1 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov li r i f i i r 

## 10/12/2010



# BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies Energy Conservation Program Preliminary Analysis October 13, 2010 Pub c Se v ce o Colorado Ponnequ n W nd Fa m
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Department of Energy



## Welcome and Introduction

2 | Building Technologies Program 

### • Introductions

• Role of the Facilitator

• Ground Rules (norms)

– Listen as an ally

– Use short, succinct statements/keep to the point

– Hold sidebar conversations outside the room

– Focus on issues, not personalities

– One person speak at a time (raise hand to be recognized; state your name for the record)



### – Set cell phones to silent/vibrate

• Housekeeping Items

• Agenda Review

• Opening Remarks

eere.energy.gov



## 1

## 10/12/2010



## Listening Via the Webcast Introduction

3 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov • The Department is broadcasting this meeting live over the Internet.

• DOE is providing the webcast to accommodate stakeholders that are unable to attend the public meeting.

• The web broadcast allows stakeholders to listen in and view the slides of the presentations.

• All stakeholders are encouraged to submit written comments after the public meeting.



## Morning Agenda

4 | Building Technologies Program 

### 9:00 – 9:05 am 9:05 – 9:10 am 

### 9:10 – 9:30 am 9:30 – 10:00 am 10:00 – 10:45 am 10:45 – 11:00 am 11:00 – 11:30 am 11:30 – 12:00 pm 12:00 – 1:00 pm

eere.energy.gov 

### Welcome Attendee Introductions and Agenda Review 

### Background and Overview Opening Comments from Participants Product Definitions and Scope Break Market Assessment Tech. Assessment and Screening Analysis Lunch



## 2

## 10/12/2010



## Afternoon Agenda

5 | Building Technologies Program 

### 1:00 – 2:00 pm Engineering Analysis 2:00 – 2:30 pm Energy Use Analysis 2:30 – 2:45 pm Product Price Determination 2:45 – 3:15 pm Life
- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses 3:15 – 3:30 pm Break 3:30 – 4:00 pm Shipments and National Impact Analyses 4:00 – 4:15 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 4:15 – 4:30 pm NOPR Analyses 4:30 – 4:55 pm Closing Comments from Participants 4:55 – 5:00 pm Closing Remarks

eere.energy.gov



## Purpose of the Public Meeting

6 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Present the procedural and analytical approaches to evaluate energy conservation standards for battery chargers and external power supplies (BCEPS).

• Provide a forum for public discussion of rulemaking issues.

• Encourage interested parties to submit data, information, and written comments.



### • Inform interested parties and facilitate the rulemaking process.



## 3

## 10/12/2010



## Issues for Comment

7 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### Issue Box The Department welcomes comments, data, and information regarding BC and EPS energy conservation standards. Throughout this presentation specific issues will be brought up for discussion on slides such as this. Nonetheless , comments about any part of the documents or presentation are welcome.
Item 00. Numbered items correspond to issues for comment from section four in the executive summary of the preliminary TSD.
Additional Item. Non
- numbered additional items supplement the issues for comment in the preliminary TSD.



## DOE Requests Feedback

8 | 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 Postal Mail :

Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE
- 2J 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585
- 0121 Courier : Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program 950 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W., 6 th Floor Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 586
- 2945 Comment period closes October 15, 2010



## 4

## 10/12/2010



## Background and Overview

9 | Building Technologies Program 

### 9:00 – 9:05 am Welcome 9:05 – 9:10 am Attendee Introductions and Agenda Review 9:10 – 9:30 am Background and Overview 9:30 – 10:00 am Opening Comments from Participants 

### 10:00 – 10:45 am Product Definitions and Scope 10:45 – 11:00 am Break 11:00 – 11:30 am Market Assessment 11:30 – 12:00 pm Tech. Assessment and Screening Analysis 12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch

eere.energy.gov



## Background and Overview

10 | Building Technologies Program 

## • Review statutory authority

• Present current standards

• Present a timeline of DOE actions and milestones

• Review components of the preliminary analysis

eere.energy.gov



## 5

## 10/12/2010



## Background and Overview Statutory Authority

11 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) amended the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), adding BCs and 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



## Background and Overview Statutory Authority

12 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov • Congress and the President pass Public Laws that are codified in the United States Code (U.S.C.).

• DOE publishes proposed rules and final rules in the Federal Register (FR). Final rules are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Federal Register

“FR” “CFR” “U.S.C.” Public Law “Pub. L.”



## 6- 

## 10/12/2010



## Background and Overview Test Procedures

13 | Building Technologies Program 

## • 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

eere.energy.gov



## Background and Overview Standards for Class A EPSs

14 | 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 Standards for Class A EPSs, 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



## 7

## 10/12/2010



## Background and Overview Rulemaking Timeline

15 | Building Technologies Program 2010 2009 2008

eere.energy.gov 2012 2011 2013



### Non - Class A EPS Determination

BC Active Mode Test Procedure BC/EPS Standards



## Background and Overview Preliminary Analysis Notice and TSD

16 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov • The notice is at 75 FR 56021.

• The public meeting is today.

• The technical support document (TSD) can be downloaded from the BCEPS web page.

http://tinyurl.com/bceps - prelim - tsd 

### Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of a Preliminary Technical Support Document (TSD)

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html



## 8- 

## 10/12/2010



## Background and Overview Criteria for Selecting Standard Levels

17 | Building Technologies Program 

### EPCA directs DOE to consider seven factors.
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

eere.energy.gov



## Background and Overview Structure of the Preliminary Analysis

18 | Building Technologies Program

Market and Technology Assessment

(Ch. 3) Screening Analysis (Ch. 4) Engineering Analysis (Ch. 5)

Energy Use

Analysis (Ch. 7)

Product Price Determination (Ch. 6)

Shipments Analysis (Ch. 9)

eere.energy.gov Life Cycle Cost and

Payback Period Analysis (Ch. 8)

National Impact Analysis (Ch. 10) Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis (Ch. 12)



## 9

### - 

## 10/12/2010



## Background and Overview Purpose of DOE Standard Setting Analyses

19 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov DOE Analysis (TSD chapter) PurposePreliminary Analyses Market & Technology Assessment (3) Establish basic facts for use in subsequent analyses Screening Analysis (4) Screen out non
- viable technology option Engineering Analysis (5) Estimate cost of making products more efficient Product Price Determination (6) Estimate retail price of more efficient products Energy Use Analysis (7) Estimate unit energy savings from standards Life
- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis (8) Weigh consumer costs (increased purchase price) and benefits (decreased energy costs) at the individual level Shipments Analysis (9) Forecast volume of products affected by standards National Impact Analysis (10) Quantify national energy savings potential and weigh consumer costs and benefits at the national levelNOPR Analyses LCC Subgroup Analysis (11), Manufacturer Impact Analysis (12), Utility Impact Analysis (13) Assess impacts of standards on manufacturers, utilities, and particular groups of consumers Employment Impact Analysis (14) Assess impact of standards on indirect employment Environmental Assessment Quantify reductions in air pollution from standards Regulatory Impact Analysis Assess energy savings potential of alternative policies



## Opening Comments from Participants

20 | Building Technologies Program 

### 9:00 – 9:05 am Welcome 9:05 – 9:10 am Attendee Introductions and Agenda Review 

### 9:10 – 9:30 am Background and Overview 9:30 – 10:00 am Opening Comments from Participants 10:00 – 10:45 am Product Definitions and Scope 10:45 – 11:00 am Break 11:00 – 11:30 am Market Assessment 11:30 – 12:00 pm Tech. Assessment and Screening Analysis 12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch

eere.energy.gov



## 10

## 10/12/2010



## Opening Comments from Participants

21 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Participants who contacted the Department of Energy to request an 

### opportunity to issue comments on the Preliminary Technical Support Document may speak now.



## Product Definitions and Scope

22 | Building Technologies Program 

### 9:00 – 9:05 am Welcome 9:05 – 9:10 am Attendee Introductions and Agenda Review 

### 9:10 – 9:30 am Background and Overview 9:30 – 10:00 am Opening Comments from Participants 10:00 – 10:45 am Product Definitions and Scope 10:45 – 11:00 am Break 11:00 – 11:30 am Market Assessment 11:30 – 12:00 pm Tech. Assessment and Screening Analysis 12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch

eere.energy.gov



## 11

## 10/12/2010



## Product Definitions and Scope Overview

23 | Building Technologies Program 

## • What is the approach for BCs with wall adapters?

• What is an external power supply?

– Definition

– Identification of charge control in wall adapters



### – Product classes



## • What is a battery charger?

– Definition

– Product classes



## • What is a consumer product?

– Definition

– Examples and counterexamples

eere.energy.gov



## Product Definitions and Scope Battery Chargers with Wall Adapters

24 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • Moving forward with Approach A:

– Wall adapter is always considered part of the BC.

– Wall adapter is an EPS only if it does not perform charge control.

• Received broad stakeholder support for this approach.

• Applies to Class A EPSs, non
- Class A EPSs, and BCs.

Wall Adapter Consumer product and any other enclosures 

### BC

EPS



## 12

## 10/12/2010



## Product Definitions and Scope What Is an External Power Supply?

25 | Building Technologies Program 

## An external power supply (EPS):



## • 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

• Does not perform charge control functions, as determined using DOE’s evaluation criteria

• May also be a component of a battery charger DOE is considering setting standards for EPSs based upon this interpretation. 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A) and (C)

eere.energy.gov



## Product Definitions and Scope Identification of Charge Control

26 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • Current method based on ENERGY STAR criteria for EPSs.

• Either criterion indicates charge control in the wall adapter:

Batteries or battery packs that physically attach directly (including those that are removable) to the power supply unit


### OR
A battery chemistry or type selector switch AND an indicator light or state of charge meter



## • DOE analyzed six other methods; none were superior.

Fully detailed in TSD Appendix 3 - C.



