UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

**PUBLIC MEETING**  **ON ENERGY CONSERVATION**  **PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS, E**  **NERGY CONSERVATION S TANDARDS FOR**  **BATTERY CHARGERS AND EXTERNAL POWER SUPPL**  **IES**

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20585 Room SE

- 089 Review Center

Wednesday, May 02, 2012

**Facilitator:**

Doug Brookman Public Solutions Baltimore, MDExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 2 **Participants Identified:**

Charlie Stephens Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

Cory Watkins Schuma ch er Electric

Jay Taylor Schneider Electric

Spencer Stock Lester Electrical

Ric Erdheim Philips Electronics

Ken Salaets Information Technology Industry Council

Jacinto Patrick Carrera iRobot

Alex Boesenberg National Electrical Manufacturers Association

Dave Denkenberger ECOVA

Ken Rider California Energy Commission

Pierre Delforge National Resources Defense Council

Shahid Sheikh Intel Corporation

Jennifer Cleary Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

Jeff Hailey DellExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 3 Rick Habben Wa hl Clipper Group

Holly Evans Strategic Council

Jim Spitaels Schneider Electric

Paul Hamilton Schneider Electric

Jordan Doria Ingersoll Rand

John Clinger ICF International

Russ Smith Lutron Electronics

Keith Cook Philips Electronics

Pekka Hakkarainenen Lutron Electronics

Carin Stuart Energizer Battery Manufacturing

Dennis Beck California Energy Commission

Rich Fass l er Power Integrations

Brian Spak Green Strategies

Eric Kuwana Katten Law

John Whiting Schumacher ElectricExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 4

Matt Malinowski ICF International

Stephen Jeong Underwriter Laboratories

Julia Farber Underwriter Laboratories

Arnold Offner Phoenix Contact

Joanna Mauer Appliance Standards Awareness Project

Mark Sharp Panasonic

John Clinger ICF

Tim Ballo Earth Justice

David Kim LG Electronics

Doug Johnson CEA

John Hodges Wiley Rein

Eric Andreas Wiley Rein

David Cassano Apple

Joseph Anderson TIAExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 5

**Participants from DOE:**

Vic Petrolati Department of Energy

Jim Raba Department of Energy

Jeremy Dommu Department of Energy

Michael Kido Department of Energy

Brenda Edwards Department of Energy

**Participants from Consultants:**

Brian Booher D&R International

Ari Reeves D&R International

Matt Nardotti Navigant Consulting

Chris Skahan Navigant Consulting

Peter Protopappas Navigant Consulting

Dan Lauf D&R International

Pamela Costello Navigant ConsultingExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 6

Hayden Cook Navigant Consulting

Sanaee Iyama Lawrence Berkeley National Lab

Rob Carmichael Navigant Consulting

Chris Skahan Navigant ConsultingExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 7

**AGENDA**

**ITEM PAGE** 

Welcome, Mr. Brookman 8

Welcome for DOE, Mr. Petrolati 8

Introductions 9

Agenda Review , Mr. Brookman 1 5

Purpose, Mr. Brookman 16

Opening Remarks , Background, Regulatory History , Mr. Petrolati 18

Opening Comments from Participants 25

Rulemaking Scope, Product Classes Mr. Booher 67

Market Assessment, Mr. Booher 87

Technology Assessment , Screening , Engineering Analyses , Mr. Protopappas and Mr. Skahan 95

Energy Use , Markups Analyses Mr. Lauf 150

Life Cycle Cost, Payback Period Analyses, Ms. Costello 186

Shipments, Mr. Lauf 199

National Impact , Regulatory Impact Analys i s Mr. Lauf 212

Regulatory Input Analysis, Mr. Lauf 221

Manufacturer Impact Analys i s , Mr. Cook 223

Utility Impact, Employment I mpact,Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 8 Environmental Impact Analyses Ms.I y ama 235

S ummary of Results , P roposed Standards Mr. Reeves 246

Labeling , Mr. Reeves 279

C l osing C omments 290Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 9 P R O C E E D I N G S 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning every one and 2

w elcome . This is the U.S. Department of Energy’s 3

public meeting on Energy Conservation Program for 4

Consumer Products, Energy Conservation Standards for 5

Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies. T oday 6

is Wedne sday, May 2 , 2012 here at the Department of 7

Energy in Washington, D.C. My name’s Doug Brookman

. 8

G lad you could make it. We’re going to have a full 9

day ahead of us. We’re going to start off this 10

mornin g with welcoming remarks from Vic Petrolati. 11

**Welcoming Remarks** 12

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Doug, thank you. 13

First of all, thank you everybody for coming here to 14

our meeting. We expected a pretty full meeting, it 15

looks like we’re going to have it. We have a count 16

as to the number of registers yet on the webinar? 17

PARTICIPANT: Thirty

- one. 18

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. We’ve got 31 people 19

listening in through the webinar this morning. 20

First of all, I would like to thank you 21

for coming. Do want to apologize to the time frame 22

that it took us to get to this Notice of Proposed 23

Rule. As many of you know, we went through an 24

extensive comment period with the Office of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 10 Management and Budget that lasted fairly close to 1

eight months, put us behind on the schedule qui te a 2

bit, but we are here. We are ready to present our 3

Notice of Proposed Rule and hopefully, we can move 4

forward in an expeditious fashion from this point 5

on. Again, I want to thank you for attending. I 6

think it’s been always extremely helpful to get t he 7

participants who have basically worked with us 8

through the preliminary analysis and the framework 9

document here, in this room, and hear your comments 10

directly. 11

We’ll cover it a little bit later. The 12

comment period ends, of course, on May 25 th , so 13

y ou’ve got time to finalize your written comments, 14

but we certainly want to get an understanding of 15

what your main concerns are, and that is the primary 16

purpose of the meeting today. Thank you 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. It’s our 18

tradition to start off by doing introductions around 19

the room . I’m going to start to my left. Please 20

say your name and organizational affiliation. It 21

will also give you an opportunity to learn, 22

practice, turning the se mic rophones on and off. T he 23

little green button needs to be cued and you need to 24

get it fairly close to your face to make this thing 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 11 work. So, your name, organizational affiliation , 1

please

. 2

**Introductions** 3

MR. WATKINS: Corey Watkins, Schuma ch er 4

Electric. 5

MR. TAYLOR: Jay Taylor with Schneider 6

Electric. 7

MR. STOCK: Spencer Stock, Lester 8

Electrical. 9

MR. ERDHEIM : Ric Erdheim , Philips 10

Electronics. 11

MR. SALAETS: Ken Salaets, Information 12

Technology Industry Council. 13

MR. CARRERA: Patrick Car r era , iRobot. 14

MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg , National 15

Electric al Manufacturers Association. 16

MR. DENKENBERGER: Dave Denkenberger, 17

ECOVA

. 18

MR. RIDER: Ken Rider, California Energy 19

Commission. 20

MR. DELFORGE: Pierre Delforge, National 21

Resources Defense Council. 22

MR. SHELKH: Shahid Sheikh , Intel 23

Corporation. 24

MS . CLEARY: Jennifer Cleary, Association 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 12 of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 1

MR. HA I LEY: Jeff Ha i ley, Dell. 2

MR. HABBEN: Rick Habben, Wahl Clipper 3

Group. 4

MS. EVANS: H olly Evans, Strategic 5

Council. 6

MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, Department of 7

Energy. 8

MR. BOOHER: Brian Booher, D & R 9

International. 10

MR. REEVES: Ari Reeves , D&R 11

International. 12

MR. NARDO T TI: Matt Nardo t ti, Navigant. 13

MR. SKAHAN : Chris Skahan , Navigant. 14

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: P eter P rotopappas , 15

Navigant. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: I think we’ll jus t ask them 17

to stand and speak without the microphone. Would 18

you do that, please, those

– you, yes, please. 19

MR. SPITAELS: Jim Spitaels, Schneider 20

Electric. 21

MR. HAMILTON: Paul Hamilton, Schneider 22

Electric. 23

MR. DORIA: Jordan Doria with Ingerso ll 24

Ran d. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 13 MR. CLINGER: John Clinger, ICF 1

International. 2

MR. SMITH: Russ Smith, Lutron 3

Electronics. 4

MR. COOK: K eith Cook, Philips 5

Electronics. 6

MR. HAKKARAINENEN: Pekka Hakkarainenen, 7

Lutron Electronics. 8

MR. DO M MU: Jeremy Do mmu, Department of 9

Energy. 10

MS. COSTELLO: Pamela Costello, Navigant 11

Consulting. 12

MR. H. COOK: Hayden Cook, Navigant. 13

MS. IYAMA: Sanaee Iyama, Lawrence 14

Berkeley National Lab. 15

MS. ST U ART: Carin Stuart

. 16

MR. BECK: Dennis Beck from California 17

Energy Commission. 18

MR. FASSIE R: Rich Fassier, Power 19

Integrations. 20

MR. SPAK: Brian Spak, Green Strategies. 21

MR. KUWANA: Eric Kuwana, Katten Law. 22

MR. WHITING: John Whiting, Schumacher 23

Electric. 24

MR. MALINOWSKI: Matt Malinowski, ICF 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 14 International. 1

MR. JEONG: Stephen Jeong, U nderwriter 2

L aboratories

. 3

MS. FARBER: Julia Farber, UL. 4

MR. OFFNER: Arnold Offner, Phoenix 5

Contact. 6

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance 7

Standards Awareness Project. 8

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Northwest 9

Energy Efficiency Alliance. 10

MR. RABA: Jim Raba, Department of Energy. 11

MR. SHARP: Mark Sharp, Panasonic. 12

MR. CLINGER: John Clinger, ICF. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Did we miss anyone? Yes. 14

MR. LAUF: Dan Lauf , D&R International. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Dan. Okay. So 16

thanks again to all of you for being here and giving 17

us a timely start on the day 18

A ll of you received a packet of 19

information as you checked in. In t here i s an 20

agenda and a colorful PowerPoint slide packet, as 21

well as the Federa l Register notice. You’ll also 22

note that attached to the agenda are a few relevant 23

attachments, including specific requests for comment 24

in sequence with the agenda. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 15 1

**Agenda Review** 2

MR. BROOKMAN: I’m going to run through 3

the agenda very briefly . I mmediately following this 4

agenda review , t here is

– Vic Petrolati is going to 5

make some opening remarks and describe briefly 6

background and regulatory history. Immediately 7

following that, there’s an opportunity for anybody 8

that wishes to do so to make bri ef summary remarks 9

here at the outset

– brief opening statements. 10

Several individuals have requested that they be 11

allowed to do so, and we’re going to hear from all 12

of them here at the outset. 13

Immediately following those opening 14

comments , we’re going t o move straight into the more 15

detailed content that’s in the packet: market 16

assessment, including product definitions and scope. 17

We’ll take a break mid

- morning, round about 10:30 or 18

so. We will direct you to the coffee shop, don’t 19

worry. Immediately fol lowing the break, technology 20

assessments, screening and engineering analysis. 21

F ollowing th at, energy use and markup analyse s

. 22

We’ll have lunch mid

- day, round about 23

12:15. L ife

- cycle cost , shipments, national impact , 24

regulatory impact, and manufactur er impact analyses 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 16 following lunch. And then moving directly into 1

utility impact, employment impact and environmental 2

impact analyses. 3

We’ll break again mid

- afternoon, and then 4

returning from break, summary of results and 5

proposes standards, labeling, a nd yet another 6

opportunity for anybody that wishes to to make a 7

closing remark or a closing comment. So plenty of 8

opportunity to hear from you as the day goes on 9

today. 10

**Purpose** 11

MR. BROOKMAN: The purpose of this meeting 12

is to 13

**•** invite comment on the proposed energy 14

conservation standard levels. You can see, 15

this is slide five in your packet, just 16

referring to it. 17

**•** To present methodologies and characterize 18

results of the rulemaking analyses, 19

**•** to discuss specific issues related t o each 20

analysis; 21

**•** to seek input from interested parties on 22

methodologies, assumptions, data sources, and 23

results from the analyses, 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 17

**•** and to describe next steps in the rulemaking. 1

So q uestions and c omments on either the 2

agenda or the purpose ? 3

I’d ask for your consideration

. We’ve done 4

a lot of these meetings over the years, and folks 5

have been willing to observe what I think are common 6

courtesies. Please speak one at a time. Please say 7

your name for the record each time you speak. You 8

don’t need to say your organizational affiliation 9

each time, but many of you are in the habit of doing 10

so. Please say your name each time you speak. I’m 11

going to be cuing individuals by name as best I can , 12

to speak. I a lso wish to encourage follow on 13

comments

. T he b ack and forth is sometimes very 14

helpful for the Department of Energy. 15

There will be a complete transcript of 16

this meeting, which is why we’re using these 17

microphones, and we have a recording mechanism here. 18

And if you can keep the focus here. 19

Please t urn your cell phones on silent mode

. I f you 20

can l imit sidebar conversations. These microphones 21

actually work pretty well, so turn them on and off 22

as needed. And i f you can be concise and share the 23

air time. For those of you who have looked at this 24

ma terial, and I’m sure most of you have, t here’s a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 18 lot to cover today, so if we can stay focused, we’ll 1

get out of here before a late dinner, I think

. 2

So that’s what I have to say here at the 3

outset. Any additional comments before we move into 4

opening remarks, some background, and regulatory 5

history? Okay. Then back to Vic Petrolati. 6

**Introductory Remarks** 7

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. I’m going to give a 8

very quick backgr ound and overview of the 9

legislation, some of the constraints that we have in 10

terms of establishing standards for battery chargers 11

and external power supplies. 12

I believe I introduced myself, but just 13

one more time, Vic Petrolati. I’m the project 14

manag er for battery chargers and external power 15

supplies under the Appliance Standards Program. 16

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended 17

EPCA, adding battery chargers and external power 18

supplies and that was further amended by the Energy 19

Independence and Securit y Act of 2007, EISA. All of 20

the responsibilities for the appliance standards 21

program through these acts are basically implemented 22

through the Department of Energy. 23

When EISA amended EPCA back in 2007, it 24

actually established a standard, mandated stand ard, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 19 for Class A external power supplies and established 1

a compliance date of July 1, 2008, and that standard 2

consisted of both an active mode requirement as well 3

as a no load standard. So we are showing you the 4

standard here that has been in effect since July 1, 5

2008 for Class A external power supplies. 6

We, of course, have gotten quite a few 7

revisions made to the test procedure for these 8

products. Battery chargers is in Appendix Y of 9

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 10

430(B), and extern al power supplies is in Appendix C 11

of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 12

430, subpart B. We included standby and off mode 13

into those test procedures back in March 2009, then 14

we revised the test procedures again in June 2011 by 15

incorporating measurements for BC active mode. We 16

also included in these test procedures some 17

clarifications for how external power supplies 18

should be tested. So at this point we feel we have 19

test procedures in place to not only cover, 20

obviously, any of the aspects of the EISA rule from 21

June 2008, but obviously to cover everything that’s 22

necessary for our Notice of Proposed Rule that we’re 23

going to be discussing today. 24

This gives you just a quick summary of the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 20 timeline. The Energy Independence and Security Act 1

was actually passed in December 2007. It 2

established the class A EPS standards which became 3

effective in July 2008. We published our first 4

framework document on battery chargers and external 5

power supplies in June 2009. We had the preliminary 6

analysis in Se ptember 2010. We are finally here 7

with our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which was 8

published in March 2012 and we’re certainly hopeful 9

that we will get the final rule out, hopefully, by 10

the end of 2012 or early 2013. 11

Let me touch about compliance dates just 12

for a second. Proposed standards would become 13

effective two years after the final rule for 14

external power supplies, that’s a legislative 15

requirement. At this point we are going to make a 16

determination as to the compliance date for battery 17

chargers, and certainly we’re going to make that 18

determination based on stakeholder input. We’ve 19

heard a lot of input that the sooner the better for 20

battery chargers, but again, we want to get 21

stakeholder input as to what is a reasonable 22

compliance date for battery chargers. 23

There’s also a requirement for us to go 24

back in 2015 and take another look at standards for 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 21 external power supplies. That same requirement does 1

not exist for battery chargers, but the Department 2

is required every seven years to go back and re view 3

its standards and update them if necessary. 4

EPCA directs DOE to consider seven factors 5

when setting energy conservation standards. You’ve 6

seen this before. Those seven factors are on the 7

left: 8

**•** the economic impact on consumers and 9

manufactures 10

**•** the lifetime operating cost savings 11

**•** total projected energy savings 12

**•** impact on utility or performance 13

**•** impact of any lessening of competition 14

**•** need for national energy conservation, and 15

**•** other factors the Secretary considers 16

relevant. 17

To the right will be all of the analyses 18

that go into supporting each one of the seven 19

factors that we will be going through today. 20

This gives you a graphical presentation of 21

what we’ll be going through today. We are at the 22

NOPR stage in green. We will start our analysis 23

on the left end and be covering all of these boxes 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 22 today as part of our analysis. The first part we 1

consider to be the upstream analysis, the market, 2

the energy use associated with equipment, the 3

markups, et cetera; then we get into what we call 4

the downstream a nalysis with the life

- cycle cost, 5

payback, shipment analysis, national impact 6

analysis, manufacturer impact analysis. Again, 7

every one of these boxes will be covered today, 8

briefly, in terms of what was done. 9

We are proposing, as part of this rule, 10

amen ded standards for Class A EPSs, these are more 11

stringent standards than were established by 12

Congress in June 2008. We are proposing new 13

standards for certain non

- Class A EPSs. Congress 14

did not address what is typically called non

- Class 15

A EPSs in EISA. W e are addressing them in this 16

rulemaking. And new standards for battery 17

chargers. 18

Just quickly, a summary of the proposed 19

rules impact, national energy savings. You can 20

see the net consumer national energy savings for 21

EPSs is almost a quad. National energy savings 22

for battery chargers is just a little over a quad. 23

Net consumer benefits are positive at the selected 24

TSLs, and will range from almost eight

- tenths of a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 23 billion to almost two billion for external power 1

supplies, based on the three percent and seven 2

percent discount rates that were used in the 3

analysis. And for battery chargers, we have a 4

range of approximately six to eleven billion 5

dollars in net consumer benefits associated with 6

the discount rates. 7

Now we also incorporate into our ana lysis, 8

net social benefits, which include the cost of 9

emissions reductions, and this will also 10

significantly help us in terms of justifying 11

standards. And as you see, there is almost the 12

equivalent of a

– well, I can’t tell what the 13

percentage increase is , but it is significant for 14

external power supplies and it is also significant 15

for battery chargers in terms of not only 16

combining net consumer benefits, but combining it 17

with social cost of carbon, nitrogen, et cetera. 18

I want to say that when we’re goin g 19

through these presentations, please feel free to 20

ask clarifying questions of the presenter on any 21

figure that is up, but detailed discussions I 22

would like to hold off until we get to the issue 23

boxes. On every presentation we will have a 24

number of issue boxes to start the generation of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 24 questions from the stakeholders. So when we get 1

to the issue box, we’re welcoming comments to aid 2

information concerning the NOPR, issues that 3

correspond to those raised in DOE’s published 4

material, are numbered in accorda nce with the 5

material. Whether invited by an issue box or not, 6

comments are welcome on any part of the analysis. 7

We’d like to, if possible, keep those comments 8

during the presentations to just clarifications 9

and wait until we get to an issue box. 10

Feedba ck. All of the following methods of 11

actually providing your final comments which are 12

due Friday, May 25, 2012. This is what you need 13

to do. You can e

- mail them in, you can send them 14

by postal mail, you can send them by courier. 15

This provides you with a ll of the information for 16

getting your comments in, and again, that May 25 th 17

date is a critical date for us to move forward, so 18

please make sure you have your comment s in by that 19

period of time. 20

Yes, that question in the back. 21

PARTICIPANT: The Fede ral Register says 22

May 29 th . Was there a change in the date? 23

MR. PETROLATI : We’ll check that. If the 24

Federal Register says the 29 th , then we’ll give you 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 25 to the 29 th

. 1

PARTICIPANT: Thank you. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: So thank you. 3

MR. PETROLATI : I guess th at answered both 4

questions. Okay, Doug, we are ready for opening 5

statements. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Several individuals have 7

requested to speak here at the outset. I hope 8

it’s possible to make these comments sort of 9

summarized, make them fairly brief. And I h ave a 10

list of individuals who have requested to speak 11

and we’re going to go through them one by one, and 12

that doesn’t mean that anyone else should think 13

they don’t have the capacity to make an opening 14

statement. Everyone gets a chance right now. So 15

the f irst person I have on my list is Corey 16

Watkins. 17

**Opening Statements** 18

MR. WATKINS: Good morning. I’m Corey 19

Watkins, General Counsel and Executive Vice

20

President for Schumacher Electric Corporation. I 21

will keep these comments brief because our intent is 22

to submit the public comments that are due, now on 23

May 29 th , to the DOE. 24

Since 1947, Schumacher Electric has been a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 26 leading manufacturer and supplier of 12 volt 1

automotive battery chargers that are sold here in 2

the United States. And we pride ourselves on being 3

an industry leader in both e fficient and sustainable 4

products and practices. We have voluntarily adopted 5

and incorporated international ROHA (ph) standards 6

for eliminating toxic substances, and likewise, we 7

have done, through our sustainability i nitiative, we 8

have reduced our package size and demonstrated the 9

fact that smart energy efficiency and business can 10

certainly work together. 11

We support the efforts to increase the 12

efficiency of these 12

- volt automotive battery 13

chargers, and we’re prepared to innovate and invest 14

to insure that we can provide our customers with 15

safe and reliable cost

- effective energy

- efficient 16

products. 17

I wan t to just highlight on that last 18

sentence briefly, that the safety and reliability in 19

our category, there are some issues that we will 20

address in the public comments because there is not 21

anything in the marketplace, currently, that would 22

meet this standard and the concern that the DOE has 23

of the switching technology from linear to switch 24

mode. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 27 We also certainly support the DOE’s 1

efforts to have one set of national standards, but 2

we do have a few concerns in that regard. The 3

primary one is that in this sh ift from linear to 4

switch mode, one of the concerns that Mr. Petrolati 5

noted on his form was how that can affect 6

competition. And our sole concern in that regard is 7

that in a shift from linear to switch mode, you 8

would effectively, due to some patented te chnology, 9

put the rest of the competitors out of business. 10

Virtually all of our automotive battery chargers are 11

infrequently used, and when they are stored, they 12

are used unplugged, and so we think that some of the 13

assumptions made, at least in our produc t class, do 14

not generate the energy savings or cost savings that 15

are listed because this infrequent use is certainly 16

– doesn’t justify that amount. 17

Finally, we certainly want to stress the 18

importance of your actions being consistent with 19

providing a suff icient time to design, test, and 20

manufacture these products, so that as we move 21

towards this different technology and this energy 22

efficiency, that we do so and can provide the end 23

consumer with a product that’s not only reliable, 24

but is safe. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 28 Again, we’l l submit our written comments 1

that are more exhaustively covering these issues and 2

we thank you for letting us speak today. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Next I have Jay 4

Taylor. Emily, do you need to cue his slides? 5

You’re doing it. Great. Whenever you wish, just 6

get that microphone close to you. 7

MR. TAYLOR: (Pause.) A technology 8

challenge. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Spencer, you’re next, 10

right? Let’s

– while she’s cuing those slides, 11

let’s have Spencer proceed and then we’ll return to 12

you, Jay. Spencer. 13

M R. STOCK: My name is Spencer Stock. I’m 14

the product marketing manager at Lester Electrical. 15

Lester Electrical is a manufacturer of commercial 16

and industrial battery chargers. Related to this 17

standard, the products that we make that are 18

affected current ly are golf and electric wheelchair 19

chargers. Thanks for the opportunity. I just have 20

a couple general comments

- slash

- requests or issues 21

that we have with the current

– with the NOPR. 22

Our largest issue is with golf cart 23

battery chargers being conside red consumer products. 24

We believe strongly that the golf cart and golf cart 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 29 battery chargers are non

- consumer products. The DOE 1

– the NOPR has a link to a document that the DOE has 2

for helping to determine whether something’s 3

consumer or non

- consumer. I n there there’s a number 4

of questions you ask to figure out if something is 5

consumer or non

- consumer. The two big issues we 6

have are, first of all, the fact that

– and this is 7

in the NOPR, the DOE has their own research on what 8

percentage of electric golf cars get sold to 9

individuals, so to consumers, and the number is 89.4 10

percent. Our own numbers, based upon the business 11

we do with the major golf car manufacturers in the 12

United States would be slightly higher than that, 13

but either way, around 90 percent of the electric 14

golf cars are sold in the United States are sold to 15

commercial or industrial businesses, primarily golf 16

courses. And so we say that primarily and 17

principally, golf cars are being sold to non

18

consumer applications. 19

Another factor is comp aring the model to 20

see if it has distinguishing design features and 21

characteristics to other models within the same 22

category. Golf battery chargers are very, very 23

similar in design and manufacture to chargers that 24

are made for very clear

- cut commercial an d 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 30 industrial applications, such as industrial 1

vehicles, aerial work platforms like scissor lifts, 2

material handling equipment like lift trucks, and 3

floor machines. Whereas, they’re very dissimilar in 4

design construction to most clear

- cut commercial

– 5

or e xcuse me

– consumer battery chargers. And so we 6

continue to believe that golf should be considered a 7

non

- consumer application. 8

Our next issue, I guess is just our 9

comment on compliance. We feel that for battery 10

chargers, at least based upon our major categories 11

are affected, that if golf was not considered a non

12

consumer application and excluded, the design cycle 13

for golf is very extensive because it involves an 14

OEM vehicle manufacturer, the charger manufacturer, 15

and the battery manufacturers. And whe n a new golf 16

battery charger system is introduced, it involves a 17

couple year design cycle, where there’s lab testing 18

done and then it goes out for an extensive field 19

test where full fleets of battery chargers are 20

deployed with cars for a full season of gol f use. 21

And so based upon that, our feeling is that two 22

years from the final rule would be a minimum amount 23

of time that would be appropriate for our 24

applications. Again, if golf is not excluded from 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 31 this. 1

The final comment I’ll make is that we, in 2

the NOPR, in the initial regulatory flexibility 3

analysis, Lester Electrical is identified as the 4

only affected small business manufacturer in the 5

United States, and the analysis is pretty clear

- cut, 6

that based upon these regulations, the technology we 7

manufact ure in Lincoln, Nebraska, will not meet 8

those regulations, and it lays out the options we 9

have. And the two that the DOE identifies as 10

potential, both have to do with shifting our 11

manufacturing overseas. And so we see this, for us 12

at least, as a jobs iss ue, because it’s pretty 13

clear

- cut that the DOE agrees that to meet these 14

standards and be cost

- competitive, we’re going to 15

have to manufacture overseas, and that’s something 16

we are a vertically integrated manufacturer that 17

builds everything in Lincoln, Neb raska, and we have 18

concerns about that, so

– thank you. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay, now we’re 20

going to return to Jay Taylor. We have his slides 21

up. You going to advance the slides? Emily will 22

advance them. 23

MR. TAYLOR: Excellent. Thanks. My n ame 24

is Jay Taylor. I’m with Schneider Electric. I’m 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 32 the Director for global standards, codes, and 1

environment. And the way the battery chargers 2

regulation impacts Schneider Electric is through our 3

EPS organization. 4

So when we’re looking at the revie w, what 5

we find is that we’re now going to be impacted by a 6

second development effort. We already have a 7

current set of codes coming at us through the 8

California Energy Commission. Given the breadth of 9

the scope that currently exists, the overlap doesn’t 10

exist between what’s going on with California and 11

what’s going on with the DOE. So the impact to us 12

is now we’re involved in a second design activity on 13

our current products. We think you should be 14

considering a longer term implementation for these 15

prod ucts, simply because there will be two design 16

cycles involved, and it may force us, in the short 17

term, if the design cycles are curtailed, if you 18

look at the amount of testing, the regression 19

testing for either safety and/or reliability, you’ll 20

find there’ ll be insufficient time for us to exit 21

all of those regression testing activities in order 22

to complete the product under the marketplace. 23

So this is the category 10

- A and 10

- B, 24

which we believe apply to the EPS systems. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 33 And so we plotted the DOE regu lations 1

against the California regulations as you see here. 2

Then we plotted those against the non

- AVR 3

types of battery chargers, and if you’ll notice, way 4

down in the far end of the corner, we believe 5

there’s exactly one out of the data, that comply 6

with the current regulations. 7

For the AVR products, there are none that 8

we plotted to date that comply with the regulations. 9

In fact, it’s a fairly substantial difference 10

between where the products exist and where the 11

regulation tries to get us. 12

So when w e go and look at the scope, one 13

of our concerns is the scope. We feel

– and this is 14

the scope as outlined in the NOPR. And it refers to 15

the US Code, and then as we read through the US 16

Code, we pretty much understand where it’s at, and 17

where we run into a problem is is without regard to 18

whether such articles of such type is in fact 19

distributed for commerce or personal use or 20

consumption. 21

Now I know Vic’s tired of me calling and 22

talking to him about what does consumer really mean. 23

And my concern, fundame ntally, is that when Vic wins 24

the $600 million dollar lottery and retires to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 34 Bermuda drinking Mai

- tais, and the new Vic comes on 1

board, does he have really the same understanding 2

regarding the scope of this rulemaking that the old 3

Vic had for me. 4

So when we look at consumer battery 5

chargers which are EPS systems, does the scope 6

really mean 115 volts, 60 hertz, 15 amps or less? 7

Now where did I get that? Well, I got that out of 8

the test procedure, because the test procedure 9

referred to a standard, IEC 623 01, and I got that 10

out of the NEC, since that’s the practical limit for 11

consumer wall sockets. Okay. So the challenge that 12

I have is that I don’t really have clarifiers that 13

allow me to distinguish in my marketplace the 14

difference between consumer and in dustrial kinds of 15

products. You know, if, for instance, is 16

professional installation required? What are other 17

characteristics of those? 18

And then the other thing, when I read 19

through the document, I can’t find that existing 20

standards were referenced in the NOPR. So

– outside 21

of the test procedure, that is, I can’t find 22

existing standards. 23

So what we did is we came up with a 24

standard that we proposed to Energy Star, we’ve 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 35 proposed it to a number of venues, that basically 1

allows you to define what co nsumer devices are. Now 2

this may not apply across the board, but it provides 3

the specificity needed for us to go off and design 4

products to. And one of the standards is the IEC 5

6950, which is a safety standard. One of them is 6

the current code, the 47CFR 15, which allows us to 7

define Class A and Class B emissions devices. It’s 8

also one of the tools that we’ve used to define 9

consumer versus non

- consumer products in a lot of 10

other places, such as the Energy Star program and 11

the European Union. So this is j ust a reference 12

example and not necessarily

– you may not go down 13

this path

– but we know that these things exist, or 14

we know that the standards exist for you to use. 15

So the time to implementation is a concern 16

for us, especially if we’re going to go thro ugh and 17

design the product twice. The limits for the Notice 18

of Proposed Rulemaking, few, and now no systems. 19

There was one data point that met, that system is 20

not on the market any longer, so officially if you 21

look at the data that you have, none of the systems 22

meet the criteria that’s currently listed in the 23

NOPR. 24

The scope for consumer battery chargers 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 36 are also problematic for us. We are requesting you 1

consider a scope that’s very similar to California

. 2

We were able to work with the California Energy 3

Commission on their rulemaking for battery chargers. 4

They did adopt IEC6204

- 3, second edition, and they 5

allowed us to distinguish those EPS systems that 6

existed in their marketplace which were low

- end 7

foc us for the purposes of their rulemaking. And 8

then consumer EPS systems exist with specificity. 9

We can provide you the standards. We’re here to 10

help you. It’s a matter that we think right now the 11

scope is overly broad and we don’t think the scope 12

is con sistent with the direction given out of the 13

En er gy an d Independence Security Act of 2007. 14

And I believe that

– and you were 15

wondering if I could get through in five minutes or 16

not. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 18

MR. TAYLOR: Thanks, Vic. 19

MR. BR OOKMAN: Next, we’re going to hear 20

from Dennis Beck. 21

MR. BECK: It’s actually going to be Mr. 22

Ryder for California Energy. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: I’m sorry. 24

MR. RYDER: Yes, this is Ken Ryder. I’ll 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 37 be making the statement. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Ken Ryder. 2

MR. RYDER: The California Energy 3

Commission appreciates the opportunity to give this 4

prepared general statement for the public meeting on 5

the U.S. Department of Energy’s proposed energy 6

conservation standards for battery chargers and 7

external power sup plies. The Energy Commission is 8

the primary energy policy and planning agency of the 9

state of California. One of the chief mandates of 10

the Energy Commission is to reduce the wasteful, 11

uneconomic, inefficient and unnecessary consumption 12

of energy in the s tate by prescribing standards for 13

minimum levels of operating efficiency for 14

appliances that consume a significant amount of 15

energy on a state

- wide basis. 16

The Energy Commission prescribed its first 17

appliance efficiency standards all the way back in 18

1976. Since then, the California Energy Commission 19

standards have reduced energy consumption in the 20

state by an average of 20,000 gigawatt hours per 21

year, and saved California consumers a total of $36 22

billion dollars in reduced energy costs. The Energy 23

Commis sion’s efficiency efforts have enabled 24

California to keep per capita consumption flat for 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 38 three decades, while per capita consumption in the 1

rest of the nation has increased by 40 percent. 2

On January 12 th of this year, the Energy 3

Commission adopted regul ations, including energy 4

efficiency standards, for consumer and non

- consumer 5

battery charger systems. Standards for most 6

consumer battery chargers apply to products 7

manufactured on or after February 1, 2013. When 8

full compliance with the standard is achi eved, the 9

standards are estimated to reduce energy consumption 10

in California by 2187 gigawatt hours and save 11

California consumers $300 million dollars in energy 12

cost per year, and reduce greenhouse gas covered 13

emissions by one billion metric tons per year. 14

The Energy Commission supports the efforts 15

of the Department to improve energy efficiency of 16

battery chargers and external power supplies 17

nationwide. And the Energy Commission would also 18

like to thank the Department for its research and 19

development reg arding these products, as the results 20

of such research and development were incorporated 21

into the Energy Commission’s standards development 22

and rulemaking process. 23

California has a vested interest in these 24

federal standards because by operation of federa l 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 39 statute those standards will eventually preempt the 1

California standards. As such, it is critical that 2

the Energy Commission, on behalf of all 3

Californians, make every effort to preserve the 4

anticipated energy monetary and environmental 5

benefits from it s standards. 6

We believe that the Department can and 7

must do more to increase the overall stringency of 8

its proposed standards for battery chargers. The 9

standard levels contained in the Notice of Proposed 10

Rulemaking and the associated technical support 11

document are in some cases significantly less 12

stringent than the California standards. 13

Table 9.1 of the technical support 14

document compares California standards with the 15

Department’s proposed candidate standard levels. 16

That table reveals that the pro posed federal 17

standards are less stringent than the California 18

standards for product classes numbers two through 19

six. The products contained in these classes make 20

up over 77 percent of product shipments in the 21

United States according to Table 9.5 of the 22

t echnical support document. 23

Table 10.11 of the technical support 24

document indicates that alignment of proposed 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 40 federal standards for product classes two through 1

six with the associated California candidate 2

standard levels would save an additional 0.93 3

q uadrillion BTU nationally. More importantly, the 4

proposed federal standards would negatively impact 5

the energy savings anticipated to be derived by the 6

California standards by allowing the consumption of 7

an additional 0.12 quads in California. 8

The propo sed federal standard levels do 9

not achieve all possible cost effective and feasible 10

improvements in maintenance mode. For product 11

classes two through four, the Energy Commission 12

identified charge termination into a low power mode 13

as the primary and most c ost effective way to reduce 14

energy consumption. For the cost of less than a 15

dollar, energy consumption can be reduced through 16

the use of charge control chips, regardless of 17

battery chemistry or end use product. Improved 18

power consumption once the battery is fully charged 19

reduces the annual energy consumption for products 20

by half. 21

According to the Department’s analysis, a 22

majority of the products shipped in these product 23

categories already use this technology. The Energy 24

Commission requests that the Dep artment harmonize 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 41 the proposed federal standards with the California 1

standards to the maximum extent possible, and to 2

adopt candidate standard levels that are at least as 3

stringent as the California levels. By harmonizing 4

the federal and California standa rds, the Department 5

will diminish compliance burdens for manufacturers 6

and achieve the maximum improvement in energy 7

efficiency that is technically feasible and 8

economically justified. Thank you. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Next I believe 10

we’re going to hear from Christopher Henken. 11

MR. SALAETS: Actually, I’m speaking on 12

behalf of Chris and the Information and Technology 13

District Council. My name is Ken S alae ts, Director 14

of Global Policy at ITI. Our member companies are 15

leading global innovators of i nformation and 16

communications technology, or ICT, an industry 17

committed to both developing energy efficient 18

solutions demanded by our customers and to help

– 19

helping drive sustainable economic grown and energy 20

independence across every sector of our nation ’s 21

economy. I should also note that our manufacturers, 22

our companies, come from Europe, North America, and 23

Asia, so we are committed to that same principle, 24

globally, and not just in the United States. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 42 While we intend to submit detailed, 1

written comment s later by the deadline, whatever the 2

deadline may be, we appreciate the opportunity to 3

offer our few short comments. 4

Addressing scope, initially, all prior DOE 5

regulations concerning these categories of products 6

strictly addressed consumer products. In other 7

words, those products intended for purchase and use 8

by individuals in either home or small office 9

settings. However, some confusion has been caused 10

by references that the NOPR covers consumer products 11

and commercial and industrial equipment. The 12

r esponse to our inquiry with individuals like Jay 13

calling Vic on a constant basis, ITI has been 14

assured that the NOPR only covers EPSs and battery 15

chargers that operate, quote, “consumer products,” 16

close quote, and we thank DOE staff for that 17

clarification. 18

Had the NOPR been intended to apply to 19

products designed for commercial and industrial use, 20

for example, ICT products designed to be used in 21

data centers, this expanded scope would have 22

constituted an extraordinary expansion of coverage 23

of the regulatio n with very significant 24

implications. These classes of products have much 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 43 longer design and development cycles than those 1

needed for traditional consumer products. They’re 2

also targeted for very different workloads and duty 3

cycles than their consumer

- foc used counterparts. 4

One way to address the confusion that 5

still may exist is we suggest adopting the Energy 6

Star battery charger definition, which would help 7

provide a clear line of distinction between EPSs and 8

battery chargers that operate consumer produ cts and 9

those that are designed for commercial and 10

industrial use. 11

Regarding the EPS requirements, we believe 12

the proposed EPS limits appear to be both 13

unreasonable and economically unjustifiable. The 14

new efficiency limits for Class A EPSs were 15

unexpec ted. They have never been discussed with our 16

industry, to the best of my knowledge, and their 17

feasibility has not been adequately investigated. 18

These are activities that we are engaged in, both 19

with the CEC, with the folks at EPA and have been 20

with Vic, and we welcome the opportunity to continue 21

that engagement at a level of detail necessary to 22

basically inform that process. 23

Our member companies are still working to 24

fully understand and assess the potential impact. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 44 It is clear that significant redesign of power 1

supply architecture and components would be required 2

to enable EPSs to meet the proposed DOE average 3

efficiency in no load power limits. 4

A key concern that’s a corollary to this 5

is whether there is enough, or a sufficient number 6

of components t hat can be produced in the new EPS 7

designs qualified within the timeframe, whatever 8

that timeframe may end up being, to meet the 9

potential demand that we anticipate that will be 10

driven by the regulation. In many cases, the power 11

supply redesigns will forc e global requalifications 12

of the power supply and the end product using the 13

power supply to verify product safety and EMC 14

compliance. Our concern is that the DOE proposal 15

needlessly breaks away from the established path of 16

global harmonization of efficien cy limits and would 17

result in a massive industry

- wide redesign effort. 18

This would be extremely difficult for our industry, 19

and possibly impossible for some manufacturers 20

within the given timeframe and may result in 21

tremendous economic cost. 22

If the Agency feels compelled to stick 23

with the relative schedule, which, of course it’s 24

driven by statute, we strongly recommend that the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 45 requirements be limited to efficiency level five. 1

