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., 6th 

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 

2008 2009 2010

eere.energy.gov 

2011 2012 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) Purpose 

Preliminary 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 level 

NOPR 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 

motor-operated application 

or 

a detachable battery 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 reduction 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% 

Class A EPSs EISA Intermediate ENERGY STAR Best in Market 

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 motorized 

applications and 

detachable batteries 

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 costefficiency 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 

Test & Teardown - CSL Scaling 

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 
 

 

 

#876

#935

996

#949

#118

#941

#999

#834

#838

#854

#951

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 No-Load Power [W]

Output Power [W]

No-Load Power vs. Output Power

Test Data

Manufacturer 

Data

CSL0

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

CSL4

#876

#935

#996

#949

#118

#941

#999

#834

#838

#854

#951

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

Scaled Average Active

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

-Mode Efficiency [%] 

Output Power [W]

Scaled Average Active-Mode

Efficiency vs. Output Power

Test Data

Manufacturer Data

EISA

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

CSL4

 

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 (Pout). 

CSL Reference 

Nameplate Output Power (Pout) 

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 (Pout) 

CSL Reference 

Nameplate Output Power (Pout) 

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 [%] PNL [W] Eff [%] PNL [W] Eff [%] PNL [W] Eff [%] PNL [W] 

CSL0 58.3% 0.500 76% 0.500 85% 0.500 85% 0.500 

CSL1 67.9% 0.300 80.3% 0.300 87% 0.500 87% 0.500 

CSL2 70.9% 0.200 83% 0.200 87% 0.230 87% 0.230 

CSL3 73.2% 0.100 85% 0.100 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 
 

 

#949 #118

#941

#604

#645

#805

#809 #814

#818

#891

#900

#903

#906

#912

#915

#918

Intermediate

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

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

Scaled Average Active-Mode Efficiency [%]

Selected Test Units Additional Test Units

Intermediate

Max Tech

CSL0

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

CSL4

Max Tech

 

 

 

 

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 Efficient 

More 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 
 

 

Original 

Efficiency

Original Cost

Scaled Efficiency 

and Cost

Scaling for 

Cord Length

Scaling for 

Output 

Power

Scaling for 

Output 

Voltage

Scaling for 

Cord Length

Scaling for 

Output 

Power

Markups

 

 

Bill of Materials 

(BOM)

Labor and Utilities

Manufacturer Production Cost 

(MPC or “Factory Cost”)

Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)

Manufacturer Selling Price 

(MSP)

Retail Price

Consumer Components

Integrated Circuit (IC)

Others

EPS Manufacturer 

“Original Device Manufacturer” (ODM) Retailer

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 
 

 

 

 

-$1.50

-$1.00

-$0.50

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

75% 80% 85% 90%

MSP Difference [$] Average Efficiency [%]

Manufacturer 

Interview Data

Testing and 

Teardown Data

-$1.50

-$1.00

-$0.50

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

600 400 200 0 MSP Difference [$]

No-Load Power [mW]

Manufacturer 

Interview Data

Testing and 

Teardown Data

 

 

 

-

-

 

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 (Pout) 

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 (Pout) 

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. Medical 

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 

Nameplate Output Example Application 

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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

0 2 4 6 8 1 0 12 14 1 6 18 20 22 24 Input Power (Watts)

Time (Hours)

24 Hour Metered Charge Test

24 Hour Energy = Area under the dark 

blue curve (including the red box) 

Battery Energy = Red Box

(Value comes from discharge 

Average Maintenance Mode Power 

= Average input power of the last 4 

hours of the 24 hour metered charge

Charge Time = Time when BC enters maintenance mode

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: 

– E24 = 24 hour energy 

– Ebattery = Measured battery energy 

– Pmaint = Average maintenance mode power 

– Pno = Average no-battery mode power 

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

– Poff = Average off mode power 

– n = Number of charges per day 

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

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

– tunplugged = Time per day spent in unplugged mode 

– toff = 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-inMarket 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-inMarket 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 for 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 
 

 

 

 

$0

$3

$6

$9

$12

$15

0 10 20 30 40 50

Manufacturer Selling Price [$]

Energy Consumption [kWh/year]

Mfr Interview Data

Test and Teardown Data

CSL0

CSL1

CSL2

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 
 

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Annual Energy Consumption [kWh]

Measured Battery Energy [Wh]

Cordless Phones Cordless Phones/Answering Devices Mobile Phones Cordless Rechargeable Can Openers Digital Cameras Portable Video Game Systems Ecos Tests Rep. Unit Efficiency Improvement Path Increasing Efficiency

 

 

 

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 2 Unit 

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 (ECONSUMED = EIN − EOUT) 

• 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 = (PActive1 × tActive1) + (PActive2 × tActive2) + ... +

(PNo-Load × tNo-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 CSL 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 

ECharge = [E24 – EBatt – {PMaint × (24 – tCharge)}] * n 

EMaint = PMaint × {tActive – (tCharge × n) + tMaint } 

ENoBatt = PNoBatt × tNoBatt 

EOff = POff × tOff 

UEC = 365 × (ECharge + EMaint + ENoBatt + EOff) 

eere.energy.gov 

BC Energy Use Calculation 

Preliminary Analysis TSD Equations 

140 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

UEC = 365 × 

([E24 – EBatt – {PMaint × (24 – tCharge)}] * n 

+ PMaint × {tActive – (tCharge × n) + tMaint } 

+ PNoBatt × tNoBatt + POff × tOff) 

UEC = 365 × 

[(E24 – EBatt) + {Pmaint × (tActive + tMaint -

24n} × n] 

+ PNoBatt × tNoBatt + POff × tOff) 

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 

CSL 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. 

74 
 

 

 

 

 

$10.00 

$15.00 

$10.00 

$15.00 

$2.00 

$2.30 

$-

$2 

$4 

$6 

$8 

$10 

$12 

$14 

$16 

$18 

$20 

MSP Retail Price MSP Retail Price

Baseline Markup = 1.50 Incremental Markup = 1.15

$12.00

$17.30

Average 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 

Operating Cost baseline and standard) 

(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 EIA861. 

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 standardslevel. 

• 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 
-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4

Life-Cycle Cost Savings (2009$)

LCC Savings Ranges by Efficiency Level

Box 25% - 75%; Whisker: 5% - 95%

Median

Average

75th Percentile

25th Percentile

- - 

 

 

 

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 

$70 

2013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040204120422043204420452046204720482049

2009$ Million 

National Energy Savings National Improvement Costs Net Present Value 

eere.energy.gov 2050 2051 2052 

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 

& 

industrywide / 

subgroup 

analyses 

Assess direct 

employment, 

competition, 

cumulative 

burden 

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 

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 

& 

industrywide / 

subgroup 

analyses 

Assess direct 

employment, 

competition, 

cumulative 

burdens 

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 

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 NEMSBT. 

Outputs 

• Estimate of national emission reductions of CO2, NOx, and 

mercury. 

– Carbon dioxide (CO2) will be the primary emissions reported. 

– Mercury (Hg) emissions will also be reported. 

– Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions will be reported for the 22 states 

where emissions are not capped. 

– Existing legislation cap Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), 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 CO2 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 NOx 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 nonregulatory 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., 6th 

Floor 

Washington, DC 20024 

Telephone: (202) 586-2945 

Comment period closes October 15, 2010 

104