## 13

## 10/12/2010



## Product Definitions and Scope Identification of Charge Control

27 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 1. Identifying Charge Control in Wall Adapters DOE seeks comment on how best to determine whether a wall adapter performs charge control functions.

eere.energy.gov

28 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### Non - Class A

• Multiple output voltages, or

• Nameplate output power > 250 W, or

• Powers a medical device, or

• Powers a battery charger for a

m otor
- operated a pplication or a d etachable b attery pack (MADB) 

### Class A

• Only one output voltage at a time

• Nameplate output power ≤ 250 W

• Does not power a medical device

• Does not power battery charger for a

product that is fully or primarily motor operated

• Does not power battery charger for a

detachable battery pack 

## Product Definitions and Scope EPS Product Classes

A1 AC
- DC Standard Voltage A2 AC
- DC Low Voltage A3 AC
- AC Standard Voltage A4 AC
- AC Low Voltage X1, X2 Multiple Voltage H1 High Power
M1, M2, M3, M4 Medical B1, B2, B3, B4 MADB



## 14–

– 

## 10/12/2010



## Product Definitions and Scope What Is a Battery Charger?

29 | Building Technologies Program 

## A battery charger (BC):



## • Charges batteries for consumer products

• May be embedded in a consumer product

• May obtain power from mains or another source

• May also have an EPS as a component DOE is considering setting standards for BCs based upon this interpretation. 42 U.S.C. 6291(32)

eere.energy.gov



## Product Definitions and Scope BC Product Classes

30 | Building Technologies Program Battery Energy Battery Voltage Product Class ID Description

AC In, DC Out < 100 Wh Inductive Connection 1 Low Energy, Inductive <4 V 2 Low Energy, Low Voltage 4 10 V 3 Low Energy, Med. Voltage >10 V 4 Low Energy, High Voltage 100 3000

Wh <20 V 5 Med. Energy, Low Voltage ≥20 V 6 Med. Energy, High Voltage > 3000 Wh 7 High Energy DC In, DC Out <9 V Input 8 Low Energy, Low Voltage DC Input ≥9 V Input 9 Low Energy, High Voltage DC Input AC In, AC Out AC Output 10 Low Energy, AC Output

eere.energy.gov Example Applications

Toothbrushes Mobile and Cordless Phones Portable DVD Players, Small Power Tools, Camcorders Notebooks, Large Power Tools Marine Chargers Scooters, Lawnmowers Golf Cars MP3 Players, Mobile Phones In
- Vehicle (Removable) GPS Uninterruptible Power Supplies



## 15

## 10/12/2010



## Product Definitions and Scope What Is a Consumer Product?

31 | Building Technologies Program 

## A consumer product:



## • Consumes energy or water

• Is to a significant extent distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals

• Is not an automobile 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)

eere.energy.gov



## Product Definitions and Scope Examples and Counterexamples

32 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Consumer Products that Use BCs and/or EPSs*

• Golf cars

• Electric toothbrushes



## • Notebook computers

• Mobile phones

• Cordless power tools

• Uninterruptible power supplies

• Sleep apnea machines

• Dozens of others Not Currently Considered in DOE’s Analysis

• Road vehicles

• Commercial and 

## industrial products such as:

– Forklifts

– Emergency egress lighting

– Credit card scanners

– Barcode scanners

* For a list of BC and EPS applications identified to date see TSD Appendix 3
- A.



## 16

## 10/12/2010

33 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### 9:00 – 9:05 am Welcome 9:05 – 9:10 am Attendee Introductions and Agenda Review 9:10 – 9:30 am Background and Overview 9:30 – 10:00 am Opening Comments from Participants 

### 10:00 – 10:45 am Product Definitions and Scope 10:45 – 11:00 am Break 11:00 – 11:30 am Market Assessment 11:30 – 12:00 pm Tech. Assessment and Screening Analysis 12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch 

## Break

Break

34 | Building Technologies Program 

### • We will resume the public meeting in 15 minutes.

eere.energy.gov



## 17- 

## 10/12/2010



## Market Assessment

35 | Building Technologies Program 

### 9:00 – 9:05 am 9:05 – 9:10 am 9:10 – 9:30 am 9:30 – 10:00 am 

### 10:00 – 10:45 am 10:45 – 11:00 am 11:00 – 11:30 am 11:30 – 12:00 pm 12:00 – 1:00 pm

eere.energy.gov 

### Welcome Attendee Introductions and Agenda Review Background and Overview Opening Comments from Participants 

### Product Definitions and Scope Break Market Assessment Tech. Assessment and Screening Analysis Lunch



## Market Assessment

36 | Building Technologies Program

Market and Technology Assessment

(Ch. 3) Screening Analysis (Ch. 4) Engineering Analysis (Ch. 5)

Energy Use

Analysis (Ch. 7)

Product Price Determination (Ch. 6)

Shipments Analysis (Ch. 9)

eere.energy.gov Life Cycle Cost and

Payback Period Analysis (Ch. 8)

National Impact Analysis (Ch. 10) Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis (Ch. 12)



## 18

## 10/12/2010



## Market Assessment Overview

37 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## 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



## Market Assessment The Importance of Applications Market Assessment

38 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

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

– To understand the BC and EPS markets, must analyze 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.



## 19

## 10/12/2010



## Market Assessment Application Trends

39 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Taken into account in Preliminary Analysis:

• GSMA Universal Charging Solution

– Will require standardized 5V output USB power supplies for mobile phones

– Signed by 27 mobile phone manufacturers and service providers

– Universal Charging Solution will take effect January 1, 2012

– May reduce EPS shipments for mobile phones by 50% Additional applications that DOE is considering for analysis in the NOPR:

• Smart Phones

– Gaining popularity

– Require more energy and are charged more frequently than traditional mobile phones

– Convergence with other applications (e.g., MP3 Players) may reduce BCEPS shipments

• Tablet PCs

– To be included in the NOPR stage analyses

– May reduce shipments of netbooks and e
- book readers



## Market Assessment Product Lifetimes

40 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Application BC /EPS Lifetime Application BC/EPS Lifetime Mobile Phones 2.0* VoIP Adapters 5.0 Notebooks 3.3 Inkjet Imaging Equipment 5.0 Cordless Phones / Answering Machines 5.2 MP3 Players 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

* Lifetime for typical mobile phone is 2 years, however with GSMA Universal Charging Solution, assumed that EPS will last for four years (the lifetime of two phones). Application - and product class - level shipment and lifetime estimates and sources are available in bceps_preanalysis_market.xlsx
.



## 20- 

## 10/12/2010



## Market Assessment BC Shipments in 2008

41 | Building Technologies Program BC 3 (Low Energy, Medium Voltage) 23,116,000 BC 4 (Low Energy, High Voltage) 69,758,000 BC 5 (Medium Energy, Low Voltage) 2,333,000 BC 6 (Medium Energy,

High Voltage)

940,000 BC 7 (High Energy)

214,000 BC 8 (DC DC, USB Input) 71,825,000 BC 9 (DC - DC, Automotive Charger) 15,519,000 BC 10 (AC Output from Battery) 6,900,000

Total: 402 Million Units BC 1 (Inductive Connection) 5,354,000

BC 2 (Low Energy, Low Voltage) 206,271,000

eere.energy.gov



## Market Assessment BC Applications

42 | Building Technologies Program 

### Total BC Shipments = 402 million units

BC 2 BC 2 BC 2 BC 2 BC 2

BC 3 BC 4 BC 4

BC 4

BC 8 BC 8

BC 9

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 All Other Applications Portable DVD Players Digital Cameras Portable Video Game Systems In
- Vehicle GPS

Power Tools Cordless Phones/Answering Machines Notebooks MP3 Players Mobile Phones

Battery Charger Shipments (millions)
eere.energy.gov BC 1 (Inductive Connection) BC 2 (Low Energy, Low Voltage) BC 3 (Low Energy, Medium Voltage) BC 4 (Low Energy, High Voltage) BC 5 (Medium Energy, Low Voltage) BC 6 (Medium Energy, High Voltage) BC 7 (High Energy) BC 8 (DC
- DC, USB Input) BC 9 (DC
- DC, Automotive Charger) BC 10 (AC Output from Battery)



## 21- - 

## 10/12/2010



## Market Assessment EPS Shipments in 2008

43 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 0 10.25W 89,367,000 10.26 39W 66,721,000

40 - 90W 53,286,000

91 - 250W 10,235,000 A2 (AC - DC, Low Voltage) 124,755,000 A3 (AC - AC, Basic

Voltage) 7,994,000 A4 (AC - AC, High

Voltage) 2,250,000 Non - Class A 12,604,000

A1 (AC - DC, Basic Voltage) 219,609,000 Product Class A1 (AC

- DC, Basic Voltage)

Total:

367 Million Units* Total: 220 Million Units All EPSs

* Shipment figures do not agree with those in the TSD, as values presented in the TSD and used in the analyses anticipated a red uction in mobile phone EPS shipments due to the GSMA Universal Charging Solution.



## Market Assessment Class A EPS Applications

44 | Building Technologies Program A1 A1 A1

A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1

A2 A2 A2 A2

A3 A4
0 20 40 60 80 All Other Applications Digital Picture Frames VoIP Adapters Video Game Consoles Portable Video Game Systems In
- Vehicle GPS LAN Equipment Cordless Phones/Answering Machines Notebooks Mobile Phones

Class A EPS Shipments (millions) A1 (AC
- DC, Basic Voltage) A2 (AC
- DC, Low Voltage) A3 (AC
- AC, Basic Voltage) 

### Class A EPS Shipments = 355 million units

eere.energy.gov 100 120 140
A4 (AC
- AC, Low Voltage)



## 22

### - 

## 10/12/2010



## Market Assessment Non Class A EPS Shipments in 2008

45 | Building Technologies Program Multiple Voltage (< 100W) 3,982,000

Multiple Voltage (≥ 100W) 4,901,000 High Power

3000 Medical Devices 1,559,000 MADB* 2,159,000
Total: 12.6 Million Units

eere.energy.gov *MADB EPSs= EPSs for BCs of Motor - Operated Applications and BCs for Detachable Batteries Application Type NCA EPS Shipments (millions) Xbox 360 Multi
- Voltage 4.9 Inkjet Imaging Equipment Multi
- Voltage 4.0 Sleep Apnea Machine Medical 1.0
Medical Nebulizer Medical 0.45 Toy Ride
- On Vehicles MADB* 0.35
All Other Applications MADB*, Medical, High Powered 1.9



## Market Assessment MADB EPS Shipments

46 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • DOE initially assumed that 5 percent of wall adapters for MADB applications are EPSs.

• DOE has since adopted the ENERGY STAR definition of an EPS and believes that, under this scope, MADB EPS shipments are higher.

• MADB applications include:

– RC Toys

– Floorcare Appliances

– Small Kitchen Appliances

– Universal Battery Chargers

– Power Tools

– Motorized Bicycles, Electrics Scooters, and Toy Ride
- on Vehicles



### Additional Item. MADB EPS Shipments DOE seeks comment on the percent of wall adapters for MADB applications that meet the ENERGY STAR definition of 

### an EPS.



## 23

## 10/12/2010



## Market Assessment Issues for Comment

47 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 14. Market Data (abridged) DOE seeks comments on its estimates of BC and EPS shipments and lifetimes for each application, product class, and representative unit.

Item 18. Use in the Commercial Sector (abridged) 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.

eere.energy.gov



## Market Assessment Efficiency Distributions

48 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • Purpose : Characterize the distribution of efficiencies in the market to allow DOE to better assess the impact of standards

• Efficiency distributions were based on product tests from DOE and PG&E.

• DOE based the product class efficiency distributions on the distribution of efficiencies that it found in product tests.

24

## 10/12/2010



## Market Assessment 2009 BC Efficiency Distribution

49 | Building Technologies Program 39.2 34.0 18.7 43.4 50.0 50.0 39.2 39.2 39.2

0% 10% 20% 30% BC 10 (AC Output from Battery) BC 9 (DC - DC, Automotive Charger) BC 8 (DC - DC, USB Input) BC 7 (High Energy) BC 6 (Med. Energy, High Voltage) BC 5 (Med. Energy, Low Voltage) BC 4 (Low Energy, High Voltage) BC 3 (Low Energy, Med. Voltage) BC 2 (Low Energy, Low Voltage)

BC 1 (Inductive Connection) Baseline

75.0 43.0 16.3

40% 50% More Efficienct

54.0 20.0 20.0

60% eere.energy.gov 12.5 58.0 58.0 58.0 58.0

12.5 2.8 12.0 38.3 40.3 30.0 30.0 2.8 2.8 2.8

70% 80% 90% 100%

Best in Market



## Market Assessment 2009 EPS Efficiency Distribution

68 17 12 3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% EISA Intermediate ENERGY STAR Best in Market 

### Class A EPSs

50 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 10 10 60 5 100

58 58 40 95

17 17

12 12

3 3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% MADB** Medical Devices**

High Powered Multi - Voltage

(≥ 100W) Multi - Voltage*

(< 100W) Non - Class A EPSs CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4

* DOE believes that product class X1 (multi - voltage EPSs less than 100W) is a small and shrinking category. ** In the preliminary analysis, DOE assumed 10 percent of MADB and Medical EPSs were below the EISA standard level. DOE no longer believes that EPSs in these product classes fall below the EISA standard.