This would allow convergence with the international 2

system of effi ciency levels and markings that have 3

been successfully implemented within Energy Star and 4

by Europe, Canada, Australia, China, and other 5

governments and regions. Doing so would also 6

alleviate the significant economic burdens that 7

would be imposed by the c urrent proposal. 8

Another possibility would be to adopt a 9

phased approach with the initial phase being limited 10

to efficiency level five for Class A EPS only, and 11

possibly include an effective date as early as July 12

1, 2013. The second phase would be to in vestigate 13

efficiency standards for all classes of EPS with 14

input from industry and EPS manufacturers, and 15

again, we would welcome the opportunity to 16

participate in that process. The second phase could 17

even look to a voluntary requirement. Starting with 18

a voluntary efficiency requirement first, is 19

consistent with how higher levels of EPS efficiency 20

have been achieved in the past, where stretch 21

requirements began first as voluntary measures, 22

enabling us for the transition to higher levels of 23

adoption over t ime. 24

And finally, the compliance date for EPSs 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 46 manufactured outside of the EPS , which is typically 1

the case for ICT products, we would recommend that 2

it be consistent with the requirements for domestic 3

manufacture. In other words, based on the date the 4

EPS is manufactured. 5

Regarding battery charger requirements. 6

ITI recommends the following changes to the battery 7

charger requirements as reflected in the NOPR. 8

First, DOE should reconsider the efficiency limits 9

for Class 1 inductive chargers. We belie ve this 10

limit is unfeasible for higher battery energy 11

products and could stifle innovation in certain 12

product categories. One suggestion is to revise the 13

Class 1 efficiency limit with scales by battery 14

energy. Another suggestion might be to make it 15

clear that inductive chargers can also meet DOE 16

regulations under other categories, such as two, 17

three, or four, based on battery voltage. 18

A second recommendation. The Agency 19

should reconsider the efficiency levels for Class 8 20

low voltage DC input chargers. We believe this 21

limit is unfeasible for a USB charger charging of 22

higher battery energy products and could stifle 23

innovation in certain product categories. One 24

suggestion to address this would be to revise the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 47 Class 8 efficiency limit formula so it scale s by 1

battery energy. 2

Another recommendation is that DOE 3

considers harmonizing the Class 10 scope and limits 4

with those established by the California Energy 5

Commission. As proposed, the Class 10 limits exceed 6

CEC requirements in critical areas, causing y et 7

another redesign of battery chargers currently in 8

redesign for EPS systems, as Jay referenced. And 9

when the expanded scope is included, additional 10

system redesign are required to be included by July 11

1, 2012. 12

Fourth recommendation. Since the BC mark 13

is intended to facilitate enforcement at customs and 14

point of sale, we recommend the Agency allow the BC 15

marking to be applied to the exterior of the retail 16

packaging as an alternative to marking the surface 17

of the product itself. We believe that with the 18

recommended changes that industry will be able to 19

proceed accordingly and be able to achieve all of 20

the essential goals that were established, both by 21

statute and also by DOE in its regulation. 22

A couple other comments. Federal 23

preemption of state reg ulations. Manufacturers need 24

clear guidance on which state regulations are 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 48 preempted by the battery charger and EPS regulation. 1

Specifically, a description is needed of the 2

portions of the CEC battery charger regulations that 3

would be preempted. 4

And t hen finally, we recommend exemption 5

for service parts and refurbished products. The 6

regulation must insure that the useful life of 7

existing products is extended and legal requirements 8

for supporting a product for up to five years are 9

met. The regulation must include an exemption for 10

service parts and refurbished products produced 11

prior to the effective date. This exemption is 12

needed both for battery charger products and 13

external power supplies sold prior to the effective 14

date. 15

So again, this preclude s or concludes our 16

preliminary comments. We will be happy to submit a 17

more detailed comment at the later date, and we 18

thank the Agency for this process and the 19

transparency. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank you. Is 21

Larry Albert here? He’s on the webin ar. Okay. So 22

how

– you going to cue his views, graphs? Yes? 23

Then how are we going to hear from him? You can 24

unmute him. Okay. Why don’t you

– maybe we could 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 49 just say anyone else who’s listening in on the 1

webinar and I neglected to recognize you at t he 2

outset, and thank you for joining us via the web. 3

Thank you for that. Please mute, if you haven’t 4

done so already, mute your devices so that we don’t 5

have feedback in the room. So is he ready to go? 6

Okay. Larry Albert. Larry, we can’t hear you. A ny 7

indication that he’s coming through? You don’t 8

think he’s there? Okay, so we’re going to proceed 9

and then maybe we’ll double back. 10

Okay. Now we’re going to hear from Dave 11

De n kenberger who also has

– from ECOVA

– who also 12

has viewgraphs. 13

MR. DENKENB ERGER: My name is Dave 14

De n kenberger and I work for ECOVA, formerly ECOS 15

Consulting. I’m speaking on behalf of the 16

California Investor

- Owned Utilities, who have formed 17

their works since 2002, to address the efficiency of 18

external power supplies and battery charging 19

systems, and proposed standardized test procedure 20

and efficiency specifications for these products, 21

both in California and federally. 22

In the heat of stakeholder discussions in 23

regulatory proceedings on these products over the 24

years, it has been tempting to frame government 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 50 decisions as a stark choice between what the market 1

prefers, low cost, simple, nickel

- based battery 2

chargers, and what saves the most energy, high cost, 3

complex, lithium

- based battery chargers. Yet our 4

market research , product testing, and tear

- downs 5

have consistently shown that there is a third path, 6

a middle path, retaining the low cost nickel 7

batteries, but charging them intelligently with 8

efficient power conversion. This delivers most of 9

the energy savings of the lithium design, at a cost 10

much closer to that of a nickel design. This 11

realization was central to the decision of the 12

California Energy Commission ultimately made, to 13

adopt standards at the levels it did, and we urge 14

the DOE to follow a similar course for product 15

categories where DOE’s proposed standard levels are 16

less stringent than those already adopted in 17

California, particularly product classes two, three, 18

and four. 19

Specifically, the DOE has proposed trial 20

standard level, TSL

- 1 for product classes tw o 21

through four, which comprise, among other products, 22

phones, cameras, tools, and laptops. The DOE has 23

assumed that to meet the next stricter level, 24

lithium is required, which has significant 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 51 incremental cost for those types of products like 1

consumer grad e tools and cordless phones that are 2

mostly nickel at present. 3

Though it is true that no commercially 4

available nickel products currently meet the 5

stricter DOE level, other commercially available 6

charging circuitry can be incorporated into these 7

products to achieve the higher DOE levels. 8

We have performed a tear

- down and redesign 9

of a Class 4 power tool. The charge profile as 10

shift is shown in slide two, and you can see it 11

consumes significant amount of power in maintenance 12

mode. By adding readily ava ilable, low

- cost, 13

silicon

- based charge control, the maintenance power 14

fell by two

- thirds, while battery capacity was 15

maintained. And the blue line is the comparable 16

line, the power use. You can see falling 17

dramatically once the battery is full. 18

Then we calculated the effect of 19

substituting a level five power supply for the level 20

four power supply, saving additional energy, and 21

that’s shown in slide four. The resulting tool 22

would meet both the California level and the 23

stricter DOE level. Using incremen tal bill and 24

materials cost and the incremental markup, the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 52 payback would be less than one year. Still haven’t 1

gotten to slide four. Okay. So that’s the summary. 2

Then, for Class 2, we support the DOE 3

proposal to create a TSL that was between improve d 4

and best in class. We found one commercially 5

available nickel product that already meets the 6

intermediate level, and using a more efficient power 7

supply would cut the energy use by additional 40 8

percent. 9

For Class 3, we note that the TSL

- 1 and 10

TSL

- 2 a re separated by a factor of five in annual 11

energy use, so that’s the red line and the green 12

line. It’s highly unusual to have such a wide gap 13

in the energy use of TSLs, therefore, we recommend 14

that the DOE evaluate an intermediate TSL at the 15

California le vel which could also be met with smart 16

nickel chargers. Strengthening the standard to the 17

CEC level for these three product classes would save 18

nearly one quad over 30 years, nationally, almost 19

equal to a multi

- billion dollar coal

- fired power 20

plant operati ng continuously. 21

In conclusion, we are generally supportive 22

of DOE’s analysis of other product categories, 23

however in Classes two through four, significant 24

energy savings additionally can be achieved, cost

- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 53 effectively, while maintaining consumer utility. I 1

thank you for the opportunity to speak. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Next, I believe 3

we’re going to hear from CEA, Doug Johnson. 4

MR. JOHNSON: I've got slides too. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: And if Larry Albert has 6

joined us, maybe we'll hear from him after Do ug has 7

concluded his remarks. 8

MR. JOHNSON: Looks like I’m here to talk 9

about the flu. Stay healthy. There we go. My name 10

is Doug Johnson. I’m with the Consumer Electronics 11

Association. And this morning I wanted to highlight 12

a report that we and a f ew other associations 13

commissioned during the course of the California 14

Energy Commission’s rulemaking on battery chargers. 15

We’ve heard the call by parties that the Department 16

should harmonize with California’s adopted 17

regulation, but we do not believe tha t would be the 18

correct course of action, and one of the biggest 19

reasons has to do with the cost benefit analysis 20

underlying that adopted regulation. 21

We, and other associations, jointly 22

commissioned the Berkeley Research Group in Los 23

Angeles to evaluate t he Energy Commission’s cost 24

benefit analysis and regulatory justification, as I 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 54 mentioned. We submitted the report from BRG in 1

November 2011, and that report and the inputs to the 2

BRG analysis were based on the California Energy 3

Commission’s staff report and related supporting 4

documents. The key findings of the BRG analysis are 5

these. Berkeley Research Group found that the CEC’s 6

cost benefit analysis was fundamentally flawed and 7

logically unsound because it failed to account for 8

several important factors

. 9

**•** One is the turnover of existing stock, to 10

account for that in a proper way. 11

**•** Second factor is the time value of money. 12

**•** Thirdly, the potential impact of pending DOE 13

regulation. 14

**•** Fourth, the incremental cost of compliance, and 15

**•** Fifth, the technological improvements that 16

would happen in this class of product due to 17

competition. 18

BRG also found that the California Energy 19

Commission’s cost

- benefit calculations and 20

modeling contained arithmetic errors and were 21

based on stale data on battery chargers, which 22

then overstated product savings and understated 23

the incremental costs of compliance. 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 55 So what BRG did in its report was take the 1

California Energy Commission’s model, corrected 2

it for calculation errors, then accounted for the 3

cost of compliance, incorpo rated as an example a 4

DOE regulation taking effect in 2014, 5

incorporated also the technological innovation 6

due to competition in this product class, and 7

fifth, incorporated manufacturer input on cost of 8

compliance. 9

So BRG’s substitute model, by taking these 10

factors into account, more accurately reflected 11

economic realities, particularly product turn

12

over, design life of products, the time value of 13

money, and in incorporating these corrections, 14

the first year savings using this more realistic 15

approach el iminated savings over most battery 16

charger

- related product categories. 17

So in summary, BRG substitute model, under 18

both the Energy Commission’s own flawed model as 19

well as BRG’s more realistic approach, the firm 20

found that the net impact on consumers was 21

negative for the majority of product categories 22

impacted by the California Commission’s proposed 23

battery charger regulation. And it is for this 24

reason and others that we do not recommend that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 56 the Department simply harmonize with California’s 1

adopted batte ry charger regulation. 2

CEA will be submitting a copy of the BRG 3

report along with its comments as we submit them 4

later this month. Thank you. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Another 6

opportunity for anybody that wants to, to make an 7

opening statement righ t now. Pierre. 8

MR. DELFORGE: Pierre Delforge, NRDC. 9

Thank you for the opportunity to make an opening 10

statement. So on behalf of NRDC, we are pleased 11

to see DOE’s rule move forward on battery 12

chargers and external power supplies, given the 13

large energ y and consumer savings opportunity in 14

these products. We commend DOE for proposing a 15

strong, yet cost

- effective, standard in a number 16

of battery charger product classes. We also 17

support DOE’s proposal for revised and extended 18

standards on external power supplies beyond level 19

five levels, even though we will argue that 20

significant additional savings opportunities can 21

be captured cost

- effectively on external power 22

supplies. 23

We also have concerns we will address in 24

regarding the definition of indirect op eration 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 57 power supplies that unnecessarily potentially 1

exclude a large number of power supplies. 2

Lastly, we also are pleased to see DOE’s 3

proposed revised and extended marking 4

requirements for both external power supplies and 5

battery chargers. We believe that efficiency 6

marking is key to facilitate global adoption and 7

minimize the cost of compliance. 8

However, we are disappointed that the 9

proposed rule is significantly weaker than 10

California’s in battery charger categories two 11

through six, which represen t over three

- quarters 12

of battery chargers sold in the U.S. We see no 13

reason why DOE cannot adopt the standard which is 14

at least as strong as California’s in these 15

categories. CEC went through a thorough and 16

rigorous process and has a proven track record in 17

setting cost

- effective standards. 18

We believe that DOE’s cost estimates are 19

significantly too high, which unduly impacts the 20

cost

- effectiveness of higher efficiency levels 21

that would otherwise be cost

- effective. For 22

example, manufacturer setting price s, or the 23

delta of manufacturer setting prices for high 24

levels are based solely on manufacturer 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 58 interviews and they are inconsistent, and we 1

believe, significantly overestimated in some 2

categories, for example, 60

- watt external power 3

supplies. 4

California Energy Commission and the ILUs 5

also made a case, the case that we don’t need to 6

shift from nickel based to lithium ion batteries 7

in order to meet their proposed levels. Even if 8

we concede lithium ion as a upper bound on the 9

cost of compliance, it appears that DOE has not 10

factored in the rapid decline of the cost of 11

lithium ion batteries in its estimates, and these 12

batteries are dropping in price dramatically 13

every year, as production volume increase and 14

technology improves. DOE itself has invested 15

over a billion dollars to accelerate the 16

development of advanced battery charger 17

technology in the U.S. and should be able to use 18

its own cost projections in its rulemaking. 19

So overall, DOE’s proposal would result in 20

the loss of nearly half, estimates about 47 21

percent of energy savings for battery chargers 22

compared to the California standard. This would 23

require the need to build an additional 700 24

megawatt power plant and is equivalent to the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 59 electricity use of nearly half the households in 1

the city of Los A ngeles. It also increases the 2

cost for American consumers by approximately $600 3

million dollars annually, reducing disposable 4

income and impacting American economic growth. 5

The weaker standard would also impact

– 6

negatively impact American’s health, due to the 7

additional harmful pollution resulting from the 8

unnecessary power wasted in the battery charger 9

adaptors. 10

We urge DOE to review its assumptions and 11

analysis, particularly regarding cost estimates 12

to reassess the cost

- effectiveness of these 13

Cali fornia IU proposals and to move forward with 14

efficiency marking proposal. Thank you for the 15

opportunity to comment, and we look forward to 16

continue working with you and stakeholders on 17

this rulemaking. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Alex. 19

MR. BOESENBERG: Hi. I’m Alex Boesenberg , 20

with the National Electrical Manufacturers 21

Association. Again, as everyone else has, I will 22

thank the Department for allowing me to make some 23

brief opening remarks. 24

One of the benefits of going close to last 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 60 is many of the poi nts I was going to make have 1

already been made, so instead, I can just say ditto 2

and echo concerns about the size of the scope and 3

the difficulty in interpreting which products are 4

affected. That has basically consumed my last five 5

weeks and we hope now t o get to some substantive 6

comments based on that. 7

We are conscious of the desire to move 8

forward on certain aspects of the rulemaking and 9

just as conscious of the desire to understand 10

everything and its potential impacts across the 11

range of products af fected as best possible so that 12

we can make, not only the best comments, but so 13

manufacturers can begin to make their own personal 14

plans for how they will comply and address the 15

redesigns needed. 16

We echo the suggestions of reexamination 17

and clarification of the scope, and also comments 18

effective to consider phased

- in approaches for 19

effective dates to afford manufacturers a greater 20

time to examine different designs and test those. 21

And also, one t hing I didn’t hear, was 22

that based on my reading of the current status of 23

the rulemaking was that the Department decided to 24

combine the battery chargers and EPS rules at a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 61 certain point, and it might be a useful tool if we 1

were able to split those apart or a phase in 2

approach or other concerns for effective dates as 3

those addressed. That’s one idea I didn’t hear yet. 4

And we have some other specific remarks 5

that we’ll make as we get to those items, thank you. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 7

commen ts here at the outset? Yes, Jennifer. 8

MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary and this will be 9

very brief, so thank you for the opportunity to make 10

comments. AHAM is generally supportive of the 11

direction that DOE is taking in the proposed rule, 12

especially with regard to battery charger classes 13

two through four as they relate to AHAM’s products. 14

Of course, we do have a number of comments and 15

suggestions which we’ll make through the course of 16

the day and in our written comments, but 17

importantly, we do agree with DOE’s a nalysis 18

regarding California’s standards. As we argued to 19

California, those CEC standards for battery chargers 20

are not feasible and represent a negative NPV for 21

product classes two through six. Accordingly, DOE 22

should not adopt those standards as stringe nt as 23

California’s because of the burden on manufacturers 24

and the net impact on consumers would be too great, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 62 just supported by DOE’s own analysis and also the 1

cost

- benefit analysis that was already discussed 2

today by CEA. Thank you. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Ok ay. Thank you. As I 4

understand it, Larry Albert has joined us, and 5

Larry, you’re next, please speak. 6

MR. ALBERT: Yes, thank you, Doug. This 7

is Larry Albert. I work for Black and Decker in 8

Towson, Maryland and I’m representing the Power Tool 9

Institut e before the Department on the proposed 10

rule. Next slide please. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: We’re working on it, just a 12

second, Larry. 13

MR. ALBERT: Can you hear me. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, we can hear you fine, 15

we’re just

– hang on just a moment, we’ll advance 16

the slide. Here we go. 17

MR. ALBERT: Thanks again, by the way, for 18

accommodating our situation here. There’s a trade 19

association meeting here this week and we’ve been 20

tied up in all the meetings so couldn’t make it in 21

person. The Power Tool Institute is the trade 22

association of power tool manufacturers, do business 23

in North America. As I think the Department is 24

aware, we’ve been a frequent and a responsible 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 63 contributor to external power supply and battery 1

charger rulemaking here at DOE and also in other 2

jurisdictions, including California. In addition, 3

PTI members have been pretty involved as partners in 4

Energy Star and indicate their support in general in 5

conservation efforts through their products that 6

they have as Energy Star compliant. 7

So we’ve had this long time support of the 8

goal of battery charger energy efficiency, and we 9

basically look for some essential qualities in a 10

proposed rule. That the requirements are national 11

in scope

– we are a global company and we are, in 12

this trade association of other companies in a 13

similar situation, it makes no sense to have 14

individual state regulations. We believe that it’s 15

important to have a national standard, otherwise it 16

becomes a difficulty for manufacturers to comply. 17

And that these standards apply onl y to true power 18

supplies and not element of battery chargers as EPS 19

standards do, and that the standard is based upon a 20

meaningful measurement of usage, and that the 21

standard provides a positive financial consumer 22

benefit with respect to energy savings. T hat the 23

standards are achievable using proven technology. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Larry, I’ve been handed a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 64 note and I’m supposed to ask you can you please turn 1

sound off on your speakers? There’s an echo. 2

MR. ALBERT: Okay. I’ll try that. I’ve 3

got the sound off, let me just try using my speaker. 4

Is that any better? 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Keep talking. 6

MR. ALBERT: Okay. So with respect to 7

EPS, PTI supports the gradation of class and EPSs. 8

We believe that it will have a significant impact on 9

initial battery de sign and the test of meaningful 10

and feasible will truly separate the case out of a 11

battery charger versus a power supply for an ...ent. 12

We would appreciate I think the clarification in 13

this section with respect to how the class and test 14

applies to ... battery pack. We’re grateful that the 15

provision is there that covers essentially the 16

consideration that EISA had for ... operated and 17

actual battery pack applications. 18

With respect to battery chargers, PTI 19

believes that the method that has been established 20

to li mit these type of ... are completely appropriate 21

for the classes of product that are covered, that 22

would be specifically classes two through four. We 23

think the method and limits fulfill what our 24

objectives are with respect to any regulation for 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 65 energy effic iency, that is, it provides both 1

meaningful measure and meaningful benefit. We agree 2

with the approach that the Department took with 3

respect to vehicular powered battery chargers and 4

that they’re essentially exempted by establishing 5

those standards, becau se we don’t believe that they 6

contribute to the energy consumption meaningfully in 7

the United States. 8

And we believe the levels are appropriate 9

and we believe that they can also be achieved by the 10

July 1, 2013 date as expressed in the NOPR. In the 11

opposite consideration, DOE should not go to the CEC 12

levels of the new baseline because we believe that 13

they’re unachievable by the CEC date and they’re 14

also unachievable by the July 1 st date. I think the 15

Department has found, and I think you heard earlie r 16

comment to the effect that there’s negative consumer 17

benefit, and with respect to power tools and in 18

particular, it provides no room left over in terms 19

of energy improvement for programs such as Energy 20

Star. 21

So with respect to Energy Star power tool 22

ma nufacturers have been very active participants in 23

the Energy Star battery chargers program. The 24

larger portion of the Energy Star listings that you 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 66 can find on the website are power tool and similar 1

product has been over the years, the steady 2

transformati on as our industry has signed on with 3

more and more product, and this process of having 4

center driven voluntary program has driven industry 5

innovation with respect to energy efficiency. By 6

creating any mandatory standard that would create a 7

recalibration of the spec ification levels of Energy 8

Star is understood, but having an overly restrictive 9

standard such as CEC, takes a larger reset that 10

could effectively eliminate all Energy Star 11

offerings while providing no participants in the 12

market, and that could h ave the effect of just 13

eliminating the BCS program entirely in practice. 14

Thank you for the opportunity to make 15

these comments for the Department, thanks for the 16

special accommodations for allowing me to 17

participate. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Larry. Ot her 19

comments here at the outset? Okay. So then let’s 20

go straight into the PowerPoint slides that all of 21

you have in front of you, and first we’re going to 22

hear from Brian Booher . It’s

– in my experience 23

it’s unusual to have so much extensive comment her e 24

in this opening segment, and so I’m hoping, as we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 67 proceed through these slides we don’t have a lot of 1

redundancy. I’m hoping you can emphasize what you 2

need to emphasize and you can do it very 3

efficiently, because we have a lot of content to get 4

through here. So Brian, please. 5

**Rulemaking Scope**  **, Product Classes and** 6

**Market Assessment** 7

MR. BOOHER: Good morning, everybody. 8

Again, I’m Brian Booher with D&R International, and 9

I’m going to be talking to you today about the scope 10

of the rulemaking, product classes and the market 11

assessment. The first step of the rulemaking 12

process was to establish the scope of the rulemaking 13

and divide battery chargers and EPSs into product 14

classes. According to the statute, DOE can create 15

product classes based on the type of energy used and 16

other performance

- relating features, with the goal 17

to maintain the utility of different types of 18

products. DOE does not want regulations to 19

eliminate unique products. 20

So we’ll start with EPSs. The statutory 21

definition of an EPS is a circuit that is used to 22

convert household electric current into DC current 23

or lower voltage AC current to operate the consumer 24

product. So, you know, here we’re talking about an 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 68 EPS is outside the product that it operates. It 1

attaches to and obtains pow er from the mains. It 2

outputs DC current or a lower voltage AC current and 3

it powers a consumer product. As you may notice, 4

this definition encompasses wall adapters that can 5

be used to charge batteries. About 80 percent of 6

EPSs are actually part of a b attery charging system. 7

In order to deal with this overlap between 8

EPSs and battery chargers, DOE has revised its 9

approach from the preliminary analysis . Whereas a 10

wall adapter was only considered an EPS if it 11

contained charge control, now DOE considers all wall 12

adapters to be EPSs. The problem wa s that charge 13

control functionality was never clearly defined and 14

the more relevant question is whether the EPSs can 15

operate the end use product directly, or whether the 16

EPS is only designed to charge a battery. So DOE is 17

proposing to give special treatment to those EPSs 18

that cannot operate an end user consumer product 19

directly. We are calling these indirect operation 20

EPSs. It is DOE’s position that these indirect 21

operation products are best regulated by the b attery 22

charger standard and DOE is not proposing new EPS 23

standards for product class N at this time. Product 24

class N is indirect operation EPSs. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 69 So how do you determine if a product is an 1

indirect or direct operation EPS? DOE developed 2

this protocol. The first step is to charge the 3

battery and then disconnect the EPS from the 4

product. Then you turn on the product and note how 5

long it takes to start. This is the normal start

- up 6

time. Operate the product until it runs out of 7

batteries and it stops fun ctioning, then connect the 8

EPS to the product again. Immediately turn the 9

product back on and note how long it takes to start. 10

This is the dead battery start up time. When you 11

compare the two start up times, if the dead battery 12

start up time is less tha n or equal to the normal 13

start up time plus five seconds, this is a direct 14

operation product. On the other side, if the dead 15

battery start up time is greater than the normal 16

start up time plus five seconds, this is an indirect 17

operation product. 18

You kno w, the reasoning here is that if a 19

product takes more than five seconds to start up 20

with a dead battery, it’s because the product is 21

drawing the power from the battery and not from the 22

EPS, and therefore it has to establish a charge in 23

the battery before i t can operate. And you can find 24

this protocol outlined in full in the rule language. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 70 So these diagrams are a rough depiction of 1

a direct, on the top, and an indirect operation 2

system. You can see in figure one how the EPS is 3

designed so it can provide power to the end use 4

operation, to the end use application. And then on 5

the bottom, all the power must flow through the 6

battery. I have a question? 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Please. Go ahead. 8

MR. HABBEN : Going back to your dead 9

battery

– 10

MR. BROOKMAN: It’s Vic, right? 11

MR. HABBEN : Rick. Rick Habben from Wall 12

Clipper. Going back to the dead battery, is there a 13

definition for dead battery? 14

MR. BOOHER: It’s if the battery is 15

completely exhausted of all charge. I don’t know

– 16

MR. HAVEN: Is it that th e product is not 17

functioning or is it to a certain level determined 18

what that battery is designed for? 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Please find a microphone, 20

and say your name. 21

MR. SKAHAN : Chris Skahan , Navigant 22

Consulting. There’s no official definition for dead 23

battery, but in the indirect operation procedure 24

it’s taken as the point where it can no longer 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 71 operate the end user application as it was intended. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay, Rick? 2

MR. HABBEN : Yes, thank you for that 3

clarification. 4

MR. BROOKM AN: Thank you. You’re doing 5

very well. Keep going. 6

MR. BOOHER: So these are all of the EPS 7

product classes. Most Class A EPSs are in the four 8

product classes there on the left , and most non

9

Class A EPSs are in the three product classes on the 10

right. The exception s are direct operation EPSs for 11

some motorized applications, like some shavers and 12

beard trimmers, and indirect operation Class A EPSs 13

like some Blue Tooth headsets and MP3 players. 14

And this is a useful decision tree for 15

determining whic h of the seven product classes the 16

EPS falls into, so if the device meets the 17

definition of an EPS, the first question you ask is 18

whether it can directly operate a consumer product. 19

If not, the product is assigned to product class N. 20

If so, then determin e whether it can output multiple 21

simultaneous output voltages, if so, it is in 22

product class X. And then you look at the output 23

power of the EPS and if it is greater than 250 24

watts, it is in product class H. Next, you look at 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 72 the output current

– 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 2

MR. HAILEY : Hi. Jeff Hailey with Dell. 3

If you’ll go back one slide. Product class X, we 4

have some external power supplies that have multiple 5

outputs of the same voltage but they’re all 6

independent. Would that still be Class X? How 7

w ould we determine that? 8

MR. BOOHER: Yes, I believe so. If the 9

output more than one voltage, whether it’s AC or DC 10

it doesn’t matter, simultaneously

– 11

MR. HAILEY : They’re all the same voltage 12

though. They all have the same level output, they’d 13

all be the same voltage output, but there are 14

multiple outputs and they’re independent. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Why don’t you describe 16

again. 17

MR. HAILEY : So, again, we would have an 18

external power supply, would have four outputs of 19

say 12 volts at 20 amps , but the y’re all 20

independent. The four outputs are independently 21

regulated, and so would that be a Class X or would 22

that be a high power Class H? 23

MR. BOOHER: My colleague, Chris, will 24

weigh in on that. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 73 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris. 1

MR. SKAHAN : Chris Skahan again. The 2

definition for multiple

- voltage external power 3

supplies says that if there are multiple output 4

voltages operating simultaneously, it doesn’t 5

specify multiple different output voltages, so

– 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 7

MR. BOOHER: So then the next distinction 8

is between DC current and AC current output by the 9

EPS. And then following that we have divided 10

product classes into low voltage and basic voltage. 11

The low voltage definition is an output voltage less 12

than six volts and an ou tput current greater than or 13

equal to 550 milliamps, and this is the criteria 14

used by the Energy Star EPS programs to determine 15

low voltage EPS. So all of these distinctions are 16

important factors to determine the utility of the 17

product, and all of them ca n affect the performance. 18

The next few slides will be a market map 19

diagram to show how these distinctions play out in 20

the market. So DOE estimated that in 2009, 345 21

million EPSs were shipped

. 83 percent of those are 22

considered Class A and are currently subject to the 23

standards established in EISA 2007. In addition, 24

many non

- Class A EPSs are separately covered by 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 74 standards in California, shown here in the blue. 1

About 80 percent of EPSs are part of a battery 2

charging system, but many of these are not de signed 3

to operate the end use product directly, and you can 4

see how this triangle includes both Class A and non

5

Class A EPS s. So these products will continue to be 6

subject to existing standards in the portion of the 7

market intersecting the green box, subj ect to EISA 8

2007 and the portion of the market intersecting the 9

blue box, subject to California’s standards. 10

You can also see how some EPSs for 11

motorized applications, here above the triangle, 12

fall outside of product class A and again, some good 13

examples are shavers and some beard trimmers. 14

So DOE estimated that about 74 million 15

indirect operation EPSs shipped in 2009, which was 16

roughly 20 percent of total shipments. And if we 17

have any more questions on DOE’s approach to 18

indirect operation, I’d ask if we could wait until 19

we get through the battery charger product class 20

definition, and then we can address all the 21

questions at once. 22

So moving on to battery chargers. A 23

battery charger is a device that charges batteries 24

for consumer products, including b attery chargers 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 75 imbedded in other consumer products. It’s important 1

to note here that a battery charger can be comprised 2

of components located inside of an EPS, inside of an 3

end use product, or in a separate housing 4

altogether. So it’s the entirety of th is battery 5

charging system that’s within the scope of the 6

rulemaking. 7

This table shows the differences between 8

the battery charger product classes. The first 9

distinguishing factor is the type of input and 10

output voltage. In product classes eight and ni ne, 11

you can see how BCs with DC input are included 12

there. These products do not have losses from AC to 13

DC power conversion, and then in product class 10A 14

and 10B, these devices, such as uninterruptable 15

power supplies have a DC to AC converter 16

additionally , so that can increase losses. Battery 17

voltage and energy also drive the utility and 18

performance of the battery charger. Going back to 19

product class 10, you can see that it’s further 20

distinguished between EPS s with automatic voltage 21

regulation and those without. 22

There at the top, product class one, 23

that’s reserved for inductive battery chargers for 24

use in a wet environment. DOE has also reserved an 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 76 eleventh product class that you don’t see here on 1

this table, that’s for products that use wireless 2

power to charge in a dry environment. 3

So consumer products were mentioned in 4

both the EPS and battery charger definition, and 5

many of our stakeholders have commented on this 6

issue already. The s tatutory definition of a 7

consumer product is here. But for furt her guidance, 8

there is a document that DOE has prepared located at 9

this link down below, and we encourage you to look 10

to that document. 11

So these are the issues for comment that 12

DOE is particularly interested in related to product 13

classes and scope, but w e’ll pause here for any and 14

all comments from stakeholders on these issues. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: We’ll leave these comment 16

boxes up there so you can reference them. So let’s 17

start on the first one, DOE seeks comment on its 18

proposed approach to classifying E PS s that 19

indirectly operate consumer products. Ric. 20

MR. ERDHEIM : Thanks, Doug. You described 21

the process for determining whether something is 22

direct or indirect, and we support the concept of 23

Class N. But what you didn’t describe is what’s the 24

efficien cy issues for those products which are 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 77 potentially direct. You used a phrase, “designed to 1

operate.” I’m not sure that products which can be 2

operated direct ly from the EPS are expected to 3

operate from the EPS, they would only operate in 4

emergency situati ons. So what’s the energy issue 5

that you’re trying to address when you distinguish 6

between direct and indirect? 7

MR. BOOHER: I would say that the main 8

issue here, and Vic, if you want to weigh in, you 9

can, is that the indirect operation EPS s are, in 10

DOE ’s view, best dealt with by the battery charger 11

standard and any EPSs that can directly operate the 12

consumer product should be regulated under the EPS 13

standard. 14

MR. PETROLATI: Rick, just to go a little 15

further. I think your question tends to revolve 16

ar ound the usage profiles associated with those 17

products, potentially. But let’s take the example 18

of a laptop computer. Obviously, a laptop computer 19

is what we call a direct operation EPS . We believe 20

there’s a substantial amount of time where the 21

laptop computer is actually powered by the external 22

power supply. Consequently, by setting these 23

standard for the external power supply in that 24

particular case, we feel we have the potential for 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 78 significant energy savings. There are other 1

products where potenti ally the EPS can operate the 2

end use consumer product, where the savings would be 3

probably significantly less, based on the amount of 4

time the EPS is connected to the device. We don’t 5

have any information in this rulemaking currently, 6

as to for those dire ct operating EPSs, how much time 7

the EPS is actually connected to the product and 8

powering the product. So we can’t give you that for 9

every specific product type. We’ve got usage 10

profiles associated with each product type, but we 11

cannot give you that typ e of breakdown at this 12

point. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So that was Vic, now 14

back to you, Ric. 15

MR. ERDHEIM : So would you agree that if 16

there was information showing that products were

– 17

that could be operated directly, but rarely were,

-- 18

or let me put it to you

– I’ll rephrase that. 19

If we had information showing that 20

products could be, but rarely were used

– powered by 21

the EPS, would that be something that you would 22

consider to say maybe we should move those products 23

into Class N? 24

MR. PETROLATI: I c an’t say we wouldn’t 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 79 consider it, so I think that’s very valuable 1

information to submit during the rulemaking process 2

so we can make a determination on that

. 3

MR. ERDHEIM : Thank you. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Several 5

questions here before you, givin g you a chance

– 6

Pierre. 7

MR. DELFORGE: Still on the first question 8

on the indirect definition, we are concerned that 9

the dead battery test with five seconds delay may 10

not accurately identify indirect operations, and I 11

think Vic used the example of a Not ebook. I think 12

similar comment with MP3 players and phones. There 13

are some housekeeping functions when the battery is 14

below certain level for a number of reasons which 15

don’t necessarily mean that in normal operation the 16

product is not operated directly f rom the EPS. So 17

we’re concerned about using that definition for 18

defining product class N. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Would you suggest an 20

alternative to the five seconds? 21

MR. DELFORGE: We don’t have a precise 22

number, but I think we encourage DOE to review this 23

a nd maybe either increase that to something which 24

will cover as intended, the products

– most of the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 80 products are directly operated by the EPS, or 1

potentially a different mechanism. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Is it 3

