts

(difference between

Operating Cost baseline and standard)

(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 Analysis
115 | 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 Analysis
116 | 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 Analysis
117 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Public Meeting Agenda

2

3

4

Background and Legal Authority

5

2 Market Assessment 

3 Tech Assessment, Screening, and Engineering

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

8
118 | 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

Overview
119 | 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 Structure
120 | 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

Assumptions
121 | 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 3
122 | 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 (18W): 2009 

PC B (18W): 2013 

PC B (60W): 2009 

PC B (60W): 2013 

PC B (120W): 2009 

PC B (120W): 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 • CSL3 
123 | 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

Overview
127 | 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 Approach
129 | 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 Example
130 | 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 Analyses
132 | 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 nonregulatory 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 Alternatives
134 | 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

Overview
135 | 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 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
136 | 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 

industry 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 

Energy
139 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

• DOE modeled several profitability (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 Scenario
140 | 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 INPV
141 | 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 TSLs
142 | 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 0.05
143 | 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 6.3
144 | 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 4.1
145 | 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 6.0
146 | 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 business 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 analysis
147 | 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

2 Market Assessment 

3 Tech Assessment, Screening, and Engineering

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

8
149 | 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.

Method
152 | 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 0.001
153 | 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 SO2 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

0.000
155 | 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 CO2 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 CO2 Emissions Reduction

Estimates of Present Value of Cumulative NOX 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 56 183 102
157 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

• Break 2:30-2:45 PM

BREAK
158 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Public Meeting Agenda

2

3

4

Background and Legal Authority

5

2 Market Assessment 

3 Tech Assessment, Screening, and Engineering

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

8
159 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Results and Proposed Standards

EPS Product Class B

AC-DC, Basic Voltage External Power Supplies

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Active-Mode Average Efficiency [%]

Nameplate Output Power [W]

Nameplate Output Power vs Average Active-Mode Efficiency

EISA

TSL 1

TSL 2

TSL 3

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 0.089
160 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Active-Mode Average Efficiency [%]

Nameplate Output Power [W]

Nameplate Output Power vs Average Active-Mode Efficiency

Basic Voltage TSL 3

Low-Voltage TSL 3

Basic Voltage TSL 2

Low-Voltage TSL 2

Basic Voltage TSL 1

Low-Voltage TSL 1

EISA

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 0.089
161 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Results and Proposed Standards

EPS Product Class B

Average Life-Cycle Costs (2010$)

Total Shipments: 193 million 

• Notebooks 

LAN Equipment 

• Answerin g Machines 

• Cordless Phones 

• Video Game Consoles 

• Mobile Phones 

• Digital Pi cture Frames 

• Other Applications 

Efficiency Distributions 

2.SW 49% 60 2% 

- 18W ·2 0% 

=» 

ci. 

0:: " 60W 17° 1% 

120W - --''''''''= - 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 . Installed Price AVQ . Operating Cost 

$120 

$10 .0 

$80 

$60 

$4.0 

$2.0 

$0.0 

120WRep.Unit 

CSL 0 CSL 1 

- AvQ . Installed Price AVQ . Operating Cost 
162 | 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) 

1,894 

TSL1 TSL2 

-1 ,920 

- 3% discount rate - 7% discount rate 

B, C, D, and E Combined 

Net Social Benefits (2010$ millions) 

2,478 

TSL1 TSL2 

-1 ,315 

- 3% discount rate - 7% discount rate 
164 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Active-Mode Average Efficiency [%]

Nameplate Output Power [W]

Nameplate Output Power vs Active-Mode Average Efficiency

Multiple-Voltage TSL 1 and 2

Multiple-Voltage TSL 3

High Power TSL 1

High Power TSL 2

High Power TSL 3

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 0.266
165 | 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 Proposed
168 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Results and Proposed Standards

Battery Charger Product Class 1

AC input/ DC output, battery energy <100 Wh, inductive connection
169 | 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 Proposed
171 | 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 Proposed
172 | 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) + 6.69
173 | 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 connection
174 | 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 Proposed
176 | 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 Proposed
177 | 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 Wh
178 | 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 Proposed
180 | 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 carts 
181 | 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 Proposed
183 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Results and Proposed Standards

Battery Charger Product Class 8

DC input/ DC output, battery voltage <9V
184 | 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 Proposed
186 | 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 Proposed
187 | 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 Levels
191 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Comparing DOE’s Proposed 

Standards to CEC Levels

Battery charger product classes 2, 3, and 4
192 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Comparing DOE’s Proposed 

Standards to CEC Levels

Battery charger product classes 5 and 6
193 | 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 

“Non-Class A” separately)

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 standard
195 | 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 proposal 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., 6th

Floor

Washington, DC 20024 

Telephone: (202) 586-2945

Comment period closes May 25th, 2012