## 25- 

## 10/12/2010



## Technology Assessment and Screening Analysis

51 | Building Technologies Program 

### 9:00 – 9:05 am Welcome 9:05 – 9:10 am Attendee Introductions and Agenda Review 9:10 – 9:30 am Background and Overview 9:30 – 10:00 am Opening Comments from Participants 

### 10:00 – 10:45 am Product Definitions and Scope 10:45 – 11:00 am Break 11:00 – 11:30 am Market Assessment 11:30 – 12:00 pm Tech. Assessment and Screening Analysis 12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch

eere.energy.gov



## Technology Assessment

52 | Building Technologies Program

Market and Technology Assessment

(Ch. 3) Screening Analysis (Ch. 4) Engineering Analysis (Ch. 5)

Energy Use

Analysis (Ch. 7)

Product Price Determination (Ch. 6)

Shipments Analysis (Ch. 9)

eere.energy.gov Life Cycle Cost and

Payback Period Analysis (Ch. 8)

National Impact Analysis (Ch. 10) Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis (Ch. 12)



## 26

## 10/12/2010



## Technology Assessment

53 | Building Technologies Program 

## Purpose

– Examine factors that affect the efficiency of BCs and EPSs 

## Outputs

– Technology options for improving efficiency

eere.energy.gov



## Product Classes

54 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • DOE establishes separate energy conservation standards for each product class.

• DOE divides covered product into classes by: (1) the type of energy used; (2) the capacity of the equipment; and (3) any other performance
- related features that require different standard levels, such as features affecting consumer utility. 

### (42 USC 6295(q))



## 27-

- 

## 10/12/2010



## Product Classes

55 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Characteristics Common to EPSs and BCs Characteristics Not Considered Due to Statutory Limitations Characteristics Unique to EPSs Characteristics Unique to BCs Output power Usage Class A or Non
- Class A Battery energy Output voltage Topology AC/AC or AC/DC Battery voltage Output cord length Price Medical use Battery capacity Used with battery chargers of m otorized

a pplications and d etachable b atteries Battery chemistry Charge rate Inductive coupling

Cord
- cordless

operation 

### • DOE considered product characteristics for both BCs and EPSs, BCs only, or EPSs only to set product classes.



## EPS Product Classes

56 | Building Technologies Program 

### • DOE used the following criteria to subdivide EPS product classes:

– Class A vs. non
- Class A

– Output Voltage

– Type of Power Conversion ( AC/AC or AC/DC ), and

– Output Power 

## Class A EPS Product Classes Basic Voltage Output Low Voltage Output AC DC Conversion A1 A2 AC AC Conversion A3 A4

eere.energy.gov



## 28-

-

-

- 

## 10/12/2010



## EPS Product Classes

57 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • EISA 2007 specified criteria for Class A EPSs.

• EPSs with higher output power tend to be more efficient.

– DOE intends to include output power in the standard equation.



### • EPSs with higher output voltage tend to be more efficient.

• DOE defined “low voltage” EPSs per ENERGY STAR 2.0:

– Nameplate output voltage less than 6 volts, and

– Nameplate output current greater than 550 milliamps



### • DC
- output EPSs contain control circuitry, which can reduce no - load power consumption, but AC
- output EPSs do not.



## EPS Product Classes: Medical and MADB EPSs

58 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • Medical and MADB EPSs have the same product class structure as Class A EPSs. Medical EPS Product Classes

MADB EPS Product Classes Basic Voltage Output Low Voltage Output AC DC Conversion M1 M2 AC AC Conversion M3 M4

Basic Voltage Output Low Voltage Output AC DC Conversion B1 B2 AC AC Conversion B3 B4



## 29

### - 

## 10/12/2010



## EPS Product Classes: Multiple Voltage and High Power EPSs

59 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • DOE classified multiple
- voltage and high power EPSs by nameplate output power only. Multiple
- Voltage EPS Product Classes

High Power EPS Product Classes Product Class Nameplate Output Power < 100 watts X1 Nameplate Output Power ≥ 100 watts X2

Product Class Nameplate Output Power > 250 watts H1



## BC Product Classes

60 | Building Technologies Program 

### • DOE used the following criteria to subdivide BC product classes:

– Battery Energy

– Battery Voltage

– Inductive Charging

– Input Voltage: Line
- voltage AC or Low
- Voltage DC, and

– Output Voltage: DC Output vs. AC Output

eere.energy.gov



## 30–

– 

## 10/12/2010



## BC Product Classes

61 | Building Technologies Program Battery Energy Battery Voltage

AC In, DC Out < 100 Wh Inductive Connection <4 V 4 10 V >10 V 100 3000

Wh <20 V ≥20 V > 3000 Wh DC In, DC Out <9 V Input ≥9 V Input AC In, AC Out AC Output ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Product Class Description Low Energy,

Inductive Low Energy, Low Voltage Low Energy, Med. Voltage Low Energy, High Voltage Med. Energy, Low Voltage Med. Energy, High Voltage High Energy Low Energy, Low Voltage DC Input Low Energy, High Voltage DC Input Low Energy, AC Output

eere.energy.gov Example Applications

Toothbrushes Mobile and Cordless Phones Portable DVD Players, Small Power Tools, Camcorders Notebooks, Large Power Tools Marine Chargers Scooters, Lawnmowers Golf Cars MP3 Players, Mobile Phones In
- Vehicle (Removable) GPS Uninterruptible Power Supplies



## BC Product Classes

62 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Battery energy has the largest impact on utility.



### • Battery voltage affects BC efficiency and utility.

– For classes where only a single application exists, DOE did not group by voltage (e.g. Golf Cars).



### • Inductive BCs received their own product class due to their unique utility for use in wet environments.

• BCs with DC input power do not have losses from AC/DC power conversion.



### • Devices such as uninterruptible power supplies (UPSs) have a DC
- AC converter, which increases losses.



## 31

## 10/12/2010



## Issues for Comment

63 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 3. Product Classes for Battery Chargers DOE seeks comment on its BC product classes and, for example, its decision to group BCs for power tools and notebook computers into a single product class (BC 4: low energy, high voltage).

eere.energy.gov



## Modes of Operation and Efficiency Metrics

64 | Building Technologies Program 

## • EPS

– No Load Mode, Power consumption [W]

– Active Mode, Average efficiency [%]



## • BC

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

– Maintenance Mode, Power consumption [W]

– Standby or No
- Battery Mode, Power consumption [W]



### – Off Mode, Power consumption [W]

– DOE analyzed BCs based on their annual unit energy consumption (UEC) in units of kWh/yr.

eere.energy.gov



## 32

## 10/12/2010



## Technology Options to Improve Efficiency

65 | Building Technologies Program 

## 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

Fully detailed in TSD section 3.4.6 on page 3 - 69 and section 3.4.10 on page 3 - 74.

. eere.energy.gov



## Issues for Comment

66 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 2. Technology Options for BCs and EPSs (abridged) DOE requests comment and data regarding designs that can increase the range of considered efficiency improvements for either BCs or EPSs, including technology options that may not yet be found in the market.

eere.energy.gov



## 33- 

## 10/12/2010



## Screening Analysis

67 | Building Technologies Program

Market and Technology Assessment

(Ch. 3) Screening Analysis (Ch. 4) Engineering Analysis (Ch. 5)

Energy Use

Analysis (Ch. 7)

Product Price Determination (Ch. 6)

Shipments Analysis (Ch. 9)

eere.energy.gov Life Cycle Cost and

Payback Period Analysis (Ch. 8)

National Impact Analysis (Ch. 10) Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis (Ch. 12)



## Screening Analysis

68 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## 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



## 34

## 10/12/2010

Screening Analysis 

## Screening Analysis Approach

69 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 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 ). 

## • DOE evaluated each technology option based on the 

## following criteria:



## Screened Out Technology Options

70 | Building Technologies Program 

## • EPSs

– None



## • 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

eere.energy.gov



## 35

## 10/12/2010



## Lunch

71 | Building Technologies Program 

### 9:00 – 9:05 am 9:05 – 9:10 am 9:10 – 9:30 am 9:30 – 10:00 am 

### 10:00 – 10:45 am 10:45 – 11:00 am 11:00 – 11:30 am 11:30 – 12:00 pm 12:00 – 1:00 pm

eere.energy.gov 

### Welcome Attendee Introductions and Agenda Review Background and Overview Opening Comments from Participants 

### Product Definitions and Scope Break Market Assessment Tech. Assessment and Screening Analysis Lunch



## Lunch

72 | Building Technologies Program 

## • Participants may now take lunch on their own

• We will reconvene at 1:00 PM

eere.energy.gov



## 36- 

## 10/12/2010



## Engineering Analysis

73 | Building Technologies Program 

### 1:00 – 2:00 pm Engineering Analysis 2:00 – 2:30 pm Energy Use Analysis 2:30 – 2:45 pm Product Price Determination 2:45 – 3:15 pm Life
- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses 3:15 – 3:30 pm Break 3:30 – 4:00 pm Shipments and National Impact Analyses 4:00 – 4:15 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 4:15 – 4:30 pm NOPR Analyses 4:30 – 4:55 pm Closing Comments from Participants 4:55 – 5:00 pm Closing Remarks

eere.energy.gov



## Engineering Analysis

74 | Building Technologies Program

Market and Technology Assessment

(Ch. 3) Screening Analysis (Ch. 4) Engineering Analysis (Ch. 5)

Energy Use

Analysis (Ch. 7)

Product Price Determination (Ch. 6)

Shipments Analysis (Ch. 9)

eere.energy.gov Life Cycle Cost and

Payback Period Analysis (Ch. 8)

National Impact Analysis (Ch. 10) Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis (Ch. 12)



## 37

## 10/12/2010



## Engineering Analysis

75 | Building Technologies Program 

## Purpose

• Establish the relationship between cost and the energy - efficiency of BCs and EPSs Outputs

• Cost
- efficiency curves

Efficiency [%]Mfr Selling Price[$]

Efficiency [%]Life-Cycle Cost [$] High operating

cost High purchase

price Generic cost
- efficiency curve

eere.energy.gov



## Engineering Analysis

76 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## There are three types of efficiency metrics in the cost
efficiency curves:

• EPS average efficiency in active mode

• EPS power consumption in no
- load mode

• BC unit energy consumption (UEC) from all modes

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



## 38

## 10/12/2010



## Engineering Analysis

77 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • Today’s meeting focuses on Inputs and Methodology

- Representative Product Classes

- Representative Units

- Determining CSLs

- Data Scaling

- Price Analysis

- CSL Scaling Test & Teardown

Manufacturer

Interviews Cost
- Efficiency Curves Inputs Methodology Outputs Public Comments



## Engineering Analysis

78 | Building Technologies Program 

## DOE will present the Engineering Analysis for

• Class A External Power Supplies

• Non
- Class A External Power Supplies

• Battery Chargers

eere.energy.gov



## 39

## 10/12/2010

79 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### Class A EPSs

• There is one representative product class for EPSs.

• DOE developed one set of CSLs for product class A1.

• DOE scaled the CSLs from product class A1 to the other product classes. 