Patrick? Patrick. 4

MR. CARRERA: Patrick Carrera from iRobot

. 5

iRobot is a leading company for home robotics. And 6

by all means, we will support the rule for 7

classification of Class N, because even though the 8

definition of a dead battery is flexible, or up in 9

the air, nevert heless for robots below the thresh 10

level of operation for the battery, the robot will 11

not work. Remember, this is an autonomous robot, 12

which definitely, if the battery doesn’t have a 13

specific level of

– above that threshold, it will 14

not operate, simply en ough. And I believe whatever 15

method the DOE use for the five seconds, it’s a good 16

combination out of the whole gamut of robots in the 17

market. 18

One thing that I definitely support the 19

DOE specification is because home robots is a global 20

market, and it’s a global competition, and it’s very 21

important for us not to be certified or compliance 22

our products with two different standards, whether 23

Europe or the U.S. For Europe, where there is the 24

EUP or the ERP directives in the guidance for 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 81 implementation, they do have a flow chart. Here the 1

flow chart is not like the DOE, I’m sorry, like the 2

EC, however, it’s very clearly that the unit 3

intended to operate is disconnected from the means, 4

therefore it definitely is autonomous and the unit 5

operates only with a ba ttery charger. Although as 6

Vic ... he reminds me that we have to comply with the 7

battery charger regulation. So it’s not that we are 8

entirely exempt of any

– exempt of meeting any level 9

of energy efficiency. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Vic. 11

MR. PETROLATI: Vic Petrolati. We are 12

very interested in getting comments on this proposed 13

test for determining whether or not a product is in 14

indirect operation EPS and how it works with all of 15

your products, so if there is a concern of any sort 16

concerni ng this test, please provide that in your 17

comments. We want to come up with a test that is 18

reasonable, and we want to come up with an exclusion 19

for this particular situation, which we think 20

deserves an exclusion since these products are going 21

to be covere d under the battery charger regulations 22

anyway. Thank you. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s see. Ken. 24

MR. RYDER: Yes, this is Ken Ryder from 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 82 the California Energy Commission. Just a quick 1

question, not really one of these items, but when 2

you say and you discu ssed not covering product class 3

N products in this rulemaking, does that mean that 4

there’s a level four baseline for these Class A 5

products, or would it be that

– what? 6

MR. PETROLATI: (answer off mic) I 7

apologize. Vic Petrolati. There are Class A 8

pro ducts within this product class. They are going 9

to be required to remain at the efficiency levels 10

for Class A. They will not be required to be more 11

stringent than Class A if they fit into this product 12

class. 13

MR. RYDER: Fantastic. That answers the 14

que stion. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Alex. 16

MR. BOESENBERG: I have a comment on item 17

nine and 33 if we’re ready for that. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 19

MR. BOESENBERG: Item nine, NEMA is 20

concerned and will be submitting some comments for 21

clarification on external power supplies that are 22

used for building systems components, such as those 23

permanently installed in electrical rooms near 24

electrical entrances to buildings to power such 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 83 things as communication links, central processors 1

for building lighting m anagement systems, motorized 2

shades, et cetera, and we’ll offer some input to 3

that. That one doesn’t cut cleanly into the 4

existing classes. 5

Relative to item 33, no. Solid state 6

lighting power supplies do not need to be a separate 7

class because they are not covered by this 8

rulemaking is our argument, because for starters, 9

solid state lighting is a system, ergo, the power 10

supply is almost always internal to the unit. 11

Underwriters Laboratories as well as manufacturers 12

list and test those products as a sys tem, again, so 13

reinforcing the internal status of the power supply. 14

For those that have a no

- load state, the performance 15

of the power supply typically is zero power 16

consumption. They wait to be

– to have a light 17

source attached, and only then will they d o 18

anything. Also a lot of solid state, because of its 19

solid state nature, being electronics, means that 20

dimming capability is frequently included in those 21

products, and the DOE has a precedent for exempting 22

dimming products such as fluorescent ballast 23

rul emaking. Dimmable fluorescent ballasts were not 24

subjected to the same strict energy use requirements 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 84 of a standard fluorescent ballast because dimming 1

saves energy. 2

Also of course, we can call attention to 3

DOE’s own statements in the NOPR, that they had no 4

test data for external power supplies for SSL 5

attributable to little or no 2009 sales. That’s 6

because there are so few of those products that are 7

external, as we noted, and also the simple fact that 8

solid state lighting is an emerging technology and 9

t hat’s why there weren’t any sales in 2009 and 10

there’s still very few on an annual basis. The 11

market is just taking off in the last year or so. 12

As a result, the DOE would be sorely tried 13

to gather any data that could reasonably be used to 14

reflect the fut ure of that market, because nobody 15

knows what it is, and based on all those

– well, the 16

last point is, we discourage regulations for solid 17

state except where absolutely necessary because its 18

status as an emerging market means that it is in a 19

high rate of d evelopment

– evolution and innovation, 20

and when you regulate a product that is still 21

immature, you risk hampering innovation by 22

restricting choices of designs or alternative 23

approaches that might pan out in the course of the 24

market to find is the best way to do it, so to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 85 speak. 1

So, based on all those points, we think 2

SSL is an improper candidate for this rulemaking and 3

would also mention that due to its popularity, it’s 4

already mentioned in several other lighting 5

rulemakings that will be addressed in the next few 6

years. So leaving it off doesn’t mean it’s going to 7

run around fancy free. It will be gotten to in a 8

couple more years, where we will have a little more 9

market data and a little more idea of where the 10

technology is heading. Thank you. 11

MR. B ROOKMAN: Thank you. I don’t think 12

we addressed

– yes, Vic, please. 13

MR. PETROLATI: Yes, a couple things. 14

First of all, as you know, we’re not regulating the 15

SSL, solid state lighting, we’re regulating the 16

external power supply. We are aware of pictur es of 17

products including an external power supply that 18

appears to be external. So I would appreciate it, 19

in your comments, when you send them in, please show 20

us the pictures of what you think are internal power 21

supplies, and do not meet the definition of external 22

power supply as written by Congress. 23

MR. BOESENBERG: We’ll do that. 24

MR. PETROLATI: Thank you. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 86 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. I don’t 1

think we’ve addressed 34 yet, so let’s see if we can 2

get some comment on item 34. Pierre. 3

MR. DELF ORGE: So I have a comment, I 4

don’t think it’s on 34, but essentially a question. 5

In the decision tree that you showed early on, you 6

don’t show Class A EPSs, but you do mention that the 7

Class A standard is amended. So could you clarify 8

how Class A, apart from those which are now in Class 9

N, how Class A EPSs are covered by the proposed 10

standard. 11

MR. BOOHER: I mentioned briefly how

– 12

we’re not necessarily making a distinction between 13

Class A and non

- Class A in any of these product 14

classes in particular, that’s not the defining 15

factor any more. I will say that most Class A EPSs 16

are in product classes B, C, D, and E. And most 17

non

- Class A EPSs are in X, H, and N, but there is 18

that overlap. And non

- Class A EPSs that, based on 19

this decision tree, fall into product classes B, C, 20

D, and E, will be covered by the standards under 21

those

– that we’re proposing today for those product 22

classes. 23

MR. DELFORGE: How about Class A EPSs that 24

are in B, C, D, will they be covered as well? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 87 MR. BOOHER: Yes, I mean those

– if we 1

follow the decision tree, will still filter into 2

classes B, C, D, and E. 3

MR. DELFORGE: All right, thank you. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 5

comments on this series of issue boxes. Okay. Why 6

don’t we take a break at this point. It’s 10:45. 7

How many of you are new to the For restal Building? 8

Many of you. You must wear your badge, the visitor 9

badge if you’re walking around the Forrestal 10

Building. There’s a coffee shop down on the ground 11

floor . G o back to the elevators and go down to the 12

ground floor and hang a left, and you can follow me 13

if you want. There are restrooms on both ends of 14

the hall, and we’re going to break for 15 minutes , 15

which means we ’ ll resume at 1 1 : 00 sharp. S o we ’ll 16

see you back here at eleven

. 17

(Whereupon, at 10 : 4 5 a.m., the meeting was 18

recessed for a 15 minute period.) 19

MR. BROOKMAN: So we are going to resume 20

where we left off, and go back to Brian and market 21

assessment overview. 22

**Market Assessment** 23

MR. BOOHER: Welcome back everybody. Hope 24

we’ll all sufficiently caffeinated. Again, I’m 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 88 Brian Booher, D&R International. I’m going to be 1

talking about the market assessment right now. 2

The purpose of the market assessment is to 3

analyze the consumer end uses of b attery chargers 4

and EPSs, and to characterize the markets for those 5

products. The outputs of the market assessment are 6

shipments, lifetimes and efficiency distributions 7

for battery chargers and external power supplies, as 8

well as general market trends tha t may affect power 9

consumption

– or energy consumption, excuse me. 10

So I’m going to talk about shipments and 11

lifetimes. I’m not going to get so much into the 12

efficiency distributions right here, because those 13

estimates were based on test data that we did as 14

part of the engineering analysis, and then more so 15

in the shipments analysis, so I’ll defer to my 16

colleagues on those. 17

DOE used a bottom

- up approach to 18

characterize the market for battery chargers and 19

EPSs, looking first at the applications that BCs and 20

EPSs are sold and used with. So the end use 21

applications are the main drivers of the shipments, 22

the lifetimes and the power requirements of these 23

products, and we identified approximately 80 24

applications that use BCs and/or EPSs, and all of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 89 those appl ications are outlined in Appendix 3A of 1

the TSD. 2

So for the EPS market, in the base year of 3

our analysis, which was 2009, DOE estimated 4

approximately 345 million products that were sold, 5

more than half of which were in product class B. 6

You can see here that product classes X and H are 7

very small proportions of the market, and for the 8

purposes of our analysis, product class N made up 9

about 20 percent, split evenly in our estimates 10

between non

- Class A and Class A. 11

These are the top 15 EPS applications by 12

shipment. You can see here that mobile phones is 13

the biggest shipment. DOE actually estimated that 14

in 2009 there were over 90 million mobile phones 15

shipped, but you can see here that our estimate for 16

EPS shipments is half of that. The reason here is 17

th at DOE believes that due to standardization in the 18

industry around the micro USB plug, the market for 19

mobile phones will evolve in the near future and 20

many phones will begin to ship without a power 21

supply. You can see here also that many of these 22

mobile p hones, the majority are in product class C, 23

the low voltage product class, and then you can see 24

some of the products that have been assigned to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 90 product class N for the purpose of the analysis. 1

On the battery charger side, in the base 2

year, there was 437 million battery chargers 3

shipped. Again, the majority of these were in 4

product class 2. You can see that product class 4 5

is also

– there’s also significant shipments 6

assigned to product class 4, and here, if you look 7

at the top 15 applications by shipmen ts for battery 8

chargers, you can see that Notebook s and power tools 9

have been assigned to product class 4. 10

DOE found relatively few medium and high 11

energy battery chargers on the market. And I guess 12

another important point here is that some mobile 13

phone s have been assigned to product class 8 because 14

DOE found that they were shipped with a USB charger, 15

and the same with some MP3 players. 16

This table shows the lifetimes, the 17

average lifetimes of a number of key applications, 18

and here, the lifetime of a ba ttery charger and EPS 19

is dictated by its associated application, and if 20

you look at all EPSs on average, the lifetime is 21

four years, and for all BC’s on average, the 22

lifetime is five years. 23

So the market assessment methodology is 24

outlined in full in Chap ter 3 of the TSD, and you 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 91 can explore all of our estimates in the market 1

assessment workbook, which is also published on the 2

DOE website. 3

We’re seeking comments on all the 4

estimates that we used for shipments and lifetimes 5

for each application and prod uct class, as well as 6

any other questions and comments you may have today. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Jeff. 8

MR. HAILEY : Yes, if you’ll go back to 9

your per rater chart, I think two slides back, 10

battery chargers. Okay. So you have mobile phones 11

and M P3 players into product class 8 because they 12

have USB input, correct? 13

MR. BOOHER: This was

– yes, solely a USB 14

charger, and based on retail surveys that we 15

conducted and other market research. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Is that eight? 17

MR. BOOHER: That is produ ct class 8. 18

MR. HAILEY : So, if we can do that with 19

USB, can we claim a Notebook to be a product 20

category 9? It’s DC input from the EPS over 20 21

volts. Could we potentially get that into there, 22

even though it’s shipped with an EPS? 23

MR. BOOHER: No, be cause, if I understand 24

correctly, the EPS that is shipped with that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 92 Notebook computer is

– contains some of the battery 1

charger functionality. That

– 2

MR. HAILEY : It does not. It absolutely 3

does not. It is strictly AC to DC conversion. 4

There is no ba ttery charger function whatsoever. 5

The battery charger is solely contained in the 6

Notebook. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: For all Notebooks, or your 8

Notebook? 9

MR. HAILEY : I cannot speak for the rest 10

of industry, but for Dell, and I think most of the 11

major players, that is the case. Dave, it’s that 12

way for Apple, isn’t it? 13

(response off mic) 14

MR. BROOKMAN: I think this is useful 15

content, I want to make sure we capture it. Dave, 16

say it on the record. Push that little button 17

there. 18

MR. DENKENB ERGER: We’ll pro vide written 19

comments. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Great. 21

MR. HAILEY : So I just want to clarify, 22

because, again there’s the issue of preemption of 23

scope. By the California definition, if you 24

recommend or sell an EPS with your battery charging 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 93 system, you’re tasked with that EPS. And so those 1

cell phones that have a USB input would be into the 2

class

– probably the Class 3 even though they may 3

have a USB input because there is a EPS sold or 4

recommended with them. And so by that analysis with 5

the Notebo ok, we’ve determined we probably be class 6

4 on most of them. But again, we need crisp 7

definitions on what’s in and what’s out of scope. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: You got a microphone? 9

MR. NARDOTI: Yes, this is Matt Nardot ti 10

from Navigant. Part of the DOE test procedure has 11

the same stipulation that if a manufacturer sells, 12

recommends, or has a EPS or a wall adapter that’s 13

used with their battery charger, then that’s how you 14

would test the product, and that would be

– that 15

would dictate which product class you w ould fall 16

under in terms of battery charger standard. 17

MR. HAILEY : So

– 18

MR. NARDOTI: So the wall adapter, the AC 19

to DC conversion unit that you would you that you 20

would plug, I guess, the DC input would come from 21

that, right, to charge the whole batte ry. That’s 22

how you would test the whole unit and that’s 23

stipulated in the test procedures as well. 24

MR. HAILEY : But it’s in the test 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 94 procedure, it’s not in the regulation. And so we 1

need to be clear. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Jeff. 3

MR. BOOHER : I w ill also say that by 4

assigning certain shipments to product class 8 for 5

mobile phones, this was mainly for the purpose of 6

the analysis and that doesn’t necessarily say 7

anything about DOE’s position on where EPSs or 8

battery chargers would fall for all of th ese 9

products in general. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let’s go back to the 11

comment boxes, items 4, 5, and 27. I’ll leave it to 12

you to read them, because you can do it quicker than 13

I can. Let’s get comment on these. And let me say, 14

those of you that are joini ng us by the web, we’re 15

going to endeavor to entertain your questions here, 16

if you have questions, so please feel free to write 17

them in and our capable computer person will do what 18

she can to pass them forward. No additional 19

comments on these? Market dat a, use in commercial 20

sector, and 27, on its estimates of proportions of 21

certain applications that ship with UPSs. We’re 22

moving on. 23

MR. BOOHER: So we’re

– this was our 24

normally scheduled break, but

– 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 95 MR. BROOKMAN: We’re going to keep going. 1

MR. SKA HAN : Hello, everybody. I’m Chris 2

Skahan with Navigant Consulting for anyone who 3

didn’t hear me talk earlier, and I’m going to take 4

you guys through the technology assessment, the 5

screening analysis and the engineering analysis for 6

external power supplies

. 7

**Technology Assessment, Screening Analysis,** 8

**Engineering Analysis**  9

MR. SKAHAN : So we’re going to start with 10

the technology assessment. And the purpose of the 11

technology assessment is to examine the factors that 12

affect the efficiency of battery chargers and 13

external power supplies, and DOE does that by 14

generating a list of specific t echnology options for 15

improving efficiency. 16

However, before you look at how to improve 17

efficiency, you have to define what efficiency means 18

for these products, as well as how to measure it. 19

For EPSs, DOE looked at two modes of operation, and 20

two corre sponding measures of operating efficiency. 21

The first is no

- load mode, where all the power 22

drawn from the mains is consumed by the EPS, and we 23

measure that with an instantaneous power consumption 24

metric in watts. The next is the active mode, which 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 96 is an average efficiency measure at 25 percent, 50 1

percent, 75 percent and 100 percent rated load 2

capacity of the EPS. 3

Next, there’s actually a couple more modes 4

for battery chargers. First, there’s active or 5

charge mode, where the battery chargers is charg ing 6

the battery from a depleted state over a 24 hour 7

period, and that’s measured in watt

- hours. Next is 8

maintenance mode, which is an instantaneous power 9

consumption metric in watts, and that’s when the 10

battery charger is maintaining the battery charge, 11

k eeping it fully charged. Next, standby mode, where 12

the battery is removed from the charger, the charger 13

is connected to the mains , and that’s measured in 14

instantaneous power consumption , that the power 15

drawn from the mains by the charger. 16

Last, is off m ode where the battery is 17

removed, the charger is connected to the mains, but 18

any on/off switches on the charger itself are 19

switched to off. 20

Each one of these BC metrics is weighted 21

and combined into a single metric called unit energy 22

consumption, or UEC, which is measured in kilowatt 23

hours per year, and we’ll go into much more detail 24

on the UEC calculation in the battery charger 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 97 engineering analysis. This is just sort of a first 1

look. 2

As I mentioned, DOE identifies specific 3

options for improving the en ergy efficiency of EPSs 4

and BCs, and because the two technologies are so 5

closely related, several technology options actually 6

apply to both types of products. For instance, 7

we’ve listed improved transformer core material, 8

low

- power integrated circuits, s hock schottky 9

diodes ... and synchronous rectification, as well as 10

low

- loss transistors. However, because BCs provide 11

a different utility than external power supplies, 12

certain options only apply to those products, for 13

instance, the elimination of maintenanc e current, 14

the elimination of no battery current, and the 15

battery chemistry for the battery charger. And I 16

would encourage you, for more details on each one of 17

these options, as well as some additional ones that 18

DOE looked at, to go to Chapter 3 of the TS D. 19

So one of the main technology options that 20

DOE looked at as a method to improve the efficiency 21

of these products is the move toward switch

- mode 22

topologies from more inefficient linear designs. As 23

I’m sure many of you know, linear power supplies 24

tend to be bigger and less efficient than their 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 98 switch

- mode counterparts. Unfortunately, in 1

general, switch

- mode power supplies tend to be 2

noisier and generate more electromagnetic 3

interference or EMI. 4

And DOE looked into the impact of EMI on 5

power supp ly performance in the non

- Class A 6

determination analysis, but through additional 7

research, DOE has become informally aware of a 8

potential decrease in utility with external power 9

supplies for high power external power supplies in 10

amateur radio applications having to do with EMI. 11

DOE’s current stance is that it does not believe 12

there’s any decrease in consumer utility with these 13

high power power supplies in amateur radio 14

applications due to the existence of EMI filters and 15

the fact that these power supplies are subject to 16

FCC regulations for EMI emissions. 17

However, today DOE is actively seeking 18

comment on this assumption, as well as any 19

additional design options that should be considered 20

to mitigate any decrease in utility. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on item 10? No 22

comments. Okay. 23

MR. SKAHAN : Okay. So next we move to the 24

Screening analysis. And the purpose of the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 99 screening analysis is to tear pair down or screen out 1

any of the technology options DOE identified in the 2

te ch assessment that could have negative 3

consequences for consumers or manufacturers based on 4

a set of statutory criteria. And the output of the 5

screening analysis is a list of design options that 6

DOE considered as viable pathways to improving the 7

energy ef ficiency of both BCs and EPSs. 8

As I mentioned, there is a list of 9

criteria that DOE uses. Each one

– each technology 10

option is evaluated for 11

**•** technological feasibility, 12

**•** practicability for to manufacture , to install 13

and service, 14

**•** Impacts on product utili ty or availability to 15

consumers, and 16

**•** Impacts on health or safety. 17

If any technology option for either BCs or 18

UPSs EPSs returns a negative consequence in any one 19

of these four categories, it is subsequently 20

screened out and not considered as a viable opti on 21

to improve the energy efficiency of BCs and UPSs 22

EPSs in each prospective engineering analysis. 23

For this rulemaking, DOE did not screen 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 100 out any technology options for external power 1

supplies. However, for BCs, there were three 2

options that were not c onsidered in the engineering 3

analysis. Those were lowering the charging current 4

or increasing the voltage, hazard of capacitive 5

reactance , and non

- inductive chargers for 6

toothbrushes and other wet applications. 7

So up to this point in the analysis, DOE 8

h as established a framework for the possible 9

pathways for improving energy efficiency for these 10

products. It’s at this point in the engineering 11

analysis that it starts to examine the relationship 12

between costs and the energy efficiency of EPSs and 13

BCs, and it does that by generating a series of cost 14

efficiency curves, examples of which are shown in 15

these two graphs for both EPS energy consumption 16

metrics, as well as the battery charger unit energy 17

consumption metric. 18

Traditionally, the way these curves go is, 19

as a product becomes more efficient, the cost , in 20

this case, the manufacturer’s selling price, also 21

increases, and you can see that on the far left with 22

the EPS active

- mode efficiency. As the number 23

increases, the price goes up. Somewhat counter

24

in tuitively, and this is going to be important to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 101 remember as we go down the line here, that curve is 1

flipped for the EPS and BC metrics, where a lower 2

number indicates a more efficient product. So you 3

can see as we go more efficient from right to left, 4

the manufacturer’s line selling price increases. 5

And now I’m going to talk about the 6

engineering analysis DOE conducted for external 7

power supplies in product classes B, C, D, and E, 8

which Brian outlined earlier. 9

As a high level overview, and we’re go ing 10

to go into each one of these steps in more detail as 11

we move through the presentation here, but just as 12

an overview, these are all the steps DOE took in 13

conducting its engineering analysis. 14

The first step was to choose 15

representative product classes based on market 16

volumes and existing standards. Within those 17

representative product classes, DOE identified 18

specific representative units using market survey 19

data, it looked at the market and where things 20

tended to clump up, that’s where DOE selected 21

repr esentative units. From there each one of these 22

representative units was analyzed and a set of 23

candidate standard levels of efficiency or CSLs were 24

developed, based on benchmark levels of performance, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 102 including maximum technologically feasible or max 1

tech efficiency level. 2

In order to corroborate DOE’s choices of 3

these CSLs, it conducted testing on representative 4

units, actual products in the market, to support its 5

choices. Once those were established, DOE reached 6

out to manufacturers, and under an NDA secured their 7

cost information for what it would take to meet each 8

subsequent CSL above the current standard. To make 9

the data comparable, all the manufacturer data was 10

scaled to the DOE representative units identified 11

earlier on in the analysis. And fi nally, DOE marked 12

up the resulting costs to the manufacturer selling 13

price, which is the cost used in the final cost

14

efficiency curves. 15

So as I mentioned, the first step DOE took 16

is to identify representative product classes. For 17

these four product cla sses, only one is deemed 18

representative, and that’s product class B, which 19

you can see in the table here. Within that product 20

class, DOE looked at four representative units and 21

developed CSLs based on those four units, the 22

results of which are scaled to t he remaining product 23

classes, C, D, and E. 24

So, like I said, DOE looked at four 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 103 representative units within the representative 1

product class B, and those are listed in the table 2

here at 2.5 watts, 18 watts, 60 watts, and 120 3

watts, based on a set of crite ria which is listed 4

below. 5

**•** First they had to be within the representative 6

product class 7

**•** Next, they had to be popular products in order 8

to be sure there would be many units to test 9

and support DOE’s choices for CS L s 10

**•** Lastly, we wanted to identify a wide ra nge of 11

output power in order to curve

- fit a continuous 12

function for the proposed standard. 13

For each representative unit, DOE looked 14

at a set of five candidate standard levels, ranging 15

from the baseline which is the current EISA 2007 16

standard for external power supplies, all the way up 17

to the max tech level, which was created based on 18

manufacture r input through manufacturer interviews 19

and other external discussions. Because EPSs are 20

regulated with two metrics simultaneously, DOE took 21

the approach of using a matched pair of efficiency 22

metrics for each CSL for each rep unit, and I’m 23

going to explai n more what that means on the next 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 104 slide here, but the important thing to remember is 1

that there are two sets of equations for each CSL, 2

for an active

- mode efficiency, as well as a 3

discreet no

- load power dissipation metric. 4

So as I was saying, the matc hed pairs 5

approach uses a specific active

- mode efficiency and 6

no

- load power for each CSL for each rep unit. So 7

the graph here shows an example for the 18 watt 8

representative unit. Each one of these colored 9

right angles, if you will, demonstrates the matched 10

pair DOE used in its analysis, ranging from the 11

baseline CSL

- 0, which is that light green right 12

angle on the far left, all the way down to a maximum 13

technologically feasible level, and you can see that 14

no metric ever decreases in stringency as you move 15

from one CSL to the other. In order to support 16

these choices o f matched pairings, DOE also 17

conducted multiple tests which are illustrated by 18

all the black data points, as well as the green data 19

points which most closely match their selected 20

matched pairings for CSL

- 0, CSL

- 1, and the best in 21

market, CSL

- 3. 22

Additiona lly, those matched pairings were 23

used to determine intermediate CSL

- 2 as a mid

- point 24

between unit number 941 and number 118. But the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 105 overall point, or the reason for doing this matched 1

pairs approach is because DOE doesn’t have any 2

evidence to date to sug gest that these two metrics 3

can be separated and examined as independent 4

variables, or a separate cost efficiency analysis 5

can be performed on both. More often, we have ideas 6

of how the two relate to each other, but we can’t be 7

certain that modifying the circuitry to improve one 8

metric won’t have an impact on the other metric. So 9

in order to create the truest possible cost 10

efficiency curve, DOE looked at incremental 11

improvements to both metrics simultaneously. 12

So once each one of these CSLs was 13

created, DOE reached out to manufacturers to gather 14

their data on their products that most closely 15

resembled the representative units under a non

16

disclosure agreement for both efficiency , no load, 17

and cost. What DOE found was that the manufacturer 18

data often did not align exactly with the CSLs and 19

even the rep units that DOE had identified 20

initially. And you can see that demonstrated for 21

both active mode efficiency and no load power, where 22

each one of these dotted lines represents a CSL for 23

a specific representat ive unit, and each one of the 24

data points represents a manufacturer data point. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 106 Again, this is illustrative. None of this is actual 1

manufacturer data. But you can see that not all the 2

data points line up exactly on each line. 3

So DOE was faced with t he problem of how 4

do we make all of this data comparable. Well, to 5

answer that, it developed a series of scaling 6

methodologies. And I’m going to go through just a 7

high level example, but all of these are detailed in 8

Chapter 5 of the T SD, as well as we pr ovide examples 9

of how everything was done. 10

So depending on where the manufacturer 11

information came from, because DOE talked to 12

everyone from component manufacturers of external 13

power supplies, to ODMs, original design 14

manufacturers, all the way up to OEM s, which means 15

there’s a variety of input sources which required 16

scaling for certain different metrics. For 17

instance, output cord length. Talking to component 18

manufacturers who often do reference designs for 19

external power supplies, their efficiency numb ers 20

did not factor into things like cord loss, because 21

their numbers were measured based on a PCV PCB, 22

direct core board contact. So in order to account 23

for those losses as well as the cost, the 24

information we received from them was scaled for 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 107 efficiency a s well as cost. 1

Similarly, for output power, we would talk 2

to a manufacturer, they would give us information on 3

the 65 watt power supply, because that’s the power 4

supply they made. The DOE representative unit is 60 5

watts. So in order to bring the data to the 6

representative unit, DOE scaled for output power for 7

both efficiency and cost, as components tend to be 8

more robust for higher output powers, higher 9

switching currents, things like that. 10

Lastly, there was scaling for output 11

voltage in the efficien cy as all things being the 12

same for a given output power, a higher output 13

voltage tends to be more efficient than a lower one. 14

So in cases, again, going back to the 60 watt 15

representative unit, the representative voltage is 16

15 volts. A manufacturer might make a 60 watt power 17

supply at 12 volts, and give us efficiency data for 18

that. But it was scaled afterwards to bring that 19

efficiency information to the representative unit at 20

15 volts. And again, I would encourage everyone to 21

look at the details in Cha pter 5 of TSD. 22

So as I mentioned, DOE looked

– gathered 23

data from a variety of different input sources, 24

ranging from component manufacturers all the way up 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 108 to OEMs, to developed a series of markups. In 1

order to make the data most comparable, DOE brough t 2

all the cost information to a single point, the 3

manufacturer production cost, which is the cost that 4

the OEM

– I’m sorry, the cost of the ODM purchases 5

the components as well as labor and utilities, and 6

then sells that to the OEM. As a manufacturer’s 7

se lling price is the price the OEM pays the ODM for 8

external power supplies. So, for instance, I think 9

someone mentioned Dell earlier, and again, this is 10

just an example. Someone might

-- you know, you 11

might have a stamp of Dell on an external power 12

supply , but it might have been made by Yeong Phihong 13

or Delta. That’s an example of an OEM buying from 14

an ODM. 15

Lastly, I just want to point out that 16

these additional markups for retailing retail and 17

consumer were factored into the analysis, just not 18

at this s tage of the analysis. All that the 19

engineering is concerned with is up into the 20

manufacturer’s selling price, so up until the point 21

it reaches the original equipment manufacturer, the 22

OEM. 23

Once all the data was brought to the 24

manufacturer’s selling pric e at the representative 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 109 unit, DOE was faced with how best to aggregate this 1

data to develop a single cost efficiency curve. And 2

took the approach of doing 3

- D aggregation as its 3

primary tool. So you can see each one of these blue 4

spheres represents a sca led manufacturer data point 5

orbiting around a specific CSL. So, for instance, 6

the lowest one, which I ’m told hope I can point this 7

out, so down here, would be CSL

- 0, which you can see 8

has an associated no

- load power and average active

9

mode efficiency in 2

- D, as well as the 10

manufacturer’s selling price in the third dimension. 11

Since this is CSL

- 0 and we look at incremental 12

manufacturer selling price, the price here is zero 13

and subsequently increases for each additional CSL. 14

To develop the cost efficienc y curve, DOE 15

did a curve fit through all these spheres in 3

- D 16

space, and then used the resulting equation of that 17

red line you see there to estimate the costs exactly 18

at the CSLs it identified for each representative 19

unit. 20

Lastly, because product class B was the 21

only class directly analyzed for the external power 22

supplies supply engineering analysis, DOE had to 23

scale the results to the remaining product classes, 24

C, D, and E. And the scaling methodologies were 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 110 based on existing efficiency programs as well as 1

inherent technical characteristics of the power 2

supplies themselves. For instance, basic voltage 3

output, EPSs, are have to meet more stringent 4

efficiency metrics than, for instance, the low

5

voltage output EPSs, because by definition, low

6

voltage EPS s tend to be a lower voltage and a higher 7

output current, which means you have higher 8

resistive or conductive losses and the low

- voltage 9

output EPSs cannot meet the same efficiency levels 10

as a basic voltage output, all things being the 11

same. 12

Similarly, AC

- to

- DC conversion EPSs have 13

more stringent no load requirements than the AC

- to

14

AC conversion EPSs, that’s mostly due to the fact 15

that the AC

- to

- DC conversion EPSs have secondary 16

circuitry that allow them to go into low

- power 17

states when there is n o load present on the output. 18

Whereas AC

- to

- AC supplies typically do not. 19

So from here we’re going to move into the 20

engineering analysis for product classes X and H, 21

which are the multiple

- voltage and high power 22

product classes, respectively. In the early stages 23

of this rulemaking, DOE looked at the possibility of 24

setting standards for non

- Class A EPSs, which at 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 111 that time included product classes X and H, and 1

generated a set of CSLs as well as associated costs 2

for both representative units in X and H . For the 3

purposes of this NOPR, DOE took those inputs and 4

applied the same analytical structure that I just 5

went through for product classes in B, C, D, and E 6

to generate the cost

- efficiency curves for X and H. 7

Only multiple voltage and high power E PSs 8

were directly analyzed for this NOPR where medical 9

and some motorized applications and ... detachable 10

battery EPSs were rolled into the direct operation 11

or engineering analysis for product classes B, C, D, 12

and E. 13

So as I mentioned, DOE only looked at 14

pr oduct classes X and H for this NOPR and within 15

each product class there was only one representative 16

unit that DOE could identify. In product class H, 17

that was a 203 watt, and

-- or product class X that 18

was a 203 watt, and for product class H, the 345 19

watt . The resulting cost

- efficiency curves for 20

product class H behaved as we would expect, where an 21

increase in efficiency yielded a higher manufacturer 22

selling price over the current baseline. However, 23

high powered EPSs showed a negative trend from the 24

bas eline to higher order CSLs , based on test units 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 112 where the baseline CS L was a linear power supply and 1

CSL

- 1 was a more efficient and also less costly 2

switch

- mode design. 3

So in order to create the higher ordered 4

CSLs for the high power product class H bey ond the 5

two test units, DOE scaled its 120 watt CSLs to the 6

345 watt representative unit to generate new best

7

in

- market and max tech CSLs with the associated 8

costs. And while there was

– yes. 9

MR. TAYLOR: This is Jay Taylor with 10

Schneider Electric. W hen you say less costly, your 11

CSL

- 1 was a switching power supply

– 12

MR. SKAHAN : Yes. 13

MR. TAYLOR:

-- are you just speaking from 14

the material cost point of view? 15

MR. SKAHAN : Yes. 16

MR. TAYLOR: Because there’s a whole lot 17

of other costs in there like IP and those kinds of 18

things. 19

MR. SKAHAN : Yeah. For the purposes of 20

the engineering analysis, we look at

– we take the 21

BOM cost and mark that up to the manufacturer 22

production cost, and finally to the manufacturer’s 23

selling price. So for our base line unit, that ended 24

up being a very large and very expensive linear 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 113 power supply which was more or less a chunk of iron 1

that you can use for these 345 watt power supplies, 2

whereas the CSL

- 1 was a much smaller, more 3

efficient, power supply. So the materia ls cost was 4

much less between the two, which is why we have that 5

negative trend there. But we do

– we do welcome 6

comment on the markets, as we mentioned, for high 7

power power supplies, as well as the methodologies 8

for generating these higher order CSLs be cause the 9

existing standard

– or the standard proposed for 10

today is based on scaled CSLs from the 120 watt 11

representative unit. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: So now we are to item 12. 13

DOE seeks comments on its methodology for generating 14

CSL

- 3 and CSL

- 4 for high powere d EPSs. No comments 15

on CSL, the methodology for CSL

- 3 and CS L

- 4. Yes, 16

please. Dave? 17

MR. DENKENB ERGER: Dave De n kenberger, 18

E COVA . So what you’re saying is there were no other 19

external power supplies that were larger power? 20

Like, wouldn’t there be som ething from golf carts or 21

other

– 22

MR. SKAHAN : Well, golf carts are part of 23

the battery charger

– 24

MR. DENKENB ERGER: Okay, so

– 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 114 MR. SKAHAN : So they were not

– for 1

consumer electronics that were just subject to 2

external power supply regulation, DOE could only 3

identify one consumer application and one subsequent 4

representative unit. 5

MR. DENKENB ERGER: Okay. Thanks. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments here? 7

Okay. 8

MR. SKAHAN : All right. So now I’m going 9

to turn it to Peter Protop appas to go o ver the 10

battery charger engineering analysis. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Pierre, I don’t know where 12

your comments fit. You want to wait until the end? 13

MR. DELFORGE: I have a comment on the 14

engineering analysis results on the methodologies, 15

so is it now the right time to make them? 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s do it at the end. 17

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Hi, Peter Protop appas 18

from Navigant Consulting. I’m going to now go over 19

the engineering analysis for the battery chargers, 20

for the battery charger part of the rule. So 21

si milar to EPSs we walk through the engineering 22

analysis in stages, beginning with choosing 23

representative product classes based primarily on 24

market data and volumes. And unlike the EPS rule we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 115 didn’t have existing standards to base those product 1

classes of f of. Next we selected representative 2

units in each of those product classes. We 3

developed candidate standard levels. We’ll go 4

through those first in terms of the different 5

definitions, and levels. We tested and t ore down 6

representative units to evaluat e the material cost 7

associated with different energy efficiency levels. 8

We discussed those results with manufacturers 9

through manufacturer interviews. We then generated 10

the final cost curves and unlike EPSs, we ended by 11

scaling based on the range of vari ed energies in 12

each product class. 13

We’ve been over these before in the 14

earlier part of the analysis. Here are the product 15

classes that we analyzed for the various engineering 16

analysis. Again, they’re mostly divided by 17

input/output type, battery energy, and then we 18

talked

– Brian talked a little bit about some of the 19

special characteristics of product class 1 and 10, 20

which differentiate them from the rest of the 21

product classes. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Closer to the microphone. 23

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Okay. So her e we’re 24

looking at the chosen representative battery energy 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 116 units for each of the product classes. As you can 1

see, each representative unit has a representative 2

voltage and battery energy, and here are some of the 3

typical applications that we chose to rep resent, 4

based on market data, those different product 5

classes. 6

Similar to EPSs, we chose definitions for 7

the CSLs based on those available on the market up 8

to and including the maximum technologically 9

feasible level, in this case indicated by 10

manufacture rs and technical experts. So here, most 11

of the

– almost all of the CSLs for zero, one, and 12

two, they were based off test data, and then we use 13

manufacturer and technical expert data to determine 14

the CSL

- 3, which in most cases is the maximum 15

technolog icall y feasible level. 16

At this point in the process we began to 17

develop

– we combined the test procedure outputs to 18

develop the unit energy consumption or UEC equation, 19

and as stated before, that’s stated measured in 20

kilowatt hours per year. 21

So here I’m g oing to begin talking about 22

what the UEC equation, how it was developed and how 23

it measures the unit energy consumption for battery 24

chargers. So what we’re looking at here is a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 117 typical output for a 24 hour metered charge test. 1

Everything under the blue c urve, what we’re looking 2

at here under the blue curve, is the measured energy 3

power over the 24 hour period, and here we’re 4

looking at a typical 24 hour charge. From this test 5

we’re getting three outputs: that’s the 24 hour 6

charge energy , the maintenance mode power, and the 7

battery energy. 8

So the first I spoke about is that 24 hour 9

energy. The second is the yellow dotted line which 10

is instantaneous maintenance mode power, and we find 11

that typically over the last five hours of the test, 12

that’s the aver age power over the last five hours 13

after the battery is done charging. And then, 14

finally, with the secondary test we can determine 15

that red area, which is the battery energy and 16

that’s from the dead battery discharge test. 17

Now I’m going to go over the a ctual 18

equation we used and developed to measure unit 19

energy consumption and bear with me, because I’m 20

going to jump back and forth between this slide and 21

the previous slide to kind of visualize what I’m 22

talking about. 23

So when we’re looking at this equati on I 24

want you to keep in mind that the variables that are 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 118 indicated by blue are products of the test 1

procedure, and those that are indicated by red are 2

assumptions based on usage profiles and usage data. 3

And those are all indicated in the test procedure, 4

there’s a table. 5

So the first part of the equation is

– we 6

talked before about the four modes of a battery 7

charger: active mode, maintenance mode, standby 8

mode, and off mode. Indicated by the red box here, 9

we’re looking at active mode. I’m actually goi ng to 10

go back now and talk about how we can visualize 11

active mode in this 24 hour charge test. So, I’ll 12

try to stay close. Ideally, I’d be close to the 13

screen. 14

So what we’re doing in that part of the 15

equation is we’re taking the 24 hour energy, which 16

is indicated by the blue

– the entire blue area, and 17

we’re subtracting out the average maintenance mode 18

power, which is the instantaneous power at the 19

yellow line multiplied by the hours that

– the five 20

hour period. So then we’re subtracting that out. 21

A nd then we’re taking the battery energy part of 22

that red box and we’re subtracting that out. So what 23

we’re left with is the area to the left of the 24

dotted green line, which is the active mode energy 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 119 minus the losses from the battery energy. So 1

finally, th at part of the equation is multiplied by 2

N which is the number of charges per day, and we 3

have active mode energy. 4

Similarly here, what we’re doing is we’re 5

taking , for the maintenance mode power, taking 6

instantaneous power and we’re multiplying by the 7

t ime that the battery charger is in that mode, and 8

that’s the

– T, A, and M is the active and 9

maintenance mode time, and we’re subtracting out the 10

charge time which is the time that the battery 11

charger is actually charging in active mode. And 12

the result th ere is the maintenance mode power. 13

Similarly, we’re taking the

– an 14

additional test is the standby test. We’re taking 15

the power in that mode and we’re multiplying by the 16

time and that’s the same thing for the off mode. 17

So all of these modes together, multiplied 18

by 365, gets us the annual energy consumption for 19

that particular battery charger being tested. 20

During the analysis we found that there 21

were some issues determining the time of charge for 22

a lot of products. Because of that, we broke out 23

that base equation into two separate equations, and 24

one equation

– and this outlined in the rulemaking 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 120 language

– is for products that have charge and or 1

maintenance time less than or equal to the threshold 2

charge time, and those charge times are indicated in 3

t he rule language. The second equation is for those 4

products that have charge or maintenance that are 5

greater than the threshold charge time. And as 6

you’ll see here, the T C has now been removed from 7

the equation, which was an assumption, and we’re 8

going w ith an output, which is TCD , of the test 9

procedure. So that’s the time to completely charg e 10

– a fully discharged batter y

. 11

The biggest difference between these two 12

equations as you can see is the second equation 13

doesn’t have a part for maintenance mode, and we’ve 14

just adjusted to scale that back to represent what 15

the battery’s doing in the full active mode which 16

represents the annual energy consumption in that 17

case, which is the battery time is above the 18

threshold charge time. 19

As a result of these equations, we then 20

took our representative units and we plugged them in 21

and we got representative CSL levels and 22

corresponding watt hour per year for each of the 23

product classes. Here we’re looking at product 24

classes one through five. Same here, we’re l ooking 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 121 at the product classes six through ten, and here are 1

the representative levels for the chosen 2

representative units. 3

Next, once we determined how we were going 4

to measure the UEC for each of the batteries, we 5

conducted testing and tear down s . Here we purchased 6

several battery chargers at various rated battery 7

energies in each of the product classes. Each was 8

tested then according to the DOE test procedure, and 9

we got those corresponding UECs, we selected those 10

units that were closest to each of th e CSLs and we 11

tore those down. And we tore these down along with 12

a company called iSuppli who’s an expert in consumer 13

products manufacturing cost ed BOMs. They do that by 14

tearing down the units and then estimating the cost 15

based on manufacturer data and i ndustry st andards. 16

They created BOMs which essentially inventoried all 17

components of battery chargers that affect battery 18

charging and different efficiency levels. 19

We took that data and we entered into NDAs 20

with various manufacturers in each of the diff erent 21

markets for the product classes and they provided us 22

with additional cost s for designs with specific 23

parameters across the various energy efficiency 24

levels. We took that data, and in most cases, we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 122 used test data, however, in product classes one and 1

ten, we relied heavily on manufacturer data to 2

produce the cost efficiency relationships. 3

Finally, we took input from manufacturers 4

to develop in each of the product classes that 5

maximum technology feasible level which I alluded to 6

before. Most all CSL s up to the max level are 7

mostly dependent on testing and tear down and 8

manufacturer input, but the max tech is solely based 9

on manufacturer input. 10

Another output of the discussion from the 11

manufacturers and the costing is getting the markups 12

– this is similar to what we talked about in the EPS 13

part of the analysis and here you can see the 14

average manufacturer markups for each of the product 15

classes. And again, this is at the point

– before 16

the OEM gets the product if they aren’t producing it 17

themselves , the same point at which we take the 18

markup for the EPS rule. 19

During the analysis, we needed to adjust 20

for the range of battery energies that were 21

available in each of the product classes. So we 22

took that representative unit and we scaled it to 23

account for the range of battery energies that would 24

be expected in those product classes. And the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 123 scaling was based on the three metrics, which is 24 1

hour, energy maintenance mode power, and standby 2

power. 3

So using the usage profiles, we then 4

scaled those pro ducts up to account for the range of 5

battery energies. In some cases, at the lower end of 6

the battery energies, without adjusting, using a 7

boundary condition, we found that it would be too 8

stringent, so using this equation which was derived 9

from the base e quation, we developed a boundary 10

condition at the lower level for each product class 11

that was needed. As was pointed out in some of the 12

comments, product class one and eight were not 13

scaled and have a constant standard. 14

What we’re looking at here is a g raphical 15

representation of our scaling. As you can see to 16

the far left, the flat lines, that’s a 17

representation of the boundary condition that was 18

developed from the equation I noted on the previous 19

slide, and then to the right, based on the usage and 20

the type of battery used, we scaled up as you can 21

see, at increasing slope. I want to point out in 22

this case we’re looking at product class four, and 23

these are the proposed standards which we’ll talk 24

about at the end of the presentation. The top line 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 124 and th e yellow line, the green and yellow lines, are 1

CSL

- 0 and 1, and in this case those are primarily 2

nickel cadmium technologies, and the bottom two are 3

typically lithium ion. So you can see there, we 4

adjusted based on the different units in that 5

product class and the different technologies to get 6

to the various levels. 7

Towards the end of our analysis, after 8

taking all this into consideration, we noticed that 9

for product class 10, which the proposed level based 10

on all the analysis is the maximum technological ly 11

feasible level, and that’s based on manufacturer 12

input for CSL

- 3. We found that we were unable to 13

test any products that performed as well as 14

manufacturers had stated was possible. Now, we 15

realize that this may be because of the fact that 16

the manufact urer data that we received was not 17

equivalent to what the DOE test procedure output. 18

But instead we realized, or assumed, that it may be 19

based on the power supp lied directly to the battery, 20

and not by the other functions in the unit. And in 21

this case, we ’re talking about product class 10, 22

this is mostly uninterruptable power supplies. 23

In order to investigate and account for 24

this discrepancy, DOE acquired additional units and 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 125 tested those UPSs with a slight modification to the 1

test procedure by adding a reading for battery input 2

power, and that battery input power is the power 3

delivered directly to the battery from the battery 4

terminals, as opposed to the other reading in the 5

test procedure, which is from the wall to the unit. 6

We developed an adder and then we applied 7

that adder to each of the product class 10 product 8

classes, in this case we actually broke it up to 9

those basic units which have minimal additional 10

functionality and those 10b units which are units 11

with automatic voltage regulation and othe r 12

functionality. 13

Just to get a little bit more into how we 14

determined this adder and how we progressed in our 15

analysis, what we see here is our additional 16

testing, and overlaid were the CSLs at that point in 17

the analysis, as our data was telling us. On this 18

graph, the yellow part of the bar represents the 19

battery input power

– that’s that additional 20

measurement we included in the test procedure for 21

this additional testing. The green part is the rest 22

of the power that is measured, so the full bar is 23

the measured test procedure metric, and the yellow 24

bars are our additional measurement. And we’re just 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 126

– here is a sample of units and as you can see, the 1

units to the far left actually confirms our 2

assumption there that we’re basically looking at the 3

battery input power equal to that maximum 4

technolog ically feasible level that was indicated by 5

the manufacturers. 6

So bear with me here, we’re going to get 7

into how we developed that adder specifically. So 8

what we’re looking at here on the top dotted line is 9

ou r best in market unit, which is

– actually that’s 10

the unit that we saw in the previous slide, and that 11

red dot is the measured test procedure level. And 12

as I said before, we took those levels and we scaled 13

those up based on the battery energy, so that’s w hy 14

you have an increasing slope on that. Our 15

representative battery energy level is between 60 16

and 80, indicated by that black line. The dotted 17

line on this graph represents the battery input 18

power for that representative unit. As you can see 19

it’s lower , and it’s also scaled to the same way 20

that the dotted

– the red dotted line is. That 21

delta there is point four watts. 22

We took that point four watts and we took 23

the manufacturer indicated maximum technology 24

feasible energy use which was indicated by 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 127

man ufacturers to be point two, and we applied that 1

point four

– in this case it’s a basic unit

– to 2

achieve our maximum technolog icall y feasible level, 3

which is indicated by that solid red line. So we 4

did this for all the CSLs. We scaled all the CSLs 5

based on this which is from the previous slide, and 6

as you can see, for the red line here which is CSL

7

2, we have that same red dot which indicates that 8

that’s the market unit. 9

So now

– 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Now we have

– hit the

– 11

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Sorry. Here we have a 12

comment

– 13

MR. TAYLOR: This is Jay Taylor with 14

Schneider Electric. Unfortunately, the one unit 15

that you chose that was best in market is no longer 16

in the market. And one out of the 12 units that 17

were listed in the data. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: You want to say more why 19

it’s not in the market? 20

MR. TAYLOR: Well, first of all, it’s not 21

a Schneider product. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 23

MR. TAYLOR: So I can’t say why it is or 24

why it was withdrawn or why it’s no longer in the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 128 market, I just know you can ’t buy it as a new 1

product any longer. Now, the flip side of that is 2

we’re still back to the characteristic curve that’s 3

been provided by this spec that no units pass. Now 4

my assumption of AVR is VI, the equivalent of VI in 5

62040

- 3, and then my assumptio n is also that the 6

equivalent to non

- AVR is VFD. And unless you come 7

back

– so the AVR and non

- AVR constructs by DOE, 8

they’re not used in the industry at all. So unless 9

we come up with some kind of equivalency between the 10

two of them, I think that these things apply, I just 11

don’t know that they apply. But I look at the 12

characteristic and look at the information available 13

and with no units that pass I still question that 14

the curve is the appropriately placed location. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Is that equivalency easily 16

done, or is that pretty tough. 17

MR. TAYLOR: Well, we participated with 18

California and did it. I believe that it’s just a 19

matter of working through what we need. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Keep going. 21

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Yeah. That concludes my 22

presentatio n for the battery charger engineering 23

analysis. Are there any other questions? 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Please, yes. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 129 MR. CARRERA: Pat Carrera, iRobot. You 1

should also make a comparison study or interject 2

there in your data, using autonomous robots, and you 3

will see some variation there, because

– so your 4

expectations will be there. When you have 5

autonomous robots you have motorized parts, you have 6

sensors, and they do require more than a minimum 7

threshold level to operate, so you will see the 8

difference there. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Joanna, you 10

want

– please. 11

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Going back to 12

the equations describing the UEC, can you explain 13

again what the difference is between TC and TCD? 14

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: TC was assumed charge 15

time bas ed on the

– TC is an assumption based on the 16

input from the manufacturers and the assumed time 17

based on the voltage and the battery that that 18

battery would take to charge. TCD is, through the 19

test procedure, it’s an output of the test procedure 20

and it’s a measurement of how long the battery 21

charger is charging and when an indicator light or 22

some other light or a drop in the data shows that 23

that charge is no longer charging, so it’s a much 24

closer representation of the time of charge. You 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 130 want to add

– 1

MR . NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti. TCD is the 2

length of the charge in maintenance mode test, which 3

in most cases is 24 hours, that’s by default of the 4

test procedure. 5

MS. MAUER: So it’s not the time to charge 6

-- to fully charge the battery? 7

MR. NARDOTTI: No. 8

MS. MAUER: Okay. 9

MR. NARDOTTI: It’s the length of that 10

test. 11

MS. MAUER: To charge the battery is not 12

an output of the test procedure. 13

MR. NARDOTTI: Right, exactly. 14

MS. MAUER: So the description of TCD as 15

time to completely charge a ful ly discharged battery 16

is

– is that what it’s describing? 17

MR. NARDOTTI: TCD should be

– so that 18

should be changed to say the time

– the duration of 19

the charge in maintenance mode test. So our slide 20

is incorrect. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Matt, repeat it one more 22

time. It should say

– 23

MR. NARDOTTI: The TCD is the duration of 24

the charge in maintenance mode test. And if you 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 131 look in the rule language section, TCD is described 1

there, and that’s an appropriate

– you can find out 2

what that value is from 5.2 in the test procedure, 3

Appendix 1. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay? Ken. 5

MR. RIDER: Yes, Ken Rider. And I have a 6

question. Your representative units, especially in 7

– well, I think for every representative unit, were 8

pretty distant in terms of battery capacity

– 9

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Are we looking here? 10

MR. RIDER: Sure, that’s a good thing to 11

look at. So you can see that the capacity of the 12

batteries for representative units were pretty 13

fairly evenly spaced, and I was just wondering, in 14

choosing a representative uni t, was there a lot of 15

overlap in

– I guess the product classes are 16

differentiated by voltage, and I’m just wondering if 17

you were to differentiate 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 by battery 18

capacity, how much overlap

– how many products would 19

get shoved from one category to another. 20

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: By battery capacity? 21

MR. RIDER: Yes. So right now

– 22

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: You’re talking about the 23

ampere rating of the battery? 24

MR. RIDER: The watt

- hour rating 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 132 determined by the test procedure, and you have

– 1

currently, i f it’s a certain voltage that’s how you 2

determine whether you’re class 2, 3, or 4, and 3

between 5 and 6 as well, so however, you notice that 4

the representative units have a large spread around 5

battery capacity. So I’m just wondering if you were 6

to use batt ery capacity instead of voltage to 7

determine product class, if that would upset the 8

representative units that you chose, or if you would 9

end up with the same representative units. 10

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: I don’t have an answer 11

right now, but I think it’s somet hing that we can 12

look into. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Daniel, you have

– 14

you want to use that microphone? Daniel has 15

something that came in from a person on the web. 16

MR. LAUF: Daniel Lauf from D&R. The 17

comment is from Larry Albert, and it’s regarding th e 18

battery charger. So the test procedure uses the 19

last four hours to determine maintenance power. But 20

the equation displayed uses five hours of 21

maintenance power. So

– when this is backed out

– 22

do you have any comments on that? 23

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: I’ll let Matt respond. 24

MR. NARDOTTI: So I can comment on that. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 133 And the reason

– this is Matt Nardotti from Navigant 1

– and the reason we backed out five hours of 2

maintenance mode is because if you look at the test 3

procedure in 5.2, the assumption is to run t he test 4

– like if a manufacturer has an indicator light, you 5

run a test for an initial five hours after that 6

product’s indicator light comes on, or if you have 7

to calculate the duration of the test, you calculate 8

the time to charge a product plus an additi onal five 9

hours. So, when you have your E24 measurement, that 10

should be

– that consumes

– five hours of that 11

portion of the test is in maintenance mode, assumed 12

to be in maintenance mode. It’s just that the last 13

four hours are used to determine what the 14

maintenance mode power is. So that the unit is 15

actually in maintenance mode for five hours, but 16

four hours of the test is what’s used. 17

MR. LAUF: Okay. 18

MR. NARDOTTI: Does that make sense? 19

MR. LAUF: Yeah. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: That makes sense to me. 21

Okay. Let’s see, Alex first, and then to Dave. 22

MR. BOESENBERG: I have a question also 23

about the UEC calculation, to make sure that I 24

didn’t zone out. This is for all product classes? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 134 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Correct. 1

MR. BOESENBERG: Okay. And so you said 2

365, that is

– that is your equation for estimated 3

annual energy

-- 4

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Correct. 5

MR. BOESENBERG:

-- use and savings? 6

Particularly for the product classes that include 7

power tools, just a personal observation

– I never 8

charge my cor dless drill every day. So has the DOE 9

included any scaling factors for products that are 10

not charged every day? 11

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: I think when you look at 12

usage in each product class, they vary, and they 13

vary by user. 14

MR. NARDOTTI: So this is Matt Na rdotti 15

again. Our usage profiles that were developed

– and 16

I think Dan will get into this a little bit later, 17

we have one usage profile, which is

– one usage 18

profile for each product class, and that was a 19

weighted assumption of each mode of

– time spent i n 20

each mode of operation for the entire application 21

set for that product class. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Are you saying Alex, the 23

interpretation is not as simple as that? You’ve 24

done a profile and

– 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 135 MR. NARDOTTI: Right. So for product 1

class 4, there’s lap top s that spend a certain 2

amount of time in each mode of operation. There’s 3

power tools that spend

– they have a different usage 4

profile. And so we weight the usage profiles. 5

MR. BOESENBERG: Okay. So your answer to 6

my final question is yes? 7

MR. NARDOTT I: Yes. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Dave, go ahead. 9

MR. DENKENBERGER: Dave Denkenberger. So 10

the point four watt adder, are you saying this is 11

the difference between automatic voltage regulation 12

and not? Peter? 13

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Correct. 14

MR. DENKENBERGER: O kay, so

– 15

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: No, I’m sorry. It’s the 16

difference between our

– the point four is the 17

difference

– is representing basically the other 18

functionality which may not have been considered 19

when we talked about point two as a max tech level. 20

So there is

– there is a difference. I don’t have 21

both of them up here, but the AVR CSLs are shifted 22

based on the average difference in the AVR. Off the 23

top of my head I don’t know exactly how we shifted 24

it, but if you look at the equations which were 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 136 repre sented earlier, and we’ll see later, there are 1

two different equations for AVR and for basic units. 2

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. But for a UPS 3

without automatic voltage regulation, then your 4

representative unit analysis would apply? 5

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Corr ect. 6

MR. DENKENBERGER: So your max tech, CSL

7

3, is point one seven (.17) watts, correct? I think 8

it was listed

– 9

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: At the representative 10

unit, yes. It’s where that line crosses, so

– 11

MR. NARDOTTI: This is Matt, at point two, 12

that’ s the point one seven (.17), right. Before we 13

did the adder, that’s the CSL that we had at max 14

tech. 15

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. So you’re saying 16

that even for a UPS without AVR, there is an adder, 17

correct? 18

MR. NARDOTTI: Yes, and that’s represented 19

by

– 20

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. And there’s a 21

different adder when you add AVR? 22

MR. NARDOTTI: Exactly. 23

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. And you’re 24

saying so that is why your CSL representative unit 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 137 has about 1.5 kilowatt hours per year, whereas your 1

standard i s about 5 kilowatt hours per year. 2

MR. NARDOTTI: Correct. 3

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Matt says yes. Okay. 5

Thanks, Matt. Ric. 6

MR. ERDHEIM : Ric Erdheim with Philips . I 7

wanted to follow up on Matt’s response on usage 8

profiles. So you do have usage profiles for the 9

different products, and then you combine the usage 10

profiles in the various categories, correct? 11

MR. BROOKMAN: He says yes. 12

MR. ERDHEIM : Matt says yes. So when you 13

look at slide 39 , 56 percent of all the EPSs are i n 14

Class B and when you look at slide 41, 57 percent of 15

all the battery chargers are in product class 2. 16

And so the question I have is, even though you’re 17

using the usage profiles, by averaging so many 18

different products, do you wind up

– you’re doing 19

the average, but you’re not dealing with products 20

that are more unique or extreme. In other words, 21

are we dealing with a situation where the person’s 22

average body temperature is 98.6, but he died. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: You’ll have to repeat the 24

question, I think. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 138 MR. ERDHEIM : Oh, God. It was a long 1

question. 2

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: We could also push this 3

to the usage profile

– 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Peter, go ahead. 5

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: If you’d like we could 6

push this discussion to the usage profile section. 7

MR. ERD HEIM : That’s fine. I was actually 8

going to ask the question then, but Matt got into it 9

now, so we can defer that. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s defer that, then. 11

Okay. Jeff. 12

MR. HAILEY: Just one comment on the NOPR, 13

that the UEC equations given give you an output in 14

watt

- hours per year, and yet your limits are in 15

kilowatt hours per year. And some of our 16

counterparts have looked at that and scratched their 17

heads, going, this doesn’t make sense. So, it would 18

be good if you could scale the UEC equations 19

appr opriately to give an output in kilowatt hours 20

per year. 21

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: That’s something we’ll 22

take into account

. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: I see several heads around 24

the room, nodding in agreement with that statement. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 139 Ken? 1

MR. SALAETS: I was just going to say 2

divide by 1000 on the equation, and that’s in the 3

NOPR as well. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks. Do we have 5

more from the web? Daniel, please, go ahead. And 6

Pierre, shall we cue you here, is this a good time? 7

MR. DELFORGE: I mean it depends on wh at 8

snags

– are we going to discuss the results of the 9

engineering analysis, I think that would be more 10

appropriate. 11

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: The results are 12

presented at the end of the presentation. 13

MR. DELFORGE: So I think I would rather 14

you go now. 15

MR. B ROOKMAN: Daniel. 16

MR. LAUF: This is Dan Lauf again from 17

D&R, and the comment is from Dan Jackal on the 18

webinar. He points out that the UEC equations 19

presented may be slightly different than what’s 20

actually in the NOPR, and that there may be some 21

parent heticals added. So, unless you have any 22

specific comments, now it may be something to look 23

into later to verify. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I’m still not clear. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 140 Do you want to present now? 1

MR. DELFORGE: Yes, please. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Can you cue Pierre’s 3

slides? You want to present from there? And Emily 4

will advance your slides. 5

MR. NARDOTTI: Can I just address that 6

comment that came in? Doug? 7

MR. DELFORGE: Slide 3 please. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Slide 3. 9

MR. NARDOTTI: Doug, can I just address 10

that

– 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. One thing 12

from Matt. 13

MR. NARDOTTI: So this is Matt Nardotti 14

again. In the NOPR there is a discussion where we 15

walked through the evolution of the UEC equation, 16

however, in the rule language, there are two 17

equations which are the exact same equations that 18

Peter just presented on the second slide, and those 19

are the ones that will be used. But there is

– we 20

walk through why that’s evolved and getting into the 21

charge time issue that Peter alluded to. 22

PARTICIPANT: (comment off mic) 23

MR. NARDOTTI: Well the NOPR’s not 24

incorr ect, it just goes through how it’s changed. I 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 141 think the issue is the NOPR summary that was 1

originally released had no parentheses, but then the 2

TSD did have those parentheses. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: And you guys didn’t think 4

they were looking at this stuff. 5

( Laughter.) 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for that 7

clarification, it’s very helpful. Now, Pierre, 8

you’re on. Go ahead. 9

MR. DELFORGE: Thank you. I want to 10

comment on the LCC which results from the 11

engineering analysis. This is from the TSD and it 12

sho ws that for the 60 watt power supplies, the LCC 13

is negative, and we believe the reason it is 14

negative is because of the cost curve, and this is 15

just plotting data from the TSD Page 182. If you 16

look at the cost curve, in blue, for 60 watts power 17

supplies, that’s above the baseline. To reach 88 18

percent efficiency the cost is $1.30, but the same 19

cost curve for 120 watts is around thirty cents, so 20

there’s a $1.00 difference here, which doesn’t make 21

sense unless the data assumes that the 120 watt 22

already has a different topology ... specification, 23

and we don’t believe this is necessary to include 24

that. So as a result, I think we are over

- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 142 estimating the cost of 60 watts

– the cost of 1

efficiency for 60 watt power supplies. 2

So if we look at the 120 watt curve, wh ich 3

we believe is much more representative of the cost 4

of increasing efficiency of these power supplies 5

would be that the LCC for 60 watt power supplies 6

would be positive. And not only would it be 7

positive, but I think by using that cost curve, we 8

think t hat we could increase the level cost 9

effectively, and if you look at the difference

– and 10

this is again from the TSD, between CSL

- 3 and CSL

- 4, 11

there’s a large difference between these two CSLs. 12

We think that CSL

- 3 is not the most stringent level 13

which is cost

- effective. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: CSL

- 3 is red. 15

MR. DELFORGE: The red line, yes. And we 16

could have CSL

- 3.5, higher than CSL

- 3, which could 17

be cost

- effective. 18

So this looks at the data from the test 19

data from the TSD, and the data points that are 20

cir cled are the best in market units for 60 watt 21

power supplies. And these represent the Energy Star 22

V2 plus about one percent margin on level five, plus 23

one percent margin. But it’s not represented cost

24

effective threshold in the market. We say that it 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 143 sh ould be based not just on these levels, but on a 1

high level of cost

- effectiveness. 2

What we propose based on this 120 watt 3

cost curve, is to test the CSL

- 3 at both 80.5 and 89 4

percent efficiency, and based on this curve, we 5

believe that at least at 80.5, and possibly at 89 6

percent levels should be cost

- effective. Thank you. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Are there 8

questions on anything that Pierre presented. Yes

– 9

you have to find a microphone

– 10

PARTICIPANT: (off mic) That’s all right, 11

I just wonder if he could clarify the acronyms. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Clarify the acronyms, 13

Pierre? 14

MR. DELFORGE: The TSD, technical support 15

documents. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Technical support document, 17

Chapter 5, Page 182

– it may be hard to read from 18

the back of the room. Ari. 19

MR. REEVES: Ari Reeves, D&R. Pierre, I 20

just wanted to see

– are you suggesting that DOE 21

should look at a CSL that is above CSL

- 3 across all 22

the nameplate output powers? 23

MR. DELFORGE: Yes. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks. That’s 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 144 good. Now, we’ re still considering, on slide 90, 1

this issue for comment. Comment on its methodology 2

for generating product class 10, CSLs based on 3

battery input power, and input from manufacturers. 4

Additional comments? That was quite a methodology, 5

I have to say. Qu ite extensive. Additional 6

comments on this? Ken. 7

MR. RIDER: Just a point of clarification. 8

Will this require modification to the test 9

procedure, and would this portion be to consider 10

these adders, would it be done in the form of a 11

standard, or would it be done in the test procedure 12

in Appendix Y? 13

MR. BROOKMAN: I’m not sure

– 14

MR. RIDER: This new measurement

– they 15

discussed a new measurement. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, I’m not sure who here 17

might address that. 18

MR. PETROLATI: Let me start for 19

addres sing that. The reason that the adder was put 20

in, Ken, was that we do realize that there is a 21

problem in the test procedure in that the test 22

procedure incorporates in its measure, measurement 23

of this additional functionality in this particular 24

product clas s. The perfect solution, of course, if 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 145 we could find it, would be to revise the test 1

procedure such that additional functionality is not 2

measured. We’re not certain at this point how to do 3

it, but we are taking that into account currently in 4

this process through the standard. And, Matt, is 5

there anything else that you want to add to that? 6

Okay. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: So, Jeff, please. 8

MR. HAILEY: Yes, so as part of industry, 9

we’ve had a discussion within ITI, in the energy 10

working group within ITI, about the flaws in the 11

battery charging test procedure and it comes exactly 12

around to that, that it does not comprehend other 13

functions that may be on there. And there are also 14

some other shortcomings in the assumptions that 15

products can charge whenever it’s i n an off mode. 16

So we would very much like to see the test procedure 17

modified to comprehend that there are other 18

functions within the charger. You can’t isolate the 19

charger, in many cases, so I just want to go on 20

record as having said that. And we’ve had that 21

discussion with California, and we’re getting there 22

here, and specifically the Class 10, I think it’s 23

really very apparent. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Vic. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 146 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, and just to follow up 1

on that. We want your comments as to how that test 2

procedure should be revised to eliminate this 3

additional functionality, and whether or not it can 4

be performed properly under those circumstances. 5

Thank you. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ric. 7

MR. ERDHEIM : I have a question going back 8

to the slides

– the external power supplies with the 9

DOE estimate of EPS markups. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s go back to that 11

slide. Which one is it? 12

MR. ERDHEIM : I think it’s slide 64. 13

MR. PROTOPAPPAS: I’ll go back, but I 14

think this is for Chris. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Maybe you can 16

address it. Ask your question. 17

MR. ERDHEIM : So, I’d just like some 18

clarification as to the nomenclature up there and 19

when you guys obtain these cost estimates, as far as 20

what the markups would be, was that

– how is that 21

based as far as volume of units that were quoted, 22

and the volumes and stuff, and I guess my real 23

question is, if this is based on millions of units 24

when you’re talking a price markup. You know, not 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 147 all manufacturers and not all products are going to 1

be sold in those types of quantities, so that 2

drastically affects your pricing and your markups. 3

And also I’m curious as far as on your retailer to 4

consumer, there seems to be some indicat ion that the 5

costs that were used were not the actual retail, but 6

they were cost that the manufacturer sold them to. 7

I was wondering why that was. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Chris. 9

MR. SKAHAN : This is Chris Skahan . So 10

there are a couple different things in your question 11

there. First of all, in terms of volumes, all the 12

markups along that chain were derived based on the 13

markups with several different manufacturers, 14

usually producing products in the millions, like you 15

talked about, especially with BOM to the ODM markup, 16

or the BOM to MPC markup. And this is actually 17

going to get addressed a little bit later in the 18

downstream in more depth. 19

And I guess to your second point, about 20

the retail cost, the engineering analysis, like I 21

said, only goes to the manufact urers selling price, 22

which is the price that the OEM pays the ODM for the 23

power supply. Like I said, the retail and those 24

markups to consumers, for one, it’s hard to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 148 determine the retail price of a power supply because 1

it’s ultimately sold with the produc t that it 2

powers. There’s only a couple of instances where 3

you can actually do that effectively. But those 4

markups are considered, again, in the downstream 5

analysis. So for the purpose of the engineering, we 6

only go to the OEM price. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Ri c. 8

MR. ERDHEIM : So when you’re taking those 9

numbers, though, and you’re doing a cost benefit to 10

the consumer, you actually have to take the cost 11

that the consumer’s going to be paying for the 12

product. 13

MR. SKAHAN : Yes. 14

MR. ERDHEIM : And was that don e? 15

MR. SKAHAN : Yes. But not in the 16

engineering. Later. 17

MR. ERDHEIM : Okay. Thanks. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: So, Rick, and anybody else 19

in the room, if you have different numbers, I’m sure 20

the Department would like to see that. So more 21

detail on this later

. 22

I’d like to close on this segment and take 23

final comments on this issue if there’s anything 24

else to be said, because it’s just about time for us 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 149 to go to lunch, and we’ve really made a tremendous 1

amount of progress this morning. We’re a little bit 2

beh ind schedule, but the quality of the comment and 3

the exchange has been excellent. So I thank you for 4

that. It’s now almost 12:30. It takes just about 5

an hour to eat and get back here. I’ll give 6

instructions on that in just a moment. So let’s 7

resume at 1:30 here in this room. You can leave 8

your stuff in this room. This room will be locked 9

up or supervised. You may

– the best place to go is 10

to go down to the ground floor and walk about 100 11

yards that way to there’s a big cafeteria. There’s 12

also a sub way sandwich shop right where the coffee 13

shop is, almost directly below us on the ground 14

floor. 15

You need to wear this badge. You might 16

need to have an ID to get back through security as 17

you reenter from the cafeteria into the Forrestal 18

Building proper. Maybe, maybe not. Hard to say. 19

You will have to clear through a screening x

- ray 20

machine. Scanner, thank you. I think that’s it. 21

We’ll resume at 1:30. Don’t leave. Don’t go off 22

campus, stay close by, because you won’t get back in 23

time. And we’ll se e you back here. Leave stuff 24

here. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 150 (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the meet ing in 1

the above captioned matter was adjourned for lunch 2

recess , to reconvene at 1:37 p .m.) 3

AFTERNOON SESSION 4

1:37 p.m. 5

**Energy Use and Markups Analysis** 6

MR. LAUF: Hello and welcome back from 7

lunch. My name is Dan Lauf and I am with D&R 8

International. Today, I am going to talk to you 9

about the energy use analysis. The energy use 10

analysis draws on product class level data from the 11

engineering analysis and application level data from 12

the market assessment, along with usage assumptions 13

made specifically for this analysis. The outputs of 14

the analysis are annual energy consumption estimates 15

for battery chargers and external power supplies for 16

each application and product class. Annual energy 17

consumption is also referred to as unit energy 18

consumption

– or UEC

– and is measured in kilowatt 19

hours per year. All of the assumptions are outlined 20

in chapter 7 of the TSD and in the energy use 21

workbook on DOE’s website. 22

DOE did not change its methodology for the 23

NOPR, but it did make a number of changes to its 24

usage profile assumptions

– particularly where new 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 151 data was available. Data for these usage 1

assumptions

– which I will explain later

– is from a 2

variety of sources, including published r eports, 3

stakeholder input, and DOE assumptions. There has 4

been some question about the accuracy of DOE’s usage 5

assumptions, but since DOE found empirical data on 6

40% of applications, which represent 80% of annual 7

BCEPS energy consumption, it is confident in its 8

assumptions. A complete list of the assumptions 9

that DOE made is available in the Excel workbook 10

available at the link on this slide. 11

Now I will walk through the overall 12

approach to calculating energy use for BCs and EPSs. 13

BCs and EPSs are unique in that they are power 14

conversion devices and not typically the end

- use 15

products. Thus, energy consumption for BCs and EPSs 16

is the difference between the energy that flows into 17

the BC or EPS and the energy that flows out to the 18

application or battery. 19

B C and EPS energy use is a function of a 20

couple of inputs, including the power requirements 21

of the battery or application, consumer usage 22

patterns, and the efficiency of the BC or EPS. Power 23

requirements were determined in the engineering 24

analysis and usage patterns were estimated in the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 152 energy use analysis. DOE assumes that use does not 1

vary with efficiency, so there is no take

- back or 2

rebound effect. 3

To illustrate how energy consumption is 4

calculated, I will go through two examples

– one for 5

EPSs and one for BCs. For EPSs, the application we 6

will look at is notebook computers. And I’ll run 7

through the various inputs that we used and then sum 8

up with how DOE goes about calculating energy 9

consumption. So the first two inputs that we have 10

for EPSs are what are known as application states 11

and loading points. These are important because the 12

nameplate output power of an EPS illustrates the 13

maximum amount of power that that EPS can provide to 14

an application. But it’s important to note that the 15

application rar ely requires, if ever, that much 16

power. The amount of power that it actually 17

requires from the EPS is dictated by how it’s used 18

at any given moment. So those are the application 19

states. 20

So you can see here, when a laptop is 21

charging the battery and act ively operating, it 22

requires

– and we got this from test data

– it 23

requires about 66 percent of the nameplate output 24

power of the EPS. Whereas, if it’s in sleep mode, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 153 it only requires 1.6 percent. 1