## Class A EPS Representative Product Classes

A1 - Representative AC - DC Basic Voltage A2
- Scaled AC
- DC Low Voltage A3
- Scaled

AC
- AC Basic Voltage A4
- Scaled AC
- AC Low Voltage



## Class A EPS Representative Units

80 | Building Technologies Program 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 A1

– Identifying popular products according to a market survey

– Ensuring that there would be many test units

– Selecting enough units to curve fit the CSLs

eere.energy.gov



## 40

## 10/12/2010



## EPS Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs) of Efficiency

81 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov CSL Reference Basis
CSL0 EISA 2007 EISA 2007 equations for efficiency and no
- load power CSL1 Energy Star 2.0 Energy Star 2.0 equations for efficiency and no
- load power CSL2 Intermediate Curve fit to manufacturer data points CSL3 Best in Market Curve fit to test unit data points CSL4 Max Tech Curve fit to manufacturer data points 

## • DOE characterized EPSs at five candidate standard levels (CSLs) of efficiency.



## • EPS CSLs consist of “matched pairs” of efficiency metrics such that CSLs never decrease in stringency in either metric.



## EPS Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs) of Efficiency

82 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • DOE characterized EPSs at five candidate standard levels (CSLs) of efficiency.

• EPS CSLs consist of “matched pairs” of efficiency metrics such that CSLs never decrease in stringency in either metric.

41

## 10/12/2010



## EPS Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs) of Efficiency

83 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • CSLs for product class A1 are equations for average 

## efficiency and no
- load power consumption that are functions of nameplate output power (P out 

## ).

CSL Reference Nameplate Output Power (P out ) 0W to ≤ 1W > 1W to ≤ 49W* > 49W* CSL0 EISA 2007 0.5 * Pout 0.09* ln (Pout) + 0.5 0.85 CSL1 Energy Star 2.0 0.480 * Pout + 0.140 0.0626 * ln (Pout) + 0.622 0.870 CSL2 Intermediate 0.49 * Pout + 0.15 0.0701 * ln (Pout)

– 0.0011 * Pout + 0.647 0.870 CSL3 Best in Market 0.5 * Pout + 0.16 0.071 * ln (Pout)

– 0.0014 * Pout + 0.67 0.880 CSL4 Max Tech 0.52 * Pout + 0.17 0.079 * ln (Pout)

– 0.0014 * Pout + 0.67 0.910 * CSL0 is divided at 51W instead of 49W 

## Average Efficiency Requirements for A1 [decimal equivalent of a percentage]



## EPS Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs) of Efficiency

84 | Building Technologies Program 

## • CSLs for product class A1 are equations for average efficiency and no
- load power consumption that are functions of nameplate output power (P out 

## )

CSL Reference Nameplate Output Power (P out ) 0W to ≤ 50W > 50W CSL0 EISA 2007 0.500 CSL1 Energy Star 2.0 0.300 0.500 CSL2 Intermediate 0.200 0.230 CSL3 Best in Market 0.100 0.210 CSL4 Max Tech 0.062 0.165 

## No - Load Power Requirements for A1 [watts]

eere.energy.gov



## 42

## 10/12/2010



## Engineering Analysis Inputs

85 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • DOE evaluated the four Class A EPS representative 

## units at five CSLs.

• Each CSL consists of a matched pairing.

CSL 2.5 watt 18 watt 60 watt 120 watt Eff [%] P NL [W] Eff [%] P NL [W] Eff [%] P NL [W] Eff [%] P NL [W] CSL0 58.3% 0.5 00 76% 0.5 00 85% 0.5 00 85% 0.5 00
CSL1 67.9% 0.3 00 80.3% 0.3 00 87% 0.5 00 87% 0.5 00
CSL2 70.9% 0.2 00 83% 0.2 00 87% 0.230 87% 0.230
CSL3 73.2% 0.1 00 85% 0.1 00 88% 0.210 88% 0.210
CSL4 73.9% 0.062 87.39% 0.062 91% 0.165 91% 0.165



## Issues for Comment

86 | Building Technologies Program 

### Additional Item. EPS Representative Units and CSLs DOE seeks comment on the appropriateness of its EPS representative units and CSLs. In particular, DOE requests comment on whether 2.5W EPSs may be able to achieve a max - tech efficiency higher than the 73.9 percent.

eere.energy.gov



## 43

## 10/12/2010



## Manufacturer Interviews

87 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • Manufacturers provided costs for matched pairings of 

## efficiency and no
- load power, under an NDA.

• Manufacturer data often did not align exactly with CSLs.

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



## EPS Manufacturer Interviews

88 | Building Technologies Program 

## • Manufacturers’ efficiency, no
- load, and cost data was regressed into an aggregate equation.

• Costs were determined by applying the CSL matched pairings to the equation to calculate cost.

Fully explained in TSD section 5.4.5 on page 5 - 26. 

### Additional Item. Aggregation Methodology As detailed in the TSD, manufacturers ’ data was aggregated into a three
- dimensional equation. DOE seeks comment on this aggregation methodology.

eere.energy.gov



## 44

## 10/12/2010



## EPS Testing and Teardowns

89 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • DOE tested the efficiency of EPSs with the same criteria as the representative units.

• DOE selected EPSs to characterize the costs of meeting the CSLs.

More EfficientMore Efficient 

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



## EPS Testing and Teardowns

90 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## iSuppli’s EPS teardowns consist of:

• A bill of materials (BOM) listing all parts and their costs

• Associated labor costs for each part

• Total estimated manufacturing production cost (MPC) Key assumptions for iSuppli’s teardowns are:

• Annual production volume



## • Lifetime production volume

• Manufacturer location

45

## 10/12/2010



## EPS Scaling

91 | Building Technologies Program 

## • DOE scaled test, teardown, and manufacturer data to 

## align with representative unit specifications:

– Output cord length

– Output power

– Output voltage

– Manufacturer Selling Price (MSP)

Fully explained in TSD section 5.4.6 on page 5 - 36.
eere.energy.gov



## EPS Cost Markups

92 | Building Technologies Program 

## • 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

eere.energy.gov



## 46-

- 

## 10/12/2010



## Class A EPS Outputs

93 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • DOE generated separate results from manufacturer interviews and testing and teardowns.

• DOE seeks comment on the cost
- efficiency results from both approaches.

MSP versus Efficiency and No
- Load Power for 18W EPSs

Fully explained in TSD section 5.4.9 on page 5 - 55.



## Scaling CSLs to Scaled Product Classes

94 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • DOE scaled A1 CSLs to product classes A2, A3, and A4.

• Low
- voltage EPSs have less stringent average efficiency requirements.

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

Basic Voltage Output Low Voltage Output AC DC Conversion A1 A2 More stringent no - load requirements AC AC Conversion A3 A4 Less stringent no - load requirements More stringent efficiency requirements Less stringent efficiency requirements Fully explained in TSD section 5.4.10 on page 5 - 62.



## 47

## 10/12/2010



## Scaling CSLs to Scaled Product Classes

95 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • Low
- voltage EPS CSLs were reduced consistent with 

## ENERGY STAR.

• CSL0 is the EISA level and was not shifted.

Number Reference Nameplate Output Power (P out ) 0W to ≤ 1W > 1W to ≤ 49W* > 49W* CSL0 EISA 2007 (Identical to Basic Voltage) CSL1 Energy Star 2.0 0.497 * Pout + 0.067 0.075 * ln (Pout) + 0.561 0.860 CSL2 Intermediate 0.507 * Pout + 0.077 0.0825 * ln (Pout)

– 0.0011 * Pout + 0.586 0.860 CSL3 Best in Market 0.517 * Pout + 0.087 0.0834 * ln (Pout)
- 0.0014 * Pout + 0.609 0.870 CSL4 Max Tech 0.537 * Pout + 0.097 0.0914 * ln (Pout)
- 0.0014 * Pout + 0.609 0.900 * CSL0 is divided at 51W instead of 49W 

## Average Efficiency Requirements for A2 and A4 [decimal equivalent of a percentage]



## Scaling CSLs to Scaled Product Classes

96 | Building Technologies Program 

## • AC
- AC EPS CSLs were reduced consistent with ENERGY STAR.

• CSL0 is the EISA level and was not shifted.

Number Reference Nameplate Output Power (P out ) 0W to 250W CSL0 EISA 2007 (Identical to Basic Voltage) CSL1 Energy Star 2.0 0.500 watts CSL2 Intermediate 0.230 watts CSL3 Best in Market 0.210 watts CSL4 Max Tech 0.165 watts 

## No - Load Power Requirements for A3 and A4 [watts]

eere.energy.gov



## 48

## 10/12/2010



## Issues for Comment

97 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 13. Cost Estimates for Product Classes not Fully Analyzed (abridged) DOE believes that the incremental costs associated with improving the efficiency of products in the non
- analyzed product classes A2, A3, and A4 are equal to those for A1. DOE invites comment on this approach.

eere.energy.gov



## Engineering Analysis

98 | Building Technologies Program 

## DOE will present the Engineering Analysis for

• Class A External Power Supplies

• Non
- Class A External Power Supplies

• Battery Chargers

eere.energy.gov



## 49

### -



## - - 10/12/2010



## Engineering Analysis Non Class A EPSs

99 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • DOE intends to analyze non
- Class A EPSs (NCA EPSs) 

## based on the determination analysis inputs.

• DOE intends to use the same analytical structure for non - Class A EPSs as for Class A EPSs.

Type of NCA EPS Inputs Methodology 1. Multiple Voltage 2. High Power Determination Analysis Class A EPS Analysis 3. M edical 4. MADB Class A EPS Analysis Class A EPS Analysis



## Multiple Voltage & High Power EPSs

100 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Product

Class Representative Unit Example Application Nameplate Output Power [W] Nameplate Output Voltage [V] Second Nameplate Output Voltage [V] X1 40 16 32 Inkjet Imaging Equipment X2 203 5 12 Video Game Console H1 345 13.8 N/A Amateur Radio 

## • DOE intends to analyze multiple
- voltage and high
- power EPSs with the test, teardown, and manufacturer data from the determination analysis.

– High
- power EPSs can have increased efficiency and reduced cost



## • DOE is considering eliminating product class X1 because it has small and shrinking shipments.

50

## 10/12/2010



## Issues for Comment

101 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 9. Efficiency Metrics for Multiple - Voltage EPSs (abridged) DOE proposes to use the no
- load power consumption and an average of the four efficiency values as metrics to set candidate standard levels for multiple
- voltage EPSs, similar to those set for single
- voltage EPSs.

eere.energy.gov



## Medical and MADB EPSs

102 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Representative Unit Nameplate Output Power [watts] Nameplate Output Voltage [volts] 1 2.5 5 2 18 12 3 60 15 4 120 19 

## • DOE intends to apply directly the cost
- efficiency curves for Class A EPSs to medical and MADB EPSs.

– DOE evaluated two medical EPSs that met EISA 2007 standards.



## • DOE does not intend to analyze medical and MADB EPSs with efficiency less than current Class A standards.

51

## 10/12/2010



## Issues for Comment

103 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### Item 11. Baseline Candidate Standard Level of Efficiency for Medical and MADB EPSs (abridged) DOE believes that consumers of medical and MADB EPSs with efficiencies below EISA constitute a small and shrinking part of the market. Therefore, DOE is also considering accounting for the lowest part of the market in the “EISA qualified” CSL as a simplifying alternative where Class A, medical, and MADB EPSs would have the same CSL0

. DOE is seeking stakeholder comment on this approach.