DOE then makes assumptions of how these 2

products are use d. There’s been a little bit of 3

confusion about that these usage profiles are 4

intended to represent, so I’ll clarify by saying, 5

they’re not

– for each application, they’re not 6

intended to necessarily represent any specific user. 7

They’re intended to repre sent the average across all 8

users. And sometimes DOE does this by looking at 9

multiple user types and taking some sort of a 10

weighted average. It did do this in this case with 11

notebook computers. You can see we had one 12

published source that identified two user types for 13

notebooks, one user type that usually leaves their 14

notebook plugged in, and the other that usually 15

unplugs their notebooks, possibly for travel or 16

other reasons. 17

DOE assumed that 40 percent of notebook 18

users fell in the former case, and 60 percent in the 19

latter case. So you can see their unique usage 20

profile estimates. These are measured in hours, and 21

the total usage profile for any EPS should sum up to 22

168 hours which are the number of hours in a week. 23

And so we have an estimate for the amount of time 24

that the EPS is providing power to the application 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 154 in each application state as well as the amount of 1

time in no load mode and in unplugged mode. Taking 2

an average of these two user types, using a weighted 3

average usage profile which yo u can see on the 4

right, that’s the usage profile that DOE used for 5

its analysis. 6

DOE has a couple of efficiency metrics 7

that we received through the engineering analysis, 8

so these were discussed earlier in the day. You can 9

see we have active mode effi ciency, which increases 10

as the CSL or the efficiency level increases, which 11

makes sense, and no load power decreases. 12

So to summarize those inputs, EPSs are 13

categorized by nameplate output power. Multiplying 14

that output power by the loading point yiel ds the 15

power requirements of the EPS at any given 16

application state. The EPS’s efficiency then 17

determines the amount of power that’s lost in the 18

conversion process. That power loss is essentially 19

the consumption of the EPS. And then usage profiles 20

tell us how long the EPS spends in any given 21

application state. So basically, the product of 22

these yield the UEC or that no energy consumption. 23

These were analyzed values for each application 24

state. By summing down across all the application 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 155 states, we have an estimate of the annual energy 1

consumption of the EPS, and we do this for each CSL. 2

And as you can see, and as is to be expected, the 3

annual energy consumption declines as the efficiency 4

level increases. 5

So I’ll now turn to battery chargers and 6

descri be a fairly similar concept. So for each 7

application for battery chargers, DOE estimates the 8

number of chargers per day, the time spent in 9

active, maintenance, no battery or standby, and off 10

modes. And then combines

– 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, we have a ques tion. 12

MR. LAUF: Sure. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your name. 14

MR. SHEIKH: Shahid from Intel. On your 15

previous slide, could you go back, please? Was this 16

duty cycle based on some study? 17

MR. LAUF: The usage profiles were. So 18

you're talking about t hese, and they were based on a 19

published study , and again, where possible we used 20

empirical data. 21

MR. SHEIKH: Is this based on residential 22

only or enterprise notebooks too? 23

MR. LAUF: I believe the study focused on 24

notebook use in general, but because we have the two 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 156 user types, we adapted it to our interpretation of 1

how a residential user

– 2

MR. SHEIKH: The study is quoted 3

somewhere? 4

MR. LAUF: Yes, it’s a study that was put 5

out by NRDC, and the link that I had earlier in the 6

presentation to the UEC Workbook outlines all of the 7

studies that DOE looked at and the assumptions that 8

it gathered from those studies. It also shows the 9

situations where data wasn’t available, and DOE 10

needed to make an assumption, so of course

– any 11

data for any applicatio n is very much appreciated. 12

MR. SHEIKH: Thank you. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Rick, go ahead. 14

MR. HABBEN: Rick from Wahl. On your next 15

slide, well, the slide that has the CSLs, when you 16

determined

– 17

MR. BROOKMAN: EPS or BC? 18

MR. HABBEN: For the EPSs. How do you

– 19

how do you determine what the CSL levels are? I 20

mean, how is that

– is that a percentage that they 21

go up in

– 22

MR. LAUF: What do you mean what the CSL 23

levels are? I had to reidentify those efficiency 24

metrics. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 157 MR. HABBEN: Yeah, how do yo u determine, 1

you know, how much more efficient a CSL

- 2 should be 2

versus a three? 3

MR. LAUF: So that was described a little 4

bit earlier in the engineering analysis, and I’ll 5

actually defer to Chris if he’s available. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, go on. 7

MR. SKA HAN : This is Chris Skahan , 8

Navigant. So the CSLs, I did actually, I went 9

through that in the engineering analysis. But CSL

- 0 10

– I’ll just walk through them

– is based on the 11

current EISA standard. CSL

- 1 was based on the 12

Energy Star program that EPA had for external power 13

supplies. CSL

- 2 is an intermediate level that we 14

determined based on test data between CSL

- 1 and CSL

15

3. CSL

- 3 is the best

- in

- market unit, the unit 16

that we tested, it was the most efficient unit that 17

we could find. And then CSL

- 4 was based on 18

manufacturer input, so the maximum technology 19

feasible efficiency level that manufacturers gave us 20

for every single rep unit. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Jeff, you want to 22

get in here? 23

MR. HAILEY: Jeff Hailey. If you go to 24

slide 95, you identifie d these stages. You said 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 158 this was taken empirically. What was your sample 1

set to determine this? And I am assuming we have 2

similar sample sets for all of the various usage 3

models you have, but I’m just curious about how 4

large your sample set was. 5

MR. LAUF: Again, that’s something that 6

I’d defer to Chris to answer this

– Chris, do you 7

know that off

- hand? How many notebooks we tested? 8

MR. SKAHAN : Maybe we can dig that out. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 10

MR. LAUF: Then I can tell you that we do 11

have

– that DOE tested a couple of different 12

products to get a general idea for how those loading 13

points work in different

– you’re talking about 14

loading point values or

– 15

MR. HABBEN: Correct, and if you took a 16

sample size of two, that may not be very 17

representative. I was hoping to hear you took a 18

sample size of 20 to 30 products to come up with 19

these numbers. And you said a couple, so that 20

concerns me that these may not be representative. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Chris, please. 22

MR. SKAHAN : This is Chris Skahan . Yes, 23

it was part of what I was trying to convey with the 24

engineering, is that we had a specific list of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 159 criteria for selecting the representative units that 1

we chose, as well as associated applications. And I 2

had a small sample set

– th ose black dots, if you 3

remember, those were all tested data points. So 4

there was a significant amount of testing done for 5

each representative unit and a specific application. 6

I can assure you there’s more than two units. So 7

yes, there was a significant sample size. What it 8

is, I don’t remember off hand. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Your analysis says that 10

these were statistically significant sample sizes. 11

MR. SKAHAN : Yes. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ken

– pardon 13

me, Pierre. 14

MR. DELFORGE: Just a quick comment , if 15

you could go back to the notebook load points. We 16

have recent data by Energy Star, by EPA on Energy 17

Star

- 6, which shows some loading point for idle, 18

which is a good proxy for normal operation, which is 19

significantly lower than 28 percent. I think mo st 20

of it is between 10 to 20 percent. 21

MR. LAUF: Okay. And that would be

– if 22

there is more data like that, the Department would 23

appreciate seeing it, we can incorporate it into the 24

analysis. So, thank you. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 1 60 MR. SHEIKH: One more question. 1

MR. BROOK MAN: Yes. 2

MR. SHEIKH: Shahid from Intel again. On 3

slide number 96, so what you show here is

– trying 4

to clarify

– is the number of hours per week spent 5

in charging the battery and using unplugged versus 6

plugged, is that how you read it? 7

MR. LAUF: Y es, not just charging the 8

battery, but in any of the possible applications 9

it’s used for. 10

MR. SHEIKH: No, no. It’s an example, 11

charging the battery, when you are unplugged, 12

usually unplugged, you’re spending 5.75 hours per 13

week, and then you’re plugged , usually plugged in, 14

you’re spending 1.13 hours per week? 15

MR. LAUF: Yes, so for each of these 16

possible user types, and they were described in the 17

report as

– or we described them as a user typically 18

plugs in their application, versus when they 19

typicall y unplug. So, it’s two user types who use 20

their battery charger or use their application in 21

different ways, so the left column describes the 22

usage patterns for one user type. The column in the 23

middle describes the usage pattern for a different 24

user type, so there will be some variation there. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 161 Taking the average of the two, or the weighted 1

average of the two leads to an assumed

– 2

MR. SHEIKH: So a user who is unplugged is 3

spending more time charging the battery? 4

MR. LAUF: Yes. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Brian. 6

MR. BOOHER: We have a question here from 7

the webinar from Richard Hodson. Can you please 8

describe the no load condition further? Is it that 9

the laptop power adapter is connected to the wall 10

but no laptop connected? 11

MR. LAUF: Yes. 12

MR. BROO KMAN: Thank you. So, keep going, 13

you’re doing good. 14

MR. LAUF: So now I’ll proceed to battery 15

chargers. As I mentioned, DOE has a couple of 16

inputs to this analysis, including the usage profile 17

in item one, which I already described. And then a 18

number of energy consumption metrics that were 19

derived in the engineering analysis, and those were 20

discussed earlier. I’ll run through them again very 21

quickly. So this is the usage profile for battery 22

chargers for notebooks, once again. It’s from a 23

different source, but it is consistent with the 24

other source that we saw, and you can see here we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 162 have an estimate of the number of charges per day, 1

the active plus maintenance mode in hours per day , 2

n o battery mode, off mode, and unplugged mode. And 3

again, this is all measured in hours per day for 4

battery chargers, rather than hours per week. So, 5

of course, summing down would give 24 hours. 6

We then have a couple of energy 7

consumption metrics again from the energy analyses. 8

Feel free to stop me if you have any q uestions, 9

although I’ll go through them and describe them 10

quickly since they were explained earlier. We have 11

24 hour energy consumption ; charge time measured in 12

hours, battery energy in watt

- hours; maintenance 13

power in watts; and no battery power also in watts, 14

and these vary depending on the CSL that we’re 15

looking at. And once again, it’s the usage profile 16

that remains constant across efficiency levels. 17

So the equation that we use to combine 18

these

– if you want to refer back to it, they’re on 19

slides I believe, 77 and 78 in your handout, and 20

the y yield these estimates for unit energy 21

consumption by mode of operation and summing across 22

those gives a total estimate of unit energy 23

consumption, or annual energy consumption for 24

battery chargers at each efficiency level. Yes. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 163 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead. 1

MR. RIDER: This is Ken Rider, California 2

Energy Commission. Two questions on what you just 3

showed. On the slide before this, your no batter 4

power for CSL

- 2 and 3

– for 3, the no battery power 5

was increased. Can you explain what the rationale 6

is behi nd that? And also

– well, let’s get to that 7

then I’ll ask the second question. 8

MR. LAUF: So the rationale

– Matt, do you 9

want to take this? He’s asking why the no battery 10

power for CSLs 2 and 3, why it increased in 3? 11

MR. NARDOTTI: I would have to go back and 12

look at the TSD write up in that section. 13

MR. RIDER: But it would be contained in 14

the

– 15

MR. NARDOTTI: It should be in the TSD. 16

MR. RIDER: Okay. All right. Second 17

question I wanted to ask is you have the total UEC 18

numbers calculated using the duty cycle and the 19

assumed performance that you just presented. 20

MR. LAUF: Yes. 21

MR. RIDER: So you’ve got a different 22

equation for actually calculating UEC for the 23

standard. What would the standard outputs be for

– 24

or I guess I’m wondering

– these aren’t the same 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 164 results that you’d get from the standards equation, 1

right? 2

MR. LAUF: It’s my understanding that the 3

difference is for this analysis since we’re

-- what 4

we’re looking for analytical purposes at the 5

specific usage profiles for the application, so we 6

don’t have that one usage profile that’s applied for 7

the product class. So that would be

– the bigger 8

difference here is that the usage profile inputs are 9

specific to each application. And the energy use 10

metric, which I showed on the p revious slide, are 11

specific to each product class. 12

MR. RIDER: I guess I’m wondering how does 13

that translate, when you’re doing thi s, you know, 14

national impact, and then you’re having a different 15

requirement actually

– you’re not actually requiring 16

this level, you’re doing this other equation, how 17

you can show that you’re going to get to these 18

levels given that you’re playing a different UEC 19

requirement than what’s presented here for CSLs zero 20

through three. 21

MR. LAUF: And the coefficients

– the 22

usage c oefficients that are meant to be used for 23

compliance are really supposed to be representatives 24

of the average use across a product class. So, they 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 165 don’t necessarily need to be looked at as 1

representative of any specific use, but really as 2

coefficients that should be used to determine 3

whether or not a product is in compliance with the 4

standard. And then for the national impact 5

analysis, since we’re looking

– this really comes 6

before that, and it’s the usage impact

– inputs for 7

each application that we’re

-- 8

MR. RIDER: Okay. Maybe I’ll ask my 9

question again when we get

– maybe when we get 10

further along I’ll raise

– reask this question 11

because it’s about how this translates

– you’re 12

saying the CSLs are going to drive you to these 13

UECs, but the compliance i sn’t going to be on the 14

same UEC that you’ve got here, so I’m just wondering 15

– so I’ll ask it again later. 16

MR. LAUF: Okay. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 18

MR. SHEIKH: Shahid again from Intel. So 19

just to clarify Ken’s point. So your original 20

equation is tha t was shown earlier before lunch, 21

they were based on a different modeling which is

– 22

MR. LAUF: No, we used the same equations 23

to calculate

– 24

MR. SHEIKH: Same coefficients? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 166 MR. LAUF: Same equations, but different 1

coefficients. So the coefficients that we use in 2

this analysis are based on the usage patterns for 3

each individual application. Then for compliance, 4

since we’re looking at an entire product class, we 5

then look at all of the usage coefficients for 6

products in that product class and try to determine 7

what an approximate average would be. 8

MR. SHEIKH: Weighted average based on the 9

volumes or energy usage or what? 10

MR. LAUF: Shipments, I believe. 11

MR. SHEIKH: Shipments. That methodology 12

is somewhere, you know, explained? 13

MR. LAUF: Yes, it’s all explained in, I 14

believe, the TSD. 15

MR. SHEIKH: Thank you. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 17

MR. LAUF: So at this point I’ll pause for 18

any other questions that you have on the energy use 19

analysis. DOE is also seeking comments specifically 20

on it s usage assumptions. I explained where you can 21

find those, so if there’s any other data that we 22

overlooked, we’d love to hear about it. Also 23

loading points and other assumptions that were made. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ric. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 167 MR. ERDHEIM : Ric Erdheim with Philips

. 1

So I think this is the point to ask the question I 2

had asked earlier. So someone had raised the issue 3

of infrequent charge, and Matt said that that was 4

considered as part of the usage profile, and that 5

all the different products were then averag ed. And 6

I guess we heard it’s

– used a weighted average. My 7

question related to the fact that when you look at, 8

for EPS class B, which is on slide 39

– you don’t 9

have to go back to it, but just to reference

– 56 10

percent of the products were in

– of the E PSs were 11

in product class B and for battery chargers, 57 12

percent of the battery chargers were in product 13

class 2, and of the 15 largest categories of battery 14

chargers, 11 of those 15 had at least some products 15

in product class 2. And so my question, I 16

app reciate the wor k that you’ve done on the usage 17

profiles, but in averaging over such a large class 18

of products, don’t you wind up not considering, or 19

treating certain products that might be at the end 20

differently, such that you won’t get the average 21

results would bring you? And again, I’m speaking

– 22

I’m using the example of infrequent charge, but it 23

could be for something else. 24

MR. LAUF: And you’re talking about 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 168 averaging for analytical purposes or to determine 1

compliance

– for the coefficients that were used to 2

determine compliance? 3

MR. ERDHEIM : Well, I understand you’re 4

averaging all of this data to come up with the 5

coefficients, right. And so you’ve got an average 6

coefficient, but for a particular product, the usage 7

profile may be very different th an the average, and 8

therefore you’ve got an energy use requirement that 9

doesn’t really make any sense for that particular 10

product. I understand you can’t have a different 11

standard for every product, otherwise not only would 12

Vic be retiring, his children w ould be retiring 13

because it would take so long. But again, those two 14

classes are so large that it leads you to think 15

maybe they should be subdivided to look more 16

carefully at different characteristics so you don’t 17

have this unintended effect. 18

MR. LAUF: Appreciate that input. 19

MR. PETROLATI: And Ric, I think you 20

stated it clearly, but we are limited in terms of 21

looking at these things from a product class 22

standpoint, and the product classes have been 23

defined in accordance to the parameters and 24

specific ations of either the battery charger or the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 169 external power supply, and we would not be allowed 1

to look at different end use consumer products 2

unless the performance characteristics of the 3

battery charger led us to develop another product 4

class that happene d to break out these products in a 5

different manner. So we would be very happy if you 6

could provide us comments as to how we might change 7

our product class, but that wouldn’t necessarily be 8

on a different end use consumer products that are 9

within that pro duct class. 10

MR. ERDHEIM : I think this came up at the 11

last hearing, Vic, and if I remember the slide 12

correctly, and it’s not in this slide deck

– I don’t 13

want to take too much time, but I think it said you 14

consider this and such other factors as the 15

De partment thinks are appropriate. And that’s the 16

part where I said well, why couldn’t you then 17

consider that? So we need to

– I need to go back 18

and

– 19

MR. PETROLATI: Fair enough. 20

MR. ERDHEIM :

-- suggest to you that maybe 21

you can do it, and then if yo u can do it, is there a 22

basis for doing it. But I think those product 23

classes are so broad that you may wind up having 24

unintended consequences of products that fall at an 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 170 end. 1

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Ari, did you want to chime 3

in? 4

MR. R EEVES: Sure. Ric, this is Ari 5

Reeves. I don’t think your concern extends to 6

external power supplies, because when it comes to 7

determining compliance with the external power 8

supplies standards, there’s no consideration for 9

usage, the usage profile doesn’ t factor into that. 10

It’s only in the case of battery chargers where 11

we’re looking to combine the energy performance of 12

multiple modes into a single metric, the UEC metric, 13

that a single duty cycle is required. 14

And then just to emphasize again what Dan 15

said earlier about the

– for analytical purposes we 16

use these application

- specific duty cycles or usage 17

profiles, and again, that’s in order to arrive at 18

the most accurate estimates possible of the real 19

costs and benefits of the proposed standards. And 20

w e felt that calculating energy use and thus energy 21

savings at the application level was the right way 22

to go, both in EPSs and in BCs. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Ari. 24

Brian has a question or comment from someone on

- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 171 line. 1

MR. BOOHER: Yes, and th is is related to 2

this point. This is a question from Henry Sully. 3

Usage profiles seem to be a point of contention. 4

Why not eliminate usage profiles entirely and just 5

use charging efficiency as a requirement. And then 6

he goes on to say, isn’t it the goa l to improve 7

efficiency and not regulate usage? 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 9

MR. LAUF: Sure, and at least, from what 10

we’re looking at here, I don’t believe DOE is 11

looking to regulate usage, it is regulating 12

efficiency. The reason why it takes t hese usage 13

profiles into account for the analysis is like Ari 14

described, to truly understand how these products 15

are use d so then DOE can go ahead and estimate 16

exactly how much energy is consumed by each battery 17

charger or power supply. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: We’ re still looking for 19

additional comment, should there be any, on item 22 20

and 23, usage profiles and loading points. Have we 21

covered it? Are we ready to move on now? Move on. 22

MR. LAUF: So now I’ll switch gears away 23

from the energy analysis and move ov er to the 24

markups analysis. The purpose of the markups 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 172 analysis is to take the estimates of cost that were 1

estimated in the energy use analysis and step those 2

up to a final retail price. So DOE does this by 3

looking at markups applied to various stages in the 4

distribution process. 5

So this figure here will look familiar. 6

It is a simplified model of the distribution 7

process, or distribution path for battery chargers 8

and power supplies. In the engineering analysis, 9

DOE estimated the manufacturer’s selli ng price 10

indicated in the middle there. That’s the price 11

that the battery charger or power supply 12

manufacturer will sell the completed BC or EPS unit 13

to the OEM, and in this case, the OEM that we’re 14

referring to is the end use application 15

manufacturer. 16

So this analysis picks up there and 17

applies two markups to the manufacturer’s selling 18

price. One is the markup applied by the OEM, the 19

next is the markup applied by the retailer. And 20

then the analysis goes on to estimate or calculate 21

sales tax as well. So DOE does recognize that 22

distribution for these products can be variable and 23

very complex, but DOE make s the simplifying 24

assumption that the most common path to market 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 173 dictates the final product price. So this model 1

here is intended just to represent th at common path 2

to market for most BCs and E PSs. 3

Now there’s very limited data available on 4

actual markups applied to BCs and UPSs, and this is 5

true for a couple of reasons. First of all, it is 6

typically held confidential by manufacturers, but 7

also batte ry chargers and power supplies are 8

components of other end use products, and so it’s 9

difficult to tease out when a consumer buys an 10

application what they’re actually paying for that 11

battery charger or the EPS. So to estimate the 12

markups applied to these p roducts at those two 13

stages of distribution, DOE assumed that the 14

company

- wide markup

– the average markup applied to 15

all of the company’s products could be a proxy for 16

the markup applied to the battery charger and the 17

EPS. DOE goes about estimating this by looking at 18

corporate gross margins, which it was able to glean 19

through public financial filings, and it looked up 20

filings from 83, end use product manufacturers, 21

retailers and distributors, and then looked 22

application by application to see which of thos e 23

manufacturers and which of those retailers would be 24

a part of the distribution path for each EPS and 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 174 used a combination of those

– or EPS or BC and used 1

a combination of those markups to step up the price 2

to a retail price. 3

So DOE actually estimates two markups for 4

each application

– for each BC and EPS. For 5

products that are more efficient than the baseline , 6

o r CSL

- 0, DOE estimates one markup that’s applied to 7

the baseline cost, known as the baseline markup, and 8

that’s represented here by the green bars, and one 9

markup that’s applied to the incremental cost known 10

as the incremental markup. 11

The baseline markups are intended to 12

relate price to cost for the baseline component of 13

the product’s price and cover all of an OEM or 14

retailer ’s expenses, inc luding profit. The 15

incremental markup, however, is only intended

— it 16

covers the incremental changes in the customer price 17

due to standards, or due to increased efficiency. 18

So DOE assumes that some distribution costs remain 19

fixed as efficiency increases. These might include 20

overhead and general labor. And then there are 21

other costs that vary with efficiency, and then of 22

course companies also need to cover products in

– or 23

profits in the incremental markup as well. 24

So since the incremental markup does not 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 175 cover all of the cost, but only those costs that 1

vary, it’s typically slightly lower than the 2

baseline. So to illustrate an example. This is a 3

hypothetical product here, with a baseline MSP of 4

$10.00. The baseline markup is 50 percent or 1.5, 5

so fo r CSL

- 0, that baseline cost would be stepped up 6

from $10.00 to $15.00. For a more efficient version 7

of that product, say at CSL

- 1, there is a $2.00 8

incremental cost that arose due to the increase

– 9

the components needed to increase efficiency. So 10

the inc remental markup, as I mentioned, would most 11

likely be less than the baseline markup, so we’re 12

seeing here it’s a 15 percent markup applied to that 13

incremental component of cost, so the baseline cost 14

still steps up from $10.00 to $15.00. That 15

incremental c ost steps up from $2.00 to $2.30, 16

leading to a final product price of $17.30. 17

Comments? 18

M R. ERDHEIM : Yeah, this is Rick from 19

Wahl. Where did you get the information that just 20

because your efficient product markup of $2.00 it 21

would still increase your 150 percent. Why do you 22

think you can apply it on the base, but not the 23

efficient product? 24

MR. LAUF: So this is actually the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 176 approa ch that DOE has been using for a number of 1

years in a number of different product categories. 2

And it’s intended to get at the fact that it can be 3

difficult to pass this entire cost along to 4

consumers with the full markups, so retailers and 5

manufacturers

– 6

MR. ERDHEIM : I think I can tell you for 7

sure that that’s no longer accurate, at least on our 8

dealings with retailers. The retailers aren’t going 9

to take less points on their markup just because you 10

had a price increase on your product. They’re still 11

going to want their same margins, I can guarantee 12

you that. So I think this is an incorrect 13

assumption that you’re making. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: How should they do it, 15

Rick? 16

MR. ERDHEIM : Well, I think that you’re 17

pretty accurate on your baseline product, of your 18

one and half times. I think you should carry that 19

over on your efficient product, so basically, if 20

you’re adding $2.00 to your manufacturer’s sale 21

price, then it’ll be $3.00 added to your retail 22

price. 23

MR. BROOKMAN : Okay. Thank you. And if 24

ther e are any other

– well, Ken was in the queue, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 177 but maybe Dave, you’ve got comments that are 1

specific follow

- on. 2

MR. ERDHEIM : I don’t. 3

MR. DENKENBERGER: Yeah, I mean the 4

thought here is that if you have the same product 5

that you’re selling, same sized product, then it may 6

take the same amount of time to check it out or to 7

load it on the shelves, so those are costs that 8

wouldn’t go with just making the product more 9

efficient. 10

MR. LAUF: Exactly. 11

MR. DENKENBERGER: So

– and the shipping 12

cost as well. You know, if it doesn’t weigh any 13

more it might not be any greater shipping cost. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Let me

– let Rick follow 15

on. Ken, hang on. 16

MR. HABBEN: It’s mixed in with all of 17

this. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Go ahead. 19

MR. HABBEN: Well, it’s just what exactly 20

is it that this incremental cost is? Is it to 21

recover shelf space? Is it just pure profit? Are 22

retailers just going to take the efficiency and mark 23

it up 1.5 and just make a bunch of money on a more 24

expensive products? I guess that’s reall y at the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 178 root of what my question was, which relates to what 1

both of these gentlemen are saying, which is, what 2

is it that DOE’s

– is it just trying to recoup some 3

cost that the retailers are going to have to deal 4

with the efficiency, or is it profit to th ose 5

retailers, what is it? 6

MR. LAUF: The incremental markup

– there 7

are costs that will scale with efficiency, so it 8

could be marketing materials, it could be for the 9

OEM, because this applies at that level as well. 10

There are R&D costs and other materi als costs and 11

just building added efficiency into

– and new 12

applications and end use products. So the 13

incremental markup is intended to cover those costs 14

and then cover some measure of profit as well. But 15

again, like the gentleman from ECOVA pointed out, 16

not all costs are assumed to increase just because a 17

product is made more efficient, which is why that 18

markup that you see here is lower. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Rick, follow on. 20

MR. HABBEN: So when I’m looking at your 21

slide here, what I’m assuming is that the 22

manufacturer sale price, he had to increase that 23

$2.00. And I guess what I’m saying is that when you 24

take a product and you increase it by $2.00 and 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 179 you’ve got to sell it to the retailer for that 1

$2.00, the retailer is still going to

– they have a 2

set am ount of points of profit that they are going 3

to make on every product, and just because you sell 4

a product at a higher price to them doesn’t mean 5

that they’re going to take a lower profit and sell 6

it at the same price. It doesn’t work like that. 7

So what they’re going to do, is if you mark it up by 8

$2.00, they’re going to still take their same amount 9

of profit and that percentage is still based on 10

that, and the one and a half times is a fairly 11

accurate number. I think it’s kind of low, still, 12

but it’s fai rly accurate. It depends on your 13

retailer. 14

MR. LAUF: So are you saying that the 15

final price that consumers would see would be 16

$18.00, or that

– 17

MR. HABBEN: Yes, the consumer is going to 18

spend

– 19

MR. LAUF:

-- pressure from the retailer 20

that the add ed cost that the 70 cents would have to 21

be taken out elsewhere? 22

MR. HABBEN: No, I’m saying the consumer 23

is going to spend $18.00 for that product, and 24

there’s

– I hope other manufacturers around here 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 180 will back me up. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: I see Corey, and th en to 2

Rick. 3

MR. WATKINS: Yes, Corey from Schumacher. 4

I think that part of what happens when we look at 5

this analysis is that we’re not looking at the 6

fundamental difficulties that we have in selling to 7

many of our fine retailers that we sell to. They 8

just absolutel y are not going to absorb this, and 9

any sort of calculation that suggests that they are 10

is only made in the public sector, not the private. 11

If you raise the price $2.00, they’re going to make 12

the same margins because Wall Street says you’ve got 13

to make th e same margins. In fact, they’re grinding 14

on them daily to actually increase what those 15

margins are. It is not going to be passed on for 16

the common good, or for saving energy, or anything 17

else. 18

If you have, I guess by way of analogy, we 19

recently had a value added tax that changed in 20

China, and as a manufacturer we only raised the 21

price the amount that we absorbed. Let’s say for 22

argument’s sake, that was $1.00. The retailer 23

didn’t just raise his price $1.00. He took that 24

price and multiplied it times his margin, which 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 181 actually make the cost to the consumer $2.00 in this 1

hypothetical. So certainly, any sort of analysis 2

that looks at what the retail price is going to be, 3

the retailer is absolutely not going to absorb that. 4

They’re going to raise the e nd user price. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Ric, you’re next. 6

MR. ERDHEIM : Ric Erdheim with Philips . I 7

agree completely. If you look at any quarterly or 8

annual report for a retailer, what they’re concerned 9

about is not only the gross profits, but the 10

margins, and you’ll see sometimes gross profits may 11

go up but the margins will go down and the stock 12

market will crush the stock because the margins have 13

gone down. So margins are a key factor that all 14

retailers are using. And I mean Corey’s exactly 15

right. They’re going to do everything to keep the 16

margins that they need to show Wall Street that 17

they‘re growing their margins, not shrinking their 18

margins. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments 20

on this? Vic, please. 21

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah, just one other 22

comment . Again, this has been an issue that has 23

been in play for a number of product regulations 24

that DOE has gone forward with. And your comments 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 182 are not dissimilar from the comments made by many of 1

the other manufacturer groups as part of this. 2

Anyway, I wou ld appreciate you making those comments 3

as part of the record so that they can be 4

considered. Obviously, the statements you made here 5

will be considered. The Department has taken a 6

different position in the past on other rulemakings, 7

and I’m not sure if there’s anything here that’s 8

different than what was stated in those other 9

previous rulemakings. But I just wanted to make you 10

aware of that. Anyway, just make sure that your 11

comments are directed to us concerning this. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Corey, go ahead. 13

MR. WATKINS: We’ll address that in the 14

comments, I guess, Vic what I’m hearing you saying 15

is like we’ve always done it this way, so we’re 16

going to continue even if we know it’s wrong, and 17

certainly the retailers are going to absorb that 18

cost, right, so if you say or if the analysis says 19

that look, we’ve done it this way, we’ve done it in 20

other scenarios so we’re going to carry on doing it 21

this way, well all you’re doing is not being 22

completely forthcoming on what the facts are. 23

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. L et me respond to 24

that. And I didn’t mean it exactly in that manner, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 183 Corey. The Department has evaluated this issue, and 1

even has a paper that Lawrence Berkeley National 2

Laboratory put together to evaluate the approach 3

that is being used. So the Departmen t has taken a 4

position that the position that was identified by 5

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a perfectly 6

reasonable position why there shouldn’t be a full 7

markup. Now I think what we might be able to do is 8

provide everybody here a little more information as 9

to how the Department made this decision in the past 10

so that you can critique the way it was made. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Charlie 12

Stephens. 13

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Northwest 14

Energy Efficiency Alliance. I work for an 15

organiz ation that spends millions of dollars or has 16

spent millions of dollars to look at the marketplace 17

for products that have undergone several rounds of 18

energy efficiency standards upgrades, clothes 19

washers, refrigerators, and that sort of thing, and 20

we can’t get at the data that’s down in the 21

distributor level or the retailer level all the 22

time, but we can see what happens at the retail 23

level. In fact, we collect that data over a long 24

period of time and all of our

– I can’t say where it 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 184 disappears, but I can tell you that the markups 1

you’re suggesting here at 1.5 on the more efficient 2

products, do not show up at the retail level in 3

general. I don’t know where they go. I can’t say 4

what happens to it, but it is not the case, based on 5

our data, that those same markups show up at the 6

retail level when you actually look at the price of 7

last year’s model that was less say what happens to 8

it, but it is not the case, based on our data, that 9

those same markups show up at the retail level when 10

you actually look at the price of last year’s model 11

that was less efficient versus this year’s model 12

that’s more efficient, essentially the same product. 13

So again, I don’t know where those markups go, but 14

the fact is they don’t arrive at retail from all the 15

data we see. 16

MR. BRO OKMAN: In the northwest, Charlie? 17

MR. STEPHENS: Right, in the four states 18

of the Northwest and in the studies that we’ve seen 19

from other people that we use in our own work. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Would this be nationwide? 21

MR. STEPHENS: Sometimes, yes. 22

M R. BROOKMAN: Okay. You’re next. Say 23

your name, please. 24

MR. BECK: Dennis Beck from the California 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 185 Energy Commission. And if I can kind of extend what 1

Mr. Petrolati was saying to industry on this, and 2

coming from a state regulator on this is, I think 3

not only what

– the markups that they’ve used in the 4

past have been based on some data and some analysis 5

that they had and there’s been nothing that’s been 6

given to them in the interim that has changed the 7

way that they do that analysis. So in the comment s 8

that industry would provide, it wouldn’t simply be

– 9

and please correct me if I’m wrong

– if my 10

assumption is incorrect, Mr. Petrolati, but what the 11

Department needs is not just an assertion from 12

industry that the markups have to be the same for or 13

are g oing to be required to be the same from the 14

retailer for the baseline and the incremental, but 15

also some actual data and some actual hard 16

information that backs that up, and I don’t know 17

whether that can be done through the NDA that the 18

Department has with the manufacturers or not, but 19

this is the same kind of issue that we run into on 20

the state level where industry or manufacturers or 21

the stakeholders will make assertions but not 22

necessarily back it up with data that we can use to 23

verify those assumptions. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Jay, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 186 please. And in a little bit we’re moving on because 1

I think we’re starting to double back on ourselves. 2

MR. TAYLOR: With all due respect for the 3

requests for information specifically around costs 4

and volume, ev ery time we get a request like that it 5

must be analyzed under the anti

- trust regulations 6

that exist, not only in the United States, but 7

worldwide. So a lot of the reason you don’t get 8

costing information from manufacturers has to do 9

with the laws we opera te under and the codes of 10

conduct that we’re required to comply with. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: And NDAs don’t

– 12

MR. TAYLOR: NDA does not preclude that 13

because the Department of Energy, like the EPA, is 14

subject to the Freedom of Information Act. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Vic. 16

MR. PETROLATI: Yeah, Jay, we normally 17

have done the NDAs through our contractors, and once 18

they’re done through the contractors, the data that 19

we get is more or less aggregated, consequently, 20

even if we do get a Freedom of Information request, 21

gen erally we’re not providing what you would 22

consider your proprietary data through that request. 23

So there is a mechanism through the contractors to 24

do NDA, and again, I think Dennis’ recommendation is 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 187 excellent here. If we can get hard data that shows 1

this , potential markup being actually applied for 2

all of these products at the 1.5, and again, we 3

might be able to do that in the NDA, that would be 4

helpful. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 6

MR. LAUF: So I think we’ve covered that 7

and thank you again for those comm ents, they’re very 8

helpful. So this slide here, just shows the average 9

markups that were calculated

– it’s intended to be 10

illustrative because again, we do have more specific 11

markups that were calculated for particular 12

applications. Those are all availab le in the TSD in 13

Chapter 6, and also in the market assessment 14

workbook, which is available on DOE’s website. 15

So at this point I’ll pause for any other 16

comments, questions or input that you have. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Would you call out anything 18

here specifica lly, or have we covered it largely? 19

MR. LAUF: I think we’ve covered it 20

largely. Really it would just be any kind of 21

information

-- 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Supplemental comments here 23

before we move on. Okay. So who’s next up? 24

Pamela? Let me note we’re making good progress but 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 188 we’re about an hour behind, and I think we’ll 1

probably make it up by the end of the day, but we’re 2

not getting out of here a lot early, I don’t think. 3

**Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis**  4

MS. COSTELLO: Hi. I’m Pam Costello with 5

Navigant Consulting and I’m going to be talking 6

about the Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period 7

analysis. The purpose of the life

- cycle cost 8

analysis is to assess the impact on the consumer due 9

to energy conservation standards. It ’s conducted 10

from the consumer’s perspective and shows the cost 11

of owning and operating a product over the product’s 12

lifetime. 13

As you can see from this diagram, the 14

life

- cycle cost is made up of two main components, 15

total installed cost and operating c ost of the 16

product which is discounted to present value. The 17

installed cost is made up of the purchase price of 18

the product and any installation cost, which for 19

these products, DOE assumes is zero. The operating 20

costs are made up of unit energy consumpti on, energy 21

cost, and any maintenance or repair costs, which DOE 22

also assumes as zero for these products. This 23

allows DOE to calculate the total life

- cycle cost 24

for each standard level considered. Results are 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 189 then expressed as life

- cycle cost savings or t he 1

baseline LCC minus the standard level LCC. Simple 2

payback periods are also calculated and reported for 3

each level. 4

After receiving comments during the 5

preliminary analysis, DOE made two main changes to 6

the LCC. First, in the preliminary analysis, D OE 7

analyzed battery chargers and EPSs in the 8

residential sector as the reference case and in the 9

commercial sector as the sensitivity. For the NOPR 10

analysis, a weighted average of residential and 11

commercial sectors was used as the reference case. 12

All ap plication inputs to the LCC were 13

specified as either residential or commercial. DOE 14

sampled each application based on its shipments 15

weighting and used the appropriate residential or 16

commercial inputs based on this sample. This method 17

allowed for an exami nation of the LCC results for a 18

given representative unit or product class in total, 19

and provided more specificity as to the appropriate 20

input values for each sector. 21

Second, in the preliminary analysis, DOE 22

used base case market efficiency distributions for 23

each representative unit or product class. Using 24

this approach, DOE noticed that efficiency 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 190 distributions could be heavily influenced by one or 1

two very common applications. To help prevent this, 2

in the NOPR analysis, base case market efficiency 3

dis tributions specific to each application were 4

derived and included in the analysis where there was 5

sufficient data to do so. This approach insured 6

that market distributions for applications with 7

fewer shipments were not disproportionately skewed 8

by the mar ket distributions of applications of major 9

shipments. 10

This table here shows the results for 11

external power supplies at the selected TSL which 12

for all EPSs was TSL

- 2. As you can see LCC results 13

are generally positive for the selected TSL for 14

EPSs. 15

This table here shows the selected TSL 16

results for all of the battery charger product 17

classes. You can see that these results are all 18

positive and range anywhere from about 16 cents to 19

about $40.00. Also as you can see here, we have a 20

place holder for produc t class nine, because no 21

standard is being proposed for this product class. 22

DOE feels that no level is economically justified 23

for this product class as every level has negated 24

LCC savings. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 191 So we can pause here for any comments on 1

the LCC. 2

MR. BROOKMAN : Ric. 3

MR. ERDHEIM : Ric Erdheim , Philips . Can 4

you go back to slide 115. 5

MS. COSTELLO: This one. 6

MR. ERDHEIM : So I understand there was 7

some contention about the way you did the LCC, but 8

this shows the LCC at 60 watt is negative, and at 9

the 2.5 w att, barely positive. 10

MS. COSTELLO: Yes, so the four 11

representative units on the top are all part of 12

product class B, so overall the LCC savings for 13

product class B is positive. But we wanted to 14

select a uniform TSL for all the representative 15

units in that product class. 16

MR. ERDHEIM : But is that because you 17

averaged those four representative products 18

together? 19

MS. COSTELLO: We don’t actually ever 20

present a total LCC for EPS product classes, just by 21

the way the representative units are. We just 22

pr esent them for representative units. But overall 23

the benefits for that TSL had the most positive 24

benefits. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 192 MR. ERDHEIM : But would this slide show, 1

again assuming the data is correct, that for 2

external power supplies at 60 watts from AC

– using 3

AC to DC basic voltage, that the LCC is negative? 4

MS. COSTELLO: Yes. 5

MR. ERDHEIM : Okay. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Your name, please. 7

MR. SPITAELS: Jim Spitaels with Schneider 8

Electric. You made a statement to the effect that 9

DOE assumed the installation cost wa s zero in the 10

financial models? 11

MS. COSTELLO: Uh

- huh. 12

MR. SPITAELS: Can we infer from that that 13

anything with a non

- zero installation cost, say it 14

requires an electrician to be installed, is out of 15

scope? 16

MS. COSTELLO: No. 17

MR. PETROLATI: That is the correct 18

answer. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Vic Petrolati. 20

MR. PETROLATI: Yes, sorry, that is the 21

correct answer, no. But please provide us 22

information on this specific project that needs an 23

installation cost so we can consider it as part of 24

our evaluation . And I did want to point out, and I 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 193 don’t think it’s necessary to Rick that 60 watt EPS 1

unit, of course, is not a product class. Those are 2

four representative units within the product class. 3

MR. ERDHEIM : So just to put a finish on 4

this, based on the point I was raising before, so 5

you used four representative units, so you’ve 6

decided on the product class, but it’s at least 7

conceivable that you might, instead of having 8

product class B, you might have product class B

- 1, 9

B

- 2, B

- 3, B

- 4, and have different standards for

– 10

based on the LCCs. 11

MR. PETROLATI: Yes, that certainly is 12

considerable, yes. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Were you finished? 14

MR. ERDHEIM : Yeah. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna. 16

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. So I guess my 17

question gets back to the engineeri ng analysis, but 18

I think as Pierre’s slides were showing the 19

manufacturer data showed that it’s significantly 20

more expensive to improve the efficiency of the 60 21

watt unit compared to the 120 watt unit which is not 22

a result that I think we would expect, so I think 23

the question for DOE is, what is the explanation for 24

why the analysis shows a significantly higher cost 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 194 to improve the efficiency of the 60 watt unit 1

compared to the 120 watt unit? 2

MR. BROOKMAN: So, Chris, yes. Chris is 3

right there, Chris. 4

MR

. SKAHAN : So every one of our cost

5

efficiency curves for all of those representative 6

units that you see up there were generated based on 7

manufacturer data. So, any of the costs and 8

associated markups, but ultimately the same markups 9

were used for our re presentative units, so the 10

difference is going to come from those initial costs 11

that we received from manufacturers. As to reason 12

why it’s more expensive for a 60 watt versus a 120 13

watt, I can’t really address that. I thought

– I 14

think it was Pierre

– me ntioned earlier about a 15

possible topology switch when you get toward the 16

higher power, more efficient EPSs, you usually 17

require more components. That could possibly skew 18

those cost results. 19

But in terms of an actual efficiency 20

standard, the 60 watt an d the 120 watt, when you 21

look at a continuous function, are required to meet 22

the same efficiency standard. But the reason this 23

LCC is negative is because of that 60 watt cost 24

efficiency curve. It’s as this slide shows, is much 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 195 flatter than the 120 watt c urve, so the deltas 1

between the CSLs are much

– the slope is much lower. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Vic. 3

MR. PETROLATI: Chris, did we do a tear 4

down analysis on a 60 watt? 5

MR. SKAHAN : Yes. 6

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. But we used 7

manufacturer’s data rather than th e tear down 8

analysis? 9

MR. SKAHAN : Yes. 10

MR. PETROLATI: Okay. And could you 11

indicate to the stakeholders what the tear down 12

analysis indicated? 13

MR. SKAHAN : Well, the tear down data for 14

the purposes of the NOPR was only used to help 15

support our choi ces of CSLs. During the preliminary 16

analysis we did do tear downs on representative 17

units and attempted to cost those out for every 18

single rep unit within the product class. 19

Unfortunately, the data showed a negative trend, so 20

as efficiency increased, the cost actually 21

decreased, based on the numbers that we received 22

from iSuppli, which is the company that Peter 23

mentioned that was used for BCs. So we had problems 24

with that original data, and we got overwhelming 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 196 comments that had problems with that origina l data, 1

as to be expected. So, the suggestion was to use 2

only manufacturer data, which is what DOE ended up 3

doing. So any results were entirely based on what 4

manufacturers told us. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna, did you have an 6

additional question? 7

MS. MAUER : Joanna Mauer. I think we just 8

encourage DOE to go back and look at that cost 9

analysis for this product class, because again, it’s 10

a result that I don’t think that we would expect to 11

see. I don’t think we’d expect that it would be 12

significantly more ex pensive. So we would encourage 13

DOE to go back and look especially if, you know, 14

it’s not clear to stakeholders what

– what those 15

costs are based on, what the assumptions are about 16

technology changes, so it’s hard to evaluate those 17

results. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Rick. 19

MR. HABBEN: I guess I would just like to, 20

as a manufacturer, I’d like to maybe put a little 21

bit of clarification in it. It seems like it’s hard 22

to get through to, you know, some of the people here 23

is that so much of this cost, when you’r e talking 24

about changes in components, depends on the amount 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 197 of volume that you’re purchasing. And there’s no 1

volumes ever mentioned in any of these cost 2

analysis. So if you have a manufacturer that’s 3

maybe making cell phones or computers or whatever, 4

an d they’re selling millions and millions of these 5

units a year, the costs, and the incremental cost 6

are going to be much less than some of the smaller 7

manufacturers, such as ourselves, that are selling a 8

couple hundred thousand pieces a year on a 9

particular item. We cannot get those same type of 10

good costs that a manufacturer can get when they’re 11

selling millions of. So this is maybe why you’re 12

seeing some of the difference in data and getting 13

some of these different costs on the 120 watt versus 14

the 60 wat t. So I just want to throw that out there 15

that nobody’s considering that, and that is a huge 16

factor if you’ve ever went to quote components. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks. Chris. Okay. 18

Alex. Pardon me , thanks to Rick, now to Chris

. 19

MR. SKAHAN : Sorry, I just wanted to kind 20

of go back to the original question where DOE was 21

encouraged to go back and reexamine those test and 22

tear down results, and as part of this NOPR 23

analysis, we talked to manufacturers about why we 24

were getting these negative cost

- efficie ncy curves. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 198 And there were a number of reasons provided to try 1

and explain out the data. But ultimately, none were 2

substantial enough where DOE felt comfortable using 3

that data to do this analysis, so again, we relied 4

on the manufacturers for all of our cost

- efficiency 5

analysis. But I will say, possibly

– and I would 6

like to

– this is

– we do ask for comment on this, I 7

believe, in the NOPR. 8

But one scenario we heard was that 9

possibly the EPSs we purchased for test and tear 10

down were designed in diff erent years, so that as 11

the years moved on, the costs for a certain 12

component decreased over time so that we were 13

comparing units that were designed from, say, 2007 14

and another one that was designed in 2009, where we 15

may have seen, as things got more integ rated, a 16

lower overall cost for higher efficiency products. 17

And we do explain that in the NOPR, and I believe 18

the TSD, and we’d look for comment on that. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 20

MR. PETROLATI: Chris, one more thing I 21

want you to address. Rick’s point concerning ...

-- 22

this is Vic Petrolati

– in the tear down analysis, 23

from what I remember, we looked at two different 24

volume figures for those costs in the tear down 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 199 analysis. Did th e manufacturer interviews include 1

the analysis in terms of the various volumes 2

associated with those costs. 3

MR. SKAHAN : Yeah, we talked to all high 4

volume manufacturers, so in the millions, which, to 5

your point tends to create overall costs for each 6

ind ividual representative unit, each design. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: That was an issue you 8

covered in the manufacturer interviews? 9

MR. SKAHAN : Yes. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Alex, 11

thanks for being patient. 12

MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg, NEMA. I 13

have a question regarding the list of assumptions in 14

the LCC section of the NOPR for EPS. Specifically, 15

if I recall correctly, the life

- cycle cost analysis 16

estimate for installation cost was zero? Since the 17

definition of an external power supply includes 18

those that can be hard wired, it is logical that a 19

licensed electrician is usually required or 20

encouraged for that event, which means, you know, 21

$100 to $150 bucks an hour if you’re lucky. So how 22

is the installation cost zero in that case? 23

MR. NARDOTTI : Matt Nardotti from 24

Navigant. I guess just the answer would be that for 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 200 the time being, we’ve assumed zero installation 1

cost, but to Vic’s point earlier, any data that you 2

can provide to change that assumption, we would be 3

happy to consider that. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Charlie 5

Stephens. 6

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Northwest 7

Energy Efficiency Alliance. We do a lot of this 8

sort of thing all the time and I think what will 9

prove to be important, if there is any, is the 10

incremental installation cost, due to energy 11

efficiency. It isn’t enough that it costs money, it 12

has to cost more money for the more efficient 13

product, and I think you may be hard pressed to find 14

that data. But

– I’m not very worried about it, not 15

that you wouldn’t do it, but wh at it usually does is 16

just increase the overall numbers in the life

- cycle 17

cost table. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: You’d be hard pressed to 19

find that data, or you’d be hard pressed

– 20

MR. STEPHENS: You’d be hard pressed to 21

find an increase due to efficiency in this 22

particular case. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: I’ve got you. Ken

– same 24

thing, you were reinforcing

– you also

– Dave, same 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 201 thing as Charlie? Okay. I’m glad we clarified 1

that. Additional comments here? Where are you? 2

MS. COSTELLO: Ready. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: You’r e ready? 4

MS. COSTELLO: Uh

- huh. So I think we’ll 5

turn it back over to Dan

. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Back to Daniel . How we 7

doing with our folks on the web? Are they still 8

with us? They are. How many do we have on there, 9

about? Wow, 52 participants via the web. 10

MR. PETROLATI: I told you we should 11

charge. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: (Laughter) A subscription 13

fee or something. Okay. Dan. 14

MR. LAUF: Hello, once again, Dan

– 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Those of you that are on 16

pins and needles, we are probably going to go unti l 17

ten, 15 more minutes or so, and then we’ll take a 18

break. We’ll see where we are. Okay? Go ahead. 19

**Shipments Analys i**  **s** 20

MR. LAUF: So once again, my name is Dan 21

Lauf and I’m with D&R International. I’ll be 22

talking to you about three more analyses now, the 23

S hipments A nalysis , the National Impact Analysis , 24

and then briefly about the Regulatory Impact 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 202 Analysis. So I’ll start off with shipments. 1

The purpose of the shipments analysis is 2

to forecast how much shipments and efficiency will 3

change throughout the duration of the analysis 4

period, so both in the years leading up to the 5

effective date of the federal standard, and then 6

following the federal standard. So outputs are 7

forecasts of shipments and forecasts of energy 8

efficiency distributions across the CSLs through 9

2042. 10

And just for reference, when I refer to 11

the analysis period, it’s 30 years of shipments 12

following the effective date of the standard, so in 13

this case for the analysis, that effective date was 14

assumed to be 2013, so it’s looking at prod ucts 15

shipped from 2013 through 2042. So the basic 16

structure of this analysis involves two stages. 17

It’s that period leading up to the effective date, 18

and then 30 years following the effective date. 19

In th e period leading up to 2013, it’s expected 20

that shipment volumes may increase or decrease due 21

to any number of factors and that efficiency for the 22

products overall may improve due to factors outside 23

of standards, so these are not due to federal 24

standards. After the federal standard s take place, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 203 the shipments can once again continue to change. 1

Efficiency will change due to those standards, and 2

they may change further due to external factors. 3

L eading up to 2013 and beyond, DOE assumed 4

that shipments would i ncrease by .75 percent per 5

year, and this change mirrors population growth. 6

DOE made this assumption because it understands that 7

there’s a good deal of complexity in terms of how 8

these products will change, and it can be very 9

difficult to look a couple ye ars out in the consumer 10

electronics market, let alone 30. And the various 11

changes and trends that it sees with its 12

applications will ultimately balance out to a rate 13

of growth that’s equal to population growth. 14

DOE does not assume that the mix of 15

applications is going to change over time. This is 16

a simplifying assumption. And it also believes that 17

there’s no real difference in terms of shipments 18

between the base case and the standards case

. 19

T here are a couple of changes that DOE 20

also assumed for efficiency leading up to 2013, so 21

these are changes that would take place before the 22

standard takes effect. The first is a modest 23

increase in EPS efficiency. This is due to 24

standards that took effect in Europe in 2011, and I 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 204 believe they were at the Energy Star level. DOE 1

believes that since Europe represents such a large 2

share of the global market there will be some 3

spillover of that standard into the US market, and 4

DOE therefore shifted a portion of the products 5

falling in CSL

- 0 to CSL

- 1, which is equal to the 6

Energy Star level. I’ll show you exactly how this 7

was done in the next slide. 8

Now DOE also recognizes that the CEC 9

standard will be taking effect in February 2013, and 10

this will impact BC efficiency distributions in the 11

US. DOE assumes tha t there will continue to be less 12

efficient products outside of California, so it 13

didn’t touch the efficiency of those products. 14

However, we assume that the products in California 15

will shift up to meet the California standard. 16

California GPD represents 13 percent of the US GDP , 17

so DOE shifted 13 percent of the products below the 18

California standard levels up to that standard 19

level. 20

And those efficiency levels are 21

represented in the figure in this slide. So for 22

each battery charger product class, there is a CSL 23

that best approximates the CEC standard. W e’ll get 24

into how exactly that was figured out a little later 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 205 in the day. T his figure shows EPS efficiency 1

distributions, both in 2009 and 2013 for each 2

product class and representative unit. E ach pair of 3

horizontal bars represents a product class. You see 4

product class B at the top, C, D, E, X, and H. The 5

upper bar shows what the efficiency distribution was 6

in 2009, and this was derived through product 7

testing. And then the lower bar for each produc t 8

class shows what the distribution will be in 2013, 9

or at least what DOE believes it will be. 10

So, if you recall, the change that 11

happened in the market here was that European EPS 12

efficiency standards took effect. DOE assumed that 13

50 percent of the prod ucts in CSL

- 0, and these only 14

affect class A EPSs, so it doesn’t impact product 15

class X or product class H, 50 percent of the EPSs 16

in CSL

- 0 were shifted up to meet CSL

- 1. CSLs 2, 3, 17

and 4 were not impacted by the standard, so those 18

remain unchanged. 19

For battery chargers, it’s the CEC 20

standard that will impact the market by the time the 21

federal standard takes effect. And once again it’s 22

those products in California that will be shifted up 23

to meet the California efficiency levels. So 24

looking at product c lass 2 for example, DOE believes 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 206 that the California level is approximately 1

equivalent to CSL

- 2, so you can see in 2009 there 2

were 21 percent of BCs in this product class at CSL

3

0, and 26 percent were at CSL

- 1. Each of those was 4

reduced by 13 percent and those products were moved 5

up to CSL

- 2. So the overall market share at CSL

- 2 6

goes from 51 percent to 57 percent. And a similar 7

exercise was done for each product class. 8

After standards take effect, DOE once 9

again shifts its efficiency distributions to r eflect 10

that, and it assumes that shipments will follow a 11

rollup response to standards. This essentially 12

means that every product that is less efficient than 13

the standard will move up to meet the federal 14

standard. Products above the standard won’t be 15

impa cted. 16

So the example that we’ll look at right 17

now is product class 2. The standard that DOE is 18

proposing is at CSL

- 1, so you can see in the base 19

case, where there is no standard, 18 percent of the 20

market falls at CSL

- 0. Once that standard takes 21

effect , that 18 percent will move up to CSL

- 1 and 22

the market share at CSL

- 1 moves from 22 percent to 23

40 percent. Had the standard been set at CSL

- 2, the 24

40 percent of products at CSL

- 0 and CSL

- 1 would be 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 207 shifted up to CSL

- 2. So this just illustrates how 1

that wo uld work at any standard level. And I’ll 2

emphasize once again, products above the proposed 3

standard are assumed not to shift in efficiency one 4

way or the other. 5

So at this point I’ll pause for comment, 6

particularly on the methodology that was employed i n 7

this analysis. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Ric. 9

MR. ERDHEIM : Ric Erdheim , Philips . On 10

slide 122, Dan, I just have a question. 11

MR. LAUF: Sure. 12

MR. ERDHEIM : So if you look at product 13

class B, you find much lower efficiencies for 2.5 14

watts than for the other three representative units. 15

Is there any technological reason for that, or is 16

that just the way the data fell out? 17

MR. LAUF: I t is what the data showed. I 18

would defer to Chris if there’s a technological 19

reason for it. 20

MR. SKAHAN : Yes. So the 2.5 watt EPSs do 21

typically show, or do tend to have lower 22

efficiencies than the rest of our representative 23

units, and you can see that the current use standard 24

accounts for that. There is a significant roll off 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 208 below 51 watts for the required efficiency, and that 1

is based on the technical limitations of the 2

topology . For all representative units, you were 3

talking about a five volt, 2.5 watt power supply, 4

which will have typically higher conduction losses. 5

The loss ratio between a 2.5 watt power supply 6

versus a 120 watt power supply is much greater, so 7

the efficiencies will be lower. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Perhaps we should go 9

back to the issue boxes. 10

MR. LAUF: Sure. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: There you see 19, 20, 21, 12

and 24 and 25. Please scan down there and see if 13

you have any additional comments on these. Is there 14

anything here in particular you would push out for 15

comment ? 16

MR. LAUF: Nothing in particular, really. 17

Any of the assumptions that we made, specifically in 18

terms of how shipments are projected or h ow 19

efficiency distributions will be shifted in the 20

years leading up to or following the standard. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 22

PARTICIPANT: Yes, and this is

– the CEA 23

brought up their study that they submitted to the 24

Energy Commission. It projects future impr ovements 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 209 in energy efficiency. I was just curious to know if 1

that part of the report, if the CEA would recommend 2

those efficiency trends to be considered by the DOE 3

or not. That’s part of the Berkeley groups

– and 4

you said

– I’m just wondering if in this instance, 5

you would recommend or not recommend the 6

considerations of that report. 7

MR. JOHNSON: We’ll be submitting 8

comments. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks , Doug

. 10

MR. SHEIKH: Shahid from Intel. On slide 11

122

– 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Is your microphone on? 13

MR. SHEIKH: Yeah. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 15

MR. SHEIKH: So looking at 2009 versus 16

2013, is this looking at with no regulation? 17

MR. LAUF: With no federal regulation. So 18

changes due to regulations in Europe. 19

MR. SHEIKH: What was that? 20

MR. LAUF: This is looking at scenarios in 21

2009 and 20 13 with no federal regulation. 22

MR. SHEIKH: Right. 23

MR. LAUF: So the shift is due to 24

regulation in Europe, but that’s independent of what 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 210 DOE i s doing here. 1

MR. SHEIKH: Are you saying, industry o n 2

its own, will actually lower some efficiencies in 3

some cases? Right? 4

MR. LAUF: Improve efficiency. 5

MR. SHEIKH: No, from CSL

- 0

– 6

MR. LAUF: Products are being shifted from 7

CSL

- 0 to CSL

- 1, which is the level that Europe set 8

their standard at. So it’s assuming that there’s 9

going to be some spillover from that standard. So 10

CSL

- 0 is less efficient than CSL

- 1. I’ll just look 11

at those top two bars there, so the 2.5 watt rep 12

unit, in 2009, 84 percent of the market is at CSL

- 0, 13

so that’s at the level t hat would just meet the EISA 14

standard. Let’s assume that by 2013 half of those 15

units, so 42 percent, will be shifted up to the next 16

higher efficiency level, so CSL

- 1, so you’ll see 17

then, that CSL

- 1 market share goes from seven 18

percent to 49 percent. 19

MR. SHEIKH: So that percent is the 20

volume, right? 21

MR. LAUF: That’s percent of total 22

shipments in that product class. Yes. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Pierre. 24

MR. DELFORGE: Regarding the rate of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 211 growth, you’ve taken the assumption based on 1

population growt h of 0.75 percent. I believe this 2

is much lower than the historical growth, in at 3

least some of the product categories, particularly 4

electronics. I’d like you to comment on why not use 5

the historical growth, or at least something which 6

is a little bit mo re realistic than just population 7

growth. Because I believe it significantly 8

underestimates the number of products that will 9

realistically be in the market by 2013. 10

MR. LAUF: Sure, and I’m just curious

-- 11

you said just historical growth for e lectronics in 12

general going across the board ? 13

MR. DELFORGE: Only products in scope, 14

but, you know, if you look at electronics in 15

particular, the growth is more in the high single or 16

even double digits on an annual basis. 17

MR. LAUF: Okay. And if you do have a 18

s ource to that effect, it would be very helpful to 19

see the data, so the Department can consider 20

incorporating it into its analysis. So if that’s 21

something you could provide in comments, it would be 22

appreciated. 23

MR. DELFORGE: Okay. 24

MR. LAUF: Thank y ou. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 212 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on 1

this? Yes, Ari. 2

MR. REEVES: Ari Reeves. I’ll just say 3

one thing on that, which is that you are thinking 4

about certain projections of increasing market size 5

for certain applications, but what you might not be 6

thinking about at the same time is the decreasing 7

market size of other applications that use BCs and 8

E PSs, so this estimate that we arrived at that 9

mirrors population growth takes account of the fact 10

that applications for BCs and E PSs will come and go 11

over the next 30 years, and we don’t really know 12

whether on balance that will end up yielding a 13

larger number of such applications and individual 14

units, or a smaller number. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, 16

Doug. 17

MR. JOHNSON: Doug Johnson with C EA. 18

Sorry if I missed this point if it was made earlier, 19

but with reference to slide 126, what drives DOE to 20

make these assumptions and projections to the year 21

2042 in the national impact analysis? 22

MR. LAUF: I’ll actually defer to Vic. Do 23

y ou know the answer to that? 24

MR. PETROLATI: I know the answer, and 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 213 it’s not going to be necessarily one that’s going to 1

be different for any product. This is the standard 2

approach that has been used for DOE on all its 3

products, is to look at a 30 year life cycle, and 4

more or less, a 30 year range of the savings. So, 5

obviously, Doug, there is a lot of different 6

lifetimes associated with all the products that we 7

regulated. The way to normalize that information is 8

to take it over a 30 year term and to try to project 9

potential savings so they can compare to other 10

product regulations. And we know there are some 11

pitfalls with doing that. 12

MR. JOHNSON: So it’s DOE practice, but 13

not statutory requirement? 14

MR. PETROLATI: Correct. That’s right. 15

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I think we’re going 17

to move on. 18

MR. LAUF: That concludes the shipments 19

analysis. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: So, let me see, the next 21

series of

– 22

MR. LAUF: So we’re part way through this 23

series. We have the national impacts, regulatory, 24

and manufacturer impacts analyses. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 214 MR. BROOKMAN: Can we take a break now? I 1

think we’ve got a fair amount to continue

– finish 2

this segment? Okay. Do you think it will go rather 3

quickly? 4

MR. LAUF: Yes. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let’s do it. 6

**National Impact and**  **Regulatory Impact**  **Analyses** 7

MR. LAUF: Okay. So I’ll move straight to 8

the national impact analysis now, and the purpose of 9

this is to really estimate the national impact of 10

standards, again in that analysis period, so 2013 11

through 2042. T he outputs that I’m about to 12

describe are looking at the benefits and costs 13

specifically to consumers, and there’s another 14

analysis that we have that we’ll discuss later that 15

looks at those impacts to manufacturers. 16

So there are three main out puts to this 17

analysis: 18

**•** The first are national energy savings, measured 19

in quads; 20

**•** There are also the net consumer benefits, so 21

these are energy cost savings less the 22

incremental product cost increases that would 23

result from standards; 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 215

**•** And then there are net social benefits. These 1

are net consumer benefits plus the monetized 2

social benefits of avoided power plant 3

emissions. 4

There are a number of inputs to this 5

analysis. This is one of the downstream analyses, 6

so most of what you heard today were the upstr eam 7

analyses, and the majority of them do feed into the 8

NIA. Specifically regarding the inputs that you’re 9

looking at here, there are a few that we get from 10

outside areas. In particular, we use a 3 percent 11

and a 7 percent discount rate, and these were 12

pr ovided through OMB guidance. We also use a couple 13

inputs from EIA’s annual energy outlook, such as 14

electricity price forecasts and a site to source 15

conversion factor. 16

F or each product class and in each 17

standards case, DOE calculates the per unit cost 18

in crease and the per unit energy savings that would 19

result through standard s . DOE then forecasts the 20

number of units in use

– so this has to do with both 21

shipments and lifetime

– and the energy savings each 22

year from 2013 through 2052. Now there’s a reason 23

why we’re looking to 2052 and that’s because we’re 24

looking at shipments through 2042, and the maximum 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 216 lifetime for a BC or EPS application is ten years, 1

so we look at those shipments through 2042, and then 2

we accumulate benefits or costs of those products 3

that were shipped through the end of their useful 4

lives, so that would bring us to 2052. C ombining 5

the above inputs determines the N E S and the consumer 6

benefits. 7

I’m not going to go through all of the 8

results

-- that’s actually something that we will 9

d iscuss later when DOE discusses its proposed 10

standards

-- but I will illustrate here an example 11

of the net consumer benefits and how those are 12

calculated. 13

In the upper portion of the chart, you’ll 14

see a number of green bars. Those are national 15

energy co st savings to consumers each year from the 16

products that are in use. On the bottom of the 17

chart you’ll see a number of yellow bars. Those are 18

the national improvement costs from the purchase of 19

more efficient products, so those are the 20

incremental cost i ncreases. DOE looks at costs 21

through 2042

-- the last products shipped in the 22

analysis

-- but continues to accrue the benefits of 23

those last products through the end of their useful 24

li ves. F or this product class

-- the two and a half 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 217 watt rep unit of prod uct class B

-- y ou can see that 1

that goes out to about 2047 or so. So the 2

difference between the green bar and the yellow bar 3

-- the energy cost savings and the national 4

improvement costs

-- yields the net savings. This 5

can either be positive or negative. And by 6

discounting those later years and summing across all 7

the years in the analysis, you have the net present 8

value of those net savings, or what we are referring 9

to as the net consumer benefits. 10

And I should mention that this was done 11

for every prod uct class and at every potential 12

standard level for comparison purposes. Question. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Ken. 14

MR. RIDER: Can you help me understand 15

something. 16

MR. LAUF: Sure. 17

MR. RIDER: If, on a per unit basis, 18

you’ve shown the LCC to be positive for a product, 19

why the nationwide impact is negative in those first 20

couple years? If every unit sold is going to have a 21

positive LCC, why do we end up with this negative

... 22

I’m probably just missing something. 23

MR. LAUF: No, I can explain that, and 24

that’s be cause in the first couple years, we’re 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 218 selling a number of products at that efficiency 1

level but it takes a couple of years to accrue 2

energy savings. So the payback period usually isn’t 3

less than a year. It may be a couple years. So it 4

takes a couple ye ars for enough energy cost savings 5

to accrue to offset that increase in product costs. 6

MR. RIDER: Alright. Thanks. 7

MR. SHEIKH: Shahid from Intel. Was that 8

LCC analysis, was that based on five years or was it 9

ten years? 10

MS. COSTELLO: (response off mic) 11

MR. SHEIKH: That was for eight years? 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Restate it, please. 13

MS. COSTELLO: I don’t know the lifetimes 14

off the top of my head, but they’re based on

– 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Based on the lifetime of 16

the product. 17

MS. COSTELLO: Based on the lifetime of 18

the product. This is Pam Costello. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: And those lifetimes

– 20

MR. LAUF: T he NIA is based on the same 21

lifetimes, and they vary depending on the 22

application. So o n average it’s about four to five 23

years, but it can range to as few as two for some 24

applications or as much as ten years for others. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 219 And that’s all taken into account in the analyses. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 2

MR. LAUF: So to contextualize the energy 3

savings that we’re looking at for battery chargers 4

and power sup plies, this chart here shows the 5

projected energy savings for EPSs in the left red 6

bar; BCs are the red bar on the right, and those are 7

compared to a few other recently announced final 8

rules from the Department of Energy, from 2010 and 9

2011. 10

So you can see here

– and Vic stated this 11

earlier in his presentation

– on DOE’s projects one 12

quad of energy savings from EPSs and about one and a 13

quarter to one and a third quads for BCs. 14

DOE recognizes that there’s a good deal of 15

uncertainty in many of these a nalyses, so to account 16

for th i s in the NIA, we performed a couple of 17

sensitivity analyses to account for that 18

uncertainty. And the first is one in which the 19

price elasticity of demand was taken into account, 20

so that really looks at an alternative scenario in 21

which shipment volume is expected to decrease 22

slightly due to an increase in product prices. 23

Just as there was assumed to be some 24

spillover of the EU standard into the US, the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 220 Department also looks at a situation in which 1

there’s some spillover of the CEC standard into 2

other areas of the US. So, we looked at the extreme 3

case in which the CEC standard becomes the de facto 4

standard for the US. So this doesn’t mean that 5

federal standards are set at that level, but what 6

DOE did is shift all of those e fficiency 7

distributions that you saw earlier that fell below 8

the CEC standard up to that level, and then looked 9

at the cost and benefits of setting a federal 10

standard under that scenario. 11

And I’ll pause now just to mention that 12

detailed assumptions and r esults for all of these 13

sensitivity analyses are available. They’re in 14

Appendices 10A and 10B of the TSD. 15

So to conclude the last two sensitivity 16

analyses that were considered : one looked at 17

alternative price trend for costs throughout the 18

analysis pe riod, and another looked at alternative 19

price trends, and that’s specifically the situation 20

in which the incremental cost declined slightly over 21

time as manufacturers ramp up production at the more 22

efficient levels. 23

MR. SHEIKH: Question? 24

MR. LAUF: Ye s. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 221 MR. SHEIKH: On the previous slide. 1

MR. LAUF: Okay. 2

MR. SHEIKH: Shahid. So what was the net 3

– this was energy savings ? 4

MR. LAUF: Yes. 5

MR. SHEIKH: What was the net consumer 6

savings in dollars for EPS s or battery chargers? 7

MR. LAUF: So for

– 8

PARTICIPANT: (comment off mic) 9

MR. LAUF: Right, we’ll cover that for 10

each product class later on. And if you look at the 11

beginning of your presentation, I think they 12

presented a slide that showed the total net present 13

value of consumer benef its for BCs and EPSs. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: So if you go ahead to the 15

next slide, comment box 26. DOE seeks comment on 16

the methodology employed for conducting the national 17

impact analysis, including the calculations for 18

national inventory, national energy savings, and net 19

present value. Comments on that? Rick. 20

MR. HABBEN: Yeah. I’m just going to kind 21

of repeat

– kind of what we stated earlier, that we 22

don’t think that the cost to actually make the 23

improvements was accurate, as far as going to the 24

reta il, and so that would affect these numbers as 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 222 well. So I just wanted to put that on the record. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And Rick, I 2

don’t want to put you on the spot, but do you think 3

you could come forward with some data to support 4

that for the Depa rtment through the NDA mechanism, 5

through Navigant, or not? Can they expect it or 6

not? 7

MR. HABBEN: Yeah, I think we can see what 8

we can do if it’s through the consulting firms. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good. Thank you. 10

It’s helpful. Let’s get this in formation out there 11

in a protected sort of a way. Okay. You want to do 12

one more segment and then we’ll take a break? 13

MR. LAUF: Actually I have one more slide 14

and then I’m done and we can move on to the 15

manufacturer’s impact analysis. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 17

**Regulatory Impact Analysis** 18

MR. LAUF: This slide describes the 19

regulatory impact analysis. So this is detailed in 20

Chapter 17 and Appendix 17A of the TSD, and DOE was 21

directed by Executive Order 12866 to perform this. 22

Essentially what DOE did is look at a number of 23

alternatives to setting standards . I t used the NIA 24

model to weigh the costs and benefits of those, and 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 223 then compare those net benefits to the cost and 1

benefits of standard s

. 2

So DOE looked at six possible 3

alternatives. Those incl uded: 4

**•** Consumer rebates, 5

**•** Consumer tax credits, 6

**•** Manufacturer tax credits, 7

**•** Voluntary energy efficiency targets

– so that 8

would be a program similar to Energy Star, 9

**•** Early replacement, or 10

**•** Bulk government purchases. 11

Again, if you’re curious about the details 12

o f this analysis and wish to comment on that, it’s 13

all available in Chapter 17, but suffice it to say 14

that DOE did not find that any of those alternatives 15

were as beneficial or more beneficial to consumers 16

than federal standards. 17

So are there any question s on that? 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Comment? 19

MR. LAUF: Okay. Thank you very much. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Quite a few slides on 21

manufacturer impact analysis, so let’s break now. 22

It’s almost ten after. Let’s start back at 3:25. 23

We are in the home stretch, so hang w ith us here. 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 2 24 3:25 we’ll resume. You already know where the 1

restrooms are. There’s a Coke machine down on the 2

ground floor just as you go left towards the coffee 3

shop, it’s tucked away in an alcove on your left. 4

You need to look for it. 5

(Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the meeting was 6

recessed for a 21 minute period.) 7

MR. BROOKMAN: We’re about to embark on 8

manufacturer impact analysis and we’re going to hear 9

from Hayden. 10

11

**Manufacturer Impact Analyses** 12

MR. H. COOK: Hi. My name is Hayden Cook 13

from Navigan t Consulting. I’ll be discussing the 14

manufacturer impact analysis or MIA that was 15

conducted for this NOPR. The MIA slides present 16

three things: 17

**•** First, they present an overview of how the MIA 18

was conducted, 19

**•** Second, they briefly discuss the manufacturer 20

im pacts at the proposed standard levels, and 21

**•** Third, they introduce the MIA topics DOE is 22

seeking comment on. 23

The main purpose of the MIA is to assess 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 225 the impacts of standards on battery charger and EPS 1

manufacturers. A second purpose is to identify and 2

estimate the impacts on manufacturer subgroups. And 3

the final portion of the MIA involves a discussion 4

on direct employment, manufacturing capacity, and 5

the regulatory burden. 6

The main tool DOE uses to evaluate the 7

impact of standards on manufacturers is a discounted 8

cash flow model called the government regulatory 9

impact model, or GRIM. The major output from this 10

model is industry net present value or INPV, which 11

is a metric used to represent the quantitative 12

impact standards have on manufacturers. 13

For the MIA, DOE also conducted interviews 14

with manufacturers to refine the inputs of the model 15

and to understand the qualitative impacts that 16

standards may have. 17

This slide shows the basic structure of 18

the MIA process, which takes place in three 19

diffe rent phases. In the first phase, which 20

occurred during the preliminary analysis, DOE used 21

publicly available information such as 22

manufacturers’ annual reports to develop a profile 23

of each industry. The next two phases were 24

conducted as part of the NOPR a nalysis. In phase 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 226 two, DOE developed the cash flow spreadsheets that 1

are used to estimate the impacts on each industry, 2

and the interview guides that are used to gather 3

information from manufacturers during interviews. 4

In phase three, DOE conducted interviews with 5

manufacturers and used the information to further 6

develop the analyses and to finalize the inputs that 7

went into the GRIM. 8

Switching from the MIA methodology to the 9

specifi cs about this rulemaking, these next two 10

slides present the key issues we learned from some 11

of the manufacturers concerning battery chargers and 12

EPSs. And some of these, if not most of these, have 13

been previously brought up in today’s discussion. 14

First, some manufacturers expressed 15

concern about how different applications are grouped 16

together within the same product class and would 17

have to meet an equivalent standard. For battery 18

chargers, DOE is using one UEC equation for each 19

product class, therefore, the individual usage 20

profile of an application might be different than 21

the individual profile of the product class that 22

it’s grouped into. DOE’s battery charger MIA 23

evaluates the manufacturer impacts on an 24

application

- specific basis to give the MIA more 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 227 granular results. 1