## Engineering Analysis

104 | Building Technologies Program 

## DOE will present the Engineering Analysis for

• Class A External Power Supplies

• Non
- Class A External Power Supplies

• Battery Chargers

eere.energy.gov



## 52–

– 

## 10/12/2010



## BC Product Classes

105 | Building Technologies Program Battery Energy Battery Voltage

AC In, DC Out < 100 Wh Inductive Connection <4 V 4 10 V >10 V 100 3000

Wh <20 V ≥20 V > 3000 Wh DC In, DC Out <9 V Input ≥9 V Input AC In, AC Out AC Output ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Product Class Description Low Energy,

Inductive Low Energy, Low Voltage Low Energy, Med. Voltage Low Energy, High Voltage Med. Energy, Low Voltage Med. Energy, High Voltage High Energy Low Energy, Low Voltage DC Input Low Energy, High Voltage DC Input Low Energy, AC Output

eere.energy.gov Example Applications

Toothbrushes Mobile and Cordless Phones Portable DVD Players, Small Power Tools, Camcorders Notebooks, Large Power Tools Marine Chargers Scooters, Lawnmowers Golf Cars MP3 Players, Mobile Phones In
- Vehicle (Removable) GPS Uninterruptible Power Supplies



## BC Representative Units

106 | Building Technologies Program Rep. Unit

# Product Class Voltage V Energy Wh 1 Low Energy, Inductive 3.6 1.5 2 Low Energy, Low Voltage 3.6 3 3 Low Energy, Med. Voltage 7.2 10 4 Low Energy, High Voltage 10.8 20 5 Med. Energy, Low Voltage 12 800
6 Med. Energy, High Voltage 36 384 7 High Energy 48 3750 8 Low Energy, 5V DC Input 3.6 2 9 Low Energy, 12V DC Input 3.6 5 10 Low Energy, AC Output 12 70 Annual Production

Volume K units

500 480
480
640
50
50 150 480 480 1,000

eere.energy.gov Applications Examined Toothbrushes Mobile Phones, Cordless Phones,

Power Tools, Digital Cameras Power Tools Power Tools and Notebook Computers Marine Chargers
Lawn mowers, Wheelchairs Golf Cars MP3 Players GPS UPS



## 53

## 10/12/2010



## BC Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs) of Efficiency

107 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • Candidate standard levels were based on:

– Efficiencies available in the market

– The maximum technologically feasible level indicated by manufacturers



## • DOE combined outputs from the test procedure into a metric called unit energy consumption (UEC) in kWh/yr.

Number Reference Basis

CSL0 Market Bottom Least efficient units in the market CSL1 Mid Market Efficiency in the middle of the market (where possible) CSL2 Best in Market Curve fit to most efficient test unit data points CSL3 Max Tech Curve fit to manufacturer max tech data points



## Calculating UEC for BC CSLs

108 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

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

54

## 10/12/2010



## Calculating UEC for BC CSLs

109 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



## DOE calculated unit energy consumption with the equation:

– E 24 = 24 hour energy

– E battery = Measured battery energy

– P maint = Average maintenance mode power

– P no = Average no
- battery mode power

– P unplugged = Average unplugged mode power (always 0W)

– P off = Average off mode power

– n = Number of charges per day

– t act&maint = Time per day spent in active and maintenance mode

– t no = Time per day spent in no
- battery mode

– t unplugged = Time per day spent in unplugged mode

– t off = Time per day spent in off mode Parameters in blue are outputs from the test procedure and those in red are assumed 

### DOE presents details on the usage profiles in the Energy Use Analysis.



## BC Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs) of Efficiency

110 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov * 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 1 2 3 4 5
Low Energy,

Inductive Low Energy,

Low Voltage Low Energy, Medium Voltage Low Energy,

High Voltage Med. Energy,

Low Voltage
# Efficiency Level 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 Baseline 10.0 10.0 10.0 39.4 202.7 1 Improved 7.0 6.0 5.4 10.5 159.6 2 Best
- in
Market 3.5 1.2 1.0 6.1 100.0 3 Max
- Tech* 1.5
- - - 75.0 

## DOE determined energy consumption of battery charger representative units at each efficiency level:

55

## 10/12/2010



## BC Candidate Standard Levels (CSLs) of Efficiency

111 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## DOE determined energy consumption of battery charger representative units at each efficiency level:

* 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 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
# Efficiency Level 384 Wh , 36 V 3750 Wh , 48 V 2 Wh , 3.6 V 5 Wh , 3.6 V 70 Wh , 12 V 0 Baseline 69.3 290.0 1.5 1.3 19.6 1 Improved 41.9 250.0 0.9 0.8 6.4 2 Best
- in
Market 25.0 200.0 0.6 0.5 4.0 3 Max
- Tech* 18.0 150.0
- - 1.5



## Manufacturer Interviews

112 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

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

• For each product class, manufacturer data on costs and product performance was regressed into an aggregate equation.

• The aggregate equation of the regressed manufacturer data was then used to estimate costs at each CSL for a given product class.

56-

- - 

## 10/12/2010



## Product Performance

113 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • DOE calculated UEC based on performance parameters coming from the test procedure.

• All parameters are more stringent f or increasing CSLs.

• DOE evaluated both manufacturer data and test data.

Aggregate Manufacturer Performance Parameters for Product Class 4

CSL Example Application Rated Battery Energy Rated Battery Voltage Est. Time in Active Est. 24 Hour Charge Energy Active Only System Est. Maint
. Power Est. No Battery Power UEC Wh V h Wh Eff. W W kWh/yr 0 Power Tool 20 10.8 13.0 142.9 19% 3.4 1.2 39.4 1 Notebook Computer 20 10.8 1.5 57.4 58% 1.0 0.5 10.5
2 Notebook Computer 20 10.8 1.0 42.5 76% 0.7 0.2 6.1 3
- - - - - - - - -



## BC Testing and Teardowns

114 | 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.

57- - 

## 10/12/2010



## BC Testing and Teardowns

115 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • iSuppli tore down BCs and categorized components as:

– (1) intended solely for battery charging



### – (2) intended for both battery charging and non
- battery charging functions; and

– (3) not intended for battery charging



## • To calculate BC costs, DOE included costs (1) solely for BCs and (2) intended for both purposes. Notebook Computer



## Product Performance

116 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • DOE calculated UEC based on performance parameters coming from the test procedure.

• All parameters are more stringent for increasing CSLs.

• DOE evaluated both manufacturer data and test data

. Test Results for Units in Product Class 4

CSL Application Battery Energy Rated Battery Voltage Est. Time in Active 24 Hour Charge Energy Active Only System Maint. Power No Battery Power UEC Wh V h Wh Eff. W W kWh/yr 0 Power Tool 16.3 12.0 0.6 167.5 56% 5.9 2.2 39.4 1 Power Tool 13.4 12.0 0.9 52.6 69% 1.4 1.4 10.5
2 Notebook Computer 22.9 11.1 2.7 44.6 70% 0.6 0.1 6.1 Power Tool 15.2 12.0 0.6 29.3 84% 0.5 0.5 3.8 3

- - - - - - - - -



## 58

## 10/12/2010



## BC Cost Model

117 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • DOE applied average markups to BOM costs to obtain 

## MSP.

Product Class Product Class Description Average BC Manufacturer Markup 1 Low Energy, Inductive 1.2 2 Low Energy, Low Voltage 1.2 4 Low Energy, High Voltage 1.5 5 Med Energy, Low Voltage 2 7 High Energy 2 10 Low Energy, AC Output 1.6



## BC Outputs

118 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • DOE generated separate results for manufacturer 

## interviews and testing and teardowns.

• DOE seeks comment on the cost
- efficiency results for both approaches. MSP versus UEC for the Product Class 4 Representative Unit



## 59

## 10/12/2010



## Scaling CSLs within a Product Class

119 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • Each product class contains a range of battery energies and voltages that DOE must account for when it sets its energy efficiency standards. Battery Energy versus UEC for the Product Class 2Unit



## Scaling CSLs within a Product Class

120 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • Product class 2 contains many universal battery chargers.

• Tests of the same universal battery chargers at different energies could be used as the basis for scaling within this PC.Unit



## 60

## 10/12/2010



## Issues for Comment

121 | Building Technologies Program 

### Additional Item. Scaling CSLs within BC Product Classes DOE seeks comment on suggested methodologies to scale CSLs from representative units to all units within each BC product class.

eere.energy.gov



## Energy Use Analysis

122 | Building Technologies Program 

### 1:00 – 2:00 pm Engineering Analysis 2:00 – 2:30 pm Energy Use Analysis 2:30 – 2:45 pm Product Price Determination 2:45 – 3:15 pm Life
- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses 3:15 – 3:30 pm Break 3:30 – 4:00 pm Shipments and National Impact Analyses 4:00 – 4:15 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 4:15 – 4:30 pm NOPR Analyses 4:30 – 4:55 pm Closing Comments from Participants 4:55 – 5:00 pm Closing Remarks

eere.energy.gov



## 61- 

## 10/12/2010



## Energy Use Analysis

123 | Building Technologies Program

Market and Technology Assessment

(Ch. 3) Screening Analysis (Ch. 4) Engineering Analysis (Ch. 5)

Energy Use

Analysis (Ch. 7)

Product Price Determination (Ch. 6)

Shipments Analysis (Ch. 9)

eere.energy.gov Life Cycle Cost and

Payback Period Analysis (Ch. 8)

National Impact Analysis (Ch. 10) Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis (Ch. 12)



## Energy Use Analysis Overview

124 | 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



## 62

## 10/12/2010



## Energy Use Analysis Overall Approach

125 | 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 (E CONSUMED 

## = E IN 

## − E OUT 

## )

• Estimated energy use of BCs or EPSs associated with each consumer product (application)

• Assumed energy/power requirements of applications to be fixed, then calculated energy use of BCs or EPSs at each efficiency level

• Assumed application usage patterns unrelated to BC or EPS efficiency, i.e., no “take back” or “rebound effect”



## EPS Energy Use Calculation Steps

126 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## 1. Recognized that EPSs typically output less power than their nameplate output power 2. Identified loading points , the typical power drawn in each application state as a percent of EPS nameplate output power 3. Estimated usage profiles , the time spent in no
- load mode and in each application state 4. Combined loading points and usage profiles with efficiency metrics from the engineering analysis to calculate EPS UEC at each CSL

63- 

## 10/12/2010



## EPS Energy Use Calculation Application States and Loading Points

127 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • For example, DOE identified eight application states for notebook computers

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% No
- Load 0% Unplugged from Mains 0%



## EPS Energy Use Calculation Usage Profiles

128 | Building Technologies Program



## • DOE identified two types of notebook users

– Usually plugged
- in: 40% of users

– Usually unplugged: 60% of users 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

eere.energy.gov



## 64-

- 

## 10/12/2010



## EPS Energy Use Calculation Engineering Outputs

129 | 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.