Second, some manufacturers expressed 2

concern about the potential increase in the price of 3

a battery charger application due to standards. 4

Some battery charging applications compete directly 5

with applications that use another form of en ergy, 6

such as gasoline, disposable batteries, or a power 7

cord. An increase in the cost of a battery charger 8

could cause some consumers to switch to these non

9

battery charging applications. As Dan brought up , I 10

believe, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysi s 11

examining the price elasticity effects of an 12

increase in the price of a battery charger on all 13

applications. 14

Third, some battery charger manufacturers 15

stated it could be difficult to separate the battery 16

charger function from other functions, therefo re 17

manufacturers wanted to make sure that DOE’s test 18

procedure clearly separates out the charging portion 19

of the energy consumption. DOE tried to take this 20

factor into consideration, especially for UPS 21

manufacturers. 22

Fourth, manufacturers are concerned that 23

an application could be subject to a battery charger 24

standard and a separate EPS standard for the same 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 228 application. DOE is aware that this could place a 1

difficult burden on application manufacturers, 2

therefore DOE is proposing to leave the standard f or 3

indirect EPSs , those are EPSs that cannot directly 4

operate an application , at their current standard 5

level. 6

Fifth, manufacturers stated they expect 7

standards to negatively impact profitability. 8

Manufacturers are concerned standards will increase 9

thei r MPC and they may not be able to pass those 10

increases on to their consumers. DOE evaluated a 11

range of profitability or markup scenarios in the 12

MIA that take these specific concerns into account. 13

Lastly, manufacturers indicated they might 14

have to remove useful features in order to meet 15

higher efficiency standards. DOE’s engineering 16

analysis generally attempts to only analyze utility 17

neutral design changes that meet the potential 18

standards. Therefore, the impacts presented in the 19

MIA generally do not as sume that manufacturers are 20

removing any features that provide a significant 21

utility to consumers. Further, a manufacturer’s 22

decision to remove useful features in order to meet 23

a standard would be primarily a business decision 24

and would be made by those i ndividual manufacturers 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 229 and not covered as part of the MIA. 1

DOE examined the impacts of battery 2

charger standards on application manufacturers or 3

OEMs since DOE believes that application 4

manufacturers would be most directly financially 5

impacted by a batt ery charger standard. Also, 6

application manufacturers are the ones who typically 7

design the battery chargers for the ir application s , 8

and for most battery chargers the testing would be 9

done after the battery charger is fully integrated 10

into the application

. 11

In order to address concerns that some 12

battery charger application manufacturers could be 13

disadvantaged by standards relative to others, DOE 14

conducted a subgroup analysis on battery charger 15

applications, and DOE identified four application 16

subgroups. These are: 17

1. small appliances, 18

2. consumer electronics, 19

3. power tools, and 20

4. high energy. 21

All battery charger applications were 22

grouped into one of these four industry subgroups. 23

DOE separately examined the potential effects of 24

standards on each industry subgrou p when applicable. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 230 Moving on to the markup scenarios 1

analyzed. This slide presents an overview of the 2

profitability or markup scenarios DOE ran for the 3

MIA. DOE analyzed two profitability scenarios for 4

EPSs, a flat markup and a preservation of operat ing 5

profit markup. And they analyzed three 6

profitability scenarios for the battery charger MIA. 7

Those were a flat markup, a pass

- through markup, and 8

a constant price markup. 9

With the flat markup, manufacturers earned 10

the same markup percentage as they do in the base 11

case on any increase in the MPC due to a standard. 12

This generally represents the upper bound or least 13

severe impact on manufacturers for the battery 14

charger and the EPS MIA s . With a preservation of 15

operating profit, manufacturers earned th e same 16

operating profit in the base case as they do in the 17

standards case in the year after the standard goes 18

into effect. This generally represents the lower 19

bound or most severe impact on manufacturers for the 20

EPS MIA. 21

With a pass

- through markup, ma nufacturers 22

are able to fully pass on the costs of any increase 23

in the MPC, but are not able to earn any additional 24

revenue from that increase in the MPC. With a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 231 constant price markup, application MSPs remain 1

unchanged in the standards case compared to th e base 2

case, so manufacturers do not increase the price of 3

the applications at all due to standards. This 4

generally represents the lower bound for the battery 5

charger MIA. 6

In addition to the markup scenarios 7

selected, three other main factors drive INPV at 8

each TSL level. These factors, which are specific 9

to each application, are the application’s 10

efficiency distribution, which are the capital and 11

product conversion costs associated with converting 12

all the applications that fall below the standard to 13

me et that standard

– sorry, in the efficiency 14

distribution, which is the

– the efficiency 15

distribution at the time the standard goes into 16

effect. And then second is the conversion costs 17

which are the capital and product conversion costs 18

associated with conv erting all applications that 19

fall below the standard to meet that standard. And 20

lastly, the relative incremental increase in the 21

price of the battery charger compared to the 22

application MPC. 23

DOE calculated the conversion costs on an 24

application

- specific basis, based on three factors. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 232 These are the share of products within each 1

application that fall below the standard level; the 2

magnitude of the technology change from one CSL to a 3

higher CSL; and the normal research and development 4

and capital expenditur e costs for that application 5

in the base case. 6

The markup scenarios and the conversion 7

costs described in the previous slides yields the 8

EPS INPV results shown here. This slide shows the 9

EPS manufacturer impact for product class es B, C, D, 10

and E. Throu ghout these next slides the column 11

highlighted in yellow are the TSLs that are proposed 12

in the NOPR. 13

These are the remaining INPV impacts for 14

EPS manufacturers, covering product classes H and X. 15

The range of impacts shown in these tables 16

correspond to t he different markup scenarios that 17

were used during the MIA. 18

Moving on to battery chargers. These next 19

three slides present the INPV impacts on battery 20

charger application manufacturers, and the first 21

table shows the battery charger manufacturer impac t 22

for product class 1, in the second table for product 23

class es 2, 3, and 4. Also as previously mentioned 24

about the industry subgroups for battery chargers, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 233 in the NOPR the INPV results are shown by industry 1

subgroup for product classes 2, 3, and 4, which is 2

the only product class grouping that has a variety 3

of different subgroups across the product class 4

grouping. 5

Here two more battery charger product 6

class application groupings for product classes 5 7

and 6, and for product class 7. In this last INPV 8

sli de result, the INPV impacts are for the remaining 9

battery charger product classes, which cover product 10

class 8 and product class 10. 11

One of the criteria DOE looks at is the 12

impacts of standards on small businesses. To be 13

considered a battery charger or EPS small business 14

manufacturer, the Small Business Administration or 15

SBA sets a limit of 500 total employees or less for 16

those manufacturers. DOE used publicly available 17

information to identify potential small business 18

manufacturers, such as SBA’s databa se, DOE’s 19

compliance certification management system, various 20

trade association lists, and the websites Hoovers 21

and Dunn & Bradstreet. Also during the interview 22

process, DOE asked manufacturers if they were aware 23

of any potential small businesses that mig ht exist 24

in their markets that they compete in. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 234 After refining the list of potential small 1

businesses based on DOE’s initial research, DOE 2

contacted the remaining small businesses to 3

determine if they met SBA’s definition of a small 4

business manufacturer . DOE found only one battery 5

charger small business manufacturer, and did not 6

find any EPS small business manufacturers. 7

DOE also conducted a domestic employment 8

analysis along with the small business manufacturer 9

analysis. DOE did not identify any dom estic EPS 10

manufacturers and only one domestic battery charger 11

manufacturer, which is the same as the small 12

business identified in the previous slide. Based on 13

DOE’s analysis, it estimates a total of 100 domestic 14

employees involved in battery charger and E PS 15

manufacturing, and based on these findings, DOE does 16

not expect the proposed standards to have a 17

significant impact on domestic manufacturing 18

employment. 19

However, DOE is aware that this is a 20

highly fragmented market with many applications, and 21

publi c resources may not be comprehensive in all 22

instances, therefore DOE requests comment on any 23

known domestic EPS manufacturers and any additional 24

domestic battery charger manufacturers and whether 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 235 they qualify as a small business. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, plea se. Holly. 2

MS. EVANS: Holly Evans. Did you evaluate 3

the impact of small businesses that sell EPSs or 4

battery chargers with their products, or just the 5

manufacturers of the EPSs and the battery chargers? 6

For example, if a company sells an end product that 7

has a bundled device, but it meets the definition of 8

a small business, did you evaluate the impact on 9

those entities? 10

MR. H. COOK: We are looking at small 11

business impacts for application manufacturers, if 12

that’s what you’re asking for. 13

MR. BROOK MAN: Yes, please, Spencer. 14

MR. STOCK: Spencer Stock, Lester 15

Electrical. I just want to go on the record that we 16

take exception to the no significant impact based 17

upon the fact that we are the one identified US 18

small business manufacturer , and that, yo u know, the 19

current economic climate that loss of US jobs, 20

however many they be, 100 or 1000, 10,000 is 21

significant, so we just want to go on record with 22

that. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Doug. 24

MR. JOHNSON: Doug Johnson, CEA. Many of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 236 our 2000 member companies are small businesses and I 1

would agree with the statement made by Holly a 2

moment ago, that it’s important for the Department 3

to look at the impact on small businesses that make 4

products that use battery chargers or external power 5

supplies, or tha t sell those products. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 7

comments on direct employment and small business 8

impacts? Okay. 9

10

11

12

**Employment I**  **mpact, Utility Impact, and** 13

**Environmental Impact Analyses**  14

MS. IYAMA: Good afternoon. I am Sanaee 15

Iy ama with then Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, and 16

I’m going to present four of the additional analyses 17

which were developed in at the NOPR stage, starting 18

with the employment impact analysis. 19

The purpose of this analysis is to assess 20

the impact of standards on national employment. 21

And just now Hayden talked about the direct 22

employment impacts, but here we’re looking at 23

indirect employment impacts. DOE used the ImSET 24

model, which is the acrony m for Impact of Sector 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 237 Energy Technologies. It allows assessing changes 1

in national employment as a result of standards. 2

On this next slide , we’re showing an 3

example of the results for external power supplies 4

expressed in thousands of jobs. And again, these 5

are the indirect employment impacts. The range 6

represents two situations. The first one where all 7

of the money spent on imported EPSs returns to the 8

US economy, and then the second situation 9

represents a scenario where none of the money spent 10

on im ported EPSs returns to the US economy. 11

And next we have the utility impact 12

analysis . So the purpose of this analysis is to 13

assess the impact of standards on domestic 14

electricity suppliers. And the method that DOE has 15

used in the past , and that we’re us ing in this 16

rulemaking is to apply a modified version of the 17

NEMS model called NEMS

- BT. NEMS stands for 18

National Energy Modeling System. It’s the current 19

model used by the EIA when developing the energy 20

forecast s that you can find in their Annual Energy 21

Outlook reports. 22

The inputs to the model are the national 23

energy savings coming from the NIA, the national 24

impact assessment, and the outputs are expressed in 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 238 terms of forecast of electricity generation, as 1

well as in term s of avoided capacity resultin g from 2

the different considered standard levels in 3

comparison to a base case. 4

And here we have , just to illustrate, an 5

example of the type of results that you can find in 6

the utility impact analysis. Here it’s the example 7

of external power supplies. We have the reduction 8

in electric generating capacity expressed in 9

gigawatts for the different TSLs and different 10

product classes. 11

And I’ll move on to the emissions 12

analysis, which is

– which purpose is to assess the 13

impacts of standards on air emissions f rom 14

electricity power plants. Again, here we’re using 15

the NEMS

- BT model, which allows estimating 16

reductions in national emissions for different 17

types of emissions. And we looked at carbon 18

dioxide, mercury, and nitrogen oxides for the 19

states where these e missions are not capped. For 20

the states where nitrogen oxide emissions are 21

capped, as well as for sulfur dioxide where there’s 22

an existing legislation capping these emissions, 23

DOE states that applying standards do not have an 24

impact on these emissions. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 239 Here again, an example of the results of 1

the emissions analysis for external power supplies. 2

We have the cumulative emission reductions over the 3

analysis period for the different product classes 4

at the different TSLs. And in yellow, is the

– we 5

highlight ed the proposed TSL. So T hese are the 6

physical emission reductions. 7

However, DOE also monetizes the emission 8

reductions, and the way to do so is by using the 9

most current social cost of carbon values developed 10

through interagency review. Social cost of carbon 11

is intended to represent the monetized value of the 12

incremental damage caused by greenhouse gases 13

emissions, and here on this slide you have the 14

approximation of the values that we use d for 15

monetizing carbon emissions. And DOE also monetized 16

nit rogen oxide emissions. 17

And on this next slide we have the example 18

of the monetized emission reduction for product 19

classes B, C, D, and E for external power supplies. 20

Different values are calculated with different 21

rates, and typically when calculating ne t social 22

benefits, which is the sum of the net present value 23

and monetized emissions, DOE uses the carbon value 24

calculated at a $ 22.3 /t rate, and a nitrogen oxide 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 240 value calculated with the medium rate. 1

So that’s all for the downstream analysis 2

that we co nducted. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: So that’s a whole lot of 4

data. A whole lot. Please feel free to back us up 5

and ask questions about any of it. I see Ken first. 6

MR. RIDER: Yeah, so for your lower case, 7

you said

– and I’m referring to slide, I believe, 8

150

– the low case was the situation where no, I 9

believe, correct me if I’m

– 10

MS. IYAMA: Six. 156? 11

MR. RIDER:

-- where no money returns to 12

the US that is spent on the incremental cost for 13

efficiency. 14

MS. IYAMA: So none of the money spent on 15

the imported EPSs returns to the US economy. Yes. 16

MR. RIDER: Right. And is that including 17

the price with the retailer markup and sales tax? 18

MS. IYAMA: Yes. 19

MR. RIDER: So I would just recommend

– I 20

mean s ales tax is obviously not money that’s going 21

to be outside of the United States, and the base 22

case not include money paid for sales tax and also 23

money paid in a retail markup, which is pretty much 24

guaranteed to be US dollars, and especially sales 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 241 tax, and back that out and into your minimum amount 1

of

– in your low end calculation. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Ken. So we 3

really went through a lot of data there, let me 4

emphasize again. Any other questions or comments on 5

these series of employment impacts, em ission 6

analyses, utility impacts. Yes, Doug. 7

MR. JOHNSON: It’s Doug Johnson with CEA. 8

Can you explain the rationale with the seven and the 9

three percent discount rates? 10

MS. IYAMA: So these are the rates that we 11

use d in the NIA as well, and for nitr ogen oxide 12

they‘re also the discount rates that DOE uses, but 13

I’m not sure I have the explanation

– 14

MR. PETROLATI: Yes, Doug? 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Vic, please. 16

MR. PETROLATI: Those are required to be 17

analyzed by the Office of Management and Budget. So 18

we are specifically required to analyze both of 19

those rates, three percent and seven percent 20

discount rates. 21

MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Other questions. 23

MR. SHEIKH: Yes, the question. Shahid 24

from Intel. On slide 152. So th e purpose of this 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 242 is to show that what is the reduction in

– how many 1

power plants you don’t need or is it to understand 2

the impact of this on unemployment? 3

MS. IYAMA: Here we’re looking at the 4

impact of standards on domestic electricity 5

suppliers and h ere it’s mostly looking at, yeah, at 6

avoided generating capacity, so avoided power plants 7

that you wouldn’t have to build. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: And this is

– it says “in 9

2042”

– it’s not cumulative. It’s in 2042. 10

MS. IYAMA: It’s cumulative until 2042. 11

MR. BROOKMAN : And this aligns with that 12

overall savings numbers that we had looked at 13

earlier? 14

MS. IYAMA: Yes , because the inputs to the 15

utility impact analysis, or the inputs to the NEMS

16

BT model that we’re using, are the national energy 17

savings that were presented earlier. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, go ahead, Dave. 19

MR. DENKENBERGER: Dave Denkenberger. So 20

the unit of gigawatts is a power, so isn’t this 21

power in a given year? 22

MS. IYAMA: I believe it’s the cumulative, 23

but I will check. 24

MR. BRO OKMAN: Dave, would you restate the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 243 question please? 1

MR. DENKENBERGER: So basically , a 2

gigawatt is a unit of power, which is a continuous 3

rate of use of energy. And so that would be 4

something that would be happening at all time, 5

basically. And I mean these are roughly consistent 6

with, you know, half a gigawatt is a power plant, 7

roughly. So that would be consistent with saving a 8

power plant for that entire time. It’s not a 9

cumulative number. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: I see. Okay. Do you have 11

any additional c omment on this? No additional 12

comment. Okay. Thanks for that. Pierre. 13

MR. DELFORGE: Going back to the indirect 14

employment impacts. So they include

– does the 15

model include the employment impact or benefits of 16

reinvesting saved

– money saved from lo wer 17

electricity costs, due to the positive LCC, which 18

should be significant? 19

MS. IYAMA: Yes , it looks at exactly the

– 20

how the consumers respend the money that they save 21

on their electricity bills, so how is this money 22

reinjected in the US economy. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: So it is included. Rick. 24

MR. HABBEN: I guess I need you to go back 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 244 to slide 150 and I guess I’m not fully understanding 1

what that slide is really telling me. If you could 2

– I guess maybe just take an example, you know, 3

product classes B , C, D, and E. Are we saying that 4

the employment effects are going to go from negative 5

1.4000 4 thousands to potentially a positive plus 6

600 people? That’s what you’re saying during that 7

year? 8

MS. IYAMA: Yes. 9

MR. HABBEN: And is that from the best t o 10

the worst? Is that where that range comes from, or 11

is that just because of the amount of manufacturers, 12

that’s just the given range? 13

MS. IYAMA: T he range again, represents, 14

the worst case which is none of the money that is 15

spent on the imported EPS s

– 16

MR. BROOKMAN: This is indirect. 17

MS. IYAMA: Yes. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Indirect, right? 19

MS. IYAMA: Indirect employment. Returns 20

to the US economy and then the best case scenario 21

where all the money spent on the imported EPSs 22

returns to the US economy , so it provides a range. 23

MR. RIDER: Okay. So that’s

– the 24

negative 1.4 in this case to the positive point six, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 245 that’s the range of money not coming into the 1

country, versus the money coming into the country. 2

MS. IYAMA: H ere the results are expresse d 3

in thousands of jobs. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Brian. A question 5

from the internet. 6

MR. BOOHER: Another question from the 7

internet that has to deal with the general scope of 8

the analysis, so we could hold off until all of the 9

impacts analysis questions have been dealt with. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, let us know where it 11

fits. 12

MR. BOOHER: Okay. If we have no more 13

questions on impact analysis. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s follow on here. Ken. 15

MR. RIDER: This is my final question on 16

this. Again, slide 150. So for these products, the 17

life

- cycle cost have been shown to be positive. So 18

where I’m confused is that if you

– if all the money 19

you spend on the product leaves the United States, 20

but then you save all this money in the United 21

States on utility bills, w e’re talking about 22

indirect, not utility impacts, but the indirect 23

effect is that consumers, even if all their money 24

leaves the United States, they earn all this money 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 246 in the United States with utility savings. Why

– S o 1

you’re going to have a net positive amount of money, 2

even if they put it all in their bank accounts. Why 3

– H ow do you get a negative shift, I guess, given 4

that fact. How does the money

– in other words, 5

kind of on Pierre’s point

– the money that you save, 6

how is that invested, and how is th at being looked 7

at? Is that money leaving the United States as 8

well? 9

MS. IYAMA: It’s

– so S ome of it will 10

stay, some of it will be leaving the economy, but 11

this is something that doesn’t change from the 12

baseline to the standard case. We keep those the se 13

assumptions the same. We don’t assume that the 14

consumer s will change the way they spend their 15

money, in the case of standards or in comparison to 16

the base case. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Dave. 18

MR. DENKENBERGER: So what is that 19

percentage? So say you have an LCC savings. The 20

consumer has more money to spend. What percent goes 21

to the US and what percent goes abroad? 22

MS. IYAMA: I don’t have the precise 23

ass umptions that are used by the Im SET model, but 24

it’s something that is embedded in the model. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 247 MR. SHEIKH: Question. The numbers on 150 1

would be similar for battery chargers? 2

MS. IYAMA: It’s also

– it’s in the same 3

range of magnitude, and the results, the full 4

results are presented in th e TSD chapters. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Chapter what? 6

MS. IYAMA: So for the employment impact 7

it’s Chapter 13 , I believe. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Maybe we can confirm that. 9

Thank you. So additional questions here before I go 10

back to Brian? Okay, Brian. 11

MR. BOOHE R: This is a question from 12

Marcel Marchot. It’s about

– in the test procedure, 13

Appendix Y, the test procedure does not appear to 14

cover an integral battery charger that

– where 15

there’s like multiple battery charging stations and 16

it’s powered by only one E PS. I don’t know if we 17

can address that. 18

MR. NARDOTTI: I don’t have a good answer. 19

This is Matt Nardotti. I guess I don’t have a good 20

answer. I’m not entirely sure what exactly is being 21

asked. If I could perhaps see what the product was, 22

get more i nformation on the product, that might

– 23

provide more information

– 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, go ahead. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 248 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, please submit that as 1

rulemaking, and it will be addressed. Thank you. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. So now 3

we’re moving on to results and proposed standards. 4

This is the

– one of the final substantive elements. 5

Ari, yes. 6

**Summary of Results and Proposed Standards** 7

MR. REEVES: Ari Reeves, with D&R. So I 8

have a sequence of slides here that deal with the 9

proposed standards an d results. First for EPSs, and 10

then for BCs. And what you’ll see is one or more 11

slides that depict the proposed standards in the 12

context of the TSLs that were analyzed, followed by, 13

in most cases, two slides of results, summary 14

results. 15

And in the inte rest of time, what I’d like 16

to do is run through the EPS slides and then take 17

comments, and then run through the BC slides and 18

take comments on those. So I still have some 19

remarks regarding labeling to follow. 20

So let’s start with EPS product class B , 21

t he basic

- voltage external power supplies. What you 22

see here on this chart is the EISA standard in cyan, 23

perhaps, and above that, TSLs 1, 2, and 3. You can 24

see that TSL

- 2 is the level that DOE has selected 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 249 for the standard. And then in the table just bel ow, 1

you can see the maximum power in no load that 2

corresponds to each of those TSLs with the selected 3

TSL in the red box. And this is the same format 4

that you’ll see throughout this presentation. 5

For B, C, D, and E, conveniently, the 6

active

- mode efficie ncy standard for B and D are the 7

same, and the TSLs analyzed for C and E are the same 8

as one another, so we have two sets of active

- mode 9

efficiency curves. TSL

- 2, again, is the proposed 10

TSL. As you can see, the EISA baseline in cyan at 11

the bottom, right there, and then the no load mode 12

standard down below. So AC/DC are the products in 13

classes B and C, and classes D and E are the AC/AC 14

EPSs. 15

So here we have a summary of results for 16

product class B. In the upper left hand corner, the 17

pie chart shows the applications for which the EPSs 18

fall into this class :: notebook computers, LAN 19

equipment, answering machines, and down the line. 20

Over to the right there are four bar charts showing 21

the average life

- cycle costs. One note here is that 22

what you see is not the total life

- cycle cost of 23

each of these units, but rather the life

- cycle cost 24

over and above the installed price, or the first 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 250 cost of the baseline unit. So the operating costs 1

are total, but the installed price or first cost is 2

incremental. 3

And th e little black boxes indicate the 4

CSL that is at the proposed standard level. So you 5

can see the four rep units there, the life

- cycle 6

cost for each of those. And then in the lower left, 7

I’ll draw your attention to the efficiency 8

distribution. This is mu ch like the charts that Dan 9

Lauf showed earlier, showing what percent of the 10

market is at each level, and throughout this section 11

of the presentation, what I’m showing is the base 12

case efficiency distributions in 2013. 13

So if you look at EPS product class B as a 14

whole, you can see that the net social benefits are 15

maximized at TSL

- 2. DOE’s primary criterion for 16

selecting standard levels was net social benefits. 17

That’s what you see depicted on the left hand side. 18

And then the table on the right hand side shows, in 19

addition to net social benefits in the last row, 20

several of the other factors that DOE considered 21

when looking at selecting a level for the proposed 22

standards for this class, and the same goes for 23

other classes. 24

The national energy savings, the consumer 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 251 benefits, the change in industry net present value, 1

CO2 emission savings, and the net social benefits. 2

If you move from product class B to B, C, 3

D, and E taken together, what you see is that the 4

net social benefits increase because you’ve got a 5

larger pool of products. Again, TSL

- 2 is the level 6

that DOE selected for all four of these classes. 7

And the blue and orange bars show the net benefits 8

at a three

- percent discount rate and at a seven

9

percent discount rate. 10

So moving on to product class es X and H. 11

I apologize this chart is a little bit busy, but 12

since high power EPSs, the definition of those 13

starts at 250 watts nameplate output power, you can 14

see those are the ones off to the right there. The 15

multiple voltage only goes up to 250. I’ll draw 16

your attention first to the multiple voltage curves, 17

the average active mode efficiency curves. TSL

- 1 18

and TSL

- 2 are coincident. The red line there 19

corresponds to both of those levels because the 20

variation between those two is only in the maximum 21

no load mode power, as seen in the table. 22

And for high power, we have the TSL

- 2 in 23

red is the proposed level. And you can see the 24

other two TSLs that were evaluated. TSL

- 1, down 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 252 below in yellow, and TSL

- 3 up above in blue. 1

So let’s look at some resul ts for product 2

class X, and then for product class H. For X, again 3

we have one application, the video game console. 4

This is the Xbox 360 EPS. The life

- cycle cost s are 5

as shown in the chart just below. CSL

- 2 is the 6

selected TSL, or CSL, which correspond s to TSL

- 2. 7

And you can see from the efficiency distribution 8

here, you’ve got basically all the market at two 9

different levels, CSL

- 0 and CSL

- 1. The CSL

- 2 is the 10

best in market. The five percent that you see there 11

is aftermarket EPSs that are available for the Xbox 12

360. And then the net social benefits on the right 13

hand side, again, the selected TSL maximizes those , 14

and then other values shown in the table in the 15

lower right. 16

MR. SHEIKH: Question on the previous 17

slide? 18

MR. REEVES: Yeah. 19

MR. SHEIKH: On the table, change in 20

industry NPVNPV . Can you explain that line, please? 21

MR. REEVES: Sure. You heard about the 22

manufacturer impact analysis earlier. And a range 23

of scenarios were evaluated for that, looking at 24

different profitability s cenarios. And so the range 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 253 of values you see there corresponds to that range of 1

profitability scenarios from a wors t case to a best 2

case scenario. 3

MR. SHEIKH: Worst case is negative? 4

MR. REEVES: Indeed. Yes. For product 5

class H, again, we have one application, the amateur 6

radios, or EPSs for amateur radios. This is the 7

first time that you’ve seen the whole life

- cycle 8

cost

. F or this product class and for all of the 9

battery charger product classes w e looked at the 10

total installed price, rather than just the 11

incremental installed price. Again, the selected 12

TSL is highlighted in green, over on the right, or 13

in a little black box on the left. And we estimate 14

that the market will be evenly split between CSL

- 0, 15

the baseline, and CSL

- 1 prior to federal standards 16

taking effect. And CSL

- 3 in this case is the best 17

in market CSL. So that’s EPSs. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s pause. Yes. 19

Comments on these EPS tables, all of these product 20

categories. Yes. Ric. 21

MR. ERDHEIM : Ric Erdheim , Philips . Ari, 22

I just h ave a question on slide 162

. Y ou’ve got the 23

net social benefits for product class B. 24

MR. REEVES: Uh

- huh. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 254 MR. ERDHEIM : But earlier , on slide 115, 1

DOE had the life

- cycle cost for the four 2

representative class B voltages. I’m wondering 3

whether you have the net social benefits broken down 4

by the four representative units. 5

MR. REEVES: I don’t have it in this 6

presentation, however, I know that you can obtain 7

those from the NIA workbook, the national impact 8

analysis workbook, and they may also appear in the 9

TSD. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Dan. Dave. 11

MR. DENKENBERGER: Dave Denkenberger. In 12

the best case scenario of the industry NPV industry 13

gets to charge the same markups on a more expensive 14

product, so wouldn’t that be beneficial to industry? 15

MR. H. COOK: This is Hayden Cook. T his 16

basically has to do with conversion cost s . If 17

conversion costs are large enough, where 18

manufacturers can’t recoup those costs , even with 19

the markup, then those results will be negative. 20

MR. DENKENBERGER: But I t hought the 21

assumption was that they would be able to pass those 22

conversion costs through. 23

MR. H. COOK: It’s not conversion costs, 24

it’s the increase in the MPC that they’re able to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 255 pass through. 1

MR. DENKENBERGER: MPC is? 2

MS. CLEARY: Manufacturer pr oduction cost. 3

So it’s just the production cost. It’s not the 4

total

. 5

MR. DENKENBERGER: I see

. Y ou’re saying 6

variable versus fixed costs on the manufacturers? 7

MR. CARMICHAEL: This is Rob Carmichael, 8

Navigant. Exactly. So it’s a one

- time cost, one 9

time investment, cash outflow, versus an increase in 10

the variable cost per product. 11

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. So you’re saying 12

the manufacturer would not always pass through the 13

one

- time cost. 14

MR. CARMICHAEL: Right. Exactly. So 15

really there are two factors working against each 16

other, offsetting factors. So one is the conversion 17

cost. It’s a one

- time outflow. And the second is 18

the marked up increase in product cost. So if it’s 19

a relatively flat curve, they’re really not marking 20

up a whole lot, but it could be that the one

- time 21

outflow is large enough to offset that. 22

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. Thanks. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. Holly. 24

MS. EVANS: Holly Evans. I’m looking at 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 256 slide 161, the bottom left chart. So does this 1

chart show that the limits are set so CSL

- 3 level , 2

only those blue products would be able to be sold in 3

the United States? Is that what that chart is 4

showing? 5

MR. REEVES: What it’s showing is what we 6

expect the market distribution to be prior to the 7

standards taking effec t, but with the standard in 8

effect the whole market would move up to that CSL

- 3. 9

MS. EVANS: Okay. I guess I’m trying to 10

compare with the Energy Star program , which sets a 11

limit at 25 percent of the market, and usually the 12

voluntary programs are designe d to kind of reward 13

the top performers, and this seems to set a 14

mandatory standard at a percentage of the market 15

that is just so stringent. I mean, has there been 16

any consideration of percentages of the products, 17

and how to reward like the top percentages in order 18

to make the limits stringent, but also recognize 19

that, you know, there needs to be some recognition 20

of where the technology is ?? Has that been 21

considered? 22

MR. REEVES: I can say that that’s not 23

explicitly considered in the analytical process ;; 24

however, that might be something that DOE takes into 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 257 account. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Please say your name 2

for the record. 3

MR. CLINGER: (off mic) Hi. This is John 4

Clinger from ICF International . I just wanted to 5

remind everyone that the EPS program, Energy Star 6

program ... 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Has been sunset you said? 8

Rick, go ahead. 9

MR. HABBEN: So I just wanted to go on the 10

record. We had a discussion a little bit earlier 11

off line, but regarding the product class C EPSs, 12

for some of our products, the y are extremely low 13

voltage and looking at slide 160, they’re extremely 14

low voltage and have high current outputs. So at 15

this point I don’t think the technology is available 16

for the voltage and current levels that we are 17

currently using to meet a TSL

- 2 lev el. So I’ll be 18

commenting on that further, but to meet those 19

efficiency requirements with those voltage and 20

currents, it’s currently impossible to do. 21

MR. REEVES: So just for the record, 22

you’re referring to a low voltage AC/DC EPS ? 23

MR. HABBEN: With high c urrent. Yes. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So these 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 258 comments have been useful. Additional comments on 1

this series of slides, EPSs? Yes, Jeff. 2

MR. HAILEY: Hi. Jeff Hailey , Dell. Just 3

to reiterate. As an industry group within ITI and 4

what was rela t ed earlier in the opening comments 5

from ITI, we believe that, you know, this TSL

- 2

– 6

I’m not sure that it’s fully comprehended on the net 7

social benefit basis, based on what it’s going to 8

take to get there and the volumes that are produced, 9

and the co st to the consumer. I’m not sure that’s 10

been totally reflected in this analysis in the net 11

social benefit s here, and, you know, just to 12

reiterate what we said at the beginning within ITI, 13

I think going down to the next level is a better 14

consideration , and I’m not sure the net social 15

benefit is truly accurate here. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Are we ready to 17

move on? 18

MR. REEVES: Okay. On to battery 19

chargers. We’ll start at the beginning with product 20

class 1. As mentioned earlier, the standards being 21

proposed for product class 1 are constants across 22

the range of battery energies. I believe this 23

product class theoretically extends up to 100 watt

24

hours. Is that correct? W ell, no limit, I’m told. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 259 So you see the standards here with the 1

baseline at the top. This is different from EPSs. 2

Baseline is at the top and the highest efficiency 3

level analyzed is down at the bottom with UEC 4

decreasing as you make the battery charger more 5

efficient. 6

Next is a quick summary of results on two 7

slides. First, here we have one application, 8

primarily , almost exclusively rechargeable 9

toothbrushes in this class . W. W e can show energy 10

use by CSL here in the chart in the upper right. 11

And you’ll see these fo r all the battery charger 12

product classes. In the dark red, that’s the unit 13

energy consumption of the representative unit each 14

year, decreasing from 8.7 kilowatt hours a year at 15

CSL

- 0 to 1.3 kilowatt hours per year at CSL

- 3. And 16

then the corresponding en ergy savings in light pink. 17

In the lower left, an efficiency 18

distribution in 2013, just as we saw for the EPSs , 19

with CSL

- 2 being the selected CSL ;; that’s in the 20

light green over to the right. And then in the 21

lower right, the average life

- cycle cost. A gain, 22

these are the total average life

- cycle costs, not 23

incremental. And you can see that they’re minimized 24

at CSL

- 2, and that’s the case for all the battery 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 260 charger product classes ;; that is , life

- cycle costs 1

are minimized at the selected TSL. 2

Again, net social benefits are maximized 3

at TSL

- 2. Maybe this bears repeating just once 4

again that net social benefits are the sum of the 5

net consumer benefits and the monetized emission 6

savings. 7

There is a s ummary of other results over 8

on the right hand side. Let me point out that your 9

handout has different numbers in the table. I just 10

caught that error last night. So the slides here 11

are correct, but the handouts are not. 12

Moving on to battery charger product class 13

2. Again you see the TSLs that were exam ined. TSL

14

1 was selected for the proposal. Here we’ll move on 15

to product class 3. These look similar to one 16

another. The only thing to point out here is that 17

there’s a kink in the bar as shown earlier, as 18

explained earlier. The required maximum UEC wo uld 19

be a constant at low battery energies and then at 20

some point would turn up and increase as battery 21

energy increases. Similarly for product class 4. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 23

MR. NARDOTTI: There’s also another

– this 24

is Matt Nardotti

– for product class es 3 and 4, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 261 there’s a change to the legend relative to the 1

handout. The yellow lines on both of these 2

equations represent TSL

- 1 and 2. And then the red 3

line is TSL

- 3 and black is TSL

- 4. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: State it again, Matt. 5