Efficiency Level CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4
Minimum Active Mode Efficiency 85% 87% 87% 88% 91%

Maximum No Load Power (W) 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.0729 0.0729 Example: Efficiency metrics for a 60 Watt EPS



## EPS Energy Use Calculation Power Consumption vs. Output Power

130 | Building Technologies Program 

## UEC = (P Active1 

## × t Active1 

## ) + (P Active2 

## × t Active2 

## ) + ... + 

## ( P No - Load 

## × t No - Load 

## )

eere.energy.gov



## 65

### - 

## 10/12/2010



## EPS Energy Use Calculation Example: 60 W EPS for Notebook Computers

131 | Building Technologies Program Application State UEC ( kwh /year) CSL 0 CSL 1 C SL 2 CSL 3 Charging the battery and operating 1.52 1.28 1.28 1.17
Operating

– High 1.63 1.38 1.38 1.26 Charging the battery 0.87 0.74 0.74 0.68 Operating 3.88 3.29 3.29 3.01 Sleep 0.69 0.67 0.35 0.20

Off 2.33 2.29 1.05 0.51 No
- Load
- - - - Unplugged
- - - - Total UEC 10.9 9.7 8.1 6.8

eere.energy.gov CSL 4 0.85

0.91 0.49 2.17 0.17 0.45

-

- 5.0



## EPS Energy Use Calculation Example: Product Class A1, 39 90 Watts

132 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Application Annual Shipments CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4

(Units) (kWh/year) Notebooks 30,225,000 10.9 9.7 8.1 6.8 5.0 Video Game Consoles 13,512,000 13.4 11.9 9.9 8.3 6.1 Ink Jet Imaging Equipment 9,339,000 11.2 12.0 10.5 9.1 6.6
Netbooks 3,700,000 8.9 7.9 6.5 5.4 3.9 Weighted Average - 11.7 10.3 8.7 7.3 5.4 Notes: Includes all AC/DC basic voltage Class A EPSs with nameplate output power between 39 and 90 watts.



### • DOE used the same approach for the other three segments within product class A1 and for product classes A2, A3, and A4.



## 66

## 10/12/2010



## EPS Energy Use Calculation Default Application States and Loading Points

133 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## • Notebook computers, LAN equipment and portable DVD players were tested to determine typical loading points.

• Other applications were assigned the following default loading points: EPS Mode Application State Loading Point (% of Nameplate Output Power)

Active Active 60% Charging* 37% Maintenance* 17% Idle 2% Sleep/Off 1% Unplugged Unplugged 0% *Only relevant to EPSs that power battery - operated applications.

134 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## EPS Energy Use Calculation Default Usage Profiles

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 All Maintenance Mostly Maintenance 1 Charge per week (mostly unplugged) 2 Charges per week 5 Charges per week 7 Charges per week - light use 7 Charges per week - heavy use Always active, always plugged in Mostly No Load/Unplugged Mostly No Load Infrequently Used (application mostly off)

Infrequently Used (mostly unplugged)

Hours per Week Active Idle Sleep/Off Charging Maintenance No Load Mode Unplugged



## 67

## 10/12/2010



## EPS Energy Use Calculation Issues for Comment

135 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### Item 20. Estimated Usage Profiles and EPS Loading Points DOE seeks comment on the methodology and final values for EPS loading points, EPS usage profiles and BC usage profiles used in generating annual unit energy consumption values.



## BC Energy Use Calculation Steps

136 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## 1. Estimated number of charges and time spent in maintenance, no battery (standby), and off modes each week for each application
2. Combined usage profile with efficiency metrics from the engineering analysis to calculate BC energy use at each efficiency level

68- 

## 10/12/2010



## BC Energy Use Calculation Usage Profile

137 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Usually plugged in

(40% of users) Usually unplugged

(60% of users) Weighted Average Usage Profile
Full Charges (#/day) 1/5 5/7 1/2 Active + Maintenance (hrs/day) 23.6 18 20.2 No Battery (hrs/day) 0.4 0 0.2 Off (hrs/day) 0 0 0 Unplugged (hrs/day) 0 6 3.6 

## • As with EPS usage, DOE identified two types of notebook users:

– Usually plugged
- in : 40 % of users

– Usually unplugged : 60 % of users

• Weighted average used for UEC calculation

Note: Full data set in Energy Use Analysis Spreadsheet , available on DOE website.



## BC Energy Use Calculation Ex.: Engineering Outputs for Product Class 4

138 | Building Technologies Program Efficiency Level CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 24 Hour Energy [Wh]: 142.9 57.44 42.45 Charge Time [hr]: 13 1.5 1.0 Battery Energy [Wh] 20 20 20 Maintenance Power [W]: 3.4 1.02 0.7

Power, No Battery [W]: 1.2 0.5 0.2 

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

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



## 69

## 10/12/2010



## BC Energy Use Calculation Preliminary Analysis TSD Equations

139 | Building Technologies Program



## E Charge 

## = [E 24 

## – E Batt 

## – { P Maint 

## × (24
– t Charge 

## )}] * n
E Maint 

## = P Maint 

## × { 

## t Active 

## – ( t Charge 

## × n ) + t Maint 

## }
E NoBatt 

## = P NoBatt 

## × t NoBatt 

## E Off 

## = P Off 

## × t Off 

## UEC = 365 × ( E Charge 

## + E Maint 

## + E NoBatt 

## + E Off 

## )

eere.energy.gov



## BC Energy Use Calculation Preliminary Analysis TSD Equations

140 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



## UEC = 365 × 

## ([E 24 

## – E Batt 

## – { P Maint 

## × (24
– t Charge 

## )}] * n + P Maint 

## × 

# { t Active 

## – ( t Charge 

## × n ) + t Maint 

## } + P NoBatt 

## × t NoBatt 

## + P Off 

## × t Off 

## )
UEC = 365 × [(E 24 

## – E Batt 

## ) + { P maint 

## × ( t Active 

## + t Maint 

## - 24 n } × n ] + P NoBatt 

## × t NoBatt 

## + P Off 

## × t Off 

## )

70

## 10/12/2010



## BC Energy Use Calculation Example: Notebook Computers

141 | Building Technologies Program Mode CSL 0 Charge 16.05 Maintenance 16.81

No Battery 0.08 Off 0.00 Total UEC 32.9 UEC ( kwh /year) CSL 1 2.74 7.21 0.03 0.00 10.0 C SL 2 1.19 5.04 0.01 0.00 6.2

eere.energy.gov



## BC Energy Use Calculation Example: BC Product Class 4

142 | Building Technologies Program Application* 2008 Shipments

(Units) 1 Notebooks 40,300,000
2 Professional Power Tools 11,688,000

3 DIY Power Tools (External) 5,259,000
4 Netbooks 3,700,000 5 Handheld Vacuums 2,797,000 Weighted Average

* Only top 5 applications listed CSL 0

32.9 79.4

20.5 33.1 32.7 39.4 CSL 1 (kWh/yr)

10.0 15.9

5.8 10.1 9.8 10.5

eere.energy.gov CSL 2

6.2 7.6

3.1 6.1 6.5 6.1



## 71

## 10/12/2010



## BC Energy Use Calculation Generic Usage Profiles

143 | Building Technologies Program

Charges/Day

1 1 5/7 2/7 1/7 1/7 1/50 Time/Day

Product Usage detailed in Usage Workbook.

eere.energy.gov



## Product Price Determination

144 | Building Technologies Program 

### 1:00 – 2:00 pm Engineering Analysis 2:00 – 2:30 pm Energy Use Analysis 2:30 – 2:45 pm Product Price Determination 2:45 – 3:15 pm Life
- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses 3:15 – 3:30 pm Break 3:30 – 4:00 pm Shipments and National Impact Analyses 4:00 – 4:15 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 4:15 – 4:30 pm NOPR Analyses 4:30 – 4:55 pm Closing Comments from Participants 4:55 – 5:00 pm Closing Remarks

eere.energy.gov



## 72- 

## 10/12/2010



## Product Price Determination

145 | Building Technologies Program

Market and Technology Assessment

(Ch. 3) Screening Analysis (Ch. 4) Engineering Analysis (Ch. 5)

Energy Use

Analysis (Ch. 7)

Product Price Determination (Ch. 6)

Shipments Analysis (Ch. 9)

eere.energy.gov Life Cycle Cost and

Payback Period Analysis (Ch. 8)

National Impact Analysis (Ch. 10) Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis (Ch. 12)



## Product Price Determination Overview

146 | Building Technologies Program 

## 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

eere.energy.gov



## 73

## 10/12/2010



## Product Price Determination Distribution Channels

147 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Key Assumptions:

• Dominant path to market establishes final BC/EPS price.

• Distribution can be complex, but prices remain relatively consistent regardless of distribution path.

• Initial markups are applied when the product is first sold as a complete EPS or BC System.

– BC/EPS manufacturer markups are calculated as part of the Engineering Analysis (see chapter 5). Note: The grey arrows depict the most common path to market.



## Product Price Determination Distribution Channels

148 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Key Assumptions (continued):

• Markups applied to an end
- use product are equal to that product’s component markups (such as BCs, EPSs).

• BC/EPS markups can be derived from OEM and Retailer gross margins.

• Corporate markups are equivalent to average markups across product lines.

• Used public financial filings to calculate markups for 83 OEMs, retailers, and distributors.



## 74Average OEM Markup: 

## 10/12/2010



## Product Price Determination Markups: A Hypothetical Example

149 | Building Technologies Program Baseline Product (CSL 0) Efficient Product (e.g., CSL 1)

eere.energy.gov 

### 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.



## Product Price Determination Average Markups

150 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Baseline Markup Incremental Markup Average OEM Markup 1.48 1.18 Average Retailer Markup 1.47 1.13 Weighted Average Sales Tax 1.07 1.07 Average Composite Markup 2.33 1.43
Markups by product class are available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/bceps_preanalysis_tsd.pdf



## 75

## - 10/12/2010



## Product Price Determination Issues for Comment

151 | Building Technologies Program 

### Item 16. Markup Assumptions and Estimates DOE also seeks feedback on the assumptions and methods used to calculate baseline and incremental markups.

eere.energy.gov



## Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

152 | Building Technologies Program 

### 1:00 – 2:00 pm Engineering Analysis 2:00 – 2:30 pm Energy Use Analysis 2:30 – 2:45 pm Product Price Determination 2:45 – 3:15 pm Life
- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses 3:15 – 3:30 pm Break 3:30 – 4:00 pm Shipments and National Impact Analyses 4:00 – 4:15 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 4:15 – 4:30 pm NOPR Analyses 4:30 – 4:55 pm Closing Comments from Participants 4:55 – 5:00 pm Closing Remarks

eere.energy.gov



## 76

## -

-



## - 10/12/2010



## Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

153 | Building Technologies Program

Market and Technology Assessment

(Ch. 3) Screening Analysis (Ch. 4) Engineering Analysis (Ch. 5)

Energy Use

Analysis (Ch. 7)

Product Price Determination (Ch. 6)

Shipments Analysis (Ch. 9)

eere.energy.gov Life Cycle Cost and

Payback Period Analysis (Ch. 8)

National Impact Analysis (Ch. 10) Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis (Ch. 12)



## Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

154 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov Consumer Life

Cycle Cost (Baseline and Standard) LCC impacts (difference between baseline and standard) Operating Cost

(Sum & discount to

present value) First 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.



## 77

## - 10/12/2010



## Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

155 | Building Technologies Program



### • Total Installed Price (First Cost):

– Purchase price: product price, sales tax.

– Installation cost: not applicable.



### • Total Operating Cost:

– Unit energy consumption: usage profile, loading profile, efficiency.

– Energy cost: energy price, projected energy price trend

.

– Maintenance/Repair cost: not applicable.



### • Present Value Factors:

– Discount rate: residential and commercial sector.

– Lifetime: application lifetime.
eere.energy.gov



## Energy Prices and Price Trends

156 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



### • Derive average regional prices for 13 geographic areas consisting of nine Census Divisions with four large States, treated separately.

– Uses the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Form EIA
- 861, 

### which collects electric utility data annually

.



### • Average electricity price [2009$]:

– Residential = $0.115 Commercial = $0.101



### • Use the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) for projections of future average electricity prices.

– Apply the AEO trends to the energy prices derived from Form EIA
861.



## 78

### – 

## 10/12/2010



## Discount Rates

157 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



### • DOE uses the discount rate to determine the present value operating expenses over the product lifetime.

• Derive discount rates from estimates of the interest or “finance cost” to purchase and operate products

.

• Finance cost of raising funds to purchase and operate products can be: 1) Financial cost of any debt incurred to purchase/operate products. 2) Opportunity cost of any equity used to purchase/operate 

### products

.



### • Weighted average discount rates:

– Residential = 5.6% Commercial = 7.0%



## Efficiency Distributions in the Base Case (2013)

158 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



### • Some consumers currently purchase products that have efficiency levels above the baseline efficiency.

• The “base case market distribution” identifies the proportion of consumers that currently purchase products at each standards
level.

• DOE used a base case market distribution for each product class. External Power Supplies Base Case Market Distribution CSL CSL Description Market Share [ % ] Baseline EISA 2007 34.0 1 Energy Star 2.0 50.7 2 Intermediate 12.0 3 Best in Market 3.3 4 Max
- Tech 0.0



## 79- 

## 10/12/2010



## Application Sampling

159 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



### • Each representative unit is comprised of multiple applications with unique input values.

• The Monte Carlo analysis samples an individual application each trial based on its shipment
- weighted probability.

– The unique input values for the application are then used in the LCC calculations.



### • The Sample Calculation uses the shipment
- weighted average for each input value rather than application
- specific input values.

Additional Detail can be found in Appendix 8C.



## Application Sampling Example

160 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



### Battery Charger Product Class 6: Medium Energy, High Voltage

Application Shipments Prob ability Lifetime [yrs] Markup Baseline //

Incr. [%] Market Share [%] at CSL UEC [kWh/yr] at CSL 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 Electric Scooters 250,000 0.27 10.0 2.31 // 1.37 50 20 30 0 66 39 23 17 Mobility Scooters 192,274 0.20 10.0 2.31 // 1.37 50 20 30 0 85 62 37 27 Lawn Mowers 182,143 0.19 6.0 2.14 // 1.34 50 20 30 0 45 9 5 2 Wheelchairs 166,057 0.18 9.7 2.31 // 1.37 50 20 30 0 85 62 37 27 Motorized Bicycles 150,000 0.16 7.0 2.31 // 1.37 50 20 30 0 66 39 23 17 Weighted Totals 940,474 1.0 8.7 2.28 // 1.36 50 20 30 0 69 42 25 18



## 80

## 10/12/2010



## Monte Carlo Simulations: Distribution of Consumer LCC Savings

161 | Building Technologies Program 

### • Monte Carlo simulations illustrate the distribution of LCC Savings for a population of consumers if DOE sets the efficiency standard at a given CSL.

• DOE conducted 1,000 trials for each representative unit.

– Each trial represents a different consumer.



### • In each trial, the following inputs vary:

– Application Selection

– Starting CSL

– Geographic Region

– Discount Rate

eere.energy.gov

162 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Variation in LCC Savings Example: 2.5W EPS at CSL 3

81- - 

## 10/12/2010



## Variation in LCC Savings Example: 2.5W EPS

163 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Example from previous slide



## LCC and PBP Results External Power Supplies
EPS Product Class A1: 2.5W rep unit

CSL Eff.* [ % ] No Load Power

[ W

] Life Cycle Cost [ 2009$ ] Life Cycle Cost Savings

Median PBP [ yrs ] Avg. Installed

Price† Avg. Operating Cost Avg. LCC† Wtd . Avg. Savings [ 2009$ ] Consumers with Net Cost [ % ] No Impact

[ % ] Net Benefit

[ % ] 0 58.3 0.500 0.00 1.73 1.73
- - - - - 1 67.9 0.300 0.06 1.12 1.19 0.19 3.1 66.0 30.9 0.4 2 71.0 0.130 0.35 0.90 1.24 0.14 40.5 15.3 44.2 3.6 3 73.5 0.100 0.47 0.78 1.25 0.13 44.2 3.2 52.6 3.7 4 74.0 0.053 0.63 0.74 1.36 0.02 64.3 0.0 35.7 4.8 * “Eff.” stands for “efficiency level.” † Based on an incremental MSP over the baseline.

164 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov



## 82

## - - 10/12/2010



## LCC Sensitivities: High Savings and Low Savings

165 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • In addition to the reference case, DOE considered “High Savings” and “Low Savings” scenarios.

• These scenarios consider the impact of simultaneously adjusting multiple, product
- specific inputs.

– Adjustments based other data sources and reasonable 

### deviations from the average.



### • The inputs adjusted were:

Input High Savings Low Savings Manufacturer Selling Price Decrease Increase Application Lifetime Increase Decrease Application Usage Profile Increase Decrease Loading Points (for EPSs only) Increase Decrease
Detailed results can be found in Appendix 8B.



## Issues for Comment

166 | Building Technologies Program 

### Issue 17. Sensitivity Analysis Methodology and Results DOE seeks comment on the methodology and results of the sensitivity analyses.

eere.energy.gov



## 83

## 10/12/2010

167 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### 1:00 – 2:00 pm Engineering Analysis 2:00 – 2:30 pm Energy Use Analysis 2:30 – 2:45 pm Product Price Determination 2:45 – 3:15 pm Life
- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses 3:15 – 3:30 pm Break 3:30 – 4:00 pm Shipments and National Impact Analyses 4:00 – 4:15 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 4:15 – 4:30 pm NOPR Analyses 4:30 – 4:55 pm Closing Comments from Participants 4:55 – 5:00 pm Closing Remarks 

## Break

Break

168 | Building Technologies Program 

### • We will resume the public meeting in 15 minutes.

eere.energy.gov



## 84- 

## 10/12/2010



## Shipments and National Impact Analyses

169 | Building Technologies Program 

### 1:00 – 2:00 pm Engineering Analysis 2:00 – 2:30 pm Energy Use Analysis 2:30 – 2:45 pm Product Price Determination 2:45 – 3:15 pm Life
- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses 3:15 – 3:30 pm Break 3:30 – 4:00 pm Shipments and National Impact Analyses 4:00 – 4:15 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 4:15 – 4:30 pm NOPR Analyses 4:30 – 4:55 pm Closing Comments from Participants 4:55 – 5:00 pm Closing Remarks

eere.energy.gov



## Shipments Analysis

170 | Building Technologies Program

Market and Technology Assessment

(Ch. 3) Screening Analysis (Ch. 4) Engineering Analysis (Ch. 5)

Energy Use

Analysis (Ch. 7)

Product Price Determination (Ch. 6)

Shipments Analysis (Ch. 9)

eere.energy.gov Life Cycle Cost and

Payback Period Analysis (Ch. 8)

National Impact Analysis (Ch. 10) Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis (Ch. 12)



## 85

## Shipments Analysis

Shipments Analysis 10/12/2010



## Shipments Analysis Overview

171 | 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 Shipments Forecast Assumptions

172 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Account for all known major market trends through 2013

• Growth rate of 0.75 percent annually (mirrors population growth)



### • Mix of applications does not change over time

• No difference between base case and standards cases

– Inelastic demand due to incremental price increases being very small

relative to the total cost of the end
- use product.

– Functionality of BCs and EPSs limit substitutions.



## 86

## 10/12/2010



## Shipments Analysis Efficiency Forecast Assumptions

173 | Building Technologies Program 

### • Short term (2009 - 2013)

– Modest improvement in EPS efficiency due to standards in Europe

– No improvement in BC efficiency



### • Roll - Up market response to standards in 2013

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

– Products at or above standard will be unaffected.



### • No changes after 2013

eere.energy.gov



## Shipments Analysis Efficiency Forecast Example: Class A EPSs

174 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Year Scenario Percent of Market at Each Efficiency Level
CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4
2009 Current Market 68% 17% 12% 3% -

2013 Base Case (No Standard) 34% 51% 12% 3%
- Standards Case CSL 1
- 85% 12% 3%
- Standards Case CSL 2
- - 97% 3%
- Standards Case CSL 3
- - - 100%
- Standards Case CSL 4
- - - - 100%



## 87- 

## 10/12/2010

175 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Shipments Analysis Issues for Comment

Item 22. Shipment Trends 

### DOE seeks comment on its simplifying assumption that per
- capita usage of BCs and EPSs will remain constant through the analysis period. Item 23. Base Case Efficiency Distribution and Efficiency Forecast DOE seeks comment on the methodology used for establishing BC and EPS base case efficiency distributions . In addition, DOE seeks comment on the assumption that BC and EPS efficiency will not improve after 2013 in the absence of standards. Item 19. Substitutability DOE seeks comment on its assumption that prescribed standards 

### will not result in substitution of competing technologies for BCs and EPSs. Competing technologies include, but are not limited to, fuel cells, internal power supplies, primary batteries, and USB systems.



## National Impact Analysis

176 | Building Technologies Program

Market and Technology Assessment

(Ch. 3) Screening Analysis (Ch. 4) Engineering Analysis (Ch. 5)

Energy Use

Analysis (Ch. 7)

Product Price Determination (Ch. 6)

Shipments Analysis (Ch. 9)

eere.energy.gov Life Cycle Cost and

Payback Period Analysis (Ch. 8)

National Impact Analysis (Ch. 10) Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis (Ch. 12)



## 88

## National Impact Analysis 10/12/2010



## National Impact Analysis Overview

177 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Purpose

– To estimate the national energy savings and financial impacts on

consumers that would result from standards for BCs and EPSs



### • Outputs

– National Energy Savings (NES)

– Primary energy saved from BCs and

EPSs shipped between 2013 and 2042

– Net Present Value (NPV)

– Consumer costs and energy cost savings from

BCs and EPSs shipped between 2013 and 2042



## National Impact Analysis General Approach

178 | Building Technologies Program 

## For each product class in each standards case:

• Calculate the per
- unit cost increase and the per
- unit energy savings due to a standard

• Calculate the number of units in use each year from 2013 to 2052

– 30 years of shipments between 2013 and 2042

– Maximum lifetime of 10 years



## • Combine the above to determine NES and NPV

eere.energy.gov



## 89

## 10/12/2010



## National Impact Analysis Example

179 | Building Technologies Program

EPS Product Class A1 (AC - DC, Basic Voltage) with a Standard at CSL 1

$(30) $(20) $(10)

$

- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $7020132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492009$ Million

National Energy Savings National Improvement Costs Net Present Value

eere.energy.gov205020512052



## National Impact Analysis Inputs

180 | Building Technologies Program Input Unit Energy Consumption at each Efficiency Level Unit Cost at each Efficiency Level Shipment Forecast Lifetime Efficiency Forecast Electricity and Gasoline Prices
Site
- to
- Source Conversion Factor Discount Rate

eere.energy.gov Source Energy Use Analysis Engineering Analysis and Product Price Determination Shipments Analysis Market Assessment Shipments Analysis EIA , Annual Energy Outlook through 2030 Extrapolated for years after 2030 EIA , Annual Energy Outlook 2010 3% and 7% (OMB Regulatory Analysis Guideline A
- 4)