MR. NARDOTTI: So on the UE C battery 6

energy plots for product class es 3 and 4, the yellow 7

line is TSL

- 1 and 2 , t he red line is TSL

- 3 , and the 8

black line is TSL

- 4. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 10

MR. REEVES: Okay. So let’s look at some 11

results for product classes 2, 3, and 4. A s for th e 12

other product classes, the pie chart shows what 13

applications fall into these classes. The bar 14

charts directly underneath show how the unit energy 15

consumption of products at each CSL varies and 16

declines as you move towards the right. And the 17

efficiency distributions at the bottom show market 18

efficiency distribution in 2013, prior to standards 19

taking effect. 20

And I’ll point out here that these are 21

efficiency distributions after we’ve taken account 22

of the California standards and their effect on the 23

effic iency of battery chargers in the market. 24

PARTICIPANT: You say after? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 262 MR. REEVES: After, yes. So the other 1

half of the story for 2, 3, and 4 relates to life

2

cycle costs and net social benefits and the other 3

benefits in the lower right. You can see a gain, 4

life

- cycle costs are minimized at the selected TSL 5

or CSL

– or selected efficiency level, let’s say, 6

and again, the net social benefits are maximized at 7

TSL

- 1, which represents CSL

- 1 in all three of these 8

product classes. 9

And so the energy saving s numbers

– energy 10

and other numbers that you see in the lower right 11

are for all three classes taken together. Again, 12

you can find the results for the individual product 13

classes, I believe they’re in the notice, the TSD, 14

and in the analytical workbooks, a ll of which are 15

available from DOE’s website. Okay. 16

Here we see the standards being proposed 17

for product class 5 in the context of the other TSLs 18

that were examined. The proposed standard is at 19

TSL

- 2 which corresponds to CSL

- 2. 20

And similarly, for product class 6, so 21

let’s look at the results for those. These are the 22

battery chargers with battery energies between 100 23

and 3000 watt hours, the medium energy ones. And 24

the pie charts show the applications

– toy ride

- on 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 263 vehicles being predominating pr edominant in product 1

class 5, electric scooters in product class 6. 2

These are what I think of as the most fun 3

applications because you can ride on them, so 4

product classes 5 and 6 are special for me. The bar 5

charts in the middle show the UECs at each TSL , and 6

again, efficiency distributions at the bottom, and 7

CSL

- 2 is the light green portions. 8

And additional results for product classes 9

5 and 6 are the life

- cycle costs on the top half of 10

the slide, and the net social benefits on the lower 11

left. , a nd ot her impacts in the lower right. 12

Okay. Product class 7, the high powered 13

EPSs

- energy battery chargers . DOE examined three 14

TSLs , and the TSL

- 1 is the proposed standard. 15

Another product class, with a single application, in 16

this case, golf cars. You can see what we believe 17

is the efficiency distribution in the marketplace on 18

the lower left, and on the

– there actually isn’t a 19

CSL

- 3 defined, so this is an error on the slide. 20

You can ignore that label, CSL

- 3 with the blue. The 21

energy use is shown in the u pper right

– . Y ou can 22

see that it decreases by 63 kilowatt hours a year 23

moving from CSL

- 0 to CS L

- 1, and then by an 24

additional amount going from 1 to 2. And the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 264 average life

- cycle costs are minimized at CSL

- 1. 1

Next slide shows the net social benefits 2

and other impacts projected for standards for 3

product class 7. 4

Then product class 8 has again three TSLs 5

that were looked at ; TSL

- 1 is the level where the 6

standard is being proposed. Several applications 7

here

– MP3 players being the primary one. You ca n 8

see that there’s very little energy use at all CSLs 9

for products in this class, ranging from a high of 10

point nine kilowatt hours a year, to a low of point 11

two kilowatt hours a year. So this shows up in the 12

life

- cycle cost chart immediately below. You s ee 13

that almost the entire life

- cycle cost of these 14

products is the installed price, that is the up

15

front cost and not the operating cost, very little 16

difference from one CSL to another. So the 17

decrease, the upfront cost is minimized at CSL

- 1, 18

the first c ost of the product, and that’s where the 19

savings come from, primarily. So you can see very 20

little energy savings in this class

– point zero 21

zero nine six (.0096) quads, but a substantial 22

amount of dollar savings from moving products from 23

CSL

- 0 to CSL

- 1. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Rick. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 265 MR. HABBEN: On your slide there, that 1

should say product class 8 at the bottom? 2

MR. REEVES: Yes, sorry about that. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Ken, did you

– 4

MR. RIDER: Yes. So the operating cost is 5

the operating cost of the battery charger system 6

itself. I just wanted to point out that for these 7

products, there’s an additional loss that isn’t 8

incorporated here which is the conversion from AC to 9

DC that’s going to happen outside of this product. 10

So just like to point out tha t these are in the very 11

low end of an estimate of what the energy 12

consumption will be as they will eventually be 13

connected to a computer or to some other product 14

that will have to do that work for it, and so that I 15

at least think that these life

- cycle cost s

– the 16

estimates of the operating costs are low for these 17

products. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 19

MR. REEVES: That brings us to product 20

class 10, which is, as you know, has been split into 21

10A and 10B. So you see the standards for 10A on 22

this s lide, or rather the TSLs , and then shift them 23

all up about 3.7 watts or watt

- hours I think

– or 24

kilowatt hours, rather, to get to this slide, which 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 266 is for the products with AVR. 1

So you can see here we have

– you can see 2

immediately the effects of the California standard : 3

that 13 percent on the right hand side of the 4

efficiency distribution chart is products being 5

increased

– increasing in efficiency to meet that 6

California standard , which we approximate with CSL

7

3. And we consider it to be the max tec h level. 8

Somebody mentioned earlier that there was 9

a product at CSL

- 2, but there is no longer

– it’s no 10

longer on the market. 11

And here you can see the net social 12

benefits are maximized at this max tech level, TSL

13

3, which coincides, roughly speaking , w ith the 14

California standard. And I have a set of slides a 15

few down the road here to compare

– to look at the 16

California standards in a little bit more detail. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Would you recommend we take 18

comments now on all the preceding before we go to 19

t he CEC comparison? Or should we do that

– let’s 20

illuminate the

– 21

MR. REEVES: Let’s take a few comments 22

now. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We’ve already had 24

some. Additional comments on all of these proposed 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 267 standard levels? Rick. 1

MR. ERDHEIM : Ric Erdhei m with Philips

. 2

I’m looking at the last item , which is an additional 3

item , where DOE’s asking for compliance for input on 4

the length of compliance period for battery 5

chargers. For at least C lass A external power 6

supplies, you have a two year mandate. I think 7

you’re proposing two years for the non C lass A. But 8

for battery chargers you don’t have a requirement, 9

but we would say, and I think most industry would 10

say , in general , a minimum of two years is necessary 11

to make the sorts of changes that we’re tal king 12

about. The problem is that we have a very unique 13

situation in that for product classes, battery 14

charger classes 2 through 6, the California 15

standards go into effect February 1 st . At least at 16

the proposal stage , the DOE has found that those 17

standards present a negative net present value, and 18

you’ve not proposed those levels, you’ve proposed 19

different levels. 20

So under your mandate you’re supposed to

– 21

your statutory requirements but you’re looking for 22

net present value that’s positive. So if you did 23

the normal two years, we would then have the 24

California standards go into effect , and in effect 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 268 by lack of action, you would result in net negative 1

present value as you’ve currently found. So I think 2

because of this unique situation I guess we would 3

a rgue for at least product classes two through four , 4

and maybe 5 and 6 would want to agree, that you 5

should have a much shorter compliance period so that 6

we don’t run into this problem dealing with 7

California. So I would say normally we would say 8

two years at minimum two years, but because of this 9

unique circumstance, at least with those products

- – 10

I’m not talking about product class 10 because 11

they’ve got different issues

-- but for 2 through 4 , 12

which we have, and then 5 and 6 also where you found 13

there’s a net negative present value, unless you act 14

soon, we’re going to result in a net negative 15

present value as a result of California. So we 16

would urge you to act much more quickly for those 17

categ ories. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jen. 19

MS. CLEARY: This is Jennifer Cleary with 20

AHAM. I think our comments echo Rick’s in large 21

part, but I just

– so I don’t want to repeat what he 22

said, but I do just

– I think we may be a little 23

narrower, so I do w ant to offer some additional 24

comments. In all other cases, AHAM believes that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 269 proper lead

- in time is necessary, generally, for our 1

products, that’s three years. In this case, two 2

years, and we believe strongly that should be 3

adhered to. But this is a un ique case for all the 4

reasons that Rick mentioned, and I won’t go into 5

those again. And so under these circumstances, for 6

product classes two through four, and with respect 7

to the products that AHAM covers we’ll have details 8

in our written comments, we do support the July 2013 9

effective date, or at least a very quick action by 10

DOE for the reasons that Rick mentioned as well. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, 12

Jay. 13

MR. TAYLOR: So Vic and I talked about 14

this briefly over lunch, but our view on the 15

c ategory 10 about

– we have an opportunity here to 16

do the design twice. And one of the things we’re 17

concerned about is having to do the design twice. 18

Currently we’re engaged in the California 19

regulations. We’re targeting them, but the scope is 20

smaller th an the current regulations proposed by 21

DOE, or what was in the NOPR, and so we could , and 22

probably with will, withdraw some of the systems from 23

the California marketplace simply because we won’t 24

be able to get them finished in time , and the amount 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 270 of differ ence between the spec and what we’re 1

capable of achieving is larger than we could do it. 2

But we could still withdraw a handful of systems and 3

have the other systems ready to deploy into the 4

marketplace to cover what was there and meet the 5

requirement in t he timeframe. 6

When you start broadening the standard , 7

and then also there’s a fair amount of uncertainty 8

because some of the names have changed. AVR and 9

non

- AVR

– I don’t know whether that translates into 10

things that we had defined with the California 11

regulation. So given that level of uncertainty, 12

that’s what our concern would end up being. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: I’m sure you’ll go into 14

considerably

– considerable detail in your written 15

comments about how you would like the Department to 16

handle this, with d ates and the whole thing? 17

MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Yes, and we will be 18

following up with pretty verbose written comments. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Rick. 20

MR. HABBEN: Again, I don’t want to take a 21

lot of time , but I want to echo what Ric Erdheim and 22

Jennifer fr om AHAM said about product classes 2 23

through 4, that we would like DOE to pursue on 24

implementing those as quickly as possible and we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 271 would concur that the July date is acceptable for 1

those product classes. We’d like DOE to move on it. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Tha nk you. Do we have 3

other

– I guess we will rely on written comments. 4

Do we have other product manufacturers who wish to 5

echo that, just so we have it here on the record at 6

this time? Forward written comments then. Okay. 7

So those were useful comments. You see item 1, 8, 8

36 and an additional item listed there. Please scan 9

through them, even though we’re all getting a little 10

tired out, let’s make sure we do our diligence right 11

now. Yes. Please. We have someone comment from the 12

internet. 13

MR. BOOHER: Larry Albert says that PTI 14

supports the earliest practical adoption of the DOE 15

levels for product classes 2 through 4. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That’s helpful. 17

I’m looking at Ken and Dave. You have something? 18

No? Not at this time, okay. So then we’re going to 19

move on. 20

MR. REEVES: We’re on slide 190 now. This 21

table here compares DOE’s proposed standard levels 22

with this the California standard, or rather the CSL 23

that DOE has identified that best approximates the 24

CEC standard. And you can see th at in the case of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 272 product classes 2 through 6, the California standard 1

is set at a level that’s higher than where DOE’s 2

proposing to set its standards. For product classes 3

1 and 8, the California standard is best 4

approximated by our

– the DOE baseline lev el. And 5

for product classes 7 and 10, they’re roughly 6

equivalent. 7

So I’m going to show you a series of two 8

slides that hone in just on product classes 2 though 9

6. So in this slide here, we compared the net 10

social benefits at the two levels. And I ju st want 11

to be clear here that what we’re showing is the 12

projected national impacts, not impacts in 13

California, but national impacts with all the 14

assumptions and caveats underlying DOE’s analysis at 15

these two levels, the DOE proposal on the left, and 16

the CE C standards on the right. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Extrapolated. 18

MR. REEVES: Yeah, approximated. So , as 19

you can see , the net benefits, both from a social 20

and a consumer perspective , are positive in the case 21

of the levels that DOE is proposing, and negative in 22

the case of the California standard levels. This is 23

product classes 2, 3, and 4 taken together , and the 24

story is similar, though the numbers are a little 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 273 different , for product classes 5 and 6. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: So let’s just pause. 2

Comments here? Joanna

. 3

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. We believe that 4

the DOE engineering analysis for battery charger 5

product classes 2 through 4 is not complete because 6

it hasn’t looked at improving efficiency

– using an 7

improved nickel design similar to that presented by 8

ECOV A this morning, so we believe that the costs 9

that DOE estimates for achieving the CEC levels are 10

overestimated , and we think that if you look at a 11

design based on something similar to what ECOVA 12

presented that you’d see very different results 13

looking at th e impact of the CEC levels. So we urge 14

DOE to go back and examine a design based on that 15

improved nickel chemistry. The current engineering 16

analysis is based on available units on the market, 17

and hasn’t looked at how you could achieve the 18

similar high e fficiency levels at a lower cost. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Ken. 20

MR. RIDER: This is Ken Rider, California 21

Energy Commission. So first, I guess a second to 22

step back to 36 and then move on to this. You know, 23

DOE was interested to in how we ca n minimize the 24

impact to industry, and in the comment that I read 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 274 at the beginning of this meeting, I mentioned that 1

it’s the Energy Commission’s position that 2

harmonizing standards is the best way to minimize 3

impacts to manufacturers. Of course these graphs 4

you presented here show quite negative net social 5

benefits to the California

- associated CSLs. These 6

CSLs, first of all, are not perfectly aligned with 7

the California standards, and secondly, I think 8

there are a number of assumptions that we’ll emb ody 9

in more detailed written comments that refute some 10

of these negative estimated impacts. So that’s just 11

from the Energy Commission’s perspective on these. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 13

MR. RIDER: And just to say on the record, 14

we’ve also found and adopted standards that we 15

believe to be cost

- effective, and we’ve done our own 16

analysis of this in the context of California, to 17

show that these

– and that’s what our proceedings 18

showed at the end, was that these are positive on 19

the right side, s o there’s a difference of analysis 20

here. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Vic Petrolati. 22

MR. PETROLATI: Yes. Just to respond to 23

that. You know, we fully realize that our analysis 24

is different because it is looking at the national 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 275 impacts. We fully realize that poten tially the cost 1

of electricity used in California was different than 2

what we used as a national impact. We certainly 3

believe there is the possibility that your standards 4

are, in fact, cost

- effective in California. We are 5

not convinced at this point that they would be cost

6

effective nation wide. That’s our concern at this 7

point. At this point we would not be able to 8

indicate to management or OMB that we should 9

harmonize with the California standard currently 10

because of the impacts that we’re showing. 11

M R. RIDER: And I think that’s part of the 12

burden of the comment that we need to give, that the 13

Energy Commission needs to submit to try to convince 14

you otherwise. 15

MR. PETROLATI: Right. Exactly. Thank 16

you. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks to both of 18

yo u. Additional comments here on this CEC 19

comparison. Yes. Dave. 20

MR. DENKENBERGER: So just comparing 21

slides 191, so this is classes 2, 3, and 4, you show 22

that for CSL

- 2 large negative values for net social 23

benefits. However, if I’m understanding corre ctly, 24

on slide 174 , 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 276 MR. PETROLATI: (comment off mic) 1

MR. DENKENBERGER: Ah. 2

MR. REEVES: Yeah, so I can clarify, I 3

think. CSL

- 2 is TSL

- 2 for product class 2. But 4

CSL

- 2 is TSL

- 3 for product classes 3 and 4. So in 5

order to arrive at those Californ ia comparison 6

numbers, we had to pick values from different TSLs 7

for the different product classes. 8

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. And then my next 9

question is how did you arrive at the comparison 10

between the DOE CSLs and the levels? 11

MR. REEVES: For somebo dy from Navigant. 12

MR. NARDOTTI: This is Matt Nardotti. So 13

if you remember, one of the things that Peter 14

addressed during the engineering analysis was that 15

we needed to scale from a representative unit to all 16

the battery energies for a given product cla ss. And 17

when we did that, we broke down the individual 18

performance parameters that go into the UEC 19

calculation. So

-- 24

- hour energy , maintenance mode 20

power , and standby mode power

-- and for each of 21

those individual performance parameters we developed 22

a function relative to battery energy

– so : P

- key 23

P

- maintenance as a function of battery energy, E24 24

as a function of battery energy, and standby mode 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 277 power as a function of battery energy. And when you 1

compare our E24, the equation that we developed for 2

t hat, that went into that scaling equation, we 3

compared that to the CEC requirement for E24 and 4

then the combination of the maintenance mode and 5

standby mode functions that we created relative to 6

the combined maintenance mode and standby mode 7

allotment that CEC requires. 8

So we looked at our CSLs on the 9

performance parameter level, not ; we didn’t put the 10

CEC standard into a UEC. 11

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Vic. 13

MR. PETROLATI: Is it advisable to show 14

the graphs, do you still have thos e as backups? 15

MR. NARDOTTI: Yeah, we do have those, so 16

we could show those. 17

MR. REEVES: On this computer? 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Are they in the packet? 19

(discussion off mic.) 20

MR. REEVES: You asked about 2, 3, and 4, 21

I think? 22

MR. DENKENBERGER: Yes. 23

MR. REEVES: So here’s 2, and the CEC 24

standard is shown in the dotted blue line, and so we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 278

– let’s see, CSL

- 3 was used to approximate that. 1

MR. DENKENBERGER: I was just curious. 2

How did you develop the scaling factors for these 3

lines that you’ve draw n here? 4

MR. NARDOTTI: Say again? This is Matt, 5

and this is

– this is outlined in the engineering 6

chapter, Chapter 5, but what we

– this is all based 7

on test data. So when we tested a range of products 8

across the different battery energies, we could se e 9

how each of these parameters changed with respect to 10

battery energy, and so we could create a best fit 11

line through those. 12

MR. R IDER : Right, so I guess my question 13

is is your

– the proposed standard is on a kilowatt 14

hour basis , and it scales by kilowatt hour based on 15

duty cycle, so I’m wondering how you back calculate 16

that into something that scales by watt hours. 17

Because we’re not talking about the raw data, we’re 18

talking about the standards themselves and comparing 19

one standa rd to another standard. How do you get 20

from the standard scaled by E battery in kilowatt 21

hours and the DOE standard, so how do you see that 22

scale ? 23

MR. NARDOTTI: So there is no perfect 24

examination, right. There is no perfect way to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 279 compare UEC to what California was comparing. So 1

the best we could do was see how our

– the rep units 2

and how the different parameters change with respect 3

– we put our standard basically into the terms of 4

your standard before we aggregated and made 5

assumptions about usage pr ofile. And so before 6

doing that assumption about usage profile, we could 7

make a comparison of our products at each CSL level, 8

or at each CSL relative to this California standard. 9

MR. DENKENBERGER: Makes sense. 10

MR. REEVES: I misspoke : it’s CSL

- 2 that 11

is the closest approximation of the CEC standard. 12

Here’s product class 3 ; again , CSL

- 2 is the

– was 13

selected as the nearest approximation. 14

(discussion off mic) 15

MR. NARDOTTI: This is Matt. CSL

- 2 and 3 16

are very close to each other, so it’s just very hard 17

to see. 18

MR. REEVES: Oh, I see. And again, for 19

product class 4, it’s CSL

- 2. 20

MR. HABBEN: Will these be made available 21

on the web? 22

MR. PETROLATI: (off mic) Yes, 23

absolutely. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then we have

– 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 280 take final comments on this segment , and then we 1

have another slide or two, one on labeling

– a 2

couple on labeling, then we’re pretty much there. 3

Rick. 4

MR. HABBEN: I just wanted to make a final 5

comment that was in this section, that was kind of 6

made earlier from Doug from the CEA that, you know, 7

we had submitted a report,

-- AHAM, along with CEA,

- 8

- that had discrepancies as far as the numbers 9

regarding what the California Energy Commission 10

Report originally stated, and which our report 11

corrected some of their numbers and found some 12

negative benefits. So I think that more aligns with 13

what DOE was actually getting in their numbers as 14

well. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 16

Jennifer. 17

MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary. Yes, AHAM agrees 18

with DOE’s analysis. We think it more accurately 19

refle cts the situation , and we’ll provide that more 20

in our written comments. And as Rick said, along 21

with CEA, we pointed this out to CEC as well. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Let’s look at 23

labeling. 24

**Labeling** 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 281 MR. REEVES: Okay. I’ll keep this brief. 1

So DOE

– there already is a labeling requirement for 2

C lass A EPSs , which was put in place by Congress 3

with EISA 2007. So what DOE is proposing here is to 4

extend that to the other EPSs within

– several other 5

EPSs that are being dealt with within this 6

rulemaking, and battery chargers, and to propose a 7

different marking for the higher levels that DOE is 8

proposing today for C lass A EPSs, specifically, the 9

Roman numeral VI. 10

So the proposal is to have the Roman 11

numeral VI marking on all direct operation EPSs, and 12

then have a similar marking for indirect operation 13

EPSs, which can be broken out into two groups, the 14

C lass A and the non

- C lass A. So the C lass A 15

indirect operation EPSs already have a marking 16

requirement and comment incumbent up on them, because 17

they are C lass A EPSs. But for easy identification 18

of these EPSs and differentiation of these from 19

those for which higher standards are being proposed, 20

DOE is proposing to require this N or similar kind 21

of marking be placed in conjunction with the Roman 22

numeral. And the exception to this would be in 23

cases where the EPS , though it is indirect 24

operation, meets the higher standards of the higher 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 282 direct operation EPSs. Then there’s no need to 1

differentiate them, they meet the prevailing 2

standard for the regular run

- o f

- the

- mill direct 3

operation EPS , so they can just bear that marking 4

and don’t need the N. 5

And then I’ll also add that for non

- class 6

A EPSs, while DOE is not proposing new standards for 7

these products today, DOE is proposing a marking to , 8

again, enable for easy identification of these EPSs 9

and differentiation between these and those for 10

which standards do apply. And the marking here, 11

EPS

- N is what is included in the proposal. And all 12

of this again is detailed in the rule section, the 13

rule language sect ion, that follows the preamble of 14

the Notice. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ken. 16

MR. RIDER: The NOPR discusses security 17

EPSs as something that was changed in legislation. 18

They have no standby mode standard . I may have 19

missed it, but does the labeling proposal in this 20

rulemaking address the labeling for security system 21

power supplies? 22

MR. REEVES: DOE did include that, and DOE 23

is seeking comment from the public on what would be 24

an appropriate marking for those products, yes. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 283 MR. BROOKMAN: Rick. 1

MR. HABBEN: So I guess I need a 2

clarification at the beginning here. So in indirect 3

operation, non class N EPSs, potentially then, that 4

could be a battery charger so you would have the 5

battery charger symbol on the product and then you 6

would have this ma rking on the actual EPS, is that 7

correct? 8

MR. REEVES: Correct. 9

MR. HABBEN: Okay. So then my other 10

suggestion, and we can do this as a comment, is I 11

would prefer that maybe we just have the circle with 12

an N on it and eliminate the EPS, because as m any of 13

these EPSs get very small, the labels get very small 14

so the circles are not very big in diameter. So by 15

the time you try and get four letters on a circle 16

that’s maybe 50,000ths 50 thousandths in diameter, 17

you can’t read anything. So my proposal wo uld be 18

maybe just go with the letter N. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Doug. Yes. 20

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Doug Johnson 21

again with CEA. We’ll make this comment again in 22

our written submission, but we think it’s important 23

to have some flexibility about t he physical labeling 24

that is allowed for labeling on packaging as opposed 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 284 to the physical device. Thank you. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jennifer. 2

MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary. I just have a 3

couple of questions. I believe that California will 4

allow the mark to be on the packaging, and so we 5

just have some

– having kind of two different 6

marking schemes, it introduces some complexities and 7

I think we’re wondering will DOE allow maybe early 8

compliance with its marking requirements to address 9

the potential t ime where there’s no preemption, 10

which could be a very short period of time, and also 11

how would DOE treat

– like if, for example, a 12

manufacturer were to choose to put the California 13

marking on the packaging, how would DOE treat that 14

situation after preempt ion? Would it be viewed as a 15

statement about energy that has not been made in 16

compliance with DOE requirements and therefore like 17

a labeling violation, for example? Would DOE 18

consider using its enforcement discretion in that 19

type of situation? I think w e just

– we don’t have 20

– we’ll try and think of some proposed solutions as 21

well, but we were just trying to see if this was 22

something that DOE had been thinking about to date. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 24

MR. KIDO: These are all issues that DOE 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 285 is cur rently considering, so to the extent that 1

you’ve got any specific ideas as to how we might 2

want to handle some of those issues, I encourage you 3

to submit those in comments. And I would add that 4

nothing has been finalized yet in terms of the 5

labeling requi rements at this time, so to the extent 6

that anyone’s got some input on that issue, we would 7

encourage you to provide something. These are all 8

issues that DOE is currently considering, so to the 9

extent that you’ve got any specific ideas as to how 10

we might want to handle some of those issues, I 11

encourage you to submit those in comments. And I 12

would add that nothing has been finalized yet in 13

terms of the labeling requirements at this time, so 14

to the extent that anyone’s got some input on that 15

issue, we would encourage you to provide something. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Jeff. 17

MR. HAILEY: Hi, Jeff Hailey with Dell. 18

So the Roman numerals IV and V are part of the 19

international marking protocol that is published by 20

the EP A. I t’s part of the now, as John Clin ger with 21

ICF said, defunct Energy Star for external power 22

supplies. Level VI is not contained in that, and so 23

at this point, if we were to go with this level VI 24

marking, we would potentially have to put the V on 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 286 there as well for international acceptance of this. 1

So I’m wondering, are we going to be working

– are 2

you going to be working with the Environmental 3

Protection Agency to update the international 4

marking protocol for level VI? I’m just not certain 5

what’s going to happen there. So it’s just a 6

qu estion to you. How are we going to resolve that 7

potential issue? 8

MR. PETROLATI: We already have. We have 9

worked with EPA. We are going to be revising the 10

international marking protocol as part of our 11

rulemaking. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Vic. Plea se. 13

MR. BECK: Dennis Beck with the CEC. Ms. 14

Cleary brought up an issue

. I don’t know if it was 15

articulated quite correctly, or I would articulate 16

it a different way in terms of the labeling 17

requirement. That certainly, we in California want 18

to make s ure that DOE’s labeling requirement 19

dovetails with ours as best as possible, and I think 20

that that would include some guidance on preemption. 21

I know the Department does not typically go out and 22

make statements necessarily about preemption, but 23

the preempt ion rules differ from labeling and 24

testing than they do from standards, depending on 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 287 the situation. So it may be a situation where the 1

labeling has a preemptive effect that precedes the 2

preemptive effect of the standards themselves. So 3

we would want to m ake sure that we work with the 4

Department and that we let people know what

– 5

because the question we’ll get is what do we need to 6

put on there? And it’s certainly, I don’t think 7

it’s anything that the Department would need to take 8

an enforcement action ag ainst anybody, particularly 9

the state of California, but they would want to 10

provide us, certainly, with their opinion about what 11

provisions apply at which time so we can coordinate 12

our message with industry and let them know what 13

they need to be putting on their products. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Brian, 15

do you have one from the web? 16

MR. BOOHER: Yes, we have a request from 17

Susan Anderson to please clarify the difference 18

between direct and indirect operation. And I’ll 19

just do this very briefly. DOE developed a protocol 20

for distinguishing direct and indirect operation, 21

and essentially a direct operation EPS is designed 22

so that the power can flow directly to the end use 23

application; whereas an indirect operation EPS, all 24

of the power flows throug h the battery, and the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 2 88 battery charger. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Finish the next 2

slide so we can finish this labeling segment. Ari. 3

MR. REEVES: So I have two slides here on 4

DOE’s proposal relative to battery chargers. 5

There’s a marking here you ca n see in big, bold, 6

black and white, BC III. Simply, the idea here was 7

to create something that was similar to the EPS 8

marking that would be suitable for BCs. As many of 9

you already know that , California’s requirement is 10

that there be a marking that says , I think, just BC 11

for standards

- compliant battery chargers. And 12

here, DOE is contemplating there being maybe an 13

international marking protocol for BCs, but whether 14

or not there is such a protocol materializes, 15

there’s an allowance for there to be markin gs 16

showing that products meet some protocol

– meet some 17

standard, but a standard that’s lower than DOE ’s 18

standard, that’s BC II, and then BC

- I for BCs that 19

meet no established standard, and . T his is 20

parallel to this the international marking protocol 21

that exists today for EPSs. 22

And then lastly, DOE received a proposal 23

from NRDC that specified locations for the battery 24

charger marking, and you can see that here. I think 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 289 that California’s requirement is that the marking 1

appear on

– either on the packaging or on the 2

housing of the battery terminals. 3

MR. RIDER: This is Ken. That’s correct. 4

MR. REEVES: Okay. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Brian. 6

MR. BOOHER: We have one more question 7

from the web. Larry Albert is asking on behalf of 8

Jen Cleary, whether the California marking during 9

the preemption period would violate federal 10

requirements regarding making a claim of efficiency 11

not supported by federal regulations. And this was 12

specifically directed at Mike Kido. I can repeat 13

the question if you

-- 14

MR. KI DO: No, that’s all right. We’ll 15

have to take a closer look at that. I’m not going 16

to provide an answer at this point. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: And Jennifer, I wasn’t 18

sure, I thought you wanted to get back in the queue 19

a moment ago. Did you get your comment in? You’re 20

all set. That one? Okay, fine. Michael, you

– 21

MR. KIDO: I had a real quick factual 22

question. A number of folks have mentioned these, I 23

guess within the battery charger context, these more 24

efficient nickel based systems, and I was wondering 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 290 are those particular types of systems currently 1

available on the market? 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Dave, did you raise that 3

one? 4

MR. DENKENBERGER: There is a variety of 5

efficiency within nickel. And the

– I think it’s 6

Page 5

- 89 in the TSD talks about

– graphs t he 24 7

hour efficiency of nickel and lithium, and one thing 8

we notice is that the most efficient nickel chargers 9

are actually on the trend line, the average, for 10

lithium chargers. So, yes, there are products on 11

the market that are nickel

- based that are mor e 12

efficient than the average nickel charger. We are 13

not aware of products that meet the stricter level 14

that are commercially available, which is why we 15

have built one. Two of them, actually. 16

PARTICIPANT: Can I add to that? And we 17

looked at what it would take to move a nickel 18

charger to compliance with the California standard, 19

not necessarily yours, but the majority of it was in 20

reducing the maintenance mode power and switching 21

into a lower p ower mode. There’s data in the DOE 22

data set and the California Energy Commission data 23

set where you can look at existing products in their 24

maintenance modes, and imagine if they turned off, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 291 what their annual energy consumption or, in our 1

case, their maint enance mode would look like. And 2

so you can easily model, using existing data, what 3

that efficient nickel cadmium charger would be if it 4

just had the simple feature to turn off, 5

essentially, into a lower power mode, or into a 6

lower trickle mode. 7

MR. BRO OKMAN: Ari, I wasn’t sure that you 8

finished this. Did you finish it? 9

MR. REEVES: I did, yes. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: So now is the

– yes, Holly. 11

MS. EVANS: Holly Evans. A question. I 12

think I know the answer to this, but I just want to 13

clarify for the re cord. So if you have a wall 14

adapter that’s an external power supply, and it also 15

powers a battery chargers or charges a battery, that 16

product would need to have both the EPS label as 17

well as the battery charger label. Is that correct? 18

MR. REEVES: Correct. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: So, we’ve gone through the 20

slides. Why don’t you flash up the last slide which 21

shows how people submit their comments. 22

MR. REEVES: Oh, yes. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: And as we promised first 24

thing this morning, now is yet another oppor tunity 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 292 to take closing remarks

– to make any other 1

statement that you think is necessary at this time, 2

surrounding the meeting today. 3

And I’m handing out the evaluation forms. 4

Please take 30 seconds to fill them out. 5

Closing comments? Yes, Dave. 6

**Clos ing Comments**  7

MR. DENKENBERGER: So this may be 8

answered. There was a note on the pollution impacts 9

that there’s already a cap for SOX, I believe. And 10

so therefore the standard would not affect 11

emissions, which is true, but it could reduce the 12

complianc e to the cap , a s in, if we’re reducing 13

battery charger energy and EPS energy, and we’re 14

reducing sulfur dioxide from there, then that means 15

we have to spend less money to, for instance, reduce 16

sulfur dioxide emissions from coal power plants. 17

Was that cons idered? 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Use the microphone, please. 19

Thank you. 20

MS. IYAMA: This is Sanaee. Right now the 21

emissions analysis only looks at carbon dioxide, 22

mercury, and nitrogen oxides. 23

MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. So I would go on 24

the record to say plea se consider that reduction in 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 293 compliance cost associated with that reduced battery 1

charger and EPS emissions. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo. 3

MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with Earth Justice. 4

We actually made that argument repeatedly a few 5

years ago and what we fou nd out was that to the 6

extent it has any impact at all in the sulfur 7

dioxide allowance prices within the realm of noise, 8

so it just

– you just can’t really estimate a 9

variable

– an accurate number for the impact. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments here a t 11

the end. Joanna Mauer. 12

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. So just a 13

question on the engineering analysis. Has DOE 14

assumed a specific cost per kilowatt hour of 15

different battery chemistries for the battery cost 16

itself? So what the cost per kilowatt hour the 17

battery energy is for different battery chemistries? 18

MR. NARDOTTI: No. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Matt. 20

MR. NARDOTTI: If I understand you 21

correctly. 22

MS. MAUER: I guess my

– so the battery 23

charger system, the cost of the battery charger 24

system inc ludes the cost of the battery itself, so 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 294 what are the assumptions about

– the data on

– I 1

wasn’t able to find in the TSD or the spreadsheets, 2

what the assumptions were for the cost of batteries 3

themselves. 4

MR. NARDOTTI: So for

– T his is Matt 5

Nardotti. F or the product classes with the NiCad 6

batteries and the lithium batteries, DOE assumed, 7

talking with manufacturers, that the lithium 8

batteries tend to have an incremental cost. I don’t 9

know what the percentage is, relatively, to the 10

nickel

- based batteries . And so for the CSL where we 11

tore down a product with a lithium ion battery, 12

there’s an incremental battery cost, and that should 13

be in the tear down results that are in one of the 14

Chapter 5 appendices. 15

MS. MAUER: All right, so you’re saying

– 16

MR. NARDOTTI: So there is an incremental 17

cost for lithium. 18

MS. MAUER:

-- the incremental cost

– 19

MR. NARDOTTI: Relative to NiCad 20

batteries. 21

MS. MAUER: Okay. Is that in the analysis 22

of maintenance costs where you’re replacing the 23

battery before

– wher e the battery fails before the 24

product fails? Because I know there is

– that was 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 295 the only piece of information that I could find was 1

a case where you’re replacing the battery during the 2

life of the product, so you incorporate the 3

incremental cost of the l ithium battery when you 4

replace it. 5

MR. NARDOTTI: Right. 6

MS. MAUER: If it’s possible to provide 7

also the cost of the

– kind of the absolute costs of 8

the batteries, the nickel and lithium, that would be 9

useful. 10

And my other question is, are those 11

ba ttery costs based on a certain year? 12

MR. NARDOTTI: Whenever the tear down was 13

conducted. 14

MS. MAUER: Okay. I think we’d encourage 15

– the trend is seeing a significant decrease in cost 16

of lithium batteries, so if that tear down was 17

conducted several ye ars ago and we’re talking about 18

a standard that won’t go into effect for a couple 19

years, we’d urge DOE to incorporate the trend we’re 20

seeing in lithium costs, declining over time. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional closing remarks? 22

Yes, Dave. 23

MR. DENKENBERGER: So the manufacturer 24

impacts, we would recommend that DOE consider a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 296 scenario where the manufacturer can pass on the 1

retooling cost, or the one

- time cost, because we 2

think that is realistic. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Final 4

comments. Yes, Ken. 5

MR. RIDER: I would like to bring up again 6

the issue that I brought up a little bit earlier, 7

which was that the UECs calculated in the 8

engineering analysis are different from the UECs as 9

you would calculate them in the compliance equation. 10

And I’ll inclu de this in comment, be interested to 11

see and to encourage the DOE to look at whether the 12

compliance equation will push appliances to comply 13

at the levels that they proposed in the engineering 14

analysis, as the UECs

– the compliance equation 15

doesn’t require performance at the levels that are 16

discussed in the engineering analysis. So I look at 17

the bare minimum, I think all the roll up analysis 18

DOE did, both at what is the bare minimum for 19

someone to comply with the regulations, and I think 20

that the engineerin g analysis, because of the 21

difference in the equation for UEC, isn’t 22

considering the bare minimum to comply with the 23

compliance equations that are proposed in the NOPR. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. So, for 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 297 my part, I want to thank you and I will tur n it 1

over to Vic. It’s been a very constructive 2

meeting, a tremendous amount of content that 3

covered a lot of very, very positive comment, and 4

so, back to Vic Petrolati. 5

MR. PETROLATI: Again, I just want to 6

remind everybody the comment period closes, not on 7

May 25 th , but on May 29 th , in accordance with our 8

NOPR. Please get your comments in in written form. 9

I think, just like Doug has indicated, I want to 10

thank everybody for their input at this meeting. I 11

think we’ve learned a lot. I think the comm ents 12

and the criticisms have all been constructive, and 13

I think we’ve got some work to do, obviously, 14

before we issue a final rule. 15

Again, we need your comments, and we need 16

them in writing to get the best product out as 17

possible. 18

Thank you again for t he amount of time 19

that you’ve spent, not only here at the meeting, 20

but reviewing our 1500 pages of document s to be 21

prepared to come to this meeting. That is the 22

tough part. So we thank you quite a bit in terms 23

of being a stakeholder as part of this proce ss. 24

That’s it from me. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 298 MR. BROOKMAN: Safe travels. 1

(Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the meet ing in 2

the above captioned matter was adjourned .) 3

4

5

6

7

8

9Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 299 **REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE**

This is to certify that the attached proceedings

before:

**U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY**

In the Matter of:

**PUBLIC MEETING**  **ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR**  **CONSUMER PRODUCTS, E NERGY CONSERVATION S**  **TANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS AND**  **EXTERNAL POWER SUPPL IES** 

Were held as herein appears and that this is the

ori ginal transcript thereof for the file of the

Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law

Judge or the Agency.

Further, I am neither counsel for n or related to

any party to the above proceedings.



### Wendy Greene Official Reporter

Dated: May 7, 2012