## 90

## 10/12/2010



## National Impact Analysis Sensitivities

181 | Building Technologies Program 

## DOE evaluated 3 scenarios for all representative unit 

## product classes:

• Low Savings

• Reference

• High Savings
Variables

• MSP

• UEC

• Lifetime

eere.energy.gov



## National Impact Analysis Results for EPS Product Class A1

182 | Building Technologies Program Scenario NES or NPV Standard Level Selected CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4

Low NES 205 546 835 1,141
NPV $649 $1,121

- $298

- $4,262

Reference NES 233 605 922 1,263
NPV $1,057 $2,113 $1,881

- $207

High NES 261 715 1,085 1,515
NPV $1,360 $3,145 $3,784 $3,200 •

•

eere.energy.gov NES values in trillion Btu of primary energy
NPV values in million 2009$ with 3% discount rate



## 91

## 10/12/2010



## National Impact Analysis Results for EPS Product Class A1

183 | Building Technologies Program National Energy Savings Trillion BTU

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

EPS
- A1 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 - 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

CSL 1 Net Present Value 2009$ Million

EPS
- A1 CSL 2 CSL 3

eere.energy.gov CSL 4



## National Impact Analysis Results for BC Product Class 5

184 | Building Technologies Program Scenario NES or NPV Standard Level Selected CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3

Low NES 19 109 136
NPV
- $213

- $1,503

- $6,658

Reference NES 88 150 366
NPV $274

- $277

- $4,026

High NES 88 250 366
NPV $306

- $64

- $3,293

eere.energy.gov • NES values in trillion Btu of primary energy

• NPV values in million 2009$ with 3% discount rate

• Using cost data from manufacturers



## 92

## 10/12/2010



## National Impact Analysis Results for BC Product Class 5

185 | Building Technologies Program National Energy Savings Trillion BTU

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

BC
- 5 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 - 4500 - 4000 - 3500 - 3000 - 2500 - 2000 - 1500 - 1000 - 500 0 500 Net Present Value 2009$ Million

BC
- 5 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3

eere.energy.gov

186 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Residential Furnaces and Boilers (2007) Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

(2009) External Power Supplies * Incandescent Reflector Lamps (2009) Water heaters (2010) Battery Chargers * Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps (2001) Residential Clothes Washers (2001) Flourescent Lamps (2009)National Energy Savings (quads) 

## National Impact Analysis NES Compared to Other Rulemakings

* BC and EPS savings shown for standards set at highest level analyzed.



## 93- 

## 10/12/2010



## Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

187 | Building Technologies Program 

### 1:00 – 2:00 pm Engineering Analysis 2:00 – 2:30 pm Energy Use Analysis 2:30 – 2:45 pm Product Price Determination 2:45 – 3:15 pm Life
- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses 3:15 – 3:30 pm Break 3:30 – 4:00 pm Shipments and National Impact Analyses 4:00 – 4:15 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 4:15 – 4:30 pm NOPR Analyses 4:30 – 4:55 pm Closing Comments from Participants 4:55 – 5:00 pm Closing Remarks

eere.energy.gov



## Prelim. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

188 | Building Technologies Program

Market and Technology Assessment

(Ch. 3) Screening Analysis (Ch. 4) Engineering Analysis (Ch. 5)

Energy Use

Analysis (Ch. 7)

Product Price Determination (Ch. 6)

Shipments Analysis (Ch. 9)

eere.energy.gov Life Cycle Cost and

Payback Period Analysis (Ch. 8)

National Impact Analysis (Ch. 10) Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis (Ch. 12)



## 94

## 10/12/2010



## Prelim. Manufacturer Impact Analysis Overview

189 | Building Technologies Program 

## • Purpose

– To identify the impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturers

– Key output of MIA is the change in industry value due to standards



## • The MIA consists of three phases:

Industry profile Develop straw - man GRIM* Develop interview guide Interviews & industry wide / subgroup analyses Assess direct employment, competition, cumulative burden Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 1

eere.energy.gov



## Prelim. Manufacturer Impact Analysis Methodology

190 | 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 Government Regulatory Impact Model) and qualitatively (impacts on competition, manufacturing capacity, employment, and regulatory burden)

Industry profile Develop straw - man GRIM* Develop interview guide Interviews & industry wide / subgroup analyses Assess direct employment, competition, cumulative burden s Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 1



## 95

## 10/12/2010



## Prelim. Manufacturer Impact Analysis Key Issues

191 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • Conversion Costs

– Significant cost and time required for testing and safety approvals

– Stringent standards would require significant capital conversion costs



### • Efficiency as a Selling Point

– Some manufacturers concerned that efficiency is not important to their customers and will be difficult to sell

– Price and quality are more important



### • Margins

– Many manufacturers expect new standards to raise cost and harm profitability because they would be unable to pass on those incremental costs to consumers



### • Regulatory Burden

– Increasing efficiency may impact attempts to harmonize with global regulations/standards



## Prelim. Manufacturer Impact Analysis Issues for Comment

192 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### Item 25. Impact on Manufacturers DOE requests comment on its identification of key issues and requests data and information from interested parties that can assist in evaluating the potential impact of standards on manufacturers.

Item 26. Cumulative Regulatory Burden DOE invites comment on how regulations applicable to BCs and EPSs may contribute to manufacturers’ cumulative regulatory burden, including expected costs and timelines for compliance of other regulations.



## 96

## 10/12/2010



## NOPR Analyses

193 | Building Technologies Program 

### 1:00 – 2:00 pm 2:00 – 2:30 pm 2:30 – 2:45 pm 2:45 – 3:15 pm 3:15 – 3:30 pm 3:30 – 4:00 pm 4:00 – 4:15 pm 4:15 – 4:30 pm 4:30 – 4:55 pm 4:55 – 5:00 pm Engineering Analysis Energy Use Analysis Product Price Determination Life
- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses Break Shipments and National Impact Analyses Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis NOPR Analyses Closing Comments from Participants Closing Remarks

eere.energy.gov



## NOPR Stage Analyses

194 | Building Technologies Program 

# • Utility Impact Analysis

• Employment Impact Analysis

• Environmental Assessment



# • Regulatory Impact Analysis

eere.energy.gov



## 97

## 10/12/2010



## Utility Impact Analysis Overview

195 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Purpose

• Assess the impacts on energy supply that would result from the imposition of standards. 

## Methodology

• The Department proposes to use National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)
- Building Technologies (BT), a variant of the NEMS used by EIA for their AEO report.

• Use National Energy Savings from the considered standard 

### levels to generate forecasts that deviate from the AEO reference case. 

## Outputs

• Forecasts of electricity generation.

• Avoided capacity resulting from the considered standard levels

.



## NOPR Stage Analyses

196 | Building Technologies Program 

# • Utility Impact Analysis

• Employment Impact Analysis

• Environmental Assessment



# • Regulatory Impact Analysis

eere.energy.gov



## 98

## 10/12/2010



## Employment Impact Analysis Overview

197 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## 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. 

## Methodology

• DOE intends to use the Impact of Sector Energy Technologies (ImSET) model for the evaluation of indirect employment 

### impacts. (Note: ImSET is an update of IMBUILD) 

## Outputs

• Change in employment by sector as a consequence of new standards.



## NOPR Stage Analyses

198 | Building Technologies Program 

# • Utility Impact Analysis

• Employment Impact Analysis

• Environmental Assessment



# • Regulatory Impact Analysis

eere.energy.gov



## 99

## 10/12/2010



## Environmental Assessment Overview

199 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Purpose

• To report environmental impacts resulting from amended energy conservation standards, including changes in power plant emissions. 

## Methodology

• DOE intends to assess the environmental impacts using NEMS
BT. 

## Outputs

• Estimate of national emission reductions of CO 2 

### , NO x 

### , and mercury.

– Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) will be the primary emissions reported.

– Mercury (Hg) emissions will also be reported.

– Nitrogen Oxide ( NO x ) emissions will be reported for the 22 states

where emissions are not capped.

– Existing legislation cap Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ), so physical emission

reductions will be zero or nearly zero



## Environmental Assessment Monetization of Emission Reductions

200 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### • DOE intends to use the most current Social Cost of Carbon 

### (SCC) values developed by interagency reviews.

– SCC is intended to be a monetary measure of the incremental damage resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including but not limited to agricultural productivity loss, human health effects, property damage from rising sea level, and changes in the ecosystem.



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

### emissions in 2010 are $ 4.70, $ 21.40, $ 35.10, and $ 64.90 per metric ton in 2007 dollars.

– For emission reductions that occur in later years, these values grow in real terms over time.



### • DOE will also estimate the potential monetary benefit of reduced NO x 

### emissions resulting from the considered standard levels.



## 100

## 10/12/2010



## Environmental Assessment Issues for comment

201 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

### Item 24. DOE acknowledges that there may be certain benefits resulting from the improved efficiency of BCs and EPSs that are not captured directly by the products' users. These include both environmental and energy security
- related externalities that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and reduced use of fossil fuels for electricity generation. DOE invites comments on the nature 

### and magnitude of such benefits. Item 27. DOE invites comment on possible approaches to monetizing the emission reductions expected to result from energy conservation standards.



## NOPR Stage Analyses

202 | Building Technologies Program 

# • Utility Impact Analysis

• Employment Impact Analysis

• Environmental Assessment



# • Regulatory Impact Analysis

eere.energy.gov



## 101

## 10/12/2010



## Regulatory Impact Analysis Overview

203 | Building Technologies Program 

## Purpose

• To investigate the national impacts of non
- regulatory alternatives compared with mandatory energy conservation standards.

• The non
- regulatory alternatives that may be considered include:

– Consumer rebates;

– Consumer tax credits;

– Manufacturer tax credits;

– Voluntary efficiency targets;

– Early replacement; and

– Bulk government procurement.

eere.energy.gov



## Regulatory Impact Analysis Overview

204 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Methodology

• Modify NES spreadsheet model to consider non
- regulatory scenarios.

• Estimate impacts of non
- regulatory scenarios based on experience with the considered policies. 

## Outputs

• National Energy Savings and Net Present Value of the non
regulatory alternatives.



## 102

## 10/12/2010



## Closing Comments from Participants

205 | Building Technologies Program 

### 1:00 – 2:00 pm Engineering Analysis 2:00 – 2:30 pm Energy Use Analysis 2:30 – 2:45 pm Product Price Determination 2:45 – 3:15 pm Life
- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses 3:15 – 3:30 pm Break 3:30 – 4:00 pm Shipments and National Impact Analyses 4:00 – 4:15 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 4:15 – 4:30 pm NOPR Analyses 4:30 – 4:55 pm Closing Comments from Participants 4:55 – 5:00 pm Closing Remarks

eere.energy.gov



## Closing Remarks

206 | Building Technologies Program 

### 1:00 – 2:00 pm Engineering Analysis 2:00 – 2:30 pm Energy Use Analysis 2:30 – 2:45 pm Product Price Determination 2:45 – 3:15 pm Life
- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses 3:15 – 3:30 pm Break 3:30 – 4:00 pm Shipments and National Impact Analyses 4:00 – 4:15 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 4:15 – 4:30 pm NOPR Analyses 4:30 – 4:55 pm Closing Comments from Participants 4:55 – 5:00 pm Closing Remarks

eere.energy.gov



## 103

## 10/12/2010



# Closing Remarks

207 | 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 Postal Mail :

Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE
- 2J 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585
- 0121 Courier : Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program 950 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W., 6 th Floor Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 586
- 2945 Comment period closes October 15, 2010



